What do you think of this God argument?

[Martian]

What good counterargument can you come up with for this? http://youtube.com/watch?v=vEXGKzH0F9c

[Asmodean Prime]

First off: Science has already shown the universe to be finite in a multitude of ways.  Good job on coming up with another old explanation on it.  

Now, for the rest of this fallacious little video.  

I'll start off backwards, and go from there.

Even if your diety did create this Universe, what's to say that it still maintains contact with it?  Nothing does, or that it watched humanity, or that your belief system is the correct one, compared to all the other belief systems.  Who's to say Muslims aren't right?  Hindus?  Jews?  Go on, prove me wrong.

Our life came about by natural processes.  Um, if God made enough stuff for us to live, why make 13.9 cubic light years(which is a LOT of space) full of other stars, nebulae, and such?  There is no point.  If he's so intelligent, he would have only put the sun, our planet and the moon(tidal forces are essential to oceanic life).  Saying that your deity did it to look good is beyond laughable; it's attempting to read the mind of a nonexistent being, and thus pulling crap out of your ass that has no basis.

You say that the energy had to come from somewhere... where did your diety's energy come from?  Who created him?  You can't just cut off the chain and say that it just is; Otherwise, I can just cut off the chain and say that the universe just is. =)

Another point;  You say your deity had to have had a great amount of energy in order to create the universe.  One itty bitty little problem, sir; Energy is matter, and you claimed there was no matter before the universe, and that matter could not exist without time.  If matter cannot exist without time, energy cannot exist without time.  Thus, your diety cannot exist without time, and thus can not have created the universe.

We can determine that it started some time ago; obviously.  But, if there was no time before, wouldn't it pass in an instant, even if it were an infinite gap of timelessness?  Also, how would your deity operate in this timelessness?  Simple fact is, it could not.

Go on, attempt to restore a relationship with a nonexistent being.  Your premise is flawed; thus, the entire video is a flawed argument.  Good day, sir.

And the simple fact is, we don't know where the universe came from, or what was before it.  All we know is that it is rapidly expanding, and has evidence of it rapidly expanding before now, way faster than it was; we've seen the microwave background radiation, 13.8 billion light years away(Which means that despite what you think, the universe has been around for billions of years; modern science > ancient books any day), and as such, I thank you for being an arrogant, self-righteous arse; all the better to knock you down when your arguments crumble.

Good day, sir!

~Message to that guy on the video

[Whitney]

I saw one of that guy's videos a while back because someone posted it as a proof of god.  Since that time I've come across at least 5 other therads where his videos were posted (on another forum) which is a lot considering how few threads I've looked at lately.  I have no clue why any thiests like his videos...he is very arrogant and not much of a people person.  Not that bad social skills takes away from his arguments automatically; just not good for pr.  I figured since Blah already commented on the content I'd comment on how I don't like the approach used.

[McQ]

Well, I'll get the ad hom out of the way up front:

What a self-important, arrogant little weenie!  

Jeeeebus christalmeth, what a dork! And what lack of knowledge and mixed up science.

This is really too lame. A horrid mix of non-science and high school philosophy all mixed into one blundering mess. And this kid delivers it as if he were Einstein talking to a group of schoolchildren.

I was going to go on, but I'll just move on to more important things, like the current The Girls Next Door episode.  

 :roll:

[rlrose328]

Wow, such hubris from someone so young.  :roll:

His video has so many holes, he should sell it to a deli.  But I love the multitude of videos rebutting his, some very interesting, some with plenty of holes themselves.

I also love how many times I saw the link to the Kirk Cameron and his Banana video.  That one would make me laugh if it weren't for how many people nod when they view it.  Ugh.  :oops:

[shoruke]

How the hell would anything exist if there was no time? Just because an infinate amount of time has not yet passed, doesn't mean that it necessarily 'started' anytime either... can't we just use the big bang as a reference to when the universe started, and call time itself, timeless? (the way christians say "god is timeless" to the everything has a creator idea) Besides, if there was ever a point in history in which time did not exist, we would not exist, because even an all-powerful god would require time to create the universe. Christianity's own bible can tell us this from their point of view; it took their god (I refuse to capitalize that word, by the way) seven days to make earth.

[pjkeeley]

Excellent video. In case you couldn't be bothered watching it, I've laboured tirelessly to create a summary of his argument in Photoshop.

Enjoy!



















