Dope Tech Episode 2

<<@prestonwoods1751 says : While the contingency argument proposes a 'necessary cause' for all contingent things, identifying that cause as 'God' is a leap. The argument itself doesn't inherently define the nature, attributes, or even the singularity of this necessary cause. It simply states that something non-contingent must exist. This 'necessary cause' could be an impersonal force, a set of fundamental laws, or even something beyond our current comprehension that doesn't align with traditional definitions of 'God.' Attributing divine characteristics or personhood to it goes beyond what the contingency argument itself logically establishes. The argument gets us to 'a necessary something,' but not necessarily 'a God' in the religious sense.>> <<@iconicalismphilosophy says : Just one criticism, instead of saying God first, just say Neccesary being, because some atheist don't understand the argument from the principle of sufficient reason of the leibnezian argument>> <<@videopirate9138 says : Not only does this particular presentation of the argument fail to point to god as the contingency for the 'universe', it also fails to establish that the 'universe' is/was contingent or that a god even exists. Without establishing that the 'universe' is contingent or that a god even exists, you can't present that god as being the answer to what the 'universe' is/was contingent upon. The only thing this presentation of the argument manages to point to is that our current local representation of the 'universe' points to its instantiation as having been contingent upon something, and that Dr Stratton apparently hasn't actually had discussions about this with more than maybe a couple of people who identified as being atheists because I've never heard any of the atheists I have talked with, or that I'm aware of, having ever made such statements or of having presented such statements as objections to or refutations for the contingency argument or its premises. This presentation also managed to point to Dr Stratton as having a proclivity to present unsubstantiated and unsupported personal opinions, conjectures, and ideological beliefs as being established or universally accepted facts or truths about the nature of the 'universe' and its various subcomponents when trying to define his god into existence, interestingly though is that what he manages to define as being what he calls god is what defines what I perceive as being what 'nothing' is.>> <<@williambeckett6336 says : Wanna know why christianity is in such steep decline? Guys like this with apologetics like this. The kids nkow BS gaslighting and baseless assertions better than any generation before it. And these types are not recruiting any new members, not in any meaningful size, they're just desperately trying to stop the hemorrhaging of members that are walking out of the churches in disgust and contempt.>> <<@DeconvertedMan says : p2 should be the conclusion - anyone that knows ANYTHING about informal logic would agree.>> <<@darrylelam256 says : 1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own existence or in an external cause). 2. If the universe has as explanation of its existence, that explanation is Mickey Mouse. 3. The universe exists. 4. Therefore, the explanation of the universe's existence is Mickey Mouse. Wow, its amazing how the contingency of the universe points to Mickey Mouse creating the universe.>> <<@Steelmage99 says : I have yet to meet an honest religious apologist. This video didn't change that.>> <<@CortxVortx says : It's always "arguments for God," never "evidence of God." Even if one grants that our present universe was caused by a god, there is still no evidence that it's the Bible god.>> <<@richunixunix3313 says : Dude, have you every heard the term "Word Salad", if not look it up and please stop using the appeal to ignorance.>> <<@darcymr353 says : This is circular reasoning. It's not valid.>> <<@Fyzl_2000 says : How will you prove that this so called eternal, space less,time less thing has consciousness.>> <<@johnfw1973 says : Man you had my brain spinning for a minute trying to grasp that one>> <<@Matthew_Holton says : except we have no reason to think the universe is contingent and the concept is most likely logically incoherent, as it commits a special pleading fallacy. If something has to exist necessarily (which is by no means certain) then why can it not be reality itself? reality defined as our local universe and whatever lies beyond it (the multiverse). To insert god is therefore an unneccesary, logically incoherent extra step as the god claims falls foul of the special pleading fallacy, it violates the dimensional framework argument and is not consistent with the temporal contingency of causality.>> <<@steveprofiler says : I do not think anyone have free will according to the definitions I have been presented from anyone. So until further proof, Putin does nothing wrong.>> <<@michaelhoward3048 says : If nothing cannot create something, requiring a cause, then that cause would necessarily be something. Something creating something would mean that nothing ever was. And if nothing ever was then there has always been something and the Universe doesn't require a cause, or a beginning, but only change from one state to another. And as Heraclitus said: "The only permanence is change">> <<@steveprofiler says : If Frank Turek asks atheists: Would you become a christian if christianity was true? You could simply answere: That depends if that God if exists, wanted me to since I did not have any choice since I did not asked to be created nor what to believe. And then you could ask Frank Turek: Why would God create anyone against their will? Then he would have to answere something like: God works in mystrious ways that we do not have any knowledge of. And by that or similar answere, he admits we have no free will. And then you can ask Frank Turek why he supports any human to be born if there is a chance that 1 person wish never to have existed? or are antinatalist more loving than the God you believe in Frank Turek?>> <<@newcreationinchrist1423 says : When we get to heaven, we will get to see this amazing God face to face. Let that one sink in! Can't wait! 