These Are NOT Questions
Ely Lassman | 2 May 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWTcmJYhAfc
"if God is 0:55 Supernatural then he isn't part of this 0:58 universe he isn't part of the natural 0:59 world he isn't part of 1:02 existence in in which 1:05 case what we're asking or what what 1:07 essentially the the religionists are 1:10 asking for is well here is everything 1:13 that 1:15 exists now show me why it was created or 1:18 how it was created well the only way to 1:23 even in theory try and attempt to solve 1:25 this question is by going out of this 1:27 circle and if you go out of this circle 1:30 there's literally nothing"
Sorry, but you are presuming what you'd need to prove, namely that "nature" or what we observe to exist, or deduce to exist on a very similar plane to what we observe, is all that exists.
You would need to prove that first, before you can make this argument.
"you can't 2:09 justify existence with without using 2:12 existence"
Correct, and granted by supranaturalistic theists.
We hold the existence of contingent things, which is all the universe contains, can only be justified by the existence of existence as such or necessary existence, a k a God.
"you can't try and explain the 2:14 universe without using the universe"
Equivocation, or presuming what you have so far not proven.
"Beyond the fact that you you 3:03 can't uh come you can't make the 3:05 inference that because they are orderly 3:08 there must have been a designer and I'm 3:11 not going 3:12 to really address that to to a great 3:17 extent"
A very tactic choice! I applaud your prudence, if not your stringency of logic!
"the universe has to have some 3:19 sort of order by definition"
If you include the order of a trashheap, granted, but if the order is on the level of stars circling earth each day, not quitting their relative positions by much, so not losing order in this high speed, but still quitting their relative positions some, so as to show it's not the inside of a ball they are just glued to, they have freedom to move, it's just they don't use it, and then sun and moon replicating the movement with delays apt to give us years and months, and then other planets doing spirograph patterns, well, that degree of order, as opposed to a trashheap, does indicate some intelligence.
3:35 "the universe, everything that exists" (repeat of equivocation previously noted) "is something" (are you saying the mere collection of things that exist would be something, or that the concentric circles around earth are something?) "and for something to exist, it has to be something" (a k a substance needs to have a form, not just matter, good point, but very moot when it comes to applying it to the "collection of things that exist" as you would define the universe).
3:35 bis, your argument so far, explicitated* as I expected, runs, "everything we observe inside the universe has a form/nature, therefore the universe has a form" ... which we would grant as a fact, due to God's creation, but not grant as a consequence as long as "the universe" could be defined as "the collection of everything that exists" ...
How is this better than the consequence you denied at the outset: "everything we observe inside the universe is contingent, therefore the universe is contingent and depends on a non-contingent non-observed thing" (which we call God)?
* Explicitated in the following as per transcription.
No comments:
Post a Comment