Presuppositional calamity

Presuppositional apologetics makes many claims. But some of the more humorous of these claims is made on carm.org. Specifically this article; http://carm.org/presuppositional-apologetics

Now CARM aka Christian Apologetics Research ministry has made many many fallacious claims in virtually all of its articles. The article above is no exception, as we shall soon see.

The Author of this article, Matt Slick, starts out by explaining his view of Total Depravity. Matt argues that because of our fallen nature those who are regenerate cannot convince the unregenerate that God exists and died for our sins with evidence. Not only is this demonstrably false (many people have converted to Christianity because of the evidence for it) the passage he uses, Romans 1:18-22 doesn’t even support his view all that well.

"18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,”

While this passage no doubt is consistent with total depravity, it does not imply at all that people cannot be convinced by evidence. Indeed verse 19 seems to indicate the opposite, that everyone has been convinced from the evidence around them (if you want to use Matt’s own sloppy interpretation of course). Thus to use these verses in support of Matt’s view seems to be no less than foolish. 

Matt continues with a second verse to support his view 1 Corinthians 2:14 which states; 

"14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."

It seems to me a more accurate interpretation of these is that what is known about God, or God’s general revelation, is obvious or intuitive from creation and natural men understand it, but that God’s special revelation, the things of the Spirit of God, are not understood by men and can only be understood by God’s grace. So these verses do not seem to be saying that men cannot be convinced that Christianity is true, but that spiritual truths cannot be understood by natural men, without the grace of God. Its also unclear why God could not use evidence to bring people to Christ. Could God not open peoples minds to perceive the evidence and understand it to be convincing? Here Matts claims are far too vague to be of any use, if he wants to show the Bible supports his view, he needs to do more than quote a few verses.

Matt then gives this fictitious conversation as an illustration of his thought process;

"Allen:  I am an atheist and evolutionist.  Prove to me there is a God.
Paul:   I do not think I can do that, because of your presuppositions.
Allen:  Why not?
Paul:  Because your presuppositions will not allow you to examine without bias the evidence that I present to you for God's existence. 
Allen: That is because there is no evidence for God's existence.
Paul:  See?  There you go.  You just confirmed what I was stating.
Allen:  How so?
Paul:  Your presupposition is that there is no God; therefore, no matter what I might present to you to show His existence, you must interpret it in a manner consistent with your presupposition: namely, that there is no God.  If I were to have a video tape of God coming down from heaven, you'd say it was a special effect.  If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying they saw Him, you'd say it was mass-hysteria.  If I had Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament, you'd say they were forged, dated incorrectly, or not real prophecies.  So, I cannot prove anything to you since your presupposition won't allow it.  It is limited.
Allen: It is not limited.
Paul:  Yes it is.  Your presupposition cannot allow you to rightly determine God's existence from evidence -- providing that there were factual proofs of His existence.  Don't you see?  If I DID have incontrovertible proof, your presupposition would force you to interpret the facts consistently with your presupposition and you would not be able to see the proof.
Allen:  I see your point, but I am open to being persuaded, if you can.
Paul:  Then, I must ask you, what kind of evidence would you accept that would prove God's existence?  I must see what your presuppositions are and work either with them or against them.”


This conversation seems horribly contrived, and doesn’t make much sense when one takes a closer look. Matt seems to think that to hold to atheism means to hold that atheism is an axiom which governs all other reasoning. So if someone presents evidence of God’s existence, the atheist will merely reject it on the basis of his axiom, which of course is circular reasoning. Thus Matt here appears to be arguing that it is impossible not to argue in a circle, we all have presuppositions which we hold to without good reason. I’d recommend that Matt do some research in the area of epistemology and familiarize himself with properly basic beliefs. Properly basic beliefs are such that they are either self evident or incorrigible. An example would be the external world, because the external world is apparent to us but we cannot verify nor falsify its true nature, we are rational in believing it is the way we experience it without evidence.


Another interesting point occurs when the character Paul states, "If I were to have a video tape of God coming down from heaven, you'd say it was a special effect.  If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying they saw Him, you'd say it was mass-hysteria.  If I had Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament, you'd say they were forged, dated incorrectly, or not real prophecies.  So, I cannot prove anything to you since your presupposition won't allow it.  It is limited.”


