# Shawn proves the existence of god....right?

Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
Offline
Shawn proves the existence of god....right?

So, where did he go wrong?

GUNT
Posts: 54
Joined: 2007-03-23
Offline
...

Perhaps if he wore a large red nose it would make more sense

Rigor_OMortis
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
Offline
1. Time

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.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/

MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
Offline
I have a couple

I have a couple points.

First:

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

Physicists consider space and time to be one entity, spacetime. Here is a Wikipedia article about it.

Second:

The guy in the video can't be taken seriously. He repeatedly talks about "before time started". This is a meaningless phrase.

Rigor_OMortis
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
Offline
Quote: Physicists consider

Quote:
Physicists consider space and time to be one entity, spacetime. Here is a Wikipedia article about it.

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?

Quote:
The guy in the video can't be taken seriously. He repeatedly talks about "before time started". This is a meaningless phrase.

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).

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/

stillmatic
Posts: 288
Joined: 2007-03-29
Offline
Don't bother commenting on

Don't bother commenting on his video, VenomFangX is known to delete all comments that disagree with him. That's why you can go back months through his comments and not see a single negative thing posted on his videos.

He definately goes wrong at about a 1:20 into his video when he states that because there is so much energy / matter in the universe that whatever brought the universe into existance had to be more powerful and then follows up that the process that created the universe had to be intelligent. This is an opinion and not supported by fact.

"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien

Tilberian
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
Offline
Where did he go wrong? 1.

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?

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown

Tilberian
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
Offline
Here's the comment I posted

Here's the comment I posted (not that Shawn will approve it):

So, have God been around for an infinite time?

No, we know that nothing has existed that long.

So there must have been a time when God didn't exist.

Who created God?

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown

Mjolnin
Posts: 143
Joined: 2007-04-20
Offline
Rigor_OMortis wrote: 1.

Rigor_OMortis wrote:

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.

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

Rigor_OMortis wrote:

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.

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.

Rigor_OMortis wrote:

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 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.

Krehlic
Posts: 240
Joined: 2006-12-29
Offline
Well, what is time when all

Well, what is time when all the matter in the universe is piled up into one singularity? Would it not be warped so much as to bring its linearity into question? Without matter, should space-time outside of it at this point be considered an entity subject to the problem of infinite regress?

If a timeless god, who is immune to infinite regress, can simply exist without need of a creator for itself, then why can't matter?

If we could conclusively demonstrate that the universe does indeed require a creator, what makes the Christian god, THE God?

If anything, we can demonstrate that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. It would seem the Christian god missed that mark by about, say, 13.7 billion years.

Flying Spaghetti Monster -- Great Almighty God? Or GREATEST Almighty God?

Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
Offline
I posted this comment in

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.

Rigor_OMortis
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
Offline
Quote: Augistine of Hippo,

Quote:
Augistine of Hippo, a Christian saint who live in the fifth century claimed the universe was not" made in time, but simultaneously with time."

Well, I can see he was 5th century by the nonsense he tries to disguise under the appearance of a very deep and mysterious message.

Tell me, can we talk of "before" time? can we talk about simultaneousness with creation, from an anterograde perspective?

So basically what he said is at best redundant.

Quote:
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.

Really? I'm not so sure.

Quote:
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.

You are perfectly right on this one. And normally I wouldn't have any problem with this part, however, if you get it wrong, you're practically in no better condition than me. You know, the hell thing. And right now there's no indication that one religion would be more righteous than another.

Quote:
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.

Note the presence of "if"...

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/

Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
Offline

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?

