Vantillians are Retarded

Consider the following transcript of a very brief discussion I had today with a brilliant atheist.  Please note the atheist’s handle has been changed for privacy purposes.

brilliant_atheist: i accepted the cosmological argument

BKing: why?

brilliant_atheist: but I deny that it points to something alive

BKing: it is a terrible argument

brilliant_atheist: because the universe needs a cause

BKing: why?

brilliant_atheist: because it exists

BKing: so everything that exists requires a cause?

brilliant_atheist: yes

BKing: um

BKing: dude

BKing: ever heard of an infinite regress?

brilliant_atheist: yeah?

BKing: what caused the universe?

brilliant_atheist: something further physical did

BKing: and what caused that “something further physical thing?”

brilliant_atheist: it is a timeless thing

BKing: does it exist?

brilliant_atheist: yes

BKing: so everything that exists requires a cause?

brilliant_atheist: yes

BKing: so what caused it?

brilliant_atheist: well it exists timelessly

BKing: so what caused it?

brilliant_atheist: it doesn’t require a cause

BKing: you just contradicted yourself

brilliant_atheist: well then how do you solve the paradox?

Resby: by trashing the cosmological argument

BKing: not everything that exists requires a cause

brilliant_atheist: well if God exists he caused the universe

BKing: agreed

brilliant_atheist: so why do you think that you can dismiss the cosm. argument?

BKing: because it either a) leads to an infinite regress or b) is contradictory

BKing: I just demonstrated b) above in my discussion with you

brilliant_atheist: …

brilliant_atheist: well then you prove God doesnt exist

BKing: non sequitur

brilliant_atheist: you people…

BKing: once again, I never said everything that exists requires a cause

BKing: you said that

BKing: not me

brilliant_atheist: i will go find myself some mainstream apologists… vantillians are retarded

brilliant_atheist left the chat room.

I’m not sure I want to be a “mainstream apologist”.  What about you?

(special thanks to Resby for his insightful comment)

BK


2 Comments

Eldnar

Hi BK,

I just wanted to clarify one mistake in the dialog.

“so everything that exists requires a cause?

That is not the cosmological argument. The cosmological argument does not terminate in an infinite regress or contradiction because it does not state everything that exists requires a cause.

It states, “Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause”

God does not BEGIN to exist. He is by definition eternal. The regress stops with God.

God Bless.

C.L. Bolt

Eldnar,

Please note that “Everything that begins to exist has a cause” is the first premise of Craig’s Kalam argument which is only one version of the cosmological argument. There are other problems with the Kalam argument, but it is sufficient to point out that there are other versions of the cosmological argument which do not make their premises immune from BK’s objections. Recall also that the premise granted by the atheist in the discussion was not the one you state here.

“BKing: so everything that exists requires a cause?

brilliant_atheist: yes”

As is often the case the atheist takes the problem that BK points out with the atheist’s view and attempts to apply it to BK when BK never committed himself to the problematic premise.


Leave a Comment