Whether Matt realizes it or not, he is making an entirely different point here. This doesn’t imply that the atheist views his atheism as axiomatic, but that he raises objections to various evidences for God’s existence, which is precisely what an atheist needs to do. Its astonishing to me that Matt Slick thinks this way, because raising objections and responding to them, is simply how reasoning works in any area of life, you cannot say its futile, otherwise you are saying that arguing over any issue is pointless, and thus it is inexplicable why Matt bothered to write this article.


Of course these are just a few bizarre things I’ve found with presuppositional apologetics, or at least its popular interpretations. More critiques of presuppositional apologetics, as well as what I think it gets right, coming soon.

Does Carbon dating work?

Well yes, just not for what creationists think it does (dating the age of the earth); http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APEpwkXatbY&feature=plcp

What is actually used for dating the age  of the earth; http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/02/26/how-old-is-the-earth-and-how-d/, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5369-OobM4&feature=plcp

In researching this material I hope that it becomes obvious that dating the age of the Earth is much much more complex than creationists like to portray it to be, and that we have mountains of evidence suggesting that the Earth is in fact much older than 6 thousand years.

Why don’t Christians follow the Old Testament Law?

This is a question I hear from pretty much any one who doesn’t consider themselves Christian, and quite a few people who do. The answer is very simple, the Old Testament Law isn’t what we as Christians signed up for.

Now I’m sure someone reading this will chuckle at this point, after all, why should it matter what the Christian signed up for? All that matters is what the Bible teaches… isn’t it? Well no, but thats another topic altogether. More importantly the reason it matters what the Christian signed up for is the context in which the Old Testament Law was written. It was written as being a part of the Mosaic covenant, a covenant signed by pledging loyalty to God and His law through circumcision. The New covenant doesn’t involve following the law but instead it means to follow Christ, Christians pledge loyalty to God and this covenant through baptism. For more info on this topic see; http://christianthinktank.com/finaltorah.html, and for a simpler explanation see; http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lawrole.html

The "God" Particle

The Higgs Boson has ignited a great deal of debate between atheists and theists. The controversy in no small part was started by the particles nickname, "the God particle" and has been reinforced by statements made by Michio Kaku and Lawrence Krauss. In this article; http://www.chron.com/life/houston-belief/article/God-particle-discovery-ignites-debate-over-3720855.php Lawrence Krauss states, "If we can describe the laws of nature back to the beginning of time without any supernatural shenanigans, it becomes clear that you don't need God.” I’m not certain this is the case. Take the example of a car; we can explain how all the parts fit together, what its composed of, and how it functions but even given all that information we cannot explain where the car came from. For that you need an mechanic and/or an engineer. So one type of explanation does not negate the other. But for the moment lets assume that science can and will give every type of explanation needed to give a complete explanation of the universe, would this eliminate the need for God? Yes, but its important to distinguish this from the question of whether or not God exists. God could still exist but he simply didn’t create the universe. Granted if this were the case the theist would be in a tricky position, as the case for God’s existence would be considerably weakened. But more to the point does the Higgs Boson work towards eliminating God as an explanation of the universe? Hardly, the Higgs simply puts another piece in the puzzle about how the universe works. The Higgs field interacts with various particles, causing them to have mass and move slower than light. The Higgs Boson is a particle which is “emitted” so to speak from this field.[1] Thus if the Higgs exists, it poses no more a threat to the theist than the electro-magnetic force.


Michio Kaku, however, seems to disagree. He states that the Higgs “sparked” the Big Bang, and that because of this religious explanations for how the universe came to exist are rendered obsolete [2]. This seems partially true, but from my research it seems that what the Higgs really does is allow mass to exist at the Big Bang. Thus without the Higgs no particles today would have mass, there would be no galaxies, no stars, and no atoms [1]. But what I cannot find is any article which suggests that the Higgs explains why there was a singularity and why it expanded in the first place. So if I understand what Michio is talking about correctly, then he is completely misunderstanding how causation works. Explaining what happened at the Big Bang is a far cry from explaining what caused it, just as explaining the order in which parts were put together to form a car doesn’t explain how those parts got there. If I am misunderstanding, perhaps someone can correct me, if not, I would recommend Kaku and Krauss take a class in the basics of logic and/or an introduction to the philosophy of causality.


