Very mentally perverted and twisted humans.
YET Another Version of the Kalam Cosmological Brain Diarrhea
Just With Piles More Brain Farts
Frank, give up this cosmological argument bullshit. Did you not see that debate where Sean Carroll utterly annihilated that argument? Poor William Lane Craig even knew he would never recover. Why do you think his debate with Sean Carroll was his last formal debate? Carroll so thoroughly trashed him, he had to retreat into hiding for quite some time before making YouTube appearances. Creating videos for those persons whom still believe in him. Just to keep believers beLIEvers.
— By Frank Turek
The following is from I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, pages 92-93: In light of all the evidence for a beginning of the space-time universe, the beginning must be outside the space-time universe. When God-Thing is suggested as the Beginner, atheists are quick to ask the age-old question, “Then who made God-Thing? If everything needs a cause, then God-Thing needs a cause too!”
You do know the guidelines for grammar. No? You should always italicize (underline) the title of any book. You do not do this, even on your WWW site. Yet, I corrected it. In light of all the evidence for a beginning of the space-time universe… We have NO evidence the universe actually had a beginning. We can infer (fallacy) it MAY have had a beginning. This is why inference was called LIES by my volcanology mentor. The only time inference can work is if there is already truth for its basis. We have been finding many dinosaur fossils with what appear to be primordial feathers. Thus, we can infer that some dinosaurs eventually become birds through evolution. And as we find more such fossils, we can establish a transition from dinosaur to birds. An inference that can be proven, but also utilizes much deduction, logic, reasoning, and rationality. Something Religitards have foresaken.
Since we have no evidence the universe actually had a beginning, why MUST any beginning be outside of whatever? Why cannot the beginning be entirely internal? No God-Thing required. Besides, there are two models. One, says the universe continues expanding forever. Heat death. No energy left. Maximum Entropy. Second, is the infinite. Once the universe has no further energy to drives ITs expansion, the weakest fundamental force takes over and begins bringing everything back into a Singularity. Boom! Universe reborn. And the First Principle of Thermodynamics (Religitards call it the second law) is not violated. The Big Crunch will essentially put an entire universe’s worth of energy back into that singularity. Thus, the inifinite cyclic universe. Begs the Question: Which iteration are we currently within? First? Second? Millionth? If that is the model, expansion–crunch–expansion–crunch–…, then the question of which iteration is moot. Those two models also represent the Closed Universe Model and Open Universe Model. If Open, then the First Principle of Thermodynamics is never violated. Also see Principles of Thermodynamics (not written). These Principles are actually numbered: Zeroth, First, Second, Third. Thus, the second law is actually the First Principle.
As we have seen, the Law of Causality is the very foundation of science. Science is a search for causes, and that search is based on our consistent observation that everything that has a beginning has a cause. In fact, the question “Who made the God-Thing?” points out how seriously we take the Law of Causality. It’s taken for granted that virtually everything needs a cause.
But, not every effect has a cause. Yes. It is taken for granted that everything seems to have had a cause. But what of exotic particles we see just pop into existence, then vanish? We are seeing an effect without a cause. Of course you Religitards will pervert and twist this FACT into evidence for your God-Thing. See? I made a prediction based on probability and knowledge.
So why then doesn’t God-Thing need a cause? Because the atheist’s contention misunderstands the Law of Causality. The Law of Causality does not say that everything needs a cause. It says that everything that comes to be needs a cause. God-Thing did not come to be. No one made God-Thing. He is unmade. As an eternal being, God-Thing did not have a beginning, so he didn’t need a cause.
The Law of Causality does not say that everything needs a cause. It says that everything that comes to be needs a cause. False. That is NOT the Principle of Causality. As simply as I can put it, the Principle of Causality states, “Everything that DOES exist had a cause.” Yet Religitards cannot help but twist and pervert something to fit their narrative. I may be giving a narrative; however, if a person were to do True Research, they shall see I am simply narrating science into as best a “common tongue” as possible. I also throw disparagement back in y’awl’s face. After all, you Religitards have been doing so for over 2000 years. And how do you know your God-Thing did not have a beginning? Claiming, “Because my bible-thingy says so” is simply using a claim to prove a claim. Cannot happen. Thus, where is your OHEFE IT did not have a beginning?
“But wait,” the atheist will protest, “if you can have an eternal God-Thing, then I can have an eternal universe! After all, if the universe is eternal, then it did not have a cause.” Yes, it is logically possible that the universe is eternal and therefore didn’t have a cause. In fact, it is one of only two possibilities: either the universe, or something outside the universe False Dichotomy Fallacy., is eternal. (Since something undeniably exists today, then something must have always existed; FALSE! ↠↠we have only two choices: the universe, or something that caused the universe.)
In fact, it is one of only two possibilities: either the universe, or something outside the universe, is eternal. False. So utterly false… Why MUST there even be an “outside the universe”? Such only proves ITs nonexistence. If it ain’t part of the universe, it does not exist. And if this deity-thing did exist, then it sacrificed IT self in order to create this universe, thus, no longer exists.
The problem for the atheist is that while it is logically possible that the universe is eternal, it does not seem to be actually possible. What of the Open Model for the Universe? For all the scientific and philosophical evidence (Philosophy is NOT evidence. Philosophy proves nothing. Philosophy cannot prove anything.) tells us the universe cannot be eternal. Please explain Why not? So by ruling out one of the two options, we are left with the only other option–something outside the universe is eternal. That ain’t the only possibility. Misrepresentation. Same as LYING.
When you get right down to it, there are only two possibilities for anything that exists: either 1) it has always existed and is therefore uncaused, or 2) it had a beginning and was caused by something else (it can’t be self-caused, because it would have had to exist already in order to cause anything). According to overwhelming evidence, the universe had a beginning, so it must be caused by something else– by something outside itself. Notice that this conclusion is consistent with theistic religions, but it is not based on those religions– it is based on good reason and evidence.
But according to your dogmatic brain diarrhea, THAT disqualifies your God-Thing. IT cannot be self-caused. Your words verbatim. Thus, your God-Thing had ITs creator.
So what is this First Cause like? One might think you need to rely on a bible-thingy or some other so-called religious revelation to answer that question, but, again, we don’t need anyone’s scripture to figure that out. Einstein was right when he said, “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.” Religion can be informed and confirmed by science, as it is by the Cosmological Argument. I have already trashed your version. Namely, we can discover some characteristics of the First Cause just from the evidence we’ve discussed in this chapter. From that evidence alone, we know the First Cause must be:
Again, your God-Thing
These characteristics of the First Cause are exactly the characteristics theists ascribe to God-Thing. Again, these characteristics are not based on someone’s religion or subjective experience. They are drawn from the scientific evidence What scientific evidence? It is all Word Salad. No OHEFE = never existed. we have just reviewed, and they help us see a critically important section of the box top to this puzzle we call life. The book then goes on to build the case that this is the God-Thing of christinsanity.
— The Unknown Atheist
Copyright © 2024 by RMFR. Licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 International. All Other Rights Reserved