The first claims that Biblical monotheism evolved from polytheism:
The second claims that the Book of Joshua was written as propaganda for violent reform:
Just read the book. It simply records Joshua’s conquest of the holy land. The guy claims to be responding to two new “apologetic” arguments to defend Joshua, both seem to claim Joshua didn’t literally mean it. But of course he did. Sinners must be destroyed if God commands it so. Sounds fine to me.
As for the ridiculous video on the guy claiming God really needs a cause after all, or something, around 3:20 he says something among the lines of “I’m asking why everything in existence needs a cause except God.” Ugh … Because God never began to exist? That’s kind of the point. Eternal things are, by definition, uncaused. That’s why some atheists still grasp on to the possibility of a past-eternal universe. So they don’t need to explain where it came from.
He of course, not content with his already refuted argument, claims “there is no justification for the claim that God doesn’t need a cause”. Actually… there is. See above. Not finite. Therefore no cause. You can’t insert a cause into something that always existed … otherwise … where would the cause be placed? This is standard logic. He seems genuinely unaware of this. Of course, IP brings this up, and he responds with … total garbage. Seriously, I can’t comprehend how stupid this video is.
His response is essentially “the only reason why you worded the premise (everything that begins to exist has a cause) is so it doesn’t apply to God!” This is so utterly ridiculous I simply can’t even. How many ways is this wrong?
- Essentially just psychoanalysis. Instead of addressing the actual argument, in the way it’s presented, the atheist attempts to explain the thought process going on in the theists head when he says this. This is just ridiculous. Please, address the argument because no one is in the mood to listen to fanciful speculation about why that argument was presented in such a way.
- Genetic fallacy. A genetic fallacy is when someone claims to be able to explain how a belief originates, and therefore refute that belief. This is just a genetic fallacy. “The reason why you argue that everything that begins to exist has a cause is to exclude God!” Even if this was right, it wouldn’t refute, or even begin to refute the premise.
- The third problem is that it isn’t actually right. The premise is just a fact. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. This is because things that don’t begin to exist can’t have causes, since you wouldn’t be able to insert this cause at any period in time (since the thing would always exist prior to it). So the premise “everything that exists has a cause” is actually wrong. Everything that “begins to exist” has a cause is factually correct. That’s why the premise is phrased this way. Not to cook up a premise so God can be excluded from causation. This is nonsense. Because that’s the only accurate way to phrase it.
I’m not going to bother watching the “no cause for a soul” videos. I’ve completely forgotten the content of those IP videos, and you should just send those videos to IP anyways. He should defend those for himself.