Frank had so much more patience with that first guy than I would. Thank God for the Holy Spirit, which helps all willing to listen to control our tempers.
The Theist Experience The christian got owned and he knew it. Right when the guy in the audience mention that moral principles don't need a "god" to be known by simply being smart enough to know that what you do to others wouldn't be good if it happened to you.
Wow that lady at the end just made me shake my head. Dr. Frank is right. He understands the old and new covenant and the book of Galatians. That lady needs to go to Bible College or get some better preaching from a Pastor who actually understands Paul's letters and the new covenant.
That sister at the end was getting me all riled up with her legalism. I think going to church is most important to be with other believers to fellowship, not to honor the sabbath solely.
The EVOLUTION of atheism There is suffering in the world… God must be too weak and powerless to do anything about it There is suffering in the world… God must not care (unloving) There is suffering in the world… God must be evil There is suffering in the world… There is no God There is suffering in the world… The logical conclusion is it all the fault of religion which inspires people to do evil…and therefore…I have no accountability for I am perfect and the most moral of any other person (hmm…kind of sounds like a godlike view to me) There is suffering in the world… It is NEVER my fault (atheist), for I ONLY desire to do good There is suffering in the world… It is your fault (Christian or follower of any religion) ____________________________________ My take on OTHER SUCH VIEWS (including my own) There is suffering in the world… We evolved into murderers, thieves and rapists (hurray for evolution) There is suffering in the world… You cannot pin any of it on humans at all. It is due to random acts in an evolving world, so that is just “the way it is and was obviously meant to be”. It isn’t God’s fault, for the world just came out of nothingness. Stop your blaming! It is what it is. There is suffering in the world… Why bother even being here in such a world? (Nihilism) There is suffering in the world… It’s all the result of karma….so sorry- bite the bullet- for you are suffering from many past lives in which you were evil. There is no compassion for you, and nobody should intervene because you DESERVE it There is suffering in the world… God suffered, by coming down in human form and was crucified for our sins. God did not exclude Himself from suffering but took our inequities upon Himself, opening the door for total forgiveness for those who accept this truth There is suffering in the world… Many are helped because of human intervention due to love and compassion. Often, but not always, that motivation comes from a faith in something greater than us (ie Christianity).
Confucianism: "Do NOT do to others what you do not want them to do to you" (Analects 15:23)孔子曰："己所不欲，勿施于人“ And here are more: Hindusim: “This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you” (Mahabharata 5:1517) • Buddhism: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful" (Udanavarga 5:18)
GaborBartal But you contricted yourself this shows how stupid some people can be , your worshiping something thats says something (science) its treat like a religion , people say or science science just like some people will go islam , you dont realize it , ive learned alot more than you im sure that , just think a bit more about things look between the lines , all you are is a spec in the universe so you dont matter
GaborBartal Ill say it again use your head and think about how you go on protecting science claims just like a religious person protects there believes , the brainwashed is strong in this one ? Brainwashed by whom i am not religious i just watch people like you who take the time to put a full book reply to people arguing over diffrent believes (religion) people who protect science are doing the exact same as the religious person , get some intelligence
Plato, Timaeus on the Efficient Cause of Creation, the First Mover of Aristotle. "We must in my opinion begin by distinguishing between that which always is and never becomes and that which is always becoming and never is. . . . everything that becomes or changes must do so owing to some cause for nothing can come to be without a cause. . .. As for the world---call it that or 'cosmos' or any other name acceptable to it---we must ask about it the question one is bound to ask to begin with about anything: whether it has always existed and had no beginning, or whether it has come into existence and started from some beginning. The answer is that it has come into being. . . . And what comes into being or changes must do so, we said. owing to some cause."
"God" is a very general term. You could define it as something that is not even self aware. But Turek constantly jumps back and forth between "God" and Yahweh. Its one thing to say that "God" created our universe and its another thing to say that Yahweh is "God".
