This Video Clearly Proves That Atheism is Irrational

God had to be the first cause?!

What an irrefutable argument!

Boston College Philosophy Professor Peter Kreeft uses that argument to suggest believing in God is totally rational in this video… and the comments are somehow not turned off!

I’d love to know who this YouTube commenter is, by the way…

(Thanks to Chas for the link!)

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the chair of Foundation Beyond Belief and a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago. He began writing the Friendly Atheist blog in 2006. His latest book is called The Young Atheist's Survival Guide.

  • Rain

    Too dumb (or embarrassed) to know the place to start was Aristotle.

  • mmurray

    “Prager University is a virtual on-line non-profit organization founded in 2009 that produces five minute video courses on a variety of subjects, ranging from economics to philosophy. The organization was created by Dennis Prager, an American syndicated talk show host, and Allen Estrin, screenwriter and radio show producer, to teach fundamental concepts and conservative values in large part through a series of 5 minute video lectures. These videos seek to enhance the student’s understanding and appreciation for the ideas central to conservative ideology, under rubrics such as freedom, personal responsibility and capitalism.[1] A new video is added twice per month.” [Wikipedia]

    It’s a bloody insult to the concept of a university. It’s just propaganda for his beliefs.

    • Rain

      Yes it’s publicity, and also a cash cow because “nonprofits” can pay salaries to themselves.

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/chidy/ chicago dyke

      thank you for that. i was wondering why i’d never heard of prager “university.” now i know why.

    • Nik Pfirsig

      You should watch a few of the videos, or at least part of them. They are so freakin’ FUNNY !!!!

    • Ann Onymous

      My uncle sent me this video when he found out I was an atheist. Then I explored the site and seethed.

  • http://godless.biz Andrew Skegg

    Someone needs to go back to school. A proper school.

  • http://twitter.com/darnoujoum DnC

    what dumb crap!!!!

  • mmurray

    I’d love to know who this YouTube commenter is, by the way…

    According to his twitter profile he works for

    http://www.freedomworks.org

    “FreedomWorks is a conservative non-profit organization based in Washington D.C., United States. FreedomWorks trains volunteers, assists in campaigns, and encourages them to mobilize, interacting with both fellow citizens and their political representatives.”

    • http://chaoskeptic.blogspot.com Rev. Ouabache

      They are basically the group that laid down the astroturf for the Tea Party.

    • Stev84

      Another far-right organization with an oxymoronic name

    • baal

      That would make anangbhai one their paid trolls. mediamatters.org gets a number of them as do random websites when certain key words are in a post. They really come out for global warming pieces in particular.

    • Carpinions

      This is the group headed in part by Ari Fleischer.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nele-Abels/1127827774 Nele Abels

    This guy is a professor? This is ridiculous; is he really an academic?

    • SeekerLancer

      He’s not, it’s just a bunch of online videos calling itself one.

  • Timmah

    “You don’t know how radioactive decay starts, so Jesus.”

    Welp I’m sold!

    • Carpinions

      He put a real cherry on top of that by mentioning science might ultimately discover that very cause in the sentence prior.

    • RobMcCune

      Well I can easily hand waive away large parts of one of the most successful theories of science ever, and the observations that support it.

      Thank you Peter Kreeft!

      • Physicist with a question

        Can somebody please explain how science has ever disproven religion? As a physicist, I have never found any evidence for the bigoted and pretentious arguments of RobMcune and Timmah who say religion “waive away large parts of one of the most successful theories of science ever.” What does this mean? What scientific theories have waived any need for evidence in God? What science are you practicing? Do you know anything at all about science? These are serious questions that I think deserve reflection. That is, if you can examine your own preconceived notions and realize that you might not know what you are talking about at all.

        • RobMcCune

          Can somebody please explain how science has ever disproven religion?

          Why? I never claimed it did. Some aspects of religion such, as a 7 day creation 6000-10000 years ago, however, have been falsified by science.

          As a physicist, I have never found any evidence for the bigoted and pretentious arguments of RobMcune and Timmah

          Interesting, since I made no argument, only made a facetious statement parodying Prof. Kreeft overly casual dismissal of quantum mechanics.

          What does this mean?

          What does calling my comment bigoted mean? Your reasons for doing so are baffling given the context.

          Do you know anything at all about science?

          Do you know anything about reading comprehension?

          These are serious questions that I think deserve reflection.

          Exactly, and the theologian (if you payed attention you’d know who that was) gave it precisely none.

          That is, if you can examine your own preconceived notions and realize that you might not know what you are talking about at all.

          It’s becoming apparent that applies to you more than it applies to me “Physicist.”

  • Geoff Boulton

    How could I have been so stupid to think that ‘I don’t know but let’s try and find out’ is more rational than an infinite number of ‘creators’? Never mind that there is no empirical evidence at all that any of these unknown creators exist, let alone a thousand or a gazillion.

  • http://twitter.com/Regcarolmoore Regina Carol Moore

    His causality argument is ridiculous. And there was never such a thing as “nothing”. There are so many things wrong with this video.

    • Randay

      Not only ridiculous. Rarely have I seen something, even on YT, as stupid and wrong as this one. But it would take hours to debunk each and every one of his “arguments”. Just one for fun. He compares an atheist 20th century physicist to believer Isaac Newton a predecessor of 300 years earlier. Does he think the Newton today would be a believer? I wonder if philosopher Daniel Dennett has seen this; he would be embarrassed to see a “philosopher” being so irrational.

      • http://www.flickr.com/photos/chidy/ chicago dyke

        actually, i do think newton would be a believer today. he was a nutjob, when it came to religion. there was plenty of skepticism during his time, he chose to ignore most of it and entertained totally wacky religious ideas. he died a virgin, if that gives any insight into just how strange he really was.

        • Mario Strada

          So maybe he is in Muslim heaven servicing terrorists?

  • ChrisV

    Professor, what you spout is theology, not philosophy. Your comments are on the level of “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”. You are a prime example of why catholic colleges cannot be considered true centers of learning. And you are pimping for a fraudulent organization. Shame. Philosopher my butt.

  • Rain

    Newton was the “founder of modern science”, ergo Jesus. I still say someone should write a show called “Ergo Jesus” where the cast says a bunch of totally random unrelated stuff and then at the end they all say “Ergo Jesus!” and then the audience laughs their tails off.

