This is what Atheists think about the Kalam Argument, watch as they mischaracterize and set up Straw Men to knock over so they can look justified not believing in God!
Watch the above video just to be fair to their opposition to God, but only to learn HOW they reason their ideas out. Do not be fooled by their conviction or confidence because an Atheist is only confident in Natural explanations of a clearly spiritual nature, which by their own admission cannot be done.
The spiritual Mind behind Creation that is a part all living things that God created cannot be proven by just looking from a natural viewpoint, that view must be tempered with the clear evidence from faith and reason combined.
The Natural World isn't equipped to uncover the other side of existence without first opening the spiritual light of Creation, to shed illumination upon why we exist at all!
The Natural World isn't equipped to uncover the other side of existence without first opening the spiritual light of Creation, to shed illumination upon why we exist at all!
The arguments above that purport to "TAKE DOWN the Cosmological Argument" once and for all is RIDDLED with ILLOGICAL Conclusions and false assumptions they cannot prove (But it sounds scientific so who cares....right?)
Look, these attacks don't prove anything more than the world is afraid of this truth getting through to those who really think deeply about how things began.
Look, these attacks don't prove anything more than the world is afraid of this truth getting through to those who really think deeply about how things began.
No argument that a Christian can present NO MATTER how much solid science or historical value it has, will
ultimately prove God to a person that WILL NOT believe, even though they ask for that evidence.
This argument, despite the attacks.... is the top reasonable argument that answers ALL the questions Atheists raise! It fits the science available, it fits the physics we know of and it fits the fossil record perfectly. This evidence presented here cuts at the heart of the evolutionists thinking about HOW things began only because it doesn't fit into THEIR THEORY of life coming from nothing.
"How to defend the kalam cosmological argument just like William Lane Craig
"How to defend the kalam cosmological argument just like William Lane Craig
You see, Atheists talk of sharing ideas and understanding on the one hand but fail to do it on the other. They insult and laugh, instead of actually digging into the evidence as true science demands of them, the reasoning behind this obviously cowardly approach is expected, if not understood by the Christian.
Trust me, as one to whom this approach has been used many times after presenting a reasonable response to an Atheist claim. This is an act of diversion on their part rather than an act of confidence in their stand on the beginning of life. The Atheist does not have a good position to argue from, that's why they always say it's OUR job to prove it not theirs. They don't have ANY PROOF on their part so it's the easy thing to do to defer the argument back to us, well here goes.......
Trust me, as one to whom this approach has been used many times after presenting a reasonable response to an Atheist claim. This is an act of diversion on their part rather than an act of confidence in their stand on the beginning of life. The Atheist does not have a good position to argue from, that's why they always say it's OUR job to prove it not theirs. They don't have ANY PROOF on their part so it's the easy thing to do to defer the argument back to us, well here goes.......
Does God exist?
For once we can say yes, simply because
this argument leaves no loose ends, it covers all bases
including the Multi-verse excuse. Atheists are left holding the bag with nothing in it, something they should be quite familiar with.
Another question is then answered, is the material universe
all that is, or ever was, or ever will be? Is the universe ETERNAL?
Science's conclusion is absolutely not! So if the universe hasn't been here FOREVER then the time limit to it's energy use (Entropy) is an important question to ask.
If the universe was an eternally self-existent thing then it's energy source would have to be also, otherwise it would run down as the Law of thermodynamics indicates.
What this means is that evolution CAN NOT have the unlimited time and energy to complete NATURAL SELECTION as Macro-Evolution must have.
Definition of ENTROPY
1
: a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder, that is a property of the system's state, and that varies directly with any reversible change in heat in the system and inversely with the temperature of the system; broadly : the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system
2
a : the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity
b : a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder
If the universe was an eternally self-existent thing then it's energy source would have to be also, otherwise it would run down as the Law of thermodynamics indicates.
What this means is that evolution CAN NOT have the unlimited time and energy to complete NATURAL SELECTION as Macro-Evolution must have.
One approach to answering this question is
the Cosmological Argument.
It goes like this…
"Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause."
Is the first premise true? Let's consider…
Believing that something can pop into existence without a cause is more of a stretch than believing in magic. At least with magic you've got a hat and a magician.
And if something can come into being from nothing, then why don't we see this happening all the time?
No… Everyday experience and scientific evidence confirm our first premise—If something begins to exist, it must have a cause.
But what about our second premise? Did the universe begin or has it always existed? Atheists have typically said that the universe has been here forever-"The universe is just there, and that's all."