🙂🙏>> <<@Whatsisface4 says : At 2:48 Tim says that if Big Bang cosmology is true, then the universe has not always existed, so the universe seems to be a contingent thing. However, if time and space began at the big bang as cosmologists think, then there was never a time when the universe didn't exist. The bottom line is, time is tricky and there is so much we don't know about why there is something rather than nothing. This doesn't seem to stop Tim talking as if we have it all nailed down. At the very least, he is hasty in his conclusions.>> <<@hamster4618 says : So “God” is a taxi cab premise?>> <<@steveprofiler says : Why would anyone who says people have free will, want to have children when they know that their child in the future might wish they never where born?>> <<@ta3p-theannex3project84 says : Why need a explanation? Rest is a believer trying to explain why he beliefs. An atheïst starts with "there is no explanation" and ends with " so no God needed".>> <<@tsananeomeno7963 says : This argument is not sound for one could substitute _any_ concept for "God" in premise 2 and reach a conclusion of equal merit. It is merely a fallacy of Begging the Question. For example: P1: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence. P2: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is unknown to mankind. P3: The universe exists. C: Therefore, the explanation of the universe's existence is unknown to mankind.>> <<@MAC...007 says : The firmament was made by God. Satan made nasa. As he is the prince of the power of the air. They've hidden this very well. A few major stuff ups along the way. But the sleeping won't notice it.>> <<@singwithpowerinfo5815 says : I love how he is sure to introduce himself with “Doctor”, as if that lends credence to his opinions. I really can’t even imagine introducing myself by my accomplishments. “Hello, I’m really rich guy, Joe Blow”, or, “Hello, I’m award winning actress, Susie Snowflake”. That is the sign of an immature, small person.>> <<@justme7415 says : As Cameron Bowers points out, "this only proves the existence of a non-contingent being/event." Cameron is correct. You need to then establish that of all of the possible non-contingent beings/events it could be, (and there are possibly infinitely many), that god is the one. In fact, there are infinitely many such god cases as well. So, after you establish it's a god (rather than gods), you need to establish that it's your version of god. It's a compelling argument, but it doesn't carry as much weight as Craig or you think. There are possibilities that the universe itself just always was. Or that there exists a higher-order process that produces multiverses, and therefore ours is no more special than the infinitely other instances of universes; we are just one instance of how a universe can exist.>> <<@zelkarr7016 says : This is such a bad argument it's laughable. "Only God could create a universe, the universe exists, therefore god created it, therefore God exists." Lmfao>> <<@danielaaron5217 says : The millionth description of God of the gaps>> <<@cameronbowers5842 says : This only proves the existence of a non-contingent being or event. But I also saw evidence that the universe itself could be that thing. That it had no other way of existing, we can’t say the odds are low because we have no data of chances of universes existing the way they do. Our Data set is 1. So the Universe very well could be a contingent thing.>> <<@2104FDA says : Bedankt>> <<@2104FDA says : I am happy because there are real christians testify the Gospel with real evidence what happened with Jesus Christ our hope and savior.>> <<@weirdwilliam8500 says : Premise 2 is just the conclusion, but slightly reworded. This is classic circular reasoning also called begging the question.>> <<@weirdwilliam8500 says : This is full of so many problems. There’s a reason apologetics is only used to retain doubting believers, not to convince anyone else.>> <<@MrFossil367ab45gfyth says : I like these videos, but this argument makes no sense to me. It just jumps to God as the answer. We don't know who or what caused the Big Bang or the universe to exist. Even if we find out, that doesn't answer the question of God's existence. To me, God is something that can't be proven nor disproven.>> <<@whanethewhip says : Philosophical waxing does not prove "god".>> <<@genius89570 says : The best explanation for universe exitance is THOR The universe exists CONCLUSION: THOR IS REAL either you recognize th fallacious reasoning or we will meet in vallhalla>> <<@Monchan-l6h says : So then one would think: "Ok, if everything has an explanation of it's existence, and God exists, then what is God's explanation?" At this point someone would argue for the infinite regress. Saying that if God exists, then something must have created God. But then of course, you'd have to argue what created the thing that created God? And on and on and on until infinity. And infinity is not a tangible thing. There is no such thing as infinity. "I am that I am". God wasn't created, he "Is".>> <<@saloyale1 says : Huh?>> <<@anotherroamingsoul says : Brother this isn't a good arguement. You are begging the question, making this argument circular in its nature. Do NOT use this argument if you're a Christian apologist. It is similar to saying that the reason you believe the bible is because "it is true". You need to list *why* you think its true, this is where sources like the ones Mr. Habermas lists come in handy and what not but you aren't contending with the question by making a circular logic arguement.>> <<@brentonstanfield5198 says : This is fantastic. Now just apply this same line of reasoning to the “choices of men” and become a Calvinist… our choices are part of the universe and therefore their ultimate explanation is God.