Precious Love Because if it was impersonal, it would not bring into existence the univserse. Impersonal forces like logic, gravity, and mathematics do not decide to do something different, they do what they function to do. Only a free agent can choose to do something different and unique.
"An atheist would have to explain, if he were to be reasonable and consistent, where did the universe come from" If I don't believe unicorns exist, that doesn't mean I have to have an explanation for every possible question about nature.
Leona R I think about plenty of things. I'm just not as arrogant as a religious person is, who asserts that a collection of 66 books is completely without error, and that they understand what an invisible man in the sky wants from us. I don't claim to know what I know I don't know. That's what religious people do. "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -Russel Bertrand
Leona R 1) You are being derogatory towards the person you replied to; as if he is not interested in seeking knowledge in general... 2) You deliberately misunderstood his comment. All he meant was, he, or you, or anyone may not have an answer to every single thing. We don't. That's the default position with any unexplained thing. The time to "believe" something is when there is evidence for it. When someone *does* claim to know something without evidence, like religion about where the universe came from, it just becomes arrogance and lies. But the arrogance doesn't stop there (claiming to know the answer when noone does). No, he [guy in the vid] then has to say to atheists: "yeah but what is YOUR explanation?" - as if not having an explanation yet would mean any other half-assed thought (not "theory") has equal footing. Science doesn't claim to know answers. But religion does! _Yeah, god did it._ Woo, sufficient answer...! That's the problem. And the arrogance doesn't stop there, it rolls over to you, who now condescendingly talks to a guy trying to portray him having disinterest in important topics.
GaborBartal "An atheist would have to explain, if he were to be reasonable and consistent, where did the universe come from" If I don't believe unicorns exist, that doesn't mean I have to have an explanation for every possible question about nature." I agree with what you say, you don't have to have an explanation for every possible questions, sorry if you found my comment derogatory, I'm also offended by your comment which I found very ignorant, the fact that you're inputting "unicorns" , is the fact that you have already made up your mind for my faith to be a myth. When we who are all moral beings, should be seeking questions and answers all the time about nature. But, I'm sorry that I am quick to judge you base on your comment. I don't mean to be derogatory, I don't mean to also coming off as high and mighty. I agree with you that saying "yeah, God did it, woo" is not the answer to everything. I believe there are many things in the world we cannot answer, our brain is simply not yet capable of obtaining these answers. But, what I'm saying is that Frank Turek is saying we shouldn't stay ignorant about the universe and shouldn't stop seeking answers.. Many people have already made up their mind there is not God, and would not like to seek further proof of God. It is not my place to change your mind, maybe just to get you started to think. Funny, because another guy ahead of you who I bet is a Christian was also quick to judge me because he thought I was an atheist. I guess that's why we Christians give a bad name to our "religion'. It's not my place to judge you man, sorry about that. In the end really, it's not about battle of logics or who's got the best answers to life, we'll all see for ourselves. Once again I apologize, I don't mean to sound so condescending. I will delete my previous comment.
Turek" If you want to be a reasonable person you have to explain the origins of the universe" If you want to be a reasonable person then you should not claim to know things which we don't know, without reason, the definition of unreasonable.
Frank Turek basically is saying "you have to come up with an explanation for a bunch of questions I have, or else a magical invisible wizard causing those things is the most reasonable answer to accept." Argument from ignorance fallacy.
17ACTSVERSE11 Are you able to provide a sound reason for why Frank Turek didn't use the argument from ignorance fallacy? Or are you just interested in hurling insults rather than addressing the content of my claim? Using the term "argument from ignorance fallacy" is not meant to be an insult. I'm not the one who chose the name for it. It's just a logical fallacy. You learn about logical fallacies if you read a book on logic or take a course on logic. Here, I'll provide you the wikipedia entry for what an Argument from Ignorance fallacy is so you can learn more, and then you can tell me whether or not Frank Turek used that fallacy after you comprehend what the fallacy is. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Design isn't recognized by complexity. It's recognized by comparing it to what naturally occurs. According to Turek, he would claim that rocks were intelligently designed. Where's the complexity in that?