For more commentary on this topic see; http://www.reasonablefaith.org/higgs-boson-discovered
1) http://www.forbes.com/sites/allenstjohn/2012/07/09/the-higgs-boson-what-you-should-know-about-what-it-is-and-what-it-does/2/
2) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304141204577508622617259052.html

No possible way to justify Christian belief?

I'm often surprised at the bluntness of many skeptics, particularly those who espouse the problem of evil as an utter disproof of God. I often hear them say "there is no possible argument you could give that would show that a good and loving God could allow such suffering to occur around the world." Or "There is no way Christianity can be reasonable, as it is committed to be based on faith, which is belief without reason." These statements are text book examples of the fallacy known as poisoning the well. And they are yet another way skeptics slither out of any burden of proof, as they are an attempt to discredit any argument made in favor of a position before it is even made.

Now if the skeptic first gave a critique of every argument made by Christians in support of Christianity and then proceeded to state that there is no good reason to believe Christianity then that would be one thing. However, what the skeptic is saying here is not only that there are no good refutation of the problem of evil, but that there could never be any good refutations. This seems to espouse that it is knowable a-priori that God cannot exist while evil exists. So basically the skeptic is asserting a tautology between the two statements; evil exists and God does not exist. But to assert such a tautology without proper justification is tantamount to circular reasoning. Ironically such a strong claim would require a very powerful argument to demonstrate such an argument.

Some thoughts on tough questions posed to Christians related to the POE;

Why did God have to die on the cross to save us, why didn't He just save us?

Because if God's nature is essentially just He had to pay the price for us. Perhaps God could have saved us without dying on the cross, but in doing so He would be unjust. Thus at the cross we see a perfect harmony between justice and mercy. The result is what Christians consider the greatest act of love in history.

Ok so why didn't God just save everyone after dying on the cross?

Because of what it means to be saved. To be saved, one has to have faith and believe in God. This is something, I believe, which can only come from a genuine choice in people. So if God were to save everyone after dying on the cross, He would have to ensure that we all believe in Him. But this seems to take the genuine choice away. Thus, if this were to happen, everyone would have a relationship with God, but it would be more of a relationship between a hand and a puppet than a genuine relationship between two entities choosing to interact with one another. And if God's goal is to allow us to genuinely and freely know Him, then ensuring that everyone is saved after dying on the cross would undermine everything God worked for. Of course this explanation requires libertarian free will, if Calvinists are correct and we have a purely compatibilist form of freedom, than this view would not be cogent.

God has created so many diseases and so many things which harm humanity, but science has cured them all. Doesn't this show that science is more powerful that God?

This question I get asked a lot by atheists. And one thing it assumes is that God's purpose is to make us happy, and reduce our suffering. I'm curious, since when have Christians claimed this? Maybe some radical prosperity preachers have. In either case I would simply ask the atheist, if God didn't put those harmful things in our way, would we bother to discover the cures for them, would we invent new technologies to overcome them? And if we did, would it be as meaningful? A life that is simply about instant gratification and comfort doesn't seem to hold much meaning or value. And before you ask "what about heaven?" as atheists often do, Christians don't think heaven will be simply sitting on a cloud eating grapes, heaven may be devoid of suffering (but then again perhaps not), but I'm certain there will be challenges and things to overcome.

Internet atheists obsession with God

These are just a few of the comments posted by atheists on the vid; “Glory to God by FEE”, sad very sad indeed.

He has come to save us from our sins>> There is no evidence for the salvation story.... And yes, many died in the Old Testiment because of punishment of sin,>>>

You seem to agree that those petty transgressions(E.G.working on the sabbath) deserve the dead-penalty. Are you ? He said explicitly that the law(the O.T.) remains valid till the end of time.(not exactly in those words).

And yes, many died in the Old Testiment because of punishment of sin, >>> Do you defend that those petty transgressions( working on the Sabbath, fornication etc etc.) deserve the death-penalty ? Why is the god of the O.T. so cruel, blood-thirsty, angry, murderous, and that SAME god in the N.T. preaches... love your ennemies. Moreover he did not abolish the O.T.>>> Not an iota of the law will change untill the end of time.<<

If someone refuses the Gospel, they didn't say no to you; they said no to God. How silly and arrogant. They said NO to nobody, but are not willing to accept as truth without evidence. And if this (supposedly)LOVING god condenms me for using my brain, so be it. The word of god seems to defeat itself.