First, let's consider the second law of thermodynamics. It tells us the universe is slowly running out of usable energy… and that's the point. If the universe had been here forever, it would have run out of usable energy by now. The second law points us to a universe that has a definite beginning.
This is further confirmed by a series of remarkable scientific discoveries…THAT PROVE that the Universe is NOT eternal into the past but has an END approaching it.
In 1915, Albert Einstein presented his General Theory of Relativity. This allowed us, for the first time, to talk meaningfully about the past history of the universe, this wasn't what Einstein wanted to find out but at least he was an HONEST SCIENTIST unlike most Atheists who claim science as their aim.
Next, Alexander Friedmann and Georges Lemaître, each working with Einstein's equations, predicted that the universe is expanding from a beginning point in the past.
Then, in 1929, Edwin Hubble measured the red shift in light from distant galaxies. This empirical evidence confirmed not only that the universe is expanding, but that it sprang into being from a single point in the finite past. It was a monumental discovery—almost beyond comprehension.
However, not everyone is fond of a finite universe… So, it wasn't long before alternative models popped into existence. But, one by one, these models failed to stand the test of time.
More recently, three leading cosmologists—Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin—proved that "any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be eternal in the past, but must have an absolute beginning." Why is that? It's simple physics, it would run out of gas a long, long time ago. (That's Entropy for the dummies out there, and there is NO WAY around this....Like it or Lump it!)
This even applies to the multiverse, if there is such a thing.
This means that scientists "can no longer hide behind a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Any adequate model must have a beginning, just like the standard model, so you see no matter how many rabbit trails you come up with "Entropy" is your Kryptonite.
It's quite plausible, then that both premises of the argument are true. This means that the conclusion is also true—the universe has a cause.
And since the universe can't cause itself, its cause must be beyond the space-time universe. It must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused, and unimaginably powerful. Much like… God. Unless you can prove that "Natural Selection" is somehow supernatural and fits these criteria to a tee, your out of 'Cosmological Luck'!
The Cosmological Argument shows that, in fact, it is quite reasonable to believe that God does exist, the problem as always is the fact that Atheists refuse to look at the evidence objectively because it doesn't lead where they want it to go. This is wholly unscientific and completely unreasonable on their part!
Fallacies in Arguments
Here are some examples of fallacies you may encounter when making an argument: of course they will accuse you of these same Fallacies no matter what you say.
Appeal to Ignorance - An appeal to ignorance occurs when one person uses another person’s lack of knowledge on a particular subject as evidence that their own argument is correct. This is a favorite tool to use against believers who don't see it coming. But just remember just because you don't know the details of WHY doesn't mean your argument is invalid.
But it is important to know that Knowledge is power when dealing with Atheists or Skeptics on issues of the spiritual.
But it is important to know that Knowledge is power when dealing with Atheists or Skeptics on issues of the spiritual.
We do not start from ignorance so we cannot infer it to prove any point we make. We believe scripture and what it says happened, happened the way it says...we start from knowledge not ignorance.
On the other hand science, true science, hasn't given even a hint of proof to infer Macro-Evolution, not in the Fossil record, not in the Micro-biological realm, not in the Archaeological realm. SO WHO IS SQUIRMING IN IGNORANCE?
Appeal to Authority - This type of fallacy is also referred to as Argumentum ad Verecundia (argument from modesty). In this case, rather than focusing on the merits of an argument, the arguer will try to attach their argument to a person of authority in an attempt to give credence to their argument.
But let's face the facts here, if your theory was crap before a Ph.D.. handled it what makes you think it will fair better in their hands? Smart people can't make dumb things true they can only divert attention away from the problems using big words and lying really well about the rest.
But let's face the facts here, if your theory was crap before a Ph.D.. handled it what makes you think it will fair better in their hands? Smart people can't make dumb things true they can only divert attention away from the problems using big words and lying really well about the rest.
This is common among Atheists and Skeptics who sight a vast amount of Scientists and learned academia to prove their illogical assumptions. Simply because the Learned adopt unlearned assumptions as their own only proves to beleaguer the point and push the lie further ahead logic.
Since Creationism hasn't changed it's stand from the beginning, but only waited on science to catch up, our points and inferences still remain strong as the day we believed them. Science which was STARTED by a vast amount of Theists in the past to whom we owe our modern understandings has yet to even infer Evolution as far as MACRO is concerned!
Appeal to Popular Opinion - This type of appeal is when someone claims that an idea or belief is true simply because it is what most people believe.
Creationists cannot use this argument since we are in the minority in both science and popular opinion....MOST BELIEVE THAT NOTHING PRODUCED NOTHING IN THE BIG BANG. So this is a purely Evolutionary fallacy and a very weak one at best.