    • Rain

      Never mind we already have that show, It’s called the “William Lane Craig Dog And Pony Show”.

    • http://www.facebook.com/roger.bauman Roger Bauman

      Newton was an alchemist. Therefore, alchemy is real.

    • baal

      There is an anime called “ergo proxy” that’s pretty good.

  • Adicus Garton

    What a load of bollocks.

  • http://www.facebook.com/travis.myers.102977 Travis Myers

    Here is the easiest way to show the flaw in the “first cause” argument:

    The positive numbers have a lower bound, and every positive number has a positive number that is smaller than it. Therefore, there must be a first positive number. That first positive number is God.

    Oh wait… there is no first positive number.

    • Jhudstone

      The logical flaw in this argument is the conclusion ‘The first positive number is God’ – why would that follow from the premises?

      • decathelite

        It is a logical flaw. He’s trying to show that the first cause argument is also a logical flaw.

        • Jhudstone

          Well the way you do that is by disputing the premises or the conclusion of the actual argument, not by making a flawed argument and saying that the original is therefore flawed.

          • indorri

            Uh, you can dispute it by illustrating a flawed argument that uses the same premises. Even given boundary conditions, there is no reason to assume there is a “first” thing in a sequence. Uncountable sets don’t have a notion of first even if they possess a notion of order.

            In order for the first cause argument to hold any weight, the one espousing it also has to illustrate that events are atomic (and thus countable). That’s an open question in physics right now.

            • Jhudstone

              Why would the boundary conditions matter in this instance? What seems to matter is that there was a t=0. A beginning. The universe began to exist and thus it follows that it had a cause of it’s existence.

              • indorri

                Why would the boundary conditions matter in this instance?

                Because otherwise you’re no longer meaning anything. If there is a set that contains causes, you can’t just say that there’s something called a cause outside that set.

                This is ignoring that causality in this definition is considered fundamental, which hasn’t been illustrated either (i.e. the universe may be more fundamental and causality is a property of the universe).

                • Jhudstone

                  Because otherwise you’re no longer meaning anything. If there is a set that contains causes, you can’t just say that there’s something called a cause outside that set.

                  If that ‘set’ began to exist, then a cause is still necessary.

                  This is ignoring that causality in this definition is
                  considered fundamental, which hasn’t been illustrated either (i.e. the universe may be more fundamental and causality is a property of the universe).

                  If the universe is a thing, or set of things, that began to exist, as seems evident from observation, then a cause can’t be property of the universe any more than the cause of my shoe’s existence could be a property of my shoe.

                • indorri

                  If that ‘set’ began to exist, then a cause is still necessary.

                  Reification. A set is a description, it is not a thing that begins to exist.

                  Speaking of “begins to exist”, that is meaningless terminology. It assumes to separate things into things that exist which begin and this which exist that do not. I have not read anything to illustrate that this is even a viable way to talk about things except of very high-level abstractions, and if you’re talking about high level abstractions, you’re not talking about fundamentals anymore.

                  A wave function of a system is a description of how it evolves over time. It does not require causality to be fundamental for it to be the case that this is so.

                  If the universe is a thing, or set of things, that began to exist, as seems evident from observation, then a cause can’t be property of the universe

                  This is circular reasoning. “Things that begin to exist have a cause” “causality has not been shown to be more fundamental than existence, it may be a property of it” “that can’t be true because things that begin to exist have a cause, so a cause can’t be a property of the universe”

                • Jhudstone

                  Reification. A set is a description, it is not a thing that begins to exist.

                  But a universe is a thing that began to exist.

                  A wave function of a system is a description of how it evolves over time. It does not require causality to be fundamental for it to be the case that this is so.

                  Which doesn’t really address the fact that our observations indicate the universe began to exist.

                  This is circular reasoning. “Things that begin to exist have a cause” “causality has not been shown to be more fundamental than the universe, it may be a property of it” “that can’t be true because things that begin to exist have a cause, so a cause can’t be a property of the universe”

                  I will try to state it more simply for you – if the universe began to exist, then the cause of its existence can’t be a property of it.

                • indorri

                  The set I’m talking about is causes. There is a set of things we call causes. There is no reason to assume that this set is countable.

                  If the set of things called causes is not countable, there cannot be something called the “first” cause. There will always be a cause that precedes any cause you can name.

                  I will try to state it more simply for you – if the universe began to
                  exist, then the cause of its existence can’t be a property of it.

                  You’re… doing it again. The point is, your premise is that things which begin to exist have a cause. It’s assuming causality is more fundamental than existence. However, we do not know that causality is more fundamental. If the universe began, it began. That’s it. There is not “it has a cause”. The only premise is “the universe began”.

                  You can’t draw “all things have a cause” from the beginning of the universe because we cannot say anything else “began” in the same way the universe has. You’re saying “well, you began at some point so you must have had a cause” which is conflating the configuration of some things into others as ontologically analogous to the beginning of the universe. You have to posit things outside the universe to overcome this limitation, otherwise you must concede that all configurations require the universe and thus “all things which begin to exist have a cause” is a meaningless statement.

    • mikmik

      oneZ’s paradox!

  • ortcutt

    Before people start to attack philosophy as a discipline, please note that Prof. Kreeft is a Professor at Boston College, a Jesuit institution, and nearly everything he has written has been in theology and apologetics.

    • Jhudstone

      I always find this argument odd. Notre Dame is Catholic Institution, as is Georgetown. Yale was started by Congregationalists and Harvard by Puritans. Obviously Boston college is a notable school, and he is a philosophy professor of note – he is no more ‘biased’ than would be an atheist coming from a secular school.

      • Reginald Selkirk

        he is no more ‘biased’ than would be an atheist coming from a secular school.

        What an idiotic thing to say. Atheist != secular.

        • Jhudstone

          What an idiotic conclusion to make – I didn’t say it did.

          • Reginald Selkirk

            Fill in the blanks for us:
            Famous atheist philosophers at Notre Dame _______

            Famous atheist philosophers at Georgetown ______

            • Jhudstone

              Jill Mann taught at ND and Jacques Berlinerblau at Georgetown, though neither of them is ‘philosopher’ per se.

              But I am not sure what the point is – most Universities don’t have ‘famous atheist philosophers’ on staff – does it therefore follow the philsophy professors aren’t dong philsophy?