If you really think about it, rocks are pretty interesting, I'd say they were intelligently designed because rocks are made out of one or more minerals and they can be made out of one or more elements. For a geologist, rocks are intelligently made.
Leona R Then the watchmaker analogy breaks down. The watchmaker analogy tries to contrast things like watches with rocks, and argue that the watch is designed while the rocks are not. If you are going to say that everything is designed, and that rocks are complex, then everything is "complex." Does anything "non-complex" exist? If you read "The Blind Watchmaker", the argument from design doesn't make any sense. We don't recognize design by complexity. We recognize design by contrasting it to what occurs naturally. Living things occur naturally. Dude, watch this: th-cam.com/video/RTJS1UHIj6k/w-d-xo.html
@ 10:28 "Space, time, matter had a beginning. The being must also be personal..." Why the hell does it have to be personal? How did you deduce it even had a mind? Why not conclude it was just a force?
that is the one point that pisses me off also, how they can get away with alleging that something is personal out of the given information is just a joke. Yet people don't have the consistency of mind to see clearly through it. I wonder if Turek is genuine in his delusion, or if he's lying through his teeth to make money..
willzer808 I was a fundamentalist young-earth creationist Christian for much of the first 22 years of my life. Turek doesn't think he's lying or just doing it to try to make money, but sometimes it's easy to overlook the dishonesty in your own arguments when the ultimate goal of your arguments is to "win souls" or win people over to your team. Sometimes that goal of winning souls becomes to important to you, your brain figures out a way to not see your own dishonesty as dishonest. Christians definitely smuggle in the language of Christianity into their arguments all the time, often without realizing it themselves because they just spew out what they heard someone else say. People like Turek go from talking about the paradox that is an un-caused first cause (which is a fair conversation to have and a fair question to ask), and then jumps to "god done it, and god has characteristics X, Y, and Z which happen to match the Yahweh character of these ancient Jewish stories I personally am attached to." There's no explanation given by Turek why his god concept has to have these certain characteristics, such as personally caring about the well-being of some homosapien species on one of the quadrillions of planets that exist. He just throws that in there, because it makes him feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Christians who start off the discussion with arguments like the Kalam Cosmological argument often will, at the end, make a non sequitur and leap to concluding that a group of 66 books is completely without error. It's absurd. I remember that when I was a kid, I accepted that the entire bible was infallible and without error long before I ever read even a tenth of it. Most of the dogma and tenants in religions are not carefully considered by the average person sitting in the church seats. It's usually just guzzled down by the mindless sheep without question or thought. What ticks me off about Turek is he tries to pretend that Christians are smart, and really do think and consider things. The truth is the vast majority don't, and the few who make the appearance to only do so in a desperate attempt to rationalize their irrational (but precious) beliefs.
only personal beings can make decisions ie the choice to create or not to create a force just is gravity is 1 of the 4 known forces and cant make decisions showing that it is impersonal, gravity cant decide to just stop. that is why got is personal, timeless, non material. (again argument given only shows the personality)
Daniel Fluter You don't know if it's impossible for a non-conscious entity to be "the first cause". This is merely an argument from ignorance fallacy on your part. We only have evidence for minds existing in terms of biological means. No one knows if a mind can exist without having been developed by biochemical processes. A mind "causing" the first cause would need an explanation. If a mind can exist magically without any cause, then a universe can create itself magically without any cause. The explanation not involving a mind is simpler, and thus is better passed by Occam's Razor. I also don't see how this mind has to be "personal". A mind could simply magically cause the universe and not have any knowledge or even desire to care about other minds that result from a universe beginning. This cosmological argument is one big case of special pleading fallacies and argument from ignorance fallacies.