Krehlic
Posts: 240
Joined: 2006-12-29
Offline
Quote:

Quote:
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.

whaaa????
Perhaps I am just horribly uninformed, but I have never heard a real physicist say that before. I can't even fathom how they could come to that conclusion. We know this universe had a beginning, but not matter/space-time. The answer to the question, “what happened before the big bang,” is and always has been, “we don’t really know.” When Stephen Hawking, for instance, speaks of the beginning and ending of time, he is speaking of a “time” when all matter in the universe has collapsed into black holes (singularities), or before the big bang when a singularity was all there was. In The Universe in a Nutshell, he even remarks that when his work on the beginning and end of time was published, many religious leaders jumped at the occasion to try and prove their creation stories. But if you want to observe the absence of time in the same sense as Hawking has demonstrated it, just take a stroll to the center of a black hole and experience the timelessness of collapsed matter.

It seems like without the assertion that time, space, and matter are not “eternal,” Shawn’s argument completely “collapses.”

BTW, just watching Shawns video makes me want to beat his face in.  Not because he's a theist or arguing creationism, but because of his arrogance.  I can't stand the tone of the vid.

Flying Spaghetti Monster -- Great Almighty God? Or GREATEST Almighty God?

James Cizuz
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
Offline
I actually... Watched 2 of

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.

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!

todangst
Posts: 2830
Joined: 2006-03-10
Offline
Mjolnin wrote: Augistine

Mjolnin wrote:

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.

Nice reference.

Quote:

But no one has that answer.

I do, but I require infinite candy bars before divulging....

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Magus
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
Offline

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?

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.

Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.

Rigor_OMortis
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
Offline

BenfromCanada, here's what you should say:

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

Correct.

Quote:
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.

Incorrect. Please tell me where the beginning of the infinite function f(x) = x^5 + 7x^4 + 32(x+3)^3 - 2x + 6, where x is a real number (x^5 meaning x at the power of 5) is, and I will believe you. Until then, here is a perfect counter-example.

And that pretty much bashes his entire argument. However, if more is needed (just to show that he is about as sharp as a bowling ball), we have:

Quote:
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.

I couldn't agree more... so to create, you must exist inside of time, that would be the conclusion, right? Well then...

Quote:
So it is an error placing God within time, because God exists outside of time.

Which is all nice and fine, but considering your definition in the previous sentence, God could not have created anything. Interesting, but wait, we have more!

Quote:
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.

So timelessness dictates that no change is possible... Let's, for the sake of argument, ignore the fact that there are certain passages within the Bible in which God DOES change. We are still left with a few questions:

1. if God doesn't change in itself, then how exactly did he move from willinglessness to create a Universe to willingness to create a Universe?

2. if God doesn't change, then why do we attribute omnipotence to him?

3. if God doesn't change, how is it possible for God to display mood (anger, jealousy, etc.)?

4. if God doesn't change, is there an instance that is outside of God? If yes, then why do we call him omnipresent? If not, then our Universe is an instance of God, and since the Universe changes, so does God, which contradicts the premise

Quote:
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.

Really? Do they? I don't think they do.

That should be enough.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/

Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
Offline
The

rowsdowersavesus wrote:
Shawn:
First off, I do say that you're being arrogant and blind. You are going after one argument only. There were plenty of arguments beside "did God exist for an infinite amount of time? Who created God?" yet you only respond to that. Then you call this a "logical fallacy"? Is this not turning your own watchmaker fallacy back on you? If the world is so wondrous and complex it must be designed..why does this not apply to god, who is infinitely wondrous and complex?

Some of the responses to this PM (yes, I posted this in that thread) have been pretty darn...well, impressive. Rigor_OMortis said, for example: [all of what rigor posted up to "but wait, we have more!"] [go to the thread to see what else was posted]

Magus said: [what Magus said]
I'd also like you to answer Mjolnin. Also, neither Krehlin, nor myself, nor any of the other posters have ever heard any scientist say anything about the "pre-universe" era besides "we don't know". None of this absolute "there was nothing" crap. You need to get your facts straight.
Peace, and please write back. I'd actually prefer that you come to RRS, but whatever.
Ben

Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
Offline
Should I take this as victory?