Association Fallacy - Sometimes called "guilt by association," this occurs when someone links a specific idea or practice with something or someone negative in order to infer guilt on another person.
This is done whenever an Atheist associates what those who are uninformed say about me, with what I'm saying is true. Everything I put up is backed by science and legitimate scientists but because I'm associated with something made-up or true they have an excuse to avoid my evidence.
It is still being done to Kent Hovine ministries because of an UNRELATED LEGAL MISHAP he was involved in, now any time his scientific creationism is presented they appeal to the "Alleged illegal activities" and insult his logic which has absolutely nothing to do with his scientific conclusions.
This a cheap trick that a lot of people in government office do to their opponents. What's happening here is they have no valid response and are left with their usual dirty tricks instead of evidence for their case!
This a cheap trick that a lot of people in government office do to their opponents. What's happening here is they have no valid response and are left with their usual dirty tricks instead of evidence for their case!
Attacking the Person - Also known as Argumentum ad Hominem (argument against the man), this is quite a common occurrence in debates and refers to a person who substitutes a rebuttal with a personal insult.
Atheists and Skeptics seem to not know that this form of argumentation is the lowest form of human behavior or maybe they do and are low-life's.... who knows. And ANY creationists who engage in this are equally having a "low-life" experience!
Insulting your opponent only tells everyone listening that you HAVE NO LOGICAL way to answer the points they have made. But the intended reason they do it is that it shuts down the argument by causing anger and defense on the part of the opponant. A prime example is found in politics everyday as both parties use this form of point making INSTEAD OF SOLVING THE ISSUES AT HAND!
Everything (In the physical Universe) that begins to exist has a (First) cause. Why? because only something of higher substance could produce SOMETHING of lower substance, if NOTHING could produced anything it would be NOTHING since there is no energy or substance in a vacuum of nothing .
The universe OBVIOUSLY began to exist BECAUSE SCIENCE SAYS IT DID, THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS LOGICALLY THAT the universe must have a cause outside of it's space and time, more powerful than the universe itself. And since Atheists have not presented an alternative that makes any sense compared to the true realities of science....how can they reject our logic so easily, simply because it doesn't follow their line of reasoning?
Naturalism has nothing to offer as far as explaining how life began, at every turn it fails to provide sound scientific data that proves that Natural Selection produced the Natural world. Evolution (MACRO) doesn't happen and it never has, Micro Evolution cannot be used to prove MACRO simply because the two do not compare, one explains changes within species while the other HAS YET TO BE FOUND the change FROM one species into a completely different species.
DOES THIS ARGUMENT.....
Beg the Question - This type of fallacy is when the conclusion of an argument is assumed in the phrasing of the question itself.
NO....
I might ask "What question that any Atheist or Skeptic asks doesn't do this same thing? You are only begging if your logic doesn't connect the question directly to the answer as ours does, IF the universe began and all beginnings have a cause then it follows that the universe had a causality before it began.....it's just plain logic!
The conclusion of this argument is the logical end of a cause and effect. If the universe were ETERNAL and always existed THEN we would be begging the question because our logic would be failed, because we assumed there was a beginning when there wasn't, but that is not the case from scientific reality.
Circular Argument - Also referred to as Circulus in Probando, this fallacy is when an argument takes its proof from a factor within the argument itself, rather than from an external one.
NO....
Our argument takes it's conclusion from OUTSIDE the argument itself because the first cause of the universe has to be MORE powerful, must be OUTSIDE of space and BEYOND time itself or that cause could not make what we see, feel, and hear in reality around us.
Correlation Implies Causation Fallacy - Otherwise known as Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, this is a fallacy in which the person making the argument connects two events which happen sequentially and assumes that one caused the other.
NO....
This is only bad if your assumptions are based upon no evidence of said assumptions. For instance Evolution ASSUMES things about the Universe that cannot ever be witnessed by science, science can only observe the here and now not the past or the future it can only assume from evidence left behind what is true.
Has anyone ever seen the 'Big Bang' happen? No but we have evidence it occurred nonetheless!
Has anyone ever investigated first hand 'Macro Speciation'? No but what they ASSUME is that Microevolution proves Macro is true. How can a minor variation WITHIN a species prove that a species can somehow become ANOTHER SPECIES?
There is nothing to indicate such a thing could or would happen.
All changes within a species are to cause it's survival as it is not to change it's species with would in effect go against it's survival by killing it off over time. Evolutionist's have the full burden to prove this nonsense not us! They make the assumption so it's their baby to hold.
