VIDEO: Refutations of common atheist arguments regarding a Creator

I posted this to spark respectful debates and discussions. I know that belief vs. atheism is a touchy subject, but I don't think it should be a taboo discussion nor one that has to end disrespectfully. If any atheists or believers wish to weigh in on this video, what you think is correct or incorrect about it, please do so in a non-threatening/non-abrasive manner.

Any T&C violations, off-topic posts, etc. will be flagged.

I personally found the points in this video to be very interesting regarding the "Cause and Effect" arguments regarding a Creator deity or lack thereof. I'd like to get other people's thoughts also. Just please, whether you are a believer or an atheist or somewhere in between, remain respectful. I know it's possible

Let's show people that just because we may disagree doesn't mean we have to be harsh or insulting in our disagreements.

Peace be upon you!

reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786


Cute video...

but i must point out that i've found "religionists" are usually the ones throwing out insults, not the atheists... so the video is slightly backwards.

Most true Atheists couldn't care less what you believe... And thus... have no reason to argue about it. The ones that claim to be atheists yet argue against the existance of God are usually closet agnostics looking for something solid to believe in.

reply to post by Akragon


Honestly, I've experienced the opposite. A lot of atheists I've encountered in debates get downright nasty. Although I don't deny that I've seen religious people get insulting also.

I'm unable to watch the video because I'm at work.

I agree with Christians that the Big Bang is unlikely because nothing can be self-caused. But that means God cannot be self-caused either. If cause and effect is true, then there must've been something to set in motion the big bang. But this also implies that something had to set God in motion as well.

Edit: I'm assuming this is the argument of the video. sorry if off topic.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

I don't think the Big Bang is unlikely, just that the Big Bang being "self-caused" is. God would not need something to set Him in motion because he is outside of Space-Time and the "laws" of the universe, the laws of physics. He would not be bound by them. The universe, though, is in space-time and so would be bound by them.

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

I don't think the Big Bang is unlikely, just that the Big Bang being "self-caused" is. God would not need something to set Him in motion because he is outside of Space-Time and the "laws" of the universe, the laws of physics. He would not be bound by them. The universe, though, is in space-time and so would be bound by them.

If the big bang was the cause of the universe, wouldn't it exist outside of the universe, thus not bound by its laws?

Edit: Bad argument on my part.

What I meant to say was: Since something being self-caused can only happen outside of the universe—like the idea of God—wouldn't it be possible the universe could arise from nothing, if there was no universe, thus no space-time, physics or laws to begin with?

In other words, if God is able to arise from nothing, why not a universe?

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

Regarding your first question, your self-described "bad argument" , according to most Big Bang cosmologists, it was basically caused by itself. The Big Bang was "self-caused."

Regarding your second question, I wouldn't say that something being self-caused could only happen outside of the universe. What I was saying was that God, who is eternal (not self-caused), exists outside of the universe. So he wouldn't have to be self-caused, nor would He be subject to laws like cause and effect. Something outside of space-time could easily be eternal.

See, atheists also try to argue that the universe is eternal. Well if the universe can be eternal and exist within space-time, why can't a God that exists outside of space-time?

Could the universe arise from nothing? Well now is where you have to watch the video because that is one of the arguments that is addressed in it.

LOL, the whole video is on cause and effect? One point? Clutch at straws much?

WOW, if you think that makes a non-believers head explode…. well your religion is easily led (well yes, I suppose that all people that believe in any god are easily led)

Out of the thousands of ‘gods’/ ‘creators’ / ‘higher entities’ that have been made up to control, spread fear and hatred amongst humans and the hundreds of different factions of ‘christianity’ for example which one do you believe in and why do you think yours is the right choice?

Critically think for a moment if you can, what will you do when it’s proven that your choice is the wrong one?

An atheist has a better chance of ‘repenting’ if a god shows up and they beg forgiveness rather than a person that has followed the ‘wrong’ religion all their lives, I hear gods are vengeful and don’t like people worshipping other gods.

So tell me, what do you believe your cause and effect will be if you have chosen incorrectly, let’s look at that point shall we?

Would you wee yourself and soil your pants if the aliens came back and said it was them that created us, or would you welcome them like an open minded free thinking atheist would?

Mickierocksman

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
In other words, if God is able to arise from nothing, why not a universe?

Because the universe is limited by the laws which exist in it, while an external source would not be. If there is a creator, it would have to exist outside of the reality which holds the universe, as creation cannot contain the creator.