Oh my word. Here's the response, from Shawn, and my response to it:

VenomFangX(Shawn) wrote:
"Magus said: 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." -you

Since God exists outside of time, that means nothing ever changed, He is an Eternal creator.
That's IT. Nothing more. So, I replied with:

rowsdowersavesus(me) wrote:
Oh my god...Shawn, that wasn't the strongest, nor the only, argument against your claims, yet that is ALL you replied to. Let's look at one that defeats your argument, shall we?

YOU SAID:
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.
RIGOR_OMORTIS SAID:
I couldn't agree more... so to create, you must exist inside of time, that would be the conclusion, right? Well then...

YOU SAID:
So it is an error placing God within time, because God exists outside of time.
RIGOR_OMORTIS SAID:
Which is all nice and fine, but considering your definition in the previous sentence, God could not have created anything.

Thus, you have proven that, if your god doesn't exist in time, he could not have created anything. But, we exist, therefore, either we got here through a creator who was IN time, or we had no creator. Your god supposedly is outside of time. Therefore, your god is
Not our creator
Likely non-existent

Please, respond to this argument. If you cannot, and admit that I'm right when I say that Rigor's argument disproves you, I am here for you, and can help you out. I know the transition from a hardcore theist to an atheist is a hard one. If you wish to read my story, it is here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/my_deconversion_and_what_led_to_it (it's long, but it'll help you see where I'm coming from)

I look forward to hearing from you again.
-Ben

Think it will go over well?

Tilberian
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
Offline
He sent me the same form

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.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown

Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
Offline
I'm wondering if I can

I'm wondering if I can debate this fool. He's doing what Tilberian says he did to him/her (sorry, Til, I don't know if you're male or female)

Shawn wrote:
You are missing a point I've made twice now.

God exists outside of time, and being eternally a Creator solves the issue of not having to pass the barrier of time to create anything. If God's nature is that of a Creator, then His creation is simply an extension of His eternality. Thus, no time is required for God to create anything.

rowsdowersavesus wrote:

Here's the problem. You said that, for something to be created, time must be spent. Also, the creator must exist inside time. Time must have been created, right? So, God must have gone inside of time, spent some time...to create time itself. THEN, to create the rest of what is in time, god had to go back into time, and spend time, to create things. This is the only way your god could exist outside of time and create things. However, it is illogical, because time cannot have been created, if time is to be used to create it. As you said yourself, "The act of creating ITSELF is an act of time; something doesn't exist, time passes, then it does." [emphasis mine]There is no way that your god can escape that rule, so he must exist within time. In which case, you have to find a way that he came into existence.
If there is a way that "existing outside of time" is a)possible and b)actually a solution to this dilemma, please explain how. Otherwise, it will look as if you are foolishly holding onto beliefs that you cannot justify.  Your only explanation thus far is "God is timeless, unchanging, eternal, uncreated. He is the unmovable mover, the uncaused cause." That's it. You're not proving anything by that. So, let's hear it. Obviously you've heard something more convincing than this, since you are so confident in your views.

Tilberian
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
Offline
Let's put it this way: he

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

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown

Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
Offline
Tilberian wrote: Let's put

Tilberian wrote:

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

You're right, but, maybe I can convince him of his folly on this part of his belief. THEN we can talk about the Young Earth idea.

Rigor_OMortis
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
Offline
This is hilarious. The guy

This is hilarious. The guy defeats himself.

Quote:
If God's nature is that of a Creator, then His creation is simply an extension of His eternality. Thus, no time is required for God to create anything.

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.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/

Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
Offline

I just got another reply from him...I'll put the rest of my correspondence with him on Talking with Theists. Obviously, I will  credit anyone whose arguments I use.

However, check out THIS video from VenomFangX

He took this down about 2 hours later, which is decent...but I wanted to broadcast his pettiness.

GUNT
Posts: 54
Joined: 2007-03-23
Offline
I know it's wrong but I

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?

Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
Offline
GUNT wrote: I know it's

GUNT wrote:

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?

All his videos have that effect.

Susan
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
Offline

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.

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

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.

Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
Offline

Susan wrote:

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

Perhaps he thinks that we'd gang up on him and belittle him? Or perhaps he thinks that, since I used other internet peoples' arguments, I'm an easier target than some of the others here. The whole conversation seems to be him insulting my capability to understand him and then contradicting what he said (he just did it again). I'm going to post some more tonight on the weblog about this.

Gizmo
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
Offline
Yeah Shawn is insane.  He

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.

Krehlic
Posts: 240
Joined: 2006-12-29
Offline
Quote:

Quote:
I just got another reply from him...I'll put the rest of my correspondence with him on Talking with Theists. Obviously, I will credit anyone whose arguments I use.

However, check out THIS video from VenomFangX

He took this down about 2 hours later, which is decent...but I wanted to broadcast his pettiness.

Wow... just wow...

You know, after the first video I had the impression that Shawn was a relatively intelligent person, albeit with a good dose of flawed logic and misinformation. But after that second video, I have since changed my mind.

By the way, I think Shawn and Bill O'Reilly would get along great. "When all else fails, pull a bogus fact (or two or twenty) out of your ass."

EDIT: Oh yeah... does Kent Hovind have any kids?

Flying Spaghetti Monster -- Great Almighty God? Or GREATEST Almighty God?

Gizmo
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
Offline
My issue with this is hes

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
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
Offline
Well, it's been a few days

Well, it's been a few days and still no further attempt by Shawn to address any of the points I made to him.

I feel a bit sorry for him. I think he's a smart young guy who's been brainwashed by the christian establishment and hasn't really been challenged to take a critical look at his own views. Hopefully, this experience has done that. His biggest error is in thinking that he's a lot smarter and better informed than he is, which is a pretty common problem after you take your first few university courses.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown

Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
Offline
Tilberian: He hasn't tried

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

SaoAnselmo
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-09-15
Offline
"Or, to put it in a more

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

You just can´t use the word when with no time. According to quantum physics in order to get the "theory of everything" we will probably have to get ride of time.

Well just to say if I were you, I wouldn´t be so sure that God doesn´t exist when there is so much to be known. According to SuperStrings theory the Universe might have 9 or 10 dimensions...We are just aware of 3 (or 4 if we consider time as a dimension).

And why is so ridiculous the idea of an uncaused creator?

I do believe in God, although I´m not sure that he exists, like venomfangx.

The difference between you and me is not much. I think that we both have to agree that something is eternal, there is to be something uncaused, I do believe that some great force with a "mind" as always existed, and you believe that some force without a mind has always existed, for example a machine that creates Universes if we go for the Multiverse.

This will be my only post,  since I´m too busy. Although I have to say to keep your work, and keep making others think, there are so many religious people out there, that don´t even know their religion, or are just religious because of their parents etc...and they do deserve the kind of work you have been doing. Cheers.

stuntgibbon
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
Offline
Quote: (from the video, on

Quote:
(from the video, on the traits of this being)..Extremely Intelligent.  Because we can look around and say, okay, it created enough stuff to sustain life, create all of the elements that we need to (you know) go about our daily functions: eat, breathe and drink and all of that awesome stuff.  So we can conclude it's awesomely powerful, incredibly intelligent.

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!"

Rev_Devilin
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
Offline

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?

Then this god created nothing, as he/she/it never had the time this is a static god that is capable of nothing

Rev_Devilin
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
Offline
stillmatic wrote: Don't

stillmatic wrote:

Don't bother commenting on his video, VenomFangX is known to delete all comments that disagree with him. That's why you can go back months through his comments and not see a single negative thing posted on his videos.

He definately goes wrong at about a 1:20 into his video when he states that because there is so much energy / matter in the universe that whatever brought the universe into existance had to be more powerful and then follows up that the process that created the universe had to be intelligent. This is an opinion and not supported by fact.

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

Archeopteryx
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
Offline
Stache

I don't listen to anyone who has a teen stache. It is a universal sign of unwisdom.