      • RobMcCune

        Well this is all just academic, since the video makes a very good case Kreeft being biased, whatever the status of institution he’s at.

        • Jhudstone

          Why would he be biased based on the video? It appears you are arguing he is biased because he is making the argument.

          • RobMcCune

            Because the video is by the book apologetics, complete with half truths and mischaracterizations made for a group with a stated social, religious, and political agenda.

            But no pointing all that out proves I’m biased one.

            • Jhudstone

              The question is whether the arguments themselves are valid – they seem to be logical and reasonable, which I think is largely demonstrated by the fact that folks here are attacking Prager, Boston College, philosophy, and various straw man arguments rather than the premises and conclusions of the arguments themselves.

              • Reginald Selkirk

                The question is whether the arguments themselves are valid – they seem to be logical and reasonable

                .

                The arguments themselves are so riddled with logical fallacies that it would be difficult to pick a starting point. If they seem “logical and reasonable” to you, then my opinion of you goes straight into the toilet.

                • Jhudstone

                  If they are ‘riddled’ with fallacies, pick an argument and destroy it with logic.

                • Reginald Selkirk

                  Everything has to have a cause:

                  1) Quantum mechanics.

                  2) ‘God doesn’t need a cause’ is special pleading.

                • Jhudstone

                  So let me get this straight, you think quantum mechanics indicates things can begin to exist uncaused, and God can’t exist uncaused?

                • Reginald Selkirk

                  Get this straight: if Kreeft claims that everything needs a cause, then it is special pleading for him to claim that God does not need a cause. Your use of rhetorical tricks rather than sound logic lowers my opinion of you even further.

                • Jhudstone

                  No, you don’t seem to get it -Kreeft claims that ‘things that begin to exist’ need a cause. He does not claim God ‘began to exist’ – and if that is the case, then no cause is needed.

                  And I could care less about the opinion a complete stranger on the internet has of me.

                • Mario Strada

                  “First cause” arguments usually end up sounding like:

                  it is!
                  It Isn’t

                  Over and over. Just like the first cause argument itself.
                  Personally, I don’t trust philosophers to be able to claim a more precise understanding of reality compared to actual science, but on the first cause my reaction is usually “So what?”.

                  Let’s say there is a first “uncaused” cause. “Ammesso e non concesso” as they say in Italian (means ‘I’ll admit it in the discourse but I won’t concede it’)
                  Admittedly, this “first Cause” takes me a little, tiny bit closer to “The Christian God Exist” hypothesis, but there is a frigging ocean between that and a god that even remotely resembles any of the thousands found in human myth. Let alone proving the existence of the Christian God that told Noah to build an ark, made the earth in 6 days and so forth.

                  I honestly don’t see the point in engaging in open ended diatribe without even the remote chance that one of us can find real evidence for one hypothesis or the other.

                • Jhudstone

                  Often claims disputed in theistic/atheistic arguments take the form of it is/it isn’t – it is always that way arguing over faiths, it has nothing to do with the worth of the argument itself.

                  But an acknowledgment that there is a basic rationality to the argument is no little thing in my mind. The while it isn’t situated to prove the historical nature of Biblical figures and events, I think important things are understood, and that moves the dialogue forward at least..

              • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                No, the problem is we’ve heard these arguments before, and refuted them before, a hundred times. It takes a lot of time and brainspace to tease out all the flaws (and they are numerous!) and then write them all up.

                • Jhudstone

                  I always hear this, I never see it.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  Greta Christina over on freethoughtblogs has a whole series of posts debunking each main apologetics argument. Many atheist bloggers have, at some point, done a series debunking them. The problem is comments are a bad place to write 3,000 word essays explaining why one point is wrong, let alone longer ones debunking a whole video full of bad arguments.

                  Start here on Pascal’s wager, then go to her other atheism posts. http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2011/02/why-pascals-wager-sucks.html

                • Jhudstone

                  So, Greta Christina argued against Pascal’s Wager, therefore this argument isn’t true. What?!?!

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  No, you fool, that isn’t my point at all. Greta Christina’s arguments against Pascal’s Wager are compelling, well-written, and tear it down completely. Why reinvent the wheel? I sent you to a comprehensive takedown of Pascal’s Wager so you would read it. Who Greta Christina is doesn’t matter- what matters is that her arguments are cogent and well laid out. You have to actually read them, though. That’s why I put a link in my comment …

                • Jhudstone

                  All of which is completely irrelevant to this discussion. And I’m the fool?

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  You said you’d seen the argument that “we’ve torn these apart before” before, but never actually seen the apologetics arguments torn apart. I sent you to a place with full rebuttals. And now you refuse to go read them, I’m not sure why. Is it so you can continue to claim that you’ve never read actual rebuttals?

              • RobMcCune

                If you take the first cause argument itself, you’re right in that it’s premises follow from it’s conclusions (except the whole prove god part). The premises themselves are disputable, though Kreeft dismisses much this. Furthermore Kreeft mangles science or leaves out important details and context, many of the facts and theories he cites don’t unambiguously support or even contradict what he uses them to support. This falls squarely in the realm of apologetics not philosophy, which was the point of the post you originally responded to.

                • Jhudstone

                  Conclusions follow from premises.Which premise do you dispute?

                • RobMcCune

                  That everything must have a cause and that infinite causal chains cannot exist.

                • Jhudstone

                  So what has begun to exist that doesn’t have a cause?

                • RobMcCune

                  Virtual particles.

                • Jhudstone

                  Well, no, virtual particles are a product of the fluctuations in quantum vacuum, they don’t exist on their own, they are always caused by the presence of other particles.

                • RobMcCune

                  First the fluctuations are uncaused, second the particles themselves are the energy in that fluctuation. Hence virtual particles are uncaused.

                • Jhudstone

                  If the particles are product of the fluctuations, then they are caused. And quantum foam is just a description of the fabric space time at a certain distance.

                • RobMcCune

                  Virtual particles are the manifestation of the energy of quantum fluctuations. Again the fluctuations are uncaused so the particles are uncaused.

                  And quantum foam is just a description of the fabric space time at a certain distance.

                  And said description predicts random uncaused fluctuations.

                • Reginald Selkirk

                  You said you are a Christian, and here you are using a Muslim argument.

                • Jhudstone

                  It’s much older than either Islam or Christianity.

                • Jhudstone

                  This particular argument was around long before Islam or Christianity.