... Yeah, I have way too much time on my hands.

[Tom62]

Cool summary!

[MommaSquid]

Excellent video. In case you couldn't be bothered watching it, I've laboured tirelessly to create a summary of his argument in Photoshop.

Enjoy!

Thanks, pjkeeley!  I'm wearing my smug grin, too.  

[SteveS]

 pjkeeley - Cheers!    

That was a most entertaining summary!   I'm still chuckling....  

[Whitney]

pjkeeley, that was hilarious.  If anyone didn't watch the video, the summary is much funnier if you are familar with Mr. Fundie's vidoes...or just imagine he is any number of the arrogant theists you have met.

[SteveS]

I felt like presenting my thoughts on ArrogantBoy's video argument.  I know blahness already presented a counter argument, but I'd like to add mine into the mix because I don't think we actually have to accept ArrogantBoy's claim that there could not be an infinite amount of prior time.  I don't think he has proven that the universe must be finite in time.  Anyway, here's my rebuttal.

I see three major points to ArrogantBoy's argument:

1) There can not have be an infinite "amount" of prior time  :?

2) Since time did not "always" exist (weird, right, since "always" is a concept that lives contextually within time?  What does "always" mean without time?), neither did matter/energy, they all must have been created, even though they cannot be created or destroyed  :?

3) Whatever created everything must have been "powerful" (maybe) and "intelligent" (not required in the least)

I'm going to go after these in reverse order because points 2 and 3 are contingent upon point 1 - and I reject point 1.

3: Cause was powerful and intelligent

About the "creator" being intelligent - this argument is presented without backing.  His only claim is that since the elements for supporting life exist the "cause" must have been intelligent - evolution clearly demonstrates how intelligence can arise from non-intelligent beginnings so I reject this part of the statement - ArrogantBoy really doesn't even try very hard to justify his position, he just sort of tosses it out there.  Also, I can't really accept the "cause" being powerful if there was no ultimate cause - and we can only accept that there must have been an ultimate cause if we buy point 1 (which I do not).

2: Matter/Energy must have been created.

The high-level objection to this point is that ArrogantBoy starts by agreeing with the scientists that matter/energy cannot be either created or destroyed - so the conclusion that they must have been created is illogical.  If the statement "matter/energy cannot be created" is true, then it is true.  If it is false, then it is false, and matter/energy can be created, so it was incumbent upon him to argue what created it.  He leaps to a god conclusion here for no supported reason, but it doesn't really matter.  If time is infinite then matter/energy did not have to be created - they could simply have always existed.  And if nothing can "always exist", then neither can god.

1: There could not have been an infinite "amount" of prior time because then we could never have gotten to "now".

First point - infinity is not a normal quantity.  To say something is infinite is to say it is without bounds; without limit.  ArrogantBoy only seems to accept this definition when moving forward.  Like Tyrone the getaway driver in Snatch, his brain only works well in forward gear - as soon as he tries to shift into reverse bad things happen.  And so here he is trying to count forward from a regression that is infinite when going in reverse (look out for the lorry!).

What do I mean by all this?  Well, ArrogantBoy presents a valid argument that if I agree to give you a banana at a time infinitely future, I will never give you the banana.  He correctly grasps that an infinite progression does not have an end - what he fails to understand is that an infinite regression does not have an end either, and since he insists on viewing the regression in "forward only" mode, this really means that the infinite regression does not have a beginning.  For what is a progression if not a regression in reverse?  This same sort of thinking plagues Thomas Aquinas's "first cause" argument.  Why does Aquinas feel there must be a "first cause" if he does not feel there must be a "final effect"?  What the hell is the difference?

I know the theists don't want their infinite progressions to have ending points, or they could never really have "life everlasting" (for god so loved the world, blah blah blah).  Trouble is, they want their infinite regression to have a "start" because this is the role that god is supposed to be playing.