>> <<@lifestylemedicinals8692 says : Atheists believe in God, too, whether they know it or not. Instantly, the atheists reading that statement will have an emotional response or think I'm an absolute ignorant fool for implying such a thing... but hear me out, please. I understand that "God" comes with A LOT of baggage. There are literally tens of thousands of separate beliefs, interpretations and ideas surrounding the thought of a Creator. Understandably so, because God is invisible, incomprehensible, and there is no indication of his personal, social existence to be found within the material realm. I fully understand where the problem with "God" arises in the minds of anyone who doesn't believe. But I challenge anyone who doesn't to look at it this way: If "God" is a spiritual person's answer to the question of the existential questions of life(why, where, how, what), and that answer doesn't intellectually satisfy an atheist because of all the gaps, how is "science" not also unsatisfactory to these existential ponderings? Yes, science shows us quantifiable details of the mechanisms of the world we live in, and can also help us outline certain transcendent scientific underlying laws that govern it, but even still, scientists/atheists reach a point where there is no answer to the existential questions. They also fill in the gap of the unknown with "science" or "we don't have the answer to that yet". It's literally just as convenient as someone saying, "well because God did it". Science can't satisfy our deep existential and philosophical questions of "why" reality unfolded in the first place, or "how" in a seemingly mathematical impossibility it thereafter fashioned all of the matter from the big bang into organized, diverse systems that eventually spring forth beings with consciousness. Yes, science can describe the mechanisms of how this system is currently running and how the universe physically may have initiated, but you eventually always run back into the deeper existential question of "well where did that come from?". "Why did that do what it did?". "Was there already a predisposed program of that eventually design, or did the design intelligently unfold as it went? I feel as if there are some things in life that we will just never know. The deeper we look, the more mysterious it gets and the more questions we have with no answers. So when scientists don't know the answers, what can they do? Oh, let's just say the "science" did it and we can't explain it yet. If you ask me, that sounds like a God of their own understanding. A transcendent existential authority that is the blueprint, cause, sustainer, and guidance system of reality. "Trust the science" is their "trust in God". Whether you believe in a PERSON called God is irrelevant, because you can't sidestep the fact that you believe in a transcendent Sovereign force that rules and governs existence objectively, or else you wouldn't even engage in scientific pursuits or live life with any aim at all. In Hinduism, there's an aspect of God's nature which is impersonal and fits this description perfectly, which is why India has been so advanced in science, medicine and psychology for thousands of years...BUT, they also believe in a Divine supreme personality. It's the difference between knowing how a human body works, versus knowing the actual person who inhabits the body. I'm done with my rant now, and I'm ready for the atheists to tell me how wrong and dimwitted I am 😊>> <<@kurtgundy says : Everything points to God. Consider the unbelievers favorite question, what about evil? They assume it's a slam dunk against God. But if there is no God there is no such thing as evil. Evil would be an objectively, always wrong thing, like murder. Every culture, in every place says murder is wrong. Without God there is only your opinion about right and wrong. No objectively, in every situation, everywhere wrong. Why should I not murder, if it gets me what I want?>> <<@billmorash3322 says : An argument can be valid but not sound. (as Dr. Stratton has just demonstrated)>> <<@Christopher-gd2nm says : A couple problems with this. 1) even given these premises, it just concludes that something created the universe. that is absolutely removed from the idea of the loving Christian god. god could have started the universe and never done anything again, he could be any of the thousands of gods worshiped or none of them, be non-human literally anything. And this also doesn't suppose any of the characteristics about him that you presuppose. this "proven god" could literally just be what you think of as the devil as it is also supernatural and timeless. 2) you presuppose causation which David Hume teaches us is inductive reasoning and not entirely reliable. so it's entirely possible the universe doesn't have a cause. 3) you say atheists can't switch up by saying the universe doesn't have a cause. but the universe is the totality of all causes. it's entirely possible that the universe didn't have a beginning. But me dropping a pencil and it falls is not the same causal link as what caused the first cause. The first effect must've been causeless, or the universe has always been in order to make any progress. You may say that's impossible so god caused the universe, but then what caused god. He then would be the causeless link you despise. and if you just call god "the causeless thing, that started nature, and has no connection to the Christian worldview whatsoever", then you have in reality just described nature, not god.>> <<@diedrichbuck6975 says : Any time a theist sees an unanswered question, they just slap 'God did this' in it's place and pats themselves on the back. I guess god only applies to things that haven't yet been fully understood.>> <<@juhadexcelsior says : This is just Kalam 2.0, just as strong too.>> <<@tedoldham7703 says : An argument for deism is not an argument for theism or Christianity>> <<@tedoldham7703 says : Ok, fine. I could argue that this God is Zeus, Apollo, or a pantheism unknown to man .>> <<@incredulouspasta3304 says : 1. Notice the phrase in premise 1, "in the necessity of it's own nature". This phrase is used to make an exception to our normal understanding of causality for God. It's just "taxi cab reasoning" in disguise. Don't be a hypocrite. 2. He appeals to the Big Bang for evidence that the universe is contingent, but this relies on a common misunderstanding. The Big Bang is the beginning of our local presentation of the universe. It's not necessarily the beginning of all space, time, and matter. 3. I don't think Tim realizes how huge a leap he's taking when he goes from "spaceless, timeless, immaterial, supernatural cause" to "God". He hasn't deduced anything specific about this cause.>> <<@Obscuredbywinds says : nope. the contingency argument fails like every other one>> <<@NewCreationInChrist896 says : Repent nonbelievers and trust in Jesus Christ for salvation, love and protection. John 3:16-21 💝 1 John 1:9🙏>>