Religious beliefs need to stop.

[The Reality Salesman01]

I don't believe you're going to hell or anything you're just missing out on something that's all.

I hate cliff-hangers! The suspense is killing me! What is it???

The universe exists, we exist, the universe is very very very very complex, we wouldn't exist if the universe wasn't precisely as very very very very complex as it is…

I want to invite you to ask yourself a question. Be honest…Ok?

What does it mean for something to be complex?

Complexity is relative to knowledge, wouldn’t you agree?

Before we had the capability to entertain the idea of sending someone to the moon, would that be a topic that skeptics would consider to be very very very very complex?

Would it seem beyond human ability to comprehend to the Aztecs that actually thought the sun was a God?

Would it have been reasonable to entertain magical theories of flight? Spells and so forth?

I just want you to start looking at complexity as things not yet understood, instead of things that must be solved by invoking magic.

and we physically are the most complex part of the universe.

You should try to be more modest with your assertions. Making claims about something and saying that you know how it ranks among all things in The Universe is quite bold, don’t you think?-Especially after considering the truth of complexity being relative to knowledge.

Therefore we would be unlikely to be a coincidental byproduct

“Unlikely” denotes a degree of complexity, which we’ve established as being relative to knowledge. So, this can be roughly translated to…
“It’s beyond our knowledge to comprehend how it happened naturally…”
Which leads us to the argument from ignorance fallacy which occurs…below in bold (emphasis mine).

Therefore we would be unlikely to be a coincidental byproduct… but the central product of a complex designed order created by a supreme intelligence

Because its complex, or unlikely, or beyond your knowledge, are not good reasons for you to invoke a God of the Gaps.

that human intelligence mirrors (i.e made in Gods image).

Even if you gave a good reason to invoke a God, and ignorance is not a good reason, you have still not shown why it follows that our intelligence mirrors his. Again, be more modest with your claims. You just said we have God-like intelligence and expected us to accept that at face value...
NOT UP IN HERE! NOT-UP-IN.....HERE!!!

The universe began to exist

, everything that begins to exist must have a cause

therefore the universe had a cause that was not the universe itself.

The order in which you placed your premises was incorrect, but I know what you meant…Let’s look at what you’ve inferred from the above argument.

The cause of the universe must be eternal as from nothing comes nothing

You are equivocating what is meant by cause. I will show you what I mean. Hopefully you will desist from trying to perpetuate this argument any further because it’s a terrible one for what you’re aiming at. I’ve got a copy of one of my old arguments that shows this, but I am by no means the only person to do this.

---

Premise 1-

All things that begin to exist have a cause

Let’s take a close look at premise one before attempting to reject it or accept it. We must make sure that have a firm understanding of the terms used in this premise. The things I have emphasized in italics can later prove to be a deceiving if not squared away from the start. So, what does it mean to “Begin to exist”?


In philosophical circles, discussions about causation are often understood by using Aristotle’s Forms of Causation. Let’s nail down the ones that will be useful:

1) The Material Cause: The “stuff” out of which something is made. (For a table, we can say WOOD is the Material Cause)

2) The Formal Cause: The “shape” being given to the material, and the form it takes that we recognize as a new thing. (in this case, a TABLE is the formal cause, the shape being given to the wood, is that of a TABLE)

3) The Efficient Cause: The Causal Agent that affects the effect. That which brings about a new form from the material it is acting upon. ( Following with this example, you have probably already inferred that The Carpenter is The Efficient Cause here)

4) The Final Cause: The purpose of the new thing that has “come into being”. (This could be any number of things. If it was built to have meals served upon it and people gathered around to eat off it, it would be a dinner table. If the intent was to have business executives gather around in suits, seated around it as a place to hold meetings and discussions, it would be a boardroom table, etc.)


For the sake of this debate, we need only concern ourselves with 1, 2, and 3. We are discussing the origin of the universe, and to posit any knowledge of number 4, would be a separate debate entirely. Let’s look at some examples:

Is a table ever made without pre-existing table-making “stuff”?

Is a car ever made without pre-existing car-making “stuff”?