                • mikmik

                  (1) There are events.

                  (2) Every event has a cause distinct from it.

                  (3) Every causal chain of events must have beginning (i.e., a first
                  member).

                  .× .(4) There is a first, uncaused cause of
                  all that happens.

                  .× .(5) God exists.

                  1 – 3 contradict 4. You can’t say that EVERY event has a cause, and then conclude that that is not true. It’s high school logic.
                  5 is a non sequitor.

                • Jhudstone

                  Well, the main argument has to do with things beginning to exist, not ‘events’ (which are changes to things) but either way, the point is God neither changes, nor begins to exist – therefore the manner of His existence wouldn’t be a ‘special pleading’ but something all together different than ‘things’ or ‘events’.

      • ortcutt

        My point was more directed to the question of why a Philosophy department would hire someone who doesn’t really practice philosophy. It’s because they think that having a Christian apologist on the Philosophy faculty furthers their mission as a Catholic institution. Different Catholic schools take a different attitude to that matter.

        • Jhudstone

          What do you mean ‘practice philosophy’? Obviously someone who considers philosophical questions is practicing philosophy – that one might focus on the philosophical question of the existence of God doesn’t diminish that.

          • ortcutt

            Someone who starts with a dogmatic belief and seeks to defend that belief regardless of the arguments and evidence is practicing apologetics not philosophy.

            • Jhudstone

              And how do you know Prof. Kreeft hasn’t considered the arguments and evidence?

            • Emmet

              Agreed. Atheists and Christians alike, many of them, do that.

  • http://twitter.com/arensb arensb

    At one point, I wanted to register the domain “hardknocks.edu” as a joke. But I couldn’t, because I would have had to prove that I’m a legitimate accredited institution of higher learning.
    Sometimes, this makes me slightly sad. But it’s worth it to be able to look at the web site for Prager U or Patriot U or any of a thousand other “universities” and ask “if this is a real school, why is it in .com/.org, and not .edu?”

  • Guest

    C’mon Prager University has Adam Carolla listed as a faculty member. Does that mean someone can major in fart jokes and racism?

  • DougI

    Totally fake university, it even lists Adam Carolla, that bastion of intellect, as a faculty member. Kent Hovind went to a more respectable fake university.

    • aaa

      Well I’ve just lost all respect I ever had for Adam Carolla. Wait, who’s Adam Carolla?

  • SeekerLancer

    “There must be a big banger,” now hold on I don’t know what Irish sausage has to do with this.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=47910251 Scott Broussard

    I met Kreeft when he spoke at my university. I asked him a question, and it turns out I had misunderstood what he originally said. Instead of just clarifying for me, he mocked me in front of the audience.

    • SeekerLancer

      Judging by both this video some of the articles I’ve read from him I’m not entirely surprised he’s got this kind of arrogant attitude in person.

  • dan davis

    Umm, Newton believed in God. Well, I’m gonna ignore everything I learned from the great thinkers of the last 400 years and go with Newton. And he ignores Dawkin’s common observation that the creator must also have a creator, and so on.

    • Reginald Selkirk

      Yes, Newton believed in God (but not in the Trinity, the heretic!), but he did not believe in the Big Bang, relativity, or quantum mechanics.

    • SeekerLancer

      The Newton thing is incredibly annoying, especially in that he’s portraying Professor Susskind as saying “you can’t be Christian and be a scientist,” when what he was really saying is “you have to approach science with a secular mindset.”

      If science didn’t function that way, it wouldn’t function. It would have no incentive to exist. If the answer is always god or magic then there’s no reason to continue searching.

      But Newton didn’t fill in the unknown with divine intervention, he continued searching. I don’t think when Newton got stuck on a problem he gave up, threw up his hands and said, “God did it!”

      • Reginald Selkirk

        But Newton didn’t fill in the unknown with divine intervention, he continued searching.

        Well, actually…

        For while comets move in very eccentric orbs in all manner of positions,
        blind fate could never make all the planets move one and the same way
        in orbs concentric, some inconsiderable irregularities excepted which
        may have arisen from the mutual actions of comets and planets on one
        another, and which will be apt to increase, till this system wants a
        reformation.

        This was explained by the nebular hypothesis within a century of Newton’s life.

        • SeekerLancer

          Well nobody’s perfect I suppose.

          I’m glad you brought this up since it’s a perfect example of why we shouldn’t just give up and fill in the gaps with the supernatural, because the answers are out there.

  • SeekerLancer

    I’m enjoying watching this Mike Brown fellow on Youtube scramble to defend Professor Kreeft’s nonsense. Maybe he’ll find this post and join our discussion.

  • Reginald Selkirk
  • mikmik

    Kreeft!! I have a Catholic buddy that is interested in philosophy, and he told me that he was reading Neitzsche. I said cool, and then he said if I like that, I should check out this Kreeft.
    First thing I saw on his site was an article using Pascal’s wager to prove that it only makes sense to believe in God. I don’t hold out much hope for him and Neitzsche, unless Neitzsche wrote children’s books.

    • Latraviata

      You mean Nietzsche?

      • mikmik

        That’s the one!

  • funkotron

    Fine, there was a first cause. “Gods” from human religions tend to have more than one property. “God” created the universe, then created the planets, the stars, the anmials, in a specific order. Then flooded the earth and became a human and died. So we know that something created the universe. You can call it “God” if you want, but none of that other stuff follows from “God created the universe”.

  • Liu

    I’m going to start using the phrase “big banger” in conversations now.

    • koseighty

      “I hear God is the original ‘Big Banger’?”

      “That’s nothing. You should see the ‘Big Banger’!”

      “Yeah, the ‘Big Banger’ and I go way back.”

  • Gus Snarp

    Oh look, it’s the cosmological argument. As if there’s been not refutation of that idea in the 800 years since Aquinas. I don’t accept the cosmological argument at all, but let’s imagine that there must, in fact, be a “first cause”. What does it tell us about the nature of that cause? Nothing. Nothing at all. There is a huge leap from “There must be a first cause.” to “God”. The leap is even bigger to get to Christian God, let alone Catholic God. That leap made sense to Aquinas 800 years ago, it makes no sense now. Why should there be a conscious first cause at all, let alone anything that remotely resembles what we think of as “god” or that cares one whit about our existence? Maybe there is a god, and like someone I can’t remember once posited, maybe the entire universe is a grand, extravagant machine to produce plastic, which will be here long after we’re gone. Maybe plastic is the end “goal” of the universe and we’re just a side effect, or at most a tiny cog on one gear of the machine. Or maybe the universe exists to produce some form of life unknown to us that exists thousands of light years away on another world and we’re just a side effect of the process….the cosmological argument doesn’t answer any questions at all, let alone prove god, much less a particular god.