False Dilemma/Dichotomy - Sometimes referred to as Bifurcation, this type of fallacy occurs when someone presents their argument in such a way that there are only two possible options.
Actually we think there is only ONE possible option, while evolutionists are always coming up with new options to cover for the old option that hasn't worked out so well, Creationists on the other hand, have always held to ONE option there is no dichotomy.
Non Sequitur - A fallacy wherein someone asserts a conclusion that does not follow from the propositions. Every part of this argument follows throughout it's reasoning without problem, so the only thing you can disagree with is the conclusion in the end. Everything throughout your life follows this argument concerning 'First Cause', you yourself are the first cause of many things in your own life.
Those of you that are 'Dad's' are the first cause of your children, now think of this....what if your kid's grow up and decide that you don't exist and cut off all communication with you and move away from you. Would it follow then that you don't exist or would it rather follow that they are simply deceiving themselves for whatever reason into a delusion?
Those of you that are 'Dad's' are the first cause of your children, now think of this....what if your kid's grow up and decide that you don't exist and cut off all communication with you and move away from you. Would it follow then that you don't exist or would it rather follow that they are simply deceiving themselves for whatever reason into a delusion?
God is the first cause of us and all the denying in the world won't change that fact. Atheists think that if they force all their negative thoughts and actions at a non-existent being, he'll go away somehow.
Now who sounds crazy?
Slippery Slope - Assuming that a very small action will inevitably lead to extreme and often ludicrous outcomes. Evolution is loaded with 'slippery slopes' of illogical assumptions and forced evidence.
As you can see, there are many different types of fallacies that you may encounter. Arguing with someone who uses false logic like this can be a frustrating experience, but now that you know these are examples of fallacies, you can identify what they are doing and spot the lapse in logic right away.
Is this Cosmological argument a fair and reasonable conclusion of the vast evidence available both in natural law and science?
You decide for yourself, do not allow unreasonable men and women make eternal decisions for you.
Here's an easy way to remember this argument:
F.R.E.S.H
F- Stands for Famous Equations:
In 1915, Albert Einstein presented his General Theory of Relativity. This allowed us, for the first time, to talk meaningfully about the past history of the universe.
In 1915, Albert Einstein presented his General Theory of Relativity. This allowed us, for the first time, to talk meaningfully about the past history of the universe.
Next, Alexander Friedmann and Georges Lemaître, each working with Einstein's equations, predicted that the universe is expanding.
R- Stands for Ripples of Matter & Heat:
Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin—proved that "any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be eternal in the past, but must have an absolute beginning."
Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin—proved that "any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be eternal in the past, but must have an absolute beginning."
E- Stands for the Expanding Universe:
1929, Edwin Hubble measured the red shift in light from distant galaxies. This empirical evidence confirmed not only that the universe is expanding, but that it sprang into being from a single point in the finite past. It was a monumental discovery—almost beyond comprehension.
1929, Edwin Hubble measured the red shift in light from distant galaxies. This empirical evidence confirmed not only that the universe is expanding, but that it sprang into being from a single point in the finite past. It was a monumental discovery—almost beyond comprehension.
S- Stands for The Second Law of Thermodynamics:
The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy.
The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy.
H- Stands for Heat Eco:
The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is the thermal radiation left over from the "Big Bang" of cosmology. In older literature, the CMB is also variously known as cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) or "relic radiation." The CMB is a cosmic background radiation that is fundamental to observational cosmology because it is the oldest light in the universe, dating to the epoch of recombination.
With a traditional optical telescope, the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark. However, a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope shows a faint background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. This glow is strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum. The CMB's serendipitous discovery in 1964 by American radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson was the culmination of work initiated in the 1940s, and earned the discoverers the 1978 Nobel Prize.
USE THIS ARGUMENT WITH CONFIDENCE BECAUSE IT'S BOTH LOGICAL AND RESONABLE!!!
The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is the thermal radiation left over from the "Big Bang" of cosmology. In older literature, the CMB is also variously known as cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) or "relic radiation." The CMB is a cosmic background radiation that is fundamental to observational cosmology because it is the oldest light in the universe, dating to the epoch of recombination.
With a traditional optical telescope, the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark. However, a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope shows a faint background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. This glow is strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum. The CMB's serendipitous discovery in 1964 by American radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson was the culmination of work initiated in the 1940s, and earned the discoverers the 1978 Nobel Prize.
USE THIS ARGUMENT WITH CONFIDENCE BECAUSE IT'S BOTH LOGICAL AND RESONABLE!!!