ArrogantBoy presents his argument as a trick question: to say we "could never have gotten here" begs the question "from where"?  Pick any point in the past and I will happily tell you exactly how long it would take to "get here".  But, if there exists and infinite amount (i.e. an unbounded, unlimited amount) of previous time, then from where are we trying to get here?  He's hoping you'll read this as "we could never get here from the beginning of time", but saying "an infinite amount of time before now" is the same thing as saying "time does not have a beginning" (infinite regressions do not have "starts" anymore than infinite progressions have "ends").  Boil this argument and what floats to the top is:

1) If time did not have a beginning then
2) We cannot quantify how far we are from the beginning

No doubt - because there is no beginning.  How does this imply that I cannot exist "now"?  I say Aquinas is guilty of the same "progression myopia" because saying "every effect follows a cause" seems identical to saying "every effect is preceded by a cause".  Where is the philosophical problem with this?  Go backward forever and there will always be a previous cause for every effect.  Don't like this?  Then what about going forward - why is it valid to say that every cause begets an effect ad infinitum, if it is not valid to say every effect is begotten by a cause ad infinitum (in reverse)?  What difference does the direction make if you are not suffering from "progression myopia" - a condition that only allows one's brain to function in "forward gear".

Misunderstanding (or misapplying) the concept of  "infinity" can trick a person into "proving" all sorts of ridiculous things.  Like Zeno's "Achilles Paradox", I could "prove" that a tortoise with a head start could never be caught by a faster moving hare.  Or, I could "prove" that I can never walk through a doorway because I will always be attempting to cover half the remaining distance.  Ridiculous, right?

So I argue that there can exist an infinite (unbounded) time stream - and there will always be an infinite "amount" of time both before and after the current time (because my brain seems to work okay in both gears).  I claim point 1 is not proven, and as a consequence points 2 and 3 can be rejected as they are now without foundation (they were contingent upon the successful demonstration of point 1).

Just one further blurb: although ArrogantBoy presents a philosophical argument against an unbounded prior time, there is another way to examine the question - and that is empirically. Unfortunately science is unable to resolve the question at the current time. Big Bang theory "blows up" at the origin singularity and cannot describe what happened at the moment of the big bang, or before the big bang, or if there is or is not even such a thing as "before the big bang". So empirically we have to place this question in the "unknown" category - it remains a question of world-class physics proportions. The real "hubris" in ArrogantBoy's approach is casually dismissing a point that is under hot debate by the most eloquent minds in the world. I'm not making an appeal to authority here, merely claiming that ArrogantBoy's casual dismissal of the time question, both philosophically and empirically, earns him about as many points in my book as casually tossing out the ridiculous belief that the universe is only 6000 years old - a point which is demonstrably incorrect and makes a person look, well, not smart  :wink:  .

Anyway, if anyone has made it this far, please scroll up the thread and check out pjkeeley's hilarious summary of ArrogantBoy's argument - it rocks.  Hard.

[SteveS]

My favorite ski-mask wearing YouTuber has made a video praising VenomFangX (the creator of the video being discussed in this thread).  He's actually referencing some other video, not the one in question here, but the beginning is really funny.  At least watch the first 25 seconds...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD--8k_IsQo

[Will]

First off, pjkeeley wins the internet. Thanks for playing everyone.

Time could very well be infinite, it's just that this poor kid can't wrap his headphones around it. The whole thing after that is like listening to that Miss America video. Holy crap. Lol...

Response:
"Some people don't want to believe in God because that makes them accountable to their creator."
I would say that it's entirely possible that some people have to believe in a god because they can't be accountable to themselves. You cannot create and maintain your own personal moral code and be responsible for following it if you've got one in an old book.

"We never would have reached this point in time."
This is why high school students make poor philosophers. Infinity is not a real number, and thus you can't really treat it like you would 12, for example. When you say we never could have reached this point in time, you're still assuming there was a starting point to get here from. You're mistaking a ray with a line, to put it in the most simple geometric terms I can think of. In order to understand infinity, you have to imagine a line extending in either direction forever. That doesn't mean you can come up with a relative point on the line, though. We are living in 2007, which is 2007 yeas since 0, an arbitrary point which we chose. Your mistake is simply allowing for progression but not regression. I'll try to put it in a context that a theist may be more comfortable with. Imagine heaven. It is said to continue on forever. Now imagine that heaven runs contrary to our understanding of the passage of time. See? Infinity... in the other direction.

I really enjoyed how you used conservation of mass. Based on your own words that "matter cannot be created or destroyed", god could not have created matter. Either that, or you have to say that god exists outside of science, and then the whole argument is moot because you've negated science. See what happens when you try to mix theology and science? A big, 6000 year old mess of factual errors, guesswork, and faith.

[Will]

I'm tempted to dress up like Neo and post a vid to debunk this one.

If only I had a webcam.