    • willy occam

      I’m with you, Gus (and funkotron below). I have no trouble considering a first cause, or even calling it “God,” for that matter. The problem is with all of that other baggage that comes with the word: omniscience, an absolute moral code, creating us humans in his image, giving a shit about what we ask him for (let alone that we even exist), etc., etc…. in other words, all of the arrogant, self-centered nonsense that our species attributes to “God.” That’s a pretty huge leap from “the spark that ignited the Big Bang.”

    • Jhudstone

      It isn’t intended to prove a particular God. Nor is it intended to posit a particular goal to the universe – why would it, it is simply demonstrating logically that the universe requires a cause, Once established one can consider the nature of the cause.

      • Gus Snarp

        In other words, the argument, even if it were logically sound, would not show that religion is more rational than atheism, which is exactly my point.

        • Jhudstone

          What it is intended to (and successfully) shows is that contending that God exists is not irrational, whether that makes atheism irrational is another question.

          • CottonBlimp

            Except we don’t think God is irrational because there couldn’t have been a first cause.

            We think God is irrational because, in an absence of any real knowledge on the subject, you’re assuming the explanation is a Magic Man; an explanation that has been proven wrong over and over, based on the authority of an institution that has been proven wrong over and over, or based on intuitive feelings that have been proven wrong over and over. God is a completely absurd leap of logic that you feel justified in making until someone is capable of proving that it absolutely, totally, 100% isn’t possible, a standard of proof you demand for absolutely nothing else in your life.

            God is irrational because the belief isn’t founded on rational argument.

            • Jhudstone

              Absent any cause at all, one is literally positing magic.

              That a timeless, limitless, beginningless cause exits is implied by what we know of the universe and rationality.

              • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                So it’s common sense that everything requires a cause. Except when it doesn’t, and then we call it God.

                The problem with our notions of common sense is that they are restricted by our human context. Just as theists answer “you’re trying to define God on your own terms, we can’t comprehend God any more than a bacteria can comprehend a lab assistant”, we have difficulty comprehending “something from nothing”. But the fact that some of us have difficulty with the concept doesn’t mean it’s “common sense” to assume the contrary.

                • Jhudstone

                  I don’t know that everything requires a cause (or what that means) but if everything that begins to exist requires a cause, wouldn’t it follow at some juncture there was something that didn’t begin to exist?

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  if everything that begins to exist requires a cause

                  We don’t know (in fact we have evidence to the contrary at the quantum level) that everything that begins to exist requires a cause. A lot of people (including myself) have trouble with that because it defies our experience. That doesn’t mean it’s not true however.

                  We don’t know that there isn’t some eternal infinite universe producing system. That’s really no different than saying ‘God’. So even if you presume some infinite or timeless something, why is it ‘God’? In what possible way do we whittle it down to something making souls and people? If ‘God’ is so distant and departed from human existence that it only makes Universes, then what does it matter what we call it? Atheists are more interested in keeping Yeweh out of our laws than some possible system of eternal universe generation.

                  Even if we bought all the a priori assumptions, it’s really an argument for an infinite meta-verse, not an argument for ‘God’.

                • Jhudstone

                  So what exactly at the ‘quantum level’ is presumed to begin to exist absent a cause? Because people keep saying that, but I don’t know anything specifically about quantum mechanics that proffers this.

                  And wouldn’t it follow that if something made the universe, it also made people, as people are part of the universe?

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  Have you tried Crest’s New Quantum Foam Tooth Paste?

                • Jhudstone

                  It’s effervescent.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  Others have tried to answer this and you keep insisting that they haven’t. Let’s back up a bit.

                  Can you tell us anything about the nature of this God that you think the ‘first cause’ argument proves? Could God be an eternally existing natural phenomena? Perhaps there’s one universe forever ‘banging’ into existence, entropying away, and banging into existence again? Maybe there’s a multiverse? Maybe there’s a sentient something making universes like a child blows bubbles?

                  As Kreeft says, there’s no empirical evidence for any of those, including ‘God’. All the argument asserts is that there must be something eternal to cause our present universe. Any further claims (e.g. ‘God’) about the nature of that are pure speculation.

              • RobMcCune

                Except no one is suggesting that the universe has no cause at all. They are objecting to the notion that absent any other explanation (this itself is untrue) that a supernatural cause is the logical conclusion as Kreeft asserts in the video.

                • Jhudstone

                  Wouldn’t a cause outside the universe be ‘supernatural’ by definition?

                • RobMcCune

                  No, there are naturalistic explanations grounded in current theories of physics that provide explanations for the big bang. The laws of physics are part of nature, hence not supernatural.

                • Jhudstone

                  And where do the laws of physics reside, if not in the universe?

                • RobMcCune

                  The laws of physics aren’t physical objects they aren’t ‘inside’ anything.

                • Jhudstone

                  So you are saying non-physical entities can have a real existence?

                • RobMcCune

                  I am saying the relationships described by physics can be true event if they have no objects to act on.

                • Jhudstone

                  They can be true outside the existence of the universe?

                • RobMcCune

                  Yes, in fact one of the explanations for the big bang posits exactly that, if there were no universe and certain laws of physics are true the big bang could happen by itself without the need for an external cause.

                • Jhudstone

                  You said the laws of physics are “the relationships described by physics”. Relationships are an expression of the impact of one entity on another – how can physics describe relationships apart from the universe?

                  And if the laws of physics are needed in order for the big bang to occur, then it would seem that the laws of physics are causal to the existence of the universe, wouldn’t you say?

                • RobMcCune

                  then it would seem that the laws of physics are causal to the existence of the universe, wouldn’t you say?

                  Not in those theoretical models in which hold the big bang to be caused by a random quantum fluctuation, nor those in which the universe under goes a cycle of expansion and contraction, ie the big bounce. In each case there is no cause to the universe.

                • Jhudstone

                  So now the origin of the universe doesn’t require the existence of the laws of physics?