Glory to god !!Witches, kill them. Homosexuals, kill them.fortunetellers, kill them. those who don`t listen to priests, kill them. those hitting their dad, kill them. those who curse their parents, kill them, adulterers, kill them. fornicators, kill them. people who believe in other religions, kill them. non-believers,kill them. fals prohets ,kill them. blasphemers, kill them. those who work on the Sabbath, kill them. This is the word of god !

Heavan and hell, should they exist,, can be anywhere. Since spirits, ghosts, souls, have no substance and do not take any space, a  trillion souls can fit in the cavity of your belly button. Heaven and hell can be next to each other in there. The idea of heaven and hell is childish nonsense.

I did not face any particular hardships in life, and I am at an age which most probably you will never reach. I cannot accept that god lets everything happen for our good . For what good were 6 million jews murdered in WW 2 ? For what good did 100,000 INNOCENT children perish in Haiti ? And another 100,000 INNOCENT children in the great tsunami ? Did those things happen because we were given the power of choice ?

• some comments by ndzoko

I will prove to you may be in half an hour or so. That you have no clue what`s in your bible. Yes you will get all the verses, no excuse now.

@CaptainKomamuraLover: Deuteronomie 17:12.. exodus 22:17... Leviticus 20:27.. Exodus 21:25 ... Proverbs 20:20..,, Leviticus 20:9... Leviticus 20:10... Leviticus 21:9.....Exodus31:12:15.....De­uteronomie 13:1.5... Leviticus 24:10.16... Deuteronomie 13:7.12. If you want more, just tell me >

Glory to god: It says in the bible... Wiches, kill them. homosexuals, kill them. Fortunetellers, kill them. Those who don`t listen to priests, kill them. Those who hurt their father, kill them Those who curse their parents, kill them. Adulterers. kill them Fornicators kill them ,Those who work on the Sabbath kill them. Non believers, those who believe other religions ,false prophets, blasphemers.Kill them. Glory to god forever !!

• talliza

Another thing, it is not a lie that you are ignorant. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. You cannot argue that you are not ignorant, for everyone is ignorant from the day they are born the the day they die. You weren't created by god, either. If you have ANY knowledge of modern biology, NOT bronze age "science" then you know that it is not a god that makes you, but two cells from your parents. I doubt you've read all of the replies I gave to yours, because if you did, and you took

anything from them, you would know that what I say is more right than you'll ever realize. A life without god is one well spent. Atheists are free to be under their own judgement, rather than one of another. We are free to be ourselves without being stoned by our peers for being "fags." And yes, I am bisexual. If I had any remote belief in the existence of your hell, I'd be in it regardless of whether I was a Christian or not.

Read Deuteronomy. My life is as meaningful to myself as I need it to be. I don't live in fear of judgement by some "loving" deity. I live my life without fear of a hell that doesn't exist. Besides, I don't want to be in your heaven. Christian heaven is a horrible place. Free will is justified by having a choice between the concepts of good and evel, but if you take evil out of the equation, we're puppets. I don't want to go to heaven, nor do I wish to go to hell. I reject both. 

I have nothing else to say to someone who is both willfully ignorant, and insufferably frustrating.

• MrBooger66

So god hates gays but loves Homophonic, ignorant, Hating, fearful little people? Strange god.

God sounds like a douchebag to me. Anyone that hates people for who they are, has no place called themself the almighty.

( This is not a hate post to all christians, just the douchebags that hate evreything that they dont understand).

these bastards have been indoctrinated and brainwashed since they were born, they can't help it. It is kind of scary though, it's like they're part of a cult or something. Which they actually are, they just don't think of it that way. I mean, seriously?! This guy tells you "its okay your just lost... listen to the music.... youll here him calling you... just listen." What the fuck? It's scary.

you pompous presumptious prick. Don't pray for us. You insult our intelligence. Most atheists have studied the word better than Christians have, that's why we became atheists in the first place. How about you study that book a little more, notice some of the massive holes? Oh, and what proof do I have that God is not loving? I can't prove that god is or isn't loving because he doesn't exist. Have you ever heard of "burden of proof?" Prove to me that god exists..