The problem manifests itself in the notion that either the universe always existed, or something sprang into being, both of which violate the laws of thermodynamics. Lawrence Krauss has put forth a theory of how the second could happen without violating those laws, but there isn't a lot of support for it, and to me it seems like more of a "trick" than an actual workable theory.

At any rate, the Abrahamic religions don't believe that God "arose from nothing" -- he is eternal, outside of space in time, and has simply always been. There was never a time that God didn't exist, and there never will be.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

Alright I watched the video; and if I can get past the bigoted portrayals and sweeping generalizations it makes, I still remain unconvinced by the arguments.

Regarding your second question, I wouldn't say that something being self-caused could only happen outside of the universe. What I was saying was that God, who is eternal (not self-caused), exists outside of the universe. So he wouldn't have to be self-caused, nor would He be subject to laws like cause and effect. Something outside of space-time could easily be eternal.

God, who is not eternal, would need to be self-caused in order to exist as God, or something of a higher power would have needed to create him, making him not god at all. Concepts of eternity and infinity can be disregarded as ideas that exist in our language only, and cannot be shown to describe anything outside of our thoughts and words. Would this mean God is merely a thought?

See, atheists also try to argue that the universe is eternal. Well if the universe can be eternal and exist within space-time, why can't a God that exists outside of space-time?

If the universe contains space-time, this implies that it is some sort of container full of whatever comprises the universe. Where does this container exist? In the same place as God?

Could the universe arise from nothing? Well now is where you have to watch the video because that is one of the arguments that is addressed in it.

If God can, then a universe can.

I wouldn't consider myself atheist, but it's apparent that both sides fight dearly for their interpretations.

Originally posted by Mickierocksman
LOL, the whole video is on cause and effect? One point? Clutch at straws much?

Well, yeah the whole video is about cause and effect? Why can't it be? It deals with one subject. A lot of videos do that.

WOW, if you think that makes a non-believers head explode…. well your religion is easily led (well yes, I suppose that all people that believe in any god are easily led)

Why not just explain why it doesn't instead of sounding so condescending?

Critically think for a moment if you can, what will you do when it’s proven that your choice is the wrong one?

Of course I can critically think. Again, why the condescending attitude?

If it was proven that my choice was wrong and some other religion/god was the correct one, I'd convert. Plain and simple.

An atheist has a better chance of ‘repenting’ if a god shows up and they beg forgiveness rather than a person that has followed the ‘wrong’ religion all their lives,

How do you figure that?

I hear gods are vengeful and don’t like people worshipping other gods.

Well if that's the case and conversion is done before you die (which is usually a condition for conversion, since waiting until after death would be cheating) then what makes an atheist be in a better position? Also, it's true God doesn't like people worshipping other gods, but He also doesn't like people denying His existence altogether also. So I still don't see how you think atheists come out ahead or that they have a better chance of repenting when faced with God. Heck, a lot of atheists I know claim that if God is real and they end meeting up Him they are going to tell Him off. Yeah.

So tell me, what do you believe your cause and effect will be if you have chosen incorrectly, let’s look at that point shall we?

I'm afraid I don't understand your question. What will my cause and effect be if I'm wrong? What?

Would you wee yourself and soil your pants if the aliens came back and said it was them that created us, or would you welcome them like an open minded free thinking atheist would?

You think God was an alien? Astaghfirullah. Sorry but the Qur'an refutes that claim. In the Quran, in numerous places, God says there is nothing comparable to Him. Nothing in creation is like him. Aliens would be a part of creation. There would be numerous things comparable to an "alien god" (for instance, other aliens of his race).

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

God, who is not eternal, would need to be self-caused in order to exist as God, or something of a higher power would have needed to create him, making him not god at all. Concepts of eternity and infinity can be disregarded as ideas that exist in our language only, and cannot be shown to describe anything outside of our thoughts and words. Would this mean God is merely a thought?

God, by definition, is Eternal and exists outside of Space-Time. He does not require a creator.

If the universe contains space-time, this implies that it is some sort of container full of whatever comprises the universe. Where does this container exist? In the same place as God?

God exists outside of Space-Time; the universe inside of it.

If God can, then a universe can.

Yes, and if the universe can then God can.

I wouldn't consider myself atheist, but it's apparent that both sides fight dearly for their interpretations.