                • RobMcCune

                  A requirement does not equate to a cause, also the big bounce is a cycle that does not need an origin.

                • http://www.facebook.com/Funky.Uncle.Matt Matt Begley

                  The entire universe was a quantum singularity. Thus, no space, no time, no matter, just pure energy.., where physics as we recognize them, do not exist.

                • http://www.facebook.com/Funky.Uncle.Matt Matt Begley

                  Energy.

                • http://www.facebook.com/Funky.Uncle.Matt Matt Begley

                  No, Nature could very well exist outside the sphere of the known universe. The scale of existance may very well be as far beyond our actual comprehension as the scale of our universe is.

              • CottonBlimp

                “That a timeless, limitless, beginningless cause exits is implied by what we know of the universe and rationality.”

                No, it isn’t. We are literally not equipped to comprehend what exists before or outside of our universe, as its a total absence of time and space. What is implied there is only that those who would name that great unknown are speaking with the utmost arrogance.

                But furthermore, what we know of the universe; that it is an amoral structure, prizing war and conflict and built on imperfection and slowly accumulating disorder and that does not imply a designer of any love or perfection.

                • Jhudstone

                  The ‘universe’ prizes war and conflict? Does the universe have a mind?

                • CottonBlimp

                  I’m assuming, as a religion person, you probably have an understanding of the mind as being something distinct from its physical machinery. So in that sense, no; “prizes” was a Pathetic Fallacy on my part.

                  However, if we’re to consider the universe as the product of a being with desires, and we’re to assume this being is perfectly capable and perfectly knowledgable of what he is attempting to make, then the features of this universe are a clue as to what such a Creator desires and intends.

                  In our case, we have a universe founded on destruction – that’s what the Big Bang is, an explosion. Stars blink out, entire galaxies collide and rip each other apart. Every single thing that exists in our universe that isn’t hydrogen was born from the death and explosion of a star. Human beings, clearly, are an inconsequential feature of this grand design, eking out an existence between major points of obliteration.

                  This is not a universe which is compatible with the Christian idea of god.

                • Jhudstone

                  However, if we’re to consider the universe as the product of a being with desires, and we’re to assume this being is perfectly capable and perfectly knowledgable of what he is attempting to make, then the features of this universe are a clue as to what such a Creator desires and intends.

                  Perhaps, though irrelevant to the arguments we are considering.

                  In our case, we have a universe founded on destruction – that’s what the Big Bang is, an explosion. Stars blink
                  out, entire galaxies collide and rip each other apart. Every single thing that exists in our universe that isn’t hydrogen was born from the death and explosion of a star. Human beings, clearly, are an inconsequential feature of this grand design, eking out an existence between major points of obliteration.

                  Change is certainly a
                  product of the universe, and for change to occur then everything can’t remain as it is. True, leaves die and decay, but they also form the substrate for future growth. So in and of itself this process isn’t necessarily ‘violent’ not is it destructive, per se, when one considers the sum of it.

                  And as humans depend on the existence of the universe as it is, why would we be “inconsequential” to such processes? In fact, we are the only entity in the universe capable of observing it and appreciating it. How do you know it isn’t happening for our benefit?

                  This is not a universe which is compatible with the Christian idea of god

                  You are assuming the ‘Christian God’ is a kindly old fellow. There is much indication in Christian belief that to be in His presence is to be struck virtually beyond our capacity to respond by awe and no little amount of fear.

                  Why would His universe not reflect that?

                • CottonBlimp

                  “How do you know it isn’t happening for our benefit?”
                  I know that it’s an absurd conclusion. And I know it’s a conclusion you would make no matter what the universe was like. It’s a priori bullshit.

                  Thus, it is not rational.

                • Jhudstone

                  It wasn’t a conclusion, but a question – which you didn’t answer.

                • https://alexanderschroeder.net/ Alexander Krivács Schrøder

                  In fact, we are the only entity in the universe capable of observing it
                  and appreciating it. How do you know it isn’t happening for our benefit?

                  In fact? How could you possibly know that? Considering how slow the speed of light is relative to the size of the Universe, we have hardly a clue what is out there right now. When we look out at the Universe today, we’re looking backwards in time.

                  Our nearest star, Proxima Centauri, is already 4.24 light years away, and the farthest star in the Milky Way is about 59,000 light years away. That is to say, if there is sentient life near that star sending out radio waves right now, we won’t know about it for 59,000 years… and that’s assuming we start listening in that direction at just that time. These time scales get even more mind boggling when you start to include other galaxies. Our nearest galaxy is about 250,000 light years away. The nearest one.

                  We humans have only been sending out radio signals for a little over a hundred years. It’ll take equally long for our signals to be picked up by anyone else as it would take theirs to reach us. There’s just no way for us to know what’s actually out there.

                  And that’s just the distance issue. Then there’s the quantity of stars and galaxies out there. The number is literally incomprehensible by our brains. There are thought to be more stars out there than there are grains of sands on this planet, and each star can have multiple planets. I wouldn’t even be surprised if there were more Earth-like planets out there than there are grains of sands on this planet.

                  Finally, as I alluded to in the beginning, there’s the time issue. Perhaps (though I find the idea incredibly unlikely) we are the only life in this Universe right now? But the Universe has been around for about 13.7 billion years… With all those stars and planets getting created and destroyed over and over throughout its time, there may have been millions or even billions of kinds of intelligent life existing over time. Or even right now. Or in the future.

                  And you’re going to tell me, with all those uncertainties and vast numbers of unknowns, that you can know for a fact that we are the only sapient entities in the Universe?

                • Jhudstone

                  You’re right – the universe could be filled with creatures appreciating the wonders of creation – but that wouldn’t diminish my point.

                • http://www.facebook.com/Funky.Uncle.Matt Matt Begley

                  The Big Bang is actually an expansion, not an explosion, an expansion that is ongoing. There were no stars until the expansion was well underway, nearly half a billion years after initial destablization. The universe prizes nothing, not war or peace or conflict or calm. Although, everything we can experience in our short insignificant lives is the result of violent destruction. Over and over at an increasing rate, science is proven to to provide correct answers while supernatural explainations are being disproven at nearly the same increasing rate. While superstition and science are both products of our imaginations, only one of them repeatedly comes true.

      • Sven2547

        There’s nothing “logical” about a self-refuting argument.

