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
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.
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