1. Time dillemma:

Unfortunately the speaker fails to realize that he is talking about time in a RELATIVE sense. If he tells me that he's going to give me a chocolate bar after an infinite ammount of time, the only thing to conclude is that he's going to give me that chocolate bar after I successfully count an infinite timespan STARTING FROM THIS POINT, WHEN HE PROMISES ME.

Or, to put it in a more funky religious way: if before us there was no time, when did God create us?

2. The finite time problem:

Unfortunately the speaker still is oblivious to the fact that his conclusion can only be applied to a fixed moment in time. Considering that, we can safely say that, taking the current moment as reference, for every point "A" on the time axis, there's a potentially very large, but finite, number of Planck seconds between A and the reference, which we note as "n". Unfortunately for the supporters of the infinite time impossibility mental high-wire act, there's nothing to stop us from considering moment "B" in time that spans for n+1 Planck seconds, and so on and so forth.

3. Space without time problem:

WHY can't space exist without time, I ask you? Give me just one good reason why space should be bound to time.

4. Creator problem:

The old question of "who created God?"

5. "Nowhere else to go" problem:

Unfortunately for the speaker, if his reasoning was correct, he would have demonstrated that at least one deity exists... not which one, or how many... This means that the speaker introduced a false "multichotomy" here.

But his reasoning wasn't exactly correct, so this leaves us with absolutely nothing more or less than before. That's where he went wrong.

I will quote wikipedia:

"In physics, spacetime is a mathematical model that combines space and time into a single construct called the space-time continuum."

And now for "mathematical model":

"A mathematical model is an abstract model that uses mathematical language to describe the behaviour of a system."

And now for "abstract model":

"An abstract model (or conceptual model) is a theoretical construct that represents something, with a set of variables and a set of logical and quantitative relationships between them."

That should be quite a good Q.E.D. to allow me to re-state my question: WHY can't space exist without time, I ask you?

Didn't nip that one, but you're right. Wouldn't want to be too picky, now, would we? Otherwise theists might come and say that we use gymnastics on them, such as "logic" and "reasoning" (joke, but you are, in fact, right).

Where did he go wrong?

1. Infinity is a flawed concept that can't really exist. Trying to use imaginary ideas like "infinite time" to prove a cosmological point is like trying to argue that the world trade centres are still standing because you can draw a picture of them. Of course, we don't usually expect theists to have a firm grasp of the difference between fantasy and reality, and this guy doesn't disappoint.

2. I agree with him that time, matter and energy must be finite. So he takes us back to the point in spacetime before any of these things existed and...starts talking about some big, powerful, intelligent being that was there!?!? Wait a second, I thought there was NOTHING in existance before the universe began! If god was there, what was he made of if he wasn't matter or energy? Where was he if there was no space? When was he if there was no time? How come god gets exempted from the rules that govern everything else? If he is exempted, how can you know anything about him?

3. His claims that the universe must have been created by a super-powerful, super-intelligent being just beg the question. Why is this necessary? What about the scientific models that show quite nicely how the universe could have acheived its present state from a starting point of extreme density and chaos, no divine intervention required? 

I would hate to wait till the end of time for a candybar. I think the speaker is quite week here. 

Augistine of Hippo, a Christian saint who live in the fifth century claimed the universe was not" made in time, but simultaneously with time." Modern physics illistrates that time began with the cosmic origin and there was no endless sea of time for a process to wear itself out. I am not deep into quantum physics, but that is were you can find the answer.

I don't think the number of dieties that is said to exist proves anything. To me this argument says-If anyone has got it wrong than no one can get it right.

We live in a physical world were things don't just happen, something makes it happen.This is the basis for all sciences. If nothing can happen without a cause, then something must have caused it.

I would love to know the ultimate origin of things.

But no one has that answer.

I posted this comment in his profile, and I sent him it as YouTube mail as well. 

VenomFangX:
I hear you're known for deleting comments that disagree or argue with your point. I am told you're not in this for discussion, so much as you're in it to preach. Otherwise, you'd have responded to Closedingirl when she and her friend dissected your "evolution is evil" video. However, I have faith that you're a mind that is willing to discuss the things you claim, so I'll still give this a shot.
I posted your "Proving the Existence of God by Shawn" video on a forum I frequent, and asked where, if at all, you went wrong. Here is the URL to that thread:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/6370
In it, there are a few refutations of your argument. I would paste some of the arguments here, but I can't post many of them without getting the "message body is too long" message.