You claim to be tolerant? You think your religion is a religion of peace? Listen to yourself! You call me an atheist as though it's a bad word. You stereotype me and my beliefs. You "hate Atheists like me." You guys can stick your annoying noses into any video you like to preach God until we're blue in the face, but you don't like it when we do the same? You hypocrite! Go read your bible some more. True Christians are wonderful people, but you're a two-faced phony.

• User1maximus

What silly nonsense. Just tell me how our sin created polio, small-pox, leprosy or any other disease. Thank you !!

As somebody said;"If the holy writer uses general terms, an ingenious theologian can harmonize a seemingly preposterous statement with the most obdurate fact.'' You can find and prove anything with the bible,, just stretch your imagination to the limit. The old-testament is the greatest accumulation of nonsense ever assembled by man.

More bible nonsense called" biblical science "

The world's language didn't evolve but appeared suddenly (Gen. 11:6-9)

A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44).

The moon is a light source like the sun (Gen 1:16

God created polio, science cured it. God created small pox, science cured it. God created leprosy, science cured it. God created 2.million different illnesses, science has found cures for many. God created infertility, science invented IN-VITRO and an estimated 15 million new lives. God`s life averaged 45 years, science extended it to 75. 100.000 innocent children died in Haiti suffocating beneath the rubble. This ALLMIGHTY god, didn`t lift a finger to help.Praise be to god !!

• lizazoon

"He died on the cross to wash the sins out of us"

Well if hes omnipotent, couldn't he have thought of a better way to forgive people for sin than sending down himself to sacrifice himself to himself??? Why no just forgive??? He makes the rules right?

"you have your beliefs and we have our own but still dosnt mean you have the right to come on to this video and say gay"

Oh, I have EVERY right to call this video "gay" if I wan't to. Don't like it? Have your god stop me, LMFAO!

• Mattm1986

@jg1007 No, i am not. Firstly, substantiate your statement of "No matter how far you go with science, you always come to a dead end". Has science not brought us all the technology we now use? I think it's ironic that you can type that on a platform brought about by science and knowledge. And no, rejecting an idea due to a lack of evidence is not the same as refusing to acknowledge the possibility or seeking questions to fit an answer already in mind.

Rather, rejecting an idea due to a lack of evidence shows my willingness to consider it in the first place, and THEN finding it wanting. You, on the other hand, have demonstrated by your preference of believing "that something created something out of nothing, than the believe that nothing created something out of nothing" that you are merely seeking answers,explanations, without considering their validity or probability,something to assay your fears and put the world in terms you can understand

• ArianaSnow

Hey stupid, i'm not forcing you to read these comments, that's your own choise. This video is posted on a PUBLIC FORUM and ANYONE may post his ideas/thoughts. This is NOT a place reserved for the religious only. Don't like it? Too fucking bad son. Go take your faith to where the sun doesn't shine.

If he'd show up one day, then i'd believe he'd exist. But even then i wouldn't follow his ideas. But so far, he's nowhere to be seen. Only in your own fantasy world.

He's a gentlemen? I'd rather compare him to a barbarian, satanist or a mass murderer. First testament.

Now, why would all-knowing god... who can see the future, give man a choise? He could've known i wouldn't beleive in him... yet he created me. So isn't me not believing in him not his idea in the first place?

The only religion with consequences? Are you seriously THAT ignorant? The concept of hell exists in islam too. Plenty of others have it aswell. Which religion is the right one? What makes christianity the one and only true religion and all others false? No matter what religion i choose, i'm going to end up in hell any way since they all claim i will go to hell if i dont join them. How come your all powerful and mighty god couldn't convince me to believe in him? Did he fail?

Yeah, everything the bible says is true... and the earth is flat aswell. Oh, wait...

• Black7Cloud

U cant claim that your deity created the sun. There is not a shred of evidence that God exists (which is why we call it faith). I can render some lame counterargument, like "My god created your god, and since he created your god, your god's work is my God's will" but that is pointless. If you give me one solid piece of evidence that God exists,without resorting to the Testaments, or conjuring a metaphorical personification, then your argument can have some support.

