4 "big bangs" or...

[revelarts]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/gIorXcloIac?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I think there are more than 4 really, if your trying to cover everything in the cosmos.

[revelarts]

no comments?

[SassyLady]

What if all the bangs were manufactured by a creator?

[Noir]

57 seconds in the argument dies.

"I set out to disprove theism...which i didn't think would take very long"

I don't think i've ever read a an atheist or anti-theist book or essay that sets out to disprove theism, which is just as well, given it is impossible to do so. If this man thought he could 'disprove theism' (let alone 'easily') then he didn't even know what the discussion was about while he was an atheist.

Also, the video name - 4 new arguments? I don't know how he defines new, but these are the same arguments that have been discussed for long enough that i think the 'new' moniker isn't representative.

[revelarts]

57 seconds in the argument dies.

"I set out to disprove theism...which i didn't think would take very long"

I don't think i've ever read a an atheist or anti-theist book or essay that sets out to disprove theism, which is just as well, given it is impossible to do so. If this man thought he could 'disprove theism' (let alone 'easily') then he didn't even know what the discussion was about while he was an atheist.

Sure many know better, but he's not the 1st who's tried through the centuries.
I think many atheist have tried to disprove specific theist traditions. I get the feeling that's probably what he did since his teammates were Christians.

but if you listen to many atheist of the ANTI theist stripe they believe God, fairies, centaurs demonstrable belong in the same category. Folks like Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennet, and Harris, certainly give the impression that they believe theism can be disproved. even if they less vocally admit that it cannot be.

Also, the video name - 4 new arguments? I don't know how he defines new, but these are the same arguments that have been discussed for long enough that i think the 'new' moniker isn't representative.

true enough.

but probably not on a popular level.
if you ask the avg joe/jane about
About the gaps to get between:
nothing and everything
non-life and life
instinct and self-consciousness

I think different people come at this type of info from various directions without asking the specific questions he raises, in that order.
and his points are still unanswered btw.