So, Shawn, you can sign up to the Rational Responders website and debate this yourself, or if you don't want to do that, at least reply to these points to me over YouTube. That way, you can read the points raised in the thread without signing up, and I'll relate these points back to the thread.
I await your reply.

HE REPLIED! 

I read over some of the comments, and to say the least I wasn't impressed. I saw the same logical fallicies such as "did God exist for an infinite amount of time? Who created God?" which is the comment I receive over, and over again.

Surely you can appreciate the difference between infinite, and eternal. Time may very well be infinite, but it can not be eternal. I will explain why.

Eternal means without beginning, and without end. The implications of something being eternal is; it has always existed, and always will exist.

Infinite means with beginning, but without end. The implications of something being infinite is; it began to exist, and then continues for infinity without end.

Time can be infinite, but it can not be eternal, because time must have had a beginning, according to all forms of logic. We can go into this in depth if you wish.

However, claiming God is infinite, but not eternal, is both heresy and illogical. The God of The Bible claims to be Eternal, without beginning or end. You asked where did God come from? Who created God?

To be able to create something, you must exist inside of time. The act of creating itself is an act of time; something doesn't exist, time passes, then it does.

So it is an error placing God within time, because God exists outside of time. Time is a creation of God's, and He is not restricted by it. Infact, you could say God exists without time, to be more accurate. Time is the measure of change, so that means God can not change, because He exists outside of time. This also means God can not be created, because creation is the result of time. If God exists outside of time, that means He always has existed, and always will exist. He is eternal, because timelessness dictates that no change is possible.

However, scientists agree that before this universe, there was nothing. No matter, no time, no space. So the only way for 'something' to happen from a changless, timeless reality, is for something to exist that is an uncaused cause, an unmovable mover, a creationless creator.

God, never changing, always existing, created everything. There is no 'before' God, for God is the very Creator of the fabric of existence. I hope this answers your question.

So, what should I say in response? 

I actually... Watched 2 of his videos. This guy is so .... AHHHHHHHH.

Let's see first he decides infinity can never pass, that is true. Then he suggests that there is no infinite time before this point, which is false.

He fails to grasp that infinity can only exist in time standards if time had no starting point.  If you define something with a starting point, infinity can never come to pass from that point, however if you do not define a starting point, infinity has already come.

He suggests matter can not be created nor destroied, a law of theromodynamics. Then he suggests since time has to be finite, which it does not have to be matter can not exist without space and time. So he then contridicts himself and says matter must of been created with time and space. If something can not be created, it will either never exist, or always exist he also fails to grasp that.

No matter what you call it, god is still a form of energy and matter. If gods energy and matter can exist eternally then so can normal matter and energy. 

You should ask him. If a god never changes, what made it "decide" to make the universe?  If it never changes then it is alway in it inital state, the universe is eternal under this. 

The reply!

He sent me the same form response when I posted a comment asking him if God had existed for an infinite amount of time and, if not, what created God. Here's what I sent in response:

"Your distinction between eternal and infinite is a false one. If you say that something has no beginning, all you are saying is that you cannot point to a time in the past when it began to exist. Therefore, no matter how far back in time you go, you will still find that thing in existance. If time goes back infinitely, you will indeed never find a beginning, but we have already established that there cannot have been an infinite amount of time prior to the present moment. On the other hand, if "eternal" means only that the object has existed as long as there has been time, then God does indeed have a beginning right along with time and the universe itself. So we're back to my question: what created God?

There are a number of problems with your "outside of time" argument. For one thing, you note, correctly, that to create something (indeed, to take any action) time must pass. There must be some movement from the moment when the object did not exist to the moment when it does. Yet somehow God is exempted from this rule. In some inexplicable manner, God is able to cause something which wasn't there to be there without noticing any difference between the two moments. This violates logic, and constitutes special pleading for God in that he is assumed, without evidence, to be immune to the rules that govern everything else.

You note, again correctly, that if God is outside of time then he must be changeless. However, this universe is always changing. In what sense can God be said to have any awareness of this universe if he does not change and it does? In what sense can God be said to take any action that affects this universe if he is unmoving, unaware and unchanging - outside of time? Your God outside of time is inert, irrelevant, illogical, and hopelessly remote. To say that such a God took any action in this universe, including creating it, is to violate logic again.

