“Belief in God is far more likely than Atheism”
“Aquinas: Things that move have a mover.”
Infinite regression isn’t a possibility (even though this is a given.. just as an aside: why is it a given?) so there must be a Prime Mover.. therefore.. “God”?
Professor Peter Kreeft says the standard “objection” to this is that Quantum Mechanics shows us “uncaused events” but this is a strawman/misrepresentation.
The way matter/energy behave in the system seemingly obey laws in that they act a certain way under certain conditions, just because we don’t know the cause doesn’t mean there isn’t a cause. “Professor” Peter Kreeft uses this as a rebuttal but as his “objection” was a strawman he hasn’t moved us forward at all, merely tried to cement himself as more “awake” than the scientists whom he is misrepresenting.
“First Cause is outside the realm of science.”
This is presuppositional. “Professor” Peter Kreeft’s posited “God” does lie outside the realm of reality and therefore the scope of scientific discovery, but no-one has established a god as the Prime Mover.
“Everything that begins must have a cause”
Show me an example of something beginning to exist and I will show that [you] mean “is arranged into it’s current form”
“Nothing can come from nothing”
Is that strictly true?
(I mean we know nothing can come from nothing, but I assume the emphasis is;
“Nothing can come from nothing”)
This shows simple, understandable, ignorance of the entire field of Quantum Mechanics.
As an aside: You cannot measure the position and velocity of a particle. If a section of space were completely empty then you could say of the virtual particles therein that their position was 0 and their speed was 0, and if you say that then you’re essentially saying that you know both the position and the speed of the particles within that space with equal accuracy. The upshot being that any supposedly empty region of space must necessarily be awash with virtual particles popping into and out of existence too quickly to interact and violate the conservation of energy.
“Nothing begins without an adequate cause. (If there was a Big Bang there must have been a Big Bang-er).”
I repeat; No-one has established a god as the Prime Mover
“Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity says “All time is relative to matter”. Since all matter began 13.7 billion years ago, so did all time, so no time before the Big Bang. Even if the multiverse is real (no evidence for multiverse) then that must have had a beginning.”
Why is this not an argument also against god? It’s full of unjustified statements but I think the most obvious flaw in this is that it’s not limited to being applied to just non-theistic interpretations of Big Bang Theory.
“The conclusion that God exists doesn’t require faith”
Yes it does. Without the belief bias you would never “find god”, this is why scientific investigation hasn’t found god. It is unbiased.
“It takes faith to believe in everything coming from nothing”
No. It takes Quantum Mechanics, one of the most tested fields of scientific study ever discovered. A study which this, disgracefully ignorant video, required in order to be distributed and viewed in the manner that it is.
“If there’s no Creator there can’t be a universe”
If there were no prior events then you can’t make the objection that it’s inception is inconsistent with prior events. Again; inserting your “creator” as a personification with no justification over the idea of natural cause. We only ever observe natural causes (as the Randi Foundation will gladly evidence), so why interject supernatural ones?
“Well all scientists agree today that the universe is not infinitely old, that it had a beginning in the Big Bang. If the universe had a beginning then it didn’t have to exist, and things that don’t have to exist must have a cause. There’s confirmation of this argument from Big Bang Cosmology. All matter (the whole universe) came into existence some 13.7 billion years ago and it’s been expanding and cooling ever since. No scientist doubts that any more even though before it was proved, atheists called it “Creationism is disguise”.”
No.. In some universe models (not all) the space time description that we have as a “classical space time”, breaks down at some point in the past. What Kalam/Aquinas/The Cosmological Argument says about Big Bang Theory implies that the universe a beginning. That is false, that is not what the models say. What the models say is that our ability to describe the universe “classically” (that is to say not including the effects of quantum mechanics) gives out.
I have already borrowed heavily (/copied verbatim) from the words of Professor Lawrence Krauss, MessianicManic, and Dr Sean Carroll* in this post (because the video itself is so mindnumbingly wrong and these other speakers are much more profound, and ultimately correct) but let me add this gem too:
Nothingness was never a state the universe was in.