Is a human made, without pre-existing baby-making “stuff”?

The answer to all of these, is quite obviously, NO. The fact is, everything that “comes into being” does so, from pre-existing “stuff”, and is caused by some form of causal agent. This is the premise will we agree to, as it is the only form of causation that surrounds us. We cannot anymore entertain a different form of gravity that is unaffected by mass. To posit such a claim is to take on an extremely heavy burden of proof.. To say that I began to exist, is not suggesting that there was NOTHING, and then I appeared. Something existed before me, and from it, I came into being, as is the case with all causation. None of this supports a concept of things being caused into being from NOTHING-ness
Premise 2-

The Universe began to exist...

Why should "...from nothing "be an acceptable way to end this sentence, and how does the KCA support your claim?
Creation Ex Nihilo is the theory that suggests God (efficient cause) created The Universe (formal cause) from absolutely NOTHING (NO MATERIAL CAUSE).

William Lane Craig, a notorious Christian Apologist says:

“I agree with your premiss

1. A causal event requires an agent to actualize an event (or an object), and the potentiality of the event to occur.
Moreover, I also agree with your second premiss

2. "Nothingness" contains no potentiality, or else it would be "something.’”

2)Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
(The spelling of “premiss” was his choosing)

It is taught in Christian doctrine that God is Omnipotent, or all powerful. That God possesses all energies and potentialities and for Him nothing is impossible. However, even if this is true, If God can be rationally understood, he is subject to certain logical contingencies. God cannot make a weight so heavy, even he cannot lift it? Right? The same follows with power and potentiality. Power, no matter how great, is made manifest only through an object or entity upon which it can be exerted. Take my examples above pertaining to homeruns and black-eyes. Even if God is all-powerful, his omnipotence becomes impotent without having something upon which to exert His power. “Nothing” lacks the potential to be anything. There is nothing about “nothing-ness” that has the ability to be anything, let alone an ENTIRE UNIVERSE. Given what I have already shown as the only form of causality which occurs in the 3 form model, Creation Ex Nihilo cannot be supported by the KCA. In Thermodynamics , The Law of conservation of energy states : 3) the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed. Everything in our universe, even matter, is constructed of energy on the most rudimentary level. To posit that energy or matter is or could be arbitrarily manifested from nothing if something is powerful enough to do it, is nonsensical and logically incoherent statement. It is now perfectly clear that if one is to posit a God, they have been effectively reduced to 2 possible options pertaining to how It brought about the Universe. Either…

1) God acted upon “X” and created the universe from it.
2) God acted upon Himself, and created the universe from Him.

If my opponent wishes to win favor over your judgment, he/she must prove this NEW form of causation, which does not require a material cause, is worthy of consideration at all. It has been shown to be philosophically, scientifically, and logically incoherent. Because it is not self-evident, the burden of proof lies squarely on the individual supporting or making this claim. If this cannot be done, my opponent cannot successfully link the KCA to the Creation Ex Nihilo doctrine.
References
1) http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
2) http://en.wikipedia.org...

---

I’ve edited some of the rebuttals that were addressed to the individual I was debating, but you should be able to see what we’re talking about now. You need a resolution to all of these very valid objections before you can expect anyone to entertain your conclusions. Premises have to support your conclusion, and the premises must be true. The words used in the premises have retain the same definition as they do in the conclusion. “Come into being” in the first premise means that all things in the universe follow 3 part causation. If you say the universe “came into being” and we grant it, we are granting that premise on the grounds that you haven’t changed the meaning of “come into being” to “Popped into existence from nothing”. Otherwise, this is what your argument should look like if you weren’t trying to sneak that change in…

All things in the universe that pop into existence from nothing have a cause. (no proof or example of this anywhere to be found)

The universe popped into existence from nothing. (Even if we ignore the fallacy of composition, the first premise renders all of this as false so far.)

The universe had a cause. (Maybe, but you’d never get to this conclusion using this argument.)
Do you understand?

---

This lesson was free, I expect cherry flavored Twizzlers for any additional ones!