        • Jhudstone

          For something so easily refuted, no one here seems to be able to refute it. In fact, most seem to essentially agree with the premises.

          • Sven2547

            Really? Let me help you with that.
            Premise 1: All events must have a causal event, and that causal event must also have a cause.
            Premise 2: God was not caused by anything.
            Premise 2 contradicts Premise 1.
            The argument is invalid.

            • Jhudstone

              I already addressed that. God isn’t an event. And that wasn’t the argument made in the video anyway, so straw man.

              • Sven2547

                It’s just a rephrasing of what was in the video. I can quote the video verbatim if you like, but it always boils down to the same thing: everything needs a “cause”, all the way until a “first cause”, but the “first cause” apparently doesn’t need a cause, which refutes the premise that everything needs a cause.

                Let’s take a step back:
                Do you agree or disagree that Professor Kreeft is rehashing the Cosmological Argument?
                Are you aware or unaware that the Cosmological Argument has already been refuted, multiple times?

                • Jhudstone

                  No, it’s not a ‘rephrasing’ it’s ‘badly substituting’ your strawman for the actual argument.

                  And Kreeft is certainly stating a couple of variations of the cosmological argument; I have seen many attempted refutations of the Cosmological argument, but few as bad as this one.

                • Sven2547

                  The ball’s in your court. What’s “bad” about my refutation?
                  Can certain things happen without cause?
                  Does “God” have a root cause or Creator?

                  Also, Kreeft is badly misrepresenting “Big Bang” cosmology.

                • Jhudstone

                  I already told you, there is no claim in the argument that God is an ‘event’. Try again

                • Sven2547

                  The universe isn’t an “event”, either. So I guess the universe doesn’t need a “creator” or a “cause”.

                • Jhudstone

                  The universe certainly began with an event, But the current form of the cosmological argument posits that ‘Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;’ the universe certainly appears to have a beginning.

                • Sven2547

                  And that is a misrepresentation of “big bang” cosmology. It is generally held among scientists that before the “big bang” was a singularity, and before that, the mass-energy of the universe existed in an unknown configuration.

                  By the way, the verbiage you’re using here isn’t the verbiage that Kreeft used in his video. I didn’t misrepresent his argument one bit.

                  Kreeft says that any cause must be caused by something else. This isn’t a straw-man, this is verbatim what he says.
                  Kreeft also says there is a “first cause”. Which was not caused by anything else. Again: not a straw-man.
                  This is self-refuting. It really is as simple as that.

                  Even beyond the self-refuting nature of the Cosmological Argument, it is a fallacious argument from incredulity. ‘We don’t know what the “first cause” was, therefore God.’ It is a completely unfounded conclusion.

                • Jhudstone

                  And that is a misrepresentation of “big
                  bang” cosmology. It is generally held among scientists that before the “big bang” was a singularity, and before that, the mass-energy of the universe existed in an unknown configuration.

                  Which doesn’t seem to contradict the notion that the universe as
                  it is (both in terms of time and configuration of it’s mass-energy as you put it) began to exist.

                  By the way, the verbiage you’re using here isn’t the verbiage that Kreeft used in his video. I didn’t misrepresent his argument one bit.

                  You are confusing ‘verbiage’ with argument – Kreeft posits two familiar forms of the cosmological argument, Aquinas version and the Kalam version.

                  Yours wasn’t anything like either argument.

                  Kreeft
                  says that any cause must be caused by something else. This isn’t a straw-man, this is verbatim what he says.

                  No, no, no. He says clearly at 1:56 that everything that begins must have a cause. If you excise this point you are not addressing the actual argument.

                  Kreeft also says there is a “first cause”. Which was not caused by anything else. Again: not a straw-man.

                  Right – and that is completely logical, since the first cause does not ‘move’
                  (Aquinas) or ‘begin’ (Kalam).

                  He also refers briefly to the argument from contingency a la Leibniz’

                  This is self-refuting. It really is as simple as that.

                  Not when you consider the actual argument, which you can’t seem to get right.

                  Even beyond the self-refuting nature of the Cosmological Argument, it is a fallacious argument from incredulity. ‘We don’t know what the “first cause” was, therefore God.’ It is a completely unfounded conclusion.

                  Again, that there is a first cause is logically deducible. That the first cause is God is implied by certain aspects that we understand God to have (like timelessness)

                • Sven2547

                  And I’m talking about 0:56, where he says:
                  “Nothing moves for no reason. Something must cause that movement. Whatever caused that must be caused by something else.”
                  Not a straw-man. That’s what he says, verbatim.

                  So when he assigns a “first cause”, he is refuting his other premise that “whatever caused that [cause] must be caused by something else.”

                  You’re playing silly word games while ignoring the LOGIC. You are holding this “first cause” to a fallacious double-standard against the first premise.

                • Jhudstone

                  You are confusing the arguments, the older one which deals with ‘movement’, and the modern one which deals with beginnings. Aquinas ‘prime mover’ does not itself move, and Kalam’s original cause did not begin to exist. That makes them separate cases, not special pleadings.

                • Sven2547

                  How can Aquinas’ “unmoving thing” move another thing without, itself, moving? Special Pleading.
                  Kalam’s “original cause” is a hypothetical agent with “no beginning”. If something can exist without a beginning, why can’t the universe simply have no beginning? Why the extra step?
                  Kreeft’s “big banger” is the same: an unnecessary supernatural replacement for a natural object (a singularity). There is no logic to replacing a natural entity with a supernatural one when the natural one will suffice just fine.

                  It boils down to this: if your hypothetical agent is exempt from the rules of science and logic, then your hypothesis is neither scientific nor logical.

    • Pepe

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBRquiS1pis
      George Carlin. We need more people like him!

  • http://www.facebook.com/roger.bauman Roger Bauman

    His first cause argument is really just the god of the gaps argument with more decoration. You can’t explain what caused X. Therefore, my invisible friend is real. When you find an explanation for X, then there will be something else you can’t explain and my friend will still be real.

    • willy occam

      It’s theological whack-a-mole!

  • Bdole

    Newton believed in god therefore god must be a part of science? I guess everytime I use calculus I’m doing theology. There’s a difference between believing in god and using god as an explanation just because you don’t understand stuff.

    So what, if everything has a cause (which is taken as axiomatic)? How do you know there’s no cycle of causation where the effects feed back into their own cause – yes, even backward through time, “before” the universe we live in began? I’m not contending this is how the universe works, but even a lame-brain like me can think of why an infinite regress of causation does not necessarily follow without a first cause.