Then what are you? If you don't have a stake in the "fight" then why are you arguing from the atheist position?

Then what are you? If you don't have a stake in the "fight" then why are you arguing from the atheist position?

I'm trying to live according to my own doctrine and interpretation of the universe, not the anecdotes of others. I am still in the process of interpreting existence so I'm open minded. No, I don't yet believe in a god. If the opposite proves to be the case I will trust my own judgement when that time comes, but so far, what do I have to go on but the ancient stories of illiterate men? I'm not like this because I'm wicked, but because I have a hard time being dishonest with myself. I'm not an atheist because I don't need to be generalized and demonized for my label. I also very much dislike the fanaticism and religiosity found in people who support the atheist banner. I have also yet to see one true christian—it is apparent the last christian died on the cross. I don't even know what I am.

I do know one thing, and that is that I remain unconvinced by the argument.

God exists outside of Space-Time; the universe inside of it.

This is a fallacy, which further proves my point. If space-time exists inside of the universe, how can the universe exist inside of it? The universe, as a container for space-time, would exist in the same realm as god, who you assert is eternal and outside the universe, . If the universe exists in the same realm as God—like a balloon in water, then both are subject to the same laws as that realm, which you assert is a place where things are eternal, or their own cause. This implies that the universe may also be eternal or may also be its own cause, which we both agree doesn't seem likely. This is a contradiction.

God, by definition, is Eternal and exists outside of Space-Time. He does not require a creator.

We both know this is, of course, impossible to know. Definitions, by definition, are created by man. Did man know more about the universe thousands of years ago? I suppose one can only guess.

Both "positions" are interpretations, not explanations, and so far only one of them has some fairly solid evidence and logic to back it up.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

This is a fallacy, which further proves my point. If space-time exists inside of the universe, how can the universe exist inside of it? The universe, as a container for space-time, would exist in the same realm as god, who you assert is eternal and outside the universe, . If the universe exists in the same realm as God—like a balloon in water, then both are subject to the same laws as that realm, which you assert is a place where things are eternal, or their own cause. This implies that the universe may also be eternal or may also be its own cause, which we both agree doesn't seem likely. This is a contradiction.

No, Space-Time started with the creation of the universe. God exists outside of the universe. I'm afraid I may have misspoke.

We both know this is, of course, impossible to know. Did man know more about the universe thousands of years ago? I suppose one can only guess.

It's not impossible to know. We know because the Quran says so. And di dman know more about the universe? No. God did.

and so far only one of them has some fairly solid evidence and logic to back it up.

That's just not true. That's merely the position, and a common talking point, of people who refuse or have no desire to believe in God.

So while you may say you are doing your own thing, you sound like a typical atheist. No offense is intended, but I mean if you are going to talk like one you might as well admit to being one.

reply to TheSubversiveOne


When asked the question 'do you believe in god?', if you say yes you're a theist.

Anything else, including 'I don't know'.....you're an atheist

There's no banner, no dogma, just like there's no banner or dogma for those that don't play table tennis.

To the OP:

Misleading thread title, as has been posted the video attempts to refute a single point, not an argument. Infact its usually just a response to the cause and effect argument theists put forward, a response the video fails to reply to.

The video is also very condescending, which I find hilariously ironic considering some of your replies.....

reply to [url= by Akragon[/url]


I like many other atheists find the whole subject fascinating. Or moreover its the good folk like youself that in 2012, surrounded by Ipads, smartphones, higgs bosons and other symphonies of science, can still take 2000 year old primitive desert superstitions as truth, that we find fascinating.

And if some atheists give you and your superstitions a hard time, you should really be either used to it, or have enough trust in your beliefs to be able to brush them off. After all, the world has been engulfed with these superstitions for thousands of years, maybe a little humorous payback is warranted no?

reply to post by Prezbo369




Saying, I don't know doesn't make you an atheist. It would make you an agnostic. SubversiveOne didn't say I don't know. SubversiveOne said they don't currently believe in God and also used atheist arguments to attempt to disprove the existence of God. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

Now, regarding the video, I didn't make it so I can't speak for its "condescending" tone. I fail to see the irony of the video in relation to my posts since I'm not the maker of the video.

Finally, yes I realize I was inaccurate with the thread title. It wasn't on purpose. Merely a mistake. Human beings do that from time to time.

Now, is there anything actually on the topic of the video you wish to discuss?