Jamopt777. . . The eyes regaining sight can come from cataract surgery, the legs growing can be credited to metabolism in the body. Scientists have searched for your deity for half a century now, and haven't found him. Your god also seems to contradict himself: if he loves everyone, why does he send unbaptized babies to purgatory, and people to hell? Seems very bipolar to me.

• rustaayy
  
  
  This is all from one Christian music video. ONE. It shows me that not only are many atheists not willing to seriously engage with Christians on various topics, but that all they wish to do is to mock and ridicule.
  
  
  
  
  
  

Philosophy and quantum mechanics

I think philosophy is not respected nearly as much as it should be in popular culture and in academia. One area of physics which is widely thought to have nothing to do with philosophy, quantum mechanics, is extremely involved in it. Philosophers are involved mostly in interpreting quantum mechanics, and thus they debate about the Copenhagen, the Bohmian, the Many World's among many other interpretations. This requires philosophers to have a great deal of understanding of physics. To learn more about quantum mechanics and philosophies role in it check these articles out; http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_physics

De dicto and De re

For anyone interested in the philosophy of language, metaphysics or modal logic, these two concepts are very important to know. De dicto and de re represent two different possible interpretations of various sentences. For example, take the statement; "she wants to go to the tallest building in the world." The de dicto interpretation of this would be that this woman has a general desire to see the tallest building in the world. The de re interpretation is that there is a specific building this woman has in mind. Thus de dicto interpretations revolve around the statement while de re interpretations revolve around the subject specifically.

This can perhaps be more clearly seen when de dicto and de re is employed in modal logic. Take the claim that, "the number of chemical elements is necessarily greater than 100." The de dicto interpretation would be that necessarily connects chemical elements to any number greater than 100, so that there is no possible world in which the number of chemical elements is less than 100. The de re interpretation, however, looks past the statement into the subject chemical elements. On the de re interpretation, the number of chemical elements is equal to 117, and thus, 117 is necessarily greater than 100.

nope, nothin, nadda, zip

Ever try to imagine nothingness? Well whatever you have imagined it to be, it is not that. For whatever we imagine, we imagine it as something, and thus to imagine nothing, is to imagine it as something, which it is not. Nothing is not even dark, for to ascribe darkness to nothing is to ascribe an attribute to it, but nothing has not attributes, and so it can't be dark.
Human language has not even the words to describe nothing, for as soon as we describe a word to it, we describe it as something. But nothing is not something. Because of this linguistic limitation, paradoxes result. We cannot describe nothing in words, but only in the quiet contemplation of our minds, and perhaps not even then can we grasp the mystery that is nothing.

Fundy atheists on Kalam;

"Yes it really has been debunked. It's a logical fallacy. It begs the question because the only possible eternally existing thing is God. Even if you ignore that, if everything needs a cause what caused the first cause? If the first cause wasn't caused, why is it exempt from the rules? Even if you concede an uncaused first cause, what says that cause must be God? Even if you concede that much, you still haven't shown a personal god. It's utter BS."


I get responses like this from atheists and theists alike online. Its very disappointing because it shows just how little people know of how logic and argumentation work. This atheist asserts that Kalam states that everything which exists needs a cause, which it doesn't. Kalam actually claims that whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause. But even so, if God needs a cause, it doesn't follow that God would not be a good explanation of the universe, you don't have to explain the explanation in order for it to be a good explanation.


This atheist claims that Kalam begs the question because the only possibly eternally existing thing is God. What? Kalam doesn't claim that. Even if it did that doesn't mean it is begging the question. To beg the question is to assume the truth of the conclusion, in the support of one of its premises. Then he goes on to say that Kalam doesn't show that the cause is God, which is somewhat true, but William Lane Craig does give an extension of arguments in support of the cause being God in many vids on youtube and in his written works (one of these does argue for a personal being as well). The fact that this atheist is completely unaware of this, only shows he hasn't done his homework.


So basically in a small paragraph this fundy atheist has managed to commit at least 4 major fallacies in reasoning. The truly sad thing is that this comment got multiple up-votes on youtube.