    • Bdole

      Oh, and why in the multi-verse does GOD, the most complex system of all not require a cause? These are the same guys who bring out the old tornado-in-a-junkyard canard to debunk undirected evolution of mere monerans, but an infinitely complex god-thingy is delivered, fully-formed in the murky, infinite past with a bow around him. Go figure.

      • Emmet

        Good grief. Because the definition of God includes “not requiring a cause”.

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

    I’m highly suspicious of that Susskind quote. And that headline about the Big Bang being “creationism in disguise”, note the visual headline is “The ‘Big Bang’ is Just Religion Disguised as Science” which I’m only finding from a more recent crackpot article, long after it had been proved.

    Anyone know if anyone of credit ever denied the big bang due to any theological implications? I doubt it.

    • Psychotic Atheist

      The video cites the author of the headline, http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bang.php and that really is what he is referencing. An article that was clearly written in the 21st Century (the LHC had been built, and in a subsequent update he cites that it was turned on). This apparently evidences that there was rejection of the Big Bang by atheists before it was proven. Which leads to the conclusion that therefore the Big Bang was not proven until around 2010.

      However, William Bonnor is believed to be an atheist, or at least unfavourable towards Christianity. He said of the Big Bang: “The underlying motive is, of course, to bring in God as creator” (Cosmology and Controversy: The Historical Development of Two Theories of the Universe. Princeton University Press. 1999. pg 259), and considered it ‘the
      opportunity Christian theology has been waiting for ever since science
      began to depose religion from the minds of rational men’. (Bonnor, W., 1964. The Mystery of the Expanding
      Universe) – this was pretty much right in the period of Steady State vs Expanding Universe and other ideas were being debated, so although many would have considered Big Bang to have been proven by this time – I don’t think we could say there was a sufficient consensus by 1964. Arguably, we might consider a date as late as 1990 before the theory was ‘proven’ (with the measurement of CMBR).

      He was the only one I could find that unambiguously rejected it at least it part due to the perceived religious implications.

      • RobMcCune

        It is dishonest and misleading to point to a fringe crank as representative of a large group of people, which the video does.

        • Psychotic Atheist

          Well…yes. I think Rich Wilson covered that angle well enough. I mocked the absurd conclusion that is drawn from believing his evidence is legitimate, and then spent most of my comment answering Wilson’s last question.

  • Tom

    Lectures in a real university generally take a bit longer than five minutes.

    • mikmik

      Not where he’s from!

  • JA

    Holy crap a pro-religious video without the comments deactivated? Hell must’ve frozen over.

  • qp83

    If by “cause” you mean matter and energy bouncing around like balls on a pool table, and by “first cause” you mean popping this energy and matter into existance, then the so called “first cause” is not a “cause” but something different, making the argument illogical.

  • Carpinions

    He used the term “common sense”within 32 seconds, and lists it as the first criteria for assessing reality.

    NEXT.

  • josereyes53

    God is a Big Banger. Oooh Yeeaaah.

  • universeincarnate

    I’m a little disappointed that such a wise and educated person would base an entire assertion with such a silly argument

  • Sven2547

    I can’t watch the video now, I’ll watch it later. Judging from the post and commentary, it sounds like it’s just a rehash of the Cosmological Argument?

    Time and time again, the Cosmological Argument boils down to special pleading (which is a blatant fallacy) or self-contradiction (which invalidates it outright). Which is it this time?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Harrison/23417637 Michael Harrison

    Oh, ouch. Familiarity with special relativity makes this argument especially painful, considering how movement doesn’t make sense without a frame of reference. Considering this, I’m comfortable in asserting this fellow isn’t familiar with special relativity, and on this basis I’m comfortable in asserting this fellow isn’t familiar with general relativity. (Okay, he referenced it, but I doubt he really understood what he’s talking about.)

    Considering how he treated Newton, I’m especially convinced of this — Newton believed in his calculus, but his arguments in Principia Mathematica, from what I have read, were largely based on geometry, because he was afraid calculus was too controversial, and skeptics would reject his reasoning about physics based on their suspicions of calculus. Similarly, just because Newton believed in God, that doesn’t mean he believed God was a legitimate hypothesis when discussing physics. Disclaimer: I have never actually read Principia Mathematica.

  • GeraardSpergen

    “Newton was the founder of modern physics”..??? Fail.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jerome-McCollom/100000327150215 Jerome McCollom

    Dennis Prager is a condescending twit with an overrated intellect. I should know, I have talked to him and I am just amazed at the stupid things he has said on atheism and religion. So I am not surprised at what he produces.

  • barael

    What I’d like some clarification is what exactly is meant by “begins to exist”. It seems to me that every instance of “beginning to exist” is just reconfiguration of matter (leaving virtual particles aside for now) and I’ll even grant you that configurations of matter usually have some causal relationship to earlier configurations.

    This however is obviously NOT how the Universe “began to exist” (if in fact it even makes any sense to talk about it beginning to exist) according to Big Bang cosmology so it seems an abuse of language / hasty generalization to demand that similar causality must hold for the Universe.

    That’s unless you’re willing to scrap Big Bang cosmology and argue that the Universe is a reconfiguration of earlier matter which if fine and even scientific (cyclic universe models for instance, though they are largely compatible with BB).

  • Beau Quilter

    Alright, his logic is so full of special pleading he should be on his knees, but I have to say I LOVED it when he said “since there was a big bang, there must be a big banger”!

    Wow! The universe is a sexual climax and god is the stud. Who’s the mare?

  • Claire Stout

    This guy needs to take an astronomy class. Among the vocabulary in the class,(quasars, cephei stars, black holes), I do not recall an object called a ‘god fingerprint’.

  • Stone

    His misconceptions of the Big Bang theory are astounding. He assumes it popped into existence and started expanding for one, (where we know it expanded, but may have existed prior to the Big Bang in the dense state of energy) there are indeed theories of the cause for this expansion, being that the state required an activation energy to expand; however, since the overall energy around the dense speck was zero (a dynamic zero as opposed to a static zero) this activation energy had to come from fluctuations of energy on a quantum level until said activation energy was reached, see Lawrence Krauss for more details. Now that my ramble is done, goodnight crazy prager dude


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X