Daniel Fluter I would try to listen to aviatortrevor if I was you Daniel. You would be really doing a good thing to try to listen to what he is saying.
ahouyearno I will respond to your rhetoric with my own: The deceit and lies makes me puke. Too bad for those deluded atheists drilling Turek that hell exists, because blaspheming God is a sin. You can see in my example that I'm not actually making any real argument, I'm just using emotive language to try to convince myself and other people that I have just 'won'. If mine seems ridiculous to you, yours seems equally ridiculous to me.
Toxiciron I know. I wasn't making an argument, I was merely voicing my disgust with Turek's lies. The only people sympathetic to my rant are fellows atheists who are equally disgusted about Turek's lies and they don't need convincing regarding hell and god :) As for blasphemy, is your god such a weakling that he can't even stand some mockery? I learned to ignore mockery in kindergarten, apparently your god never grew up beyond second grade. Such an infantile being is not worthy of worship if he can't stand honest criticism.
Oh, I don't necessarily believe that God would sentence anyone to hell just for blasphemy, I was just trying to take up a contrary position to show that it's basically rhetoric. But, once again, you're making a presumption. I could just as easily say I'm fed up with your lies without providing any explanation... ... I could see how you're talking more to atheists, though. I just think people need to be sincere in what they believe, and was hoping that that wasn't a serious argument you were making.
![[Full] 4 ต่อ 4 Celebrity EP.910 | 22 ก.ย. 67 | one31](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4TR3MVpOiw8/mqdefault.jpg)
Frank had so much more patience with that first guy than I would. Thank God for the Holy Spirit, which helps all willing to listen to control our tempers.
it's because he knows he's right, so he's not even worried.
It still in all our fallen natures to lose patience with opponents, and we need the Holy Ghost to overcome those selfish tendencies.
for sure
Moviefan2k4 Self control is part of the fruits of the spirit. :)
The Theist Experience The christian got owned and he knew it. Right when the guy in the audience mention that moral principles don't need a "god" to be known by simply being smart enough to know that what you do to others wouldn't be good if it happened to you.
I still don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
Wow that lady at the end just made me shake my head. Dr. Frank is right. He understands the old and new covenant and the book of Galatians. That lady needs to go to Bible College or get some better preaching from a Pastor who actually understands Paul's letters and the new covenant.
That sister at the end was getting me all riled up with her legalism. I think going to church is most important to be with other believers to fellowship, not to honor the sabbath solely.
Isaiah 45:12 NIV
[12] It is I who made the earth and created mankind on it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.
Anybody else think that first questioner sort of has a snarky voice with condescending undertones?...just wondering...otherwise good questions.
Not really. He was asking good albeit, uncomfortable questions.
The EVOLUTION of atheism
There is suffering in the world…
God must be too weak and powerless to do anything about it
There is suffering in the world…
God must not care (unloving)
There is suffering in the world…
God must be evil
There is suffering in the world…
There is no God
There is suffering in the world…
The logical conclusion is it all the fault of religion which inspires people to do evil…and therefore…I have no accountability for I am perfect and the most moral of any other person (hmm…kind of sounds like a godlike view to me)
There is suffering in the world…
It is NEVER my fault (atheist), for I ONLY desire to do good
There is suffering in the world…
It is your fault (Christian or follower of any religion)
____________________________________
My take on OTHER SUCH VIEWS (including my own)
There is suffering in the world…
We evolved into murderers, thieves and rapists (hurray for evolution)
There is suffering in the world…
You cannot pin any of it on humans at all. It is due to random acts in an evolving world, so that is just “the way it is and was obviously meant to be”. It isn’t God’s fault, for the world just came out of nothingness. Stop your blaming! It is what it is.
There is suffering in the world…
Why bother even being here in such a world? (Nihilism)
There is suffering in the world…
It’s all the result of karma….so sorry- bite the bullet- for you are suffering from many past lives in which you were evil. There is no compassion for you, and nobody should intervene because you DESERVE it
There is suffering in the world…
God suffered, by coming down in human form and was crucified for our sins. God did not exclude Himself from suffering but took our inequities upon Himself, opening the door for total forgiveness for those who accept this truth
There is suffering in the world…
Many are helped because of human intervention due to love and compassion. Often, but not always, that motivation comes from a faith in something greater than us (ie Christianity).
