Craig is so caught up in the technical terms of the debate and getting people to walk through the door he wants that it seems like he just doesn't give a damn about what is true or correct.
@Tibberclaw Out of interest, Tibberclaw, why do you think truth is important? I agree that it is, of course; but so often the question isn't addressed.
@RFunofficial Because people are always better off with the truth. Particularly in the case of God/Religion. People invest a lot of time into this, and their beliefs about God can have profound implications (e.g. 9/11).
I cannot stand religious discussions centered around whether a belief has beneficial social effects or not. Who cares what the majority believes is "delusional" (as technically defined)?
Is belief X true? What does the evidence say about X? This is all that should matter...
@Tibberclaw Not to offend you or anything, but I think your position is a bit inconsistent. If I've understood you correctly, you think that people should believe the truth because their beliefs (particularly religious beliefs) can have profound implications, and then go on to write that you cannot stand religious discussions centred around the societal implications of beliefs. Perhaps you could clarify?
@RFunofficial My point is that people are mistaken in thinking that there is a difference between what is true and what is beneficial. They are the same. You can't find truth by searching for what is beneficial. It only works in the other direction; you find what is ultimately beneficial by finding what is true.
This is why science progresses, and older, false beliefs are discarded. There is no rational for believing a falsehood in the long-run. Eventually the truth gets in your way...
@Tibberclaw I guess a concern I have is that, if atheism is true, there seems (to me at least) to be a dearth of good reasons to seek truth or persuade others of truth. Perhaps I'm wrong; I'd like to hear what you have to say on the matter.
@Tibberclaw For example, if atheism is true, why bother building expensive equipment to study black holes, dark matter, quantum physics, and the like? It's hard to see how discoveries in these fields could benefit the average human being in the long run (although, of course, they might).
For all of our supposed "truth-finding," contemporary Western society is full of abuse, depression, and the never-satisfied pursuit of happiness...
@RFunofficial Well, the track record of science would disagree on this point. In fact, I can't think of a single scientific discovery that proved to be anything less than profoundly useful either directly or indirectly.
Just because we haven't reached a perfect utopia doesn't mean things haven't improved dramatically. Even unhappy people today would still rather not live 500 years ago, at least once they really consider what they would lose (e.g. running water, electricity, the internet).
@Tibberclaw What do you say, then, to folks who, like Peter Williams, Bill Craig, and I, have looked into the evidence for Christian theism and find it compelling? Are we all deluded? We *might* be wrong, of course; but deluded?
@RFunofficial Well, now we are back to the pointless 'wrong' vs. 'deluded' distinction. My position is simple. I find the deistic concept of god lacking in substantial evidence, and the idea is inherently unfalsifiable. The theistic god is defined much more specifically, in various different ways, but always in a way that includes characteristics that seem to contradict reality. Like that he cares specifically about humanity, that prayer actually works, that the bible is god's literal word, etc.
@Tibberclaw Well, actually, it's an important distinction. I don't think theism, even Christian theism, entails or leads to the belief that, for instance, the Bible is God's *literal* word. The Bible is a collection of different books in different literary genres, so I don't think "the Bible is God's literal word" makes much sense. So I think you're *wrong* on this matter, but not *deluded*.
@Tibberclaw Now, Bill and Peter tried to lay out some reasons for thinking that God is not a delusion. Perhaps God does not exist (although I'm convinced that he does), but belief in God can at least be rational, and I think that sceptics should earnestly seek God in the knowledge that theism is a rational position that doesn't require believers to throw their minds out the window.
@RFunofficial Ok, could you list some examples of theistic beliefs that are not uncomfortably inconsistent with reality? There is nothing I've come across that I can, in good conscience, accept as reasonable or plausible. This is not to say they are all logically impossible, but illogical enough to cause cognitive dissonance in trying to assimilate them.
@Tibberclaw Well, that's a bit unfair, isn't it? ;-) As a Christian theist, I don't know of any beliefs of mine that are "uncomfortably inconsistent with reality"; if you or I knew we had such beliefs, we'd change them, surely? (Well, maybe not. We humans are pretty stubborn. But I remain hopeful.)
But back to the question you asked a bit earlier... Do you think that God would answer prayers offered to him simply for the sake of testing whether or not God answers prayers?
@RFunofficial I don't understand how the benefits of truth have anything to do with atheism or theism. How is god's existence even relevant? It is like people who are outraged by the idea of human love being a biological manifestation. What added value is derived from viewing love as a mysterious, magical property? Why is a supernatural explanation inherently better than a natural one?
@Tibberclaw I don't think a sharp line can necessarily be drawn between "natural" and "supernatural" explanations, but I suppose the answer to that question would depend on the phenomena to be explained.
I, for one, have no major issues with the idea that human beings are entirely physical beings (with no independent soul or spirit). And I'm open to the possibility that God may have brought about belief in God, love and altruism, and so on through an evolutionary process.
@Tibberclaw And I really am interested in finding out what you think about people who do think that the evidence points strongly in the direction of God's existence... ;-)
@RFunofficial Well, I guess I don't understand why they would think that. Particularly since even those who claim to believe based on evidence, rarely seem to consult evidence on specific issues. Take the efficacy of prayer. Every study ever conducted on the subject shows no statistically significant correlation between a prayer and the outcome. If a person actually believes prayer works, then I would expect them to find this fact troubling, but they don't. Why?
@RFunofficial How else can he expect people to believe it works? Otherwise your belief could very easily be based on confirmation bias, and there is good reason to fear this. Why else would people of various religious backgrounds engage in prayer and come out of the experience believing God told them mutually exclusive truths that conveniently affirm their presuppositions? Obviously they aren't all right, and at the least, most are led by confirmation bias. Why think yourself special?
@Tibberclaw Okay. Why don't you establish scientific studies to establish the efficacy of requests made to your friends, your family, your parents, and other people in general? I think your position on such matters may be a bit inconsistent.
Are you open to the idea of God's reality? Do you earnestly seek God in prayer and repentance? So often I find that sceptics ask for divine pyrotechnics and aren't open to God in his terms.
@RFunofficial I was raised in a religious family, but I wouldn't say I ever "deconverted" because I never developed a conviction of any of it being true at first. I've had suspicions about the intellectual merits of belief as long as I can remember, even as a younger kid around 8-14. I tried praying many times and only ever with real intent and sincerity. I made my requests as undemanding as possible: You don't need to prove your existence, just show me how to approach the issue. Logic or faith?
@Tibberclaw Well, I'd encourage you to keep seeking God. It's not as if he minds you making "demanding" requests, provided your motives are right! ;-)
I have faith in my friends because I have experienced their love, trustworthiness, and reliability and trusting them seems to be a logical response. Similarly, I have faith in God because I've experienced his goodness and trusting him seems to be the most logical response. So I guess I think logic and faith are connected.
@RFunofficial By 'pyrotechnics' you mean something verifiable? If so, then I don't understand how an honest person can go about this without expecting a pyrotechnical response...
When you have some time, check out some of Paul Moser's work (e.g. Google "Agapeic Theism: Personifying Evidence and Moral Struggle" or "The Elusive God").
@Tibberclaw As a Christian theist, I think that pretty good evidence for God's existence is available. My approach is somewhat different from (say) Bill Craig's, although I do have enormous respect for Bill (hey, he got me interested in philosophical theology in the first place!).
Just look at the enormous hubris and narcissism of Copson, Arif and quite a significant amount of the atheistic audience. They mock Dr. Craig, they laugh at him, they see him and other theists as simply foolish and delusional. It is their hubristic arrogance that blinds them. The question that the student asks at 39:40 his voice, his body language and words, they portray such a nervous and angry arrogance such hatred for theistic belief its just disgusting sometimes.
He was quite manipulative when he was playing into people's emotions to get the house vote.. Then Ahmed in true sportsmanship gave the audience a bit of respect without trashing Bill..
They started saying, "oh well we're going to show God exists, so it's not a delusion." Then it was like, "well the point is whether believing in God is a delusion, not if He exists or not."..
I have deleted a comment that labeled members of the university that hosted the debate "dumb." The poster is welcome to rephrase the comment in a more academic fashion.
@RFunofficial i cant believe i sat through the whole thing only to learn this university is in agreement with delusional beliefs. feel sorry for them, guess not even oxford would help them see reason lol.
we all knew what ahmed said about his mate telling hiim never to argue with christians was true before the result though
more academic fashion? p-lease. just admit you guys are guessing and there is no reason to let me destroy you academically. which i can do
@RFunofficial will you promise that you and Monitor301 wont run away in shame and draw me into strawman arguments? ill promise to destroy you if you stick around. otherwise its just another waste of energy. as it is im only going to be rehashing the blindingly obvious.
@GBJ83 I'm not interested in winning debates. If you want to respond to the arguments used by Craig and Williams, go ahead. My belief that God exists isn't based on their arguments, at any rate; so don't lump me in so quickly with them!
You might want to write your responses on a blog rather than post them here, because YouTube doesn't allow for particularly long comments. It's up to you. Let me know what you decide to do.
@RFunofficial im interested in a discussion not a monologue. if you have sound arguments for your reasons for belief I am excited to hear them. My mind is always receptive to new ideas and different ways of thinking. but i woulnt want you to think I think you are a coward by saying this so I wont draw you into a debate. i understand your reluctance if the belief you hold is so personal to you but at least im glad you wont remove my comments from here.
@RFunofficial i'd just like to reiterate that I and most others are probably much more interested in hearing personal reasons that the same tiresome arguments put forward by these professional debaters. If you feel what is true for you is true then there shouldnt be much of a reason why I shouldnt either. I could be missing something and maybe you can help?
"... let me destroy you academically. which i can do"
Go ahead.
Demonstrate to us that you aren't epistemologically inept, that you can formulate cogent objections to the cosmological and ontological arguments, and that your statement here isn't yet another demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect by a philosophically illiterate atheist.
@monitor301 lol 5 tries and chewing ten dictionaries to throw up some fanciful words won't help you against plain common sense. give me until I wake up before I answer it, too long to type on my phone. prepare to be destroyed muahahahaha
@GBJ83 The Ontological argument as my lil sis would put it, is also circular but completely logical of course. My Little Ponies are the greatest coneceivable beings hence they exist. They exist in her mind and since they are the greatest beings they must also exist in reality in order to be truly great. More proof they also exist in reality because people have made physical models of these wondrous beings. Therefore My Little Ponies definitely exist and are the greatest beings conceived.
@monitor301 The Cosmological argument as the Euro "science" student put across is illogical. The complexity in the universe is in no way proof of a creator.
We have proof for why a complex engine exists, we can trace it to a creator by proof.
Complex NATURAL things in the universe have an explanation that doesn't necessarily require a creator .Plus if natural things were designed why are there so many flaws.
Any smart human can now design a lifeform better than many existing now
@GBJ83 Do you mean the teleological argument? The cosmological argument has nothing to do with the presence of complex life-forms in the universe. And your criticism of the ontological argument is mistaken. Are the little ponies omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (power, and knowledge, and benevolence are great-making properties)? If not, then they are not the greatest conceivable beings. If so, then "the little ponies" is just a descriptor for what the theist means by "God."
@RFunofficial the teleo and cosmologicals hold the same fallacies. just because many things appear like they may have been designed does not mean everything has to have had a designer and just because many things appear to have a first cause does not mean everything has to have a first cause.
why cant the My Little Ponies be omnieverything? Of course they are to her. My sister is apparently normally right about these things. She has the wildest imagination of anyone i know
@GBJ83 they surely seem to know everything because she talks to them through her dolls and she does what they say. they are definitely beyond time and space and are everywhere because she says she experiences them when she dreams. she's not sure about the benevolence thing because she wonders why babies die and people are born delusional, but they seem to make her happy when she ignores those minor details.
@GBJ83 she is trying to make us believe that because the universe is complex it must have been designed at some point and that designer must not be gradual nature but god. or an uncaused first cause. but to invoke a first cause, or a being as being uncaused it suddenly is a thing. and every thing must have a cause according to her. so ask her who caused god? cus i dont know
@GBJ83 Are you trying to refute your sister's arguments, or Williams', or Craig's? No Christian philosopher would claim that _everything_ needs a cause. Perhaps everything cries out for an _explanation_, in which case the orthodox Christian theist would hold that God's explanation is found in the necessity of His own nature.
Can you lay out the teleological and cosmological arguments that you are critical of in standard logical form (with premises and a conclusion), please?
@RFunofficial take your pick. You can see im refuting all three at once, in fact refuting any claim from anyone claiming to know of the existence of a supernatural being.
@RFunofficial yes I can lay them out for you, but what didnt you understand from my posts? because i just destroyed both showing their fallacy. Here it is again teleological states a) Complexity implies a designer. - NO IT DOESNT, b) The universe is highly complex - SO WHAT? c) Therefore, the universe must have a designer. - WAIT, WHAT? WHY?
"a) Complexity implies a designer. - NO IT DOESNT, b) The universe is highly complex - SO WHAT? c) Therefore, the universe must have a designer. - WAIT, WHAT? WHY?"
"has NOTHING ive said in ten posts resonated with you?"
I've responded to your points directly and cogently. If you can't at least understand their relevance to your comments, then I'm afraid your literacy is a concern.
@GBJ83 teleological...even if you were to assume that the universe has a purpose why one earth does it have to be god, not just gradual nature? this circular argument is no argument for god. cosmological...even if you were to believe the universe had a first cause and attribute that to your god, your own argument suggests something must have created that god too so you have again solved nothing with this circular reasoning except created a bigger mystery.
@GBJ83 i dont know if you are receptive to anything I have said or if it will all be ignored, but heres more reason...my mum who is a jain has reason to believe the universe is inifinite with no start. i abstain from such knowledge. but if there is a possibility that her beliefs were true then automatically there is no reason to believe that anything must have a first cause because infinity is not even a remote possibility with the cosmological argument so nor is something like a god
@monitor301 and anyone can claim whatever they want. where is the sound evidence? there is none. If I was to trust anyone with wild claims Ill choose a claim from a philosophy that doesnt require belief in a god. Ill take Carl Sagan's word over my mum and Ill take my mums views over any of you untrained anythings
For the cosmological argument? The Borde Guth Vilenkin theorem is based on empirical observations of the universe ie. it is solidly evidence-based.
The causal principle is what is referred to as apriori knowledge, a "metaphysical axiom." It is necessary for scientific rationalism, and its absence or denial would be pervasively destructive of scientific progress.
"your own argument suggests something must have created that god too ..."
Let me simplify my last point, so that it's more comprehensible to you.
Premise one of the KCA states that everything which BEGINS to exist has a cause. God did not "begin to exist". He is what is defined, in ontology (the study of existence) as a "necessary being."
The existence of such