It seems many religious apologists are obsessed with the BGV Theorem, seemingly convinced that it provides irrefutable evidence that physical reality has an absolute beginning at the Big Bang. But does the BGV Theorem really show that the universe definitely began to exist?
In this first video I take a look at a video of an interview of the Muslim author and public speaker Hamza Tzortzis. In this video he presents his rendition of the cosmological argument which he believes is irrefutable. Personally, I found it quite simple to refute.
In my review of his book, I will argue that Atkins walks a thin line between established scientific fact and wild speculation, but that he does so in an engrossing and ultimately plausible way. He certainly doesn't establish that the universe can arise from nothing, but he convincingly argues that there's no reason why it couldn't.
In my review of his book, I will argue that Atkins walks a thin line between established scientific fact and wild speculation, but that he does so in an engrossing and ultimately plausible way. He certainly doesn't establish that the universe can arise from nothing, but he convincingly argues that there's no reason why it couldn't.
A painting requires a painter. A building requires a builder. Creation requires a creator. Order requires an orderer. "On an atheist's worldview" - the theist claims - "how can there be order in the universe? How can a random, unintelligent explosion produce an ordered universe?"
Here's another video. I'm often asked how there can be no God if the chances of our planet being habitable are so slim. This is the reason why.
I think that "atheism of the gaps" is a legitimate fallacy, but not one that atheists often make. I think this term has the annoying potential to be thrown incorrectly at atheists if it starts becoming mainstream.
The Second Premise Having discussed the deficiencies of the first premise in my previous article (Part 1) we can now move on to the second premise. The second premise states that "The universe began to exist". Now I have actually written an article before about why it is exactly that it is misleading to say... Continue Reading →
While I can find no fault with the deductive validity of this argument - the conclusion certainly seems to follow from the premises - I'm afraid this is as successful as the argument gets. Not just one, but both of the premises commit logical fallacies which they hide in the vagueness of their formulation.
Relying on Reason is not a Faith Position
The Platonic Realm 