It is an argument against it
43:00 great response can non-believers please stop saying God murdered so he's not moral.
Confucianism: "Do NOT do to others what you do not want them to do to you" (Analects 15:23)孔子曰："己所不欲，勿施于人“
And here are more:
Hindusim: “This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you” (Mahabharata 5:1517)
• Buddhism: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful" (Udanavarga 5:18)
People complain about religion and always go or SCIENCE SCIENCE however science is also classed as a religion , use your heads and think about it.
GaborBartal But you contricted yourself this shows how stupid some people can be , your worshiping something thats says something (science) its treat like a religion , people say or science science just like some people will go islam , you dont realize it , ive learned alot more than you im sure that , just think a bit more about things look between the lines , all you are is a spec in the universe so you dont matter
GaborBartal Ill say it again use your head and think about how you go on protecting science claims just like a religious person protects there believes , the brainwashed is strong in this one ? Brainwashed by whom i am not religious i just watch people like you who take the time to put a full book reply to people arguing over diffrent believes (religion) people who protect science are doing the exact same as the religious person , get some intelligence
Plato, Timaeus on the Efficient Cause of Creation, the First Mover of Aristotle.
"We must in my opinion begin by distinguishing between that which always is and never becomes and that which is always becoming and never is. . . . everything that becomes or changes must do so owing to some cause for nothing can come to be without a cause. . .. As for the world---call it that or 'cosmos' or any other name acceptable to it---we must ask about it the question one is bound to ask to begin with about anything: whether it has always existed and had no beginning, or whether it has come into existence and started from some beginning. The answer is that it has come into being. . . . And what comes into being or changes must do so, we said. owing to some cause."
5 stars *****
"God" is a very general term. You could define it as something that is not even self aware. But Turek constantly jumps back and forth between "God" and Yahweh. Its one thing to say that "God" created our universe and its another thing to say that Yahweh is "God".
Precious Love Because if it was impersonal, it would not bring into existence the univserse. Impersonal forces like logic, gravity, and mathematics do not decide to do something different, they do what they function to do. Only a free agent can choose to do something different and unique.
"An atheist would have to explain, if he were to be reasonable and consistent, where did the universe come from"
If I don't believe unicorns exist, that doesn't mean I have to have an explanation for every possible question about nature.
.
Leona R I think about plenty of things. I'm just not as arrogant as a religious person is, who asserts that a collection of 66 books is completely without error, and that they understand what an invisible man in the sky wants from us.
I don't claim to know what I know I don't know. That's what religious people do.
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -Russel Bertrand
Leona R
1) You are being derogatory towards the person you replied to; as if he is not interested in seeking knowledge in general...
2) You deliberately misunderstood his comment. All he meant was, he, or you, or anyone may not have an answer to every single thing. We don't. That's the default position with any unexplained thing. The time to "believe" something is when there is evidence for it.
When someone *does* claim to know something without evidence, like religion about where the universe came from, it just becomes arrogance and lies.
But the arrogance doesn't stop there (claiming to know the answer when noone does). No, he [guy in the vid] then has to say to atheists: "yeah but what is YOUR explanation?" - as if not having an explanation yet would mean any other half-assed thought (not "theory") has equal footing.
Science doesn't claim to know answers. But religion does! _Yeah, god did it._ Woo, sufficient answer...!
That's the problem.
And the arrogance doesn't stop there, it rolls over to you, who now condescendingly talks to a guy trying to portray him having disinterest in important topics.
.