Originally posted by Prezbo369
reply to TheSubversiveOne


When asked the question 'do you believe in god?', if you say yes you're a theist.

Anything else, including 'I don't know'.....you're an atheist

There's no banner, no dogma, just like there's no banner or dogma for those that don't play table tennis.

Yes, I realize the technicality. But sadly there is a banner and dogma. There is less deities but more religiosity. I see atheists who put little T-Rex's on their car in place of the Jesus fish. I saw an image the other day of a plane pulling a large sign that said some atheist principle. I see atheists putting up billboards in the name of atheism. I'm not saying all atheists are this way, as it would be over generalizing, but it is there and it is abhorrant. So why not just negate the banner altogether? Why must you call yourself an atheist? So people like the OP can have an attempt at trying to figure you out?

Anyways, off topic.

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786Saying, I don't know doesn't make you an atheist. It would make you an agnostic.

An agnostic atheist, the two are not mutually exclusive...

Now, regarding the video, I didn't make it so I can't speak for its "condescending" tone. I fail to see the irony of the video in relation to my posts since I'm not the maker of the video.

You present a condescending video as a topic of discussion, then complain when you find the responses to the video to be condescending. You really carnt see the irony there? really?

Finally, yes I realize I was inaccurate with the thread title. It wasn't on purpose. Merely a mistake. Human beings do that from time to time.

Considering the short length of the video and the single solitary point it attempts to make, your mistake is fairly major. One could even posit that you never watched the vid in its entirety or just didn't understand it.

Now, is there anything actually on the topic of the video you wish to discuss?

This basically the cosmological argument, which is nailed with the reply "What caused the First Cause?"
The typical theist reply is along the lines of "god is infinite and outside of time and space" etc, which is really just people making things up.

How do you know matter hasn't always existed? how do you know the universe didn't exist in a different state before the expansion? How do you know it wasn't merely a series of natural events leading to the expansion?

You don't, and your god of the gaps really doesn't help.....

I think the definition of athiest is they don't accept the Bible concepts for god. That means they don't buy Jesus as god, nor Jesus god the father concept from Enki, nor the concept of Abraham's god associated with Enlil and the Creator gods of Sumeria.

Athiesm doesn't reject science and physics and this is what the big bang issue is about. There is a mass to energy concept, but which came first and from where. Nobody knows and it all boils down to the concept of some unknown element or force made either energy or mass or both.

Using the word god to refer to this natural process is different than the concepts of bible narratives that assign god to the Annunaki ancient Sumerians, which didn't have anything to do with these natural forces that started mass and energy.


So, all the discussion on Big Bang and the origin on energy and matter just goes to prove the point that bible story has basically nothing to do with god in the sense of big bang. All the bible story of god started around 6,000 years ago, and the big bang concepts started so far back we don't even comprehind it.

The Bible concepts of god are the problem for the athiests, not the concepts of science, ancient archiology, nor evolution and so on.


One has to think of two different concepts for god-----the real concept being what started the universe, the clock maker, the great architech. The other being the more recent 6,000 year old creation of humans in the time of ancient sumeria's prime time that gave the adam and eve story, and the Annunaki theme.


When you make that separation, all becomes more clear. Athiesm doesn't have an issue with sciences, just the faked up concepts that Earth began 6,000 years ago and those doing the little genetic breeding experiments were god.

Originally posted by Prezbo369


Considering the short length of the video and the single solitary point it attempts to make, your mistake is fairly major. One could even posit that you never watched the vid in its entirety or just didn't understand it.

Well, you are wrong. I did watch it. Can you stop trying to make this personal now and stick to the topic?

This basically the cosmological argument, which is nailed with the reply "What caused the First Cause?"
The typical theist reply is along the lines of "god is infinite and outside of time and space" etc, which is really just people making things up.

No, it's not making things up. This answer is based in numerous religious texts. For it to be "made up" would mean that there is nowhere we can cite this as an explanation. I can cite numerous Qur'an verses about God being eternal and self-sustaining.

How do you know matter hasn't always existed? how do you know the universe didn't exist in a different state before the expansion?

How do you know it did?

How do you know it wasn't merely a series of natural events leading to the expansion?

How do you know it was? See, for every question you pose, I can pose the opposite.

And were these "natural events" which caused it? What evidence do you have to support that claim? See, while many scientists can theorize what caused this to happen, none of them have a concrete answer for it. None of them have verifiable testable evidence to support it. They are "possibilities."