You may wish to argue that God is above logic and cannot be constrained by it. That is fine for God, but we are certainly constrained by logic. Logic defines our understanding. If God violates logic, then he is totally beyond our understanding. We cannot claim to know anything about God, including his nature, desires or plan. In fact, he cannot be said to possess any of these traits in terms that a human can understand, because to assign a trait is to establish a logical limit and God, if he is beyond logic, is not subject to those limits. A dog knows as much about such a God as you and I do.

Scientists do not claim to have any knowledge of what, if anything, may have preceded the Big Bang. However, postulating a "changeless creator" a "causeless cause" is simply illogical special pleading. You are establishing logical rules and parameters for existence, then allowing God to violate all of those parameters without explaining why he can do that or presenting evidence to show that he can. Thanks, but I'm more interested in finding an answer for the origins of the universe that makes sense than just making up a fantasy about a being that can break all the rules.

It is probably an error to speak of anything "causing" the Big Bang, in any event. If the BB represents the start of time in this universe, than nothing that happened before it could be said to have any effect on anything that came after."

Shawn responded by re-sending me his original answer! What an idiot! I mailed him back pointing out that I had refuted all those points. He mailed back a one-sentence assertion that all his arguments still stand. So I sent back to him saying that if he can't point out where I'm wrong, I'm going to go away assuming I'm right. That's where things stand right now.  

Let's put it this way: he admits to believing that the earth is 6000 years old. Any debate with him can only lower your intelligence.

BTW, I'm a guy

This is hilarious. The guy defeats himself. 

So, since we are an extension of God, then we shouldn't be able to change, because God doesn't change. Remember, that's what he inferred in the last response. But since we do change...

All we've seen from this guy is:

- infinity has a beginning (FALSE) - by the way, still awaiting answer on that function I gave for him

- the Universe is infinite

- eternity has no beginning and no end

- God is eternal

- a creator must be bound to time

- God is outside of time

- we are part of God's entity

- God created us

- God doesn't change

- we change

Which, to any person that hasn't fallen on its head too often in the past year, is obviously contradictory.

I know it's wrong but I just get an incredible urge to want to punch him in the face...

ha ha.. Darwin didn't "invent" evolution... satan did... wot da?

Please note that Shawn has replied individually, but hasn't had the nerve to come here to actually defend his beliefs. 

Yeah Shawn is insane.  He makes so many fallacious arguments that ones head just may explode under the pressure..

Honestly I don't think hes worth the time.  As Rook has pointed out in recent discussions that I (among others) have had with him, there are some people who are just not worth the time.  I think that Mr. Venom (which on a side note, am I the only one that finds his username just a tad odd) is too far gone and not worth the valuable time of those that visit this site.

That being said, his videos do have an entertainment value to them as they are all crazy.  I honestly think he has something for Satan, as he seems to conjure him or his acts in just about every video he does in someway or another.  However, It would be interesting to see his face if he saw someone wearing an RRS shirt or the I Deny the Holy Spirit (with the no bull sign on it) shirt.  His eyes may pop, which would be the definition of a kodak moment. 

My issue with this is hes young (not that its a prerequisite but in this day I would hope schools would teach more on how to think then what, but thats another discussion) and he seems to truly believe these things even though they are insane.  In my opinion, even moderates would think hes a bit over the top and would probably avoid him.

Shawn and Bill O'Reilly would be interesting to watch them talk to Dawkins, however I think Dawkins's head would explode at dealing with their stupidity (and as I have stated before, Shawn is not worth anyones time, let alone Dawkins).

Tilberian: He hasn't tried to, but he has replied at least a few times. Check my weblog in my signature.

We can also look around and only see signs of "awesome" life sustaining "stuff" here.  We can look around and see that "it" must really love to create black holes more than "it" likes to create life. (presumably, where there's a vast shortage of awesome life-sustaining "stuff&quot  

"And on the eigth day, I created a shitload of black holes. BRB, LOL!"

He is kinder-ish correct about time for the wrong reasons,

Gravity and time are link one cannot have one without the other so one needs matter to create gravity to create time, our time in this universe

But powerful intelligence nope the universe evolved from simplicity energy, energy is energy to suggest energy is intelligent is to suggest that a working fluorescent lightbulb is a conscious intelligent entity