GaborBartal "An atheist would have to explain, if he were to be reasonable and consistent, where did the universe come from"
If I don't believe unicorns exist, that doesn't mean I have to have an explanation for every possible question about nature." I agree with what you say, you don't have to have an explanation for every possible questions, sorry if you found my comment derogatory, I'm also offended by your comment which I found very ignorant, the fact that you're inputting "unicorns" , is the fact that you have already made up your mind for my faith to be a myth. When we who are all moral beings, should be seeking questions and answers all the time about nature. But, I'm sorry that I am quick to judge you base on your comment. I don't mean to be derogatory, I don't mean to also coming off as high and mighty. I agree with you that saying "yeah, God did it, woo" is not the answer to everything. I believe there are many things in the world we cannot answer, our brain is simply not yet capable of obtaining these answers. But, what I'm saying is that Frank Turek is saying we shouldn't stay ignorant about the universe and shouldn't stop seeking answers.. Many people have already made up their mind there is not God, and would not like to seek further proof of God. It is not my place to change your mind, maybe just to get you started to think. Funny, because another guy ahead of you who I bet is a Christian was also quick to judge me because he thought I was an atheist. I guess that's why we Christians give a bad name to our "religion'. It's not my place to judge you man, sorry about that. In the end really, it's not about battle of logics or who's got the best answers to life, we'll all see for ourselves. Once again I apologize, I don't mean to sound so condescending. I will delete my previous comment.
Turek" If you want to be a reasonable person you have to explain the origins of the universe"
If you want to be a reasonable person then you should not claim to know things which we don't know, without reason, the definition of unreasonable.
Wow. 30 seconds in and already knee deep in bullcrap.
Frank Turek basically is saying "you have to come up with an explanation for a bunch of questions I have, or else a magical invisible wizard causing those things is the most reasonable answer to accept."
Argument from ignorance fallacy.
aviatortrevor I see ignorance alright but your handwriting is all over the letter
17ACTSVERSE11 Are you able to provide a sound reason for why Frank Turek didn't use the argument from ignorance fallacy? Or are you just interested in hurling insults rather than addressing the content of my claim?
Using the term "argument from ignorance fallacy" is not meant to be an insult. I'm not the one who chose the name for it. It's just a logical fallacy. You learn about logical fallacies if you read a book on logic or take a course on logic. Here, I'll provide you the wikipedia entry for what an Argument from Ignorance fallacy is so you can learn more, and then you can tell me whether or not Frank Turek used that fallacy after you comprehend what the fallacy is.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Design isn't recognized by complexity. It's recognized by comparing it to what naturally occurs.
According to Turek, he would claim that rocks were intelligently designed. Where's the complexity in that?
If you really think about it, rocks are pretty interesting, I'd say they were intelligently designed because rocks are made out of one or more minerals and they can be made out of one or more elements. For a geologist, rocks are intelligently made.
Leona R Then the watchmaker analogy breaks down. The watchmaker analogy tries to contrast things like watches with rocks, and argue that the watch is designed while the rocks are not.
If you are going to say that everything is designed, and that rocks are complex, then everything is "complex." Does anything "non-complex" exist?
If you read "The Blind Watchmaker", the argument from design doesn't make any sense. We don't recognize design by complexity. We recognize design by contrasting it to what occurs naturally. Living things occur naturally.
Dude, watch this:
th-cam.com/video/RTJS1UHIj6k/w-d-xo.html
@ 10:28 "Space, time, matter had a beginning. The being must also be personal..."
Why the hell does it have to be personal? How did you deduce it even had a mind? Why not conclude it was just a force?
that is the one point that pisses me off also, how they can get away with alleging that something is personal out of the given information is just a joke. Yet people don't have the consistency of mind to see clearly through it. I wonder if Turek is genuine in his delusion, or if he's lying through his teeth to make money..
willzer808 I was a fundamentalist young-earth creationist Christian for much of the first 22 years of my life. Turek doesn't think he's lying or just doing it to try to make money, but sometimes it's easy to overlook the dishonesty in your own arguments when the ultimate goal of your arguments is to "win souls" or win people over to your team. Sometimes that goal of winning souls becomes to important to you, your brain figures out a way to not see your own dishonesty as dishonest.
Christians definitely smuggle in the language of Christianity into their arguments all the time, often without realizing it themselves because they just spew out what they heard someone else say. People like Turek go from talking about the paradox that is an un-caused first cause (which is a fair conversation to have and a fair question to ask), and then jumps to "god done it, and god has characteristics X, Y, and Z which happen to match the Yahweh character of these ancient Jewish stories I personally am attached to." There's no explanation given by Turek why his god concept has to have these certain characteristics, such as personally caring about the well-being of some homosapien species on one of the quadrillions of planets that exist. He just throws that in there, because it makes him feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Christians who start off the discussion with arguments like the Kalam Cosmological argument often will, at the end, make a non sequitur and leap to concluding that a group of 66 books is completely without error. It's absurd. I remember that when I was a kid, I accepted that the entire bible was infallible and without error long before I ever read even a tenth of it. Most of the dogma and tenants in religions are not carefully considered by the average person sitting in the church seats. It's usually just guzzled down by the mindless sheep without question or thought. What ticks me off about Turek is he tries to pretend that Christians are smart, and really do think and consider things. The truth is the vast majority don't, and the few who make the appearance to only do so in a desperate attempt to rationalize their irrational (but precious) beliefs.
only personal beings can make decisions ie the choice to create or not to create a force just is gravity is 1 of the 4 known forces and cant make decisions showing that it is impersonal, gravity cant decide to just stop. that is why got is personal, timeless, non material. (again argument given only shows the personality)
Daniel Fluter You don't know if it's impossible for a non-conscious entity to be "the first cause". This is merely an argument from ignorance fallacy on your part.
We only have evidence for minds existing in terms of biological means. No one knows if a mind can exist without having been developed by biochemical processes. A mind "causing" the first cause would need an explanation.
If a mind can exist magically without any cause, then a universe can create itself magically without any cause. The explanation not involving a mind is simpler, and thus is better passed by Occam's Razor.
I also don't see how this mind has to be "personal". A mind could simply magically cause the universe and not have any knowledge or even desire to care about other minds that result from a universe beginning.
This cosmological argument is one big case of special pleading fallacies and argument from ignorance fallacies.
Daniel Fluter I would try to listen to aviatortrevor if I was you Daniel. You would be really doing a good thing to try to listen to what he is saying.
the deceit and lies makes me puke. Good thing for Turek that hell doesn't exist because lying is a sin according to his own myths.
ahouyearno I will respond to your rhetoric with my own: The deceit and lies makes me puke. Too bad for those deluded atheists drilling Turek that hell exists, because blaspheming God is a sin.
You can see in my example that I'm not actually making any real argument, I'm just using emotive language to try to convince myself and other people that I have just 'won'. If mine seems ridiculous to you, yours seems equally ridiculous to me.
Toxiciron I know. I wasn't making an argument, I was merely voicing my disgust with Turek's lies.
The only people sympathetic to my rant are fellows atheists who are equally disgusted about Turek's lies and they don't need convincing regarding hell and god :)
As for blasphemy, is your god such a weakling that he can't even stand some mockery? I learned to ignore mockery in kindergarten, apparently your god never grew up beyond second grade. Such an infantile being is not worthy of worship if he can't stand honest criticism.
Oh, I don't necessarily believe that God would sentence anyone to hell just for blasphemy, I was just trying to take up a contrary position to show that it's basically rhetoric.
But, once again, you're making a presumption. I could just as easily say I'm fed up with your lies without providing any explanation...
...
I could see how you're talking more to atheists, though. I just think people need to be sincere in what they believe, and was hoping that that wasn't a serious argument you were making.
Toxiciron It wasn't a serious argument :) merely venting against dishonesty and hipocrisy by christians.
To assert that what people think is vacuous because you don't understand what atheism means, is an embarrassment..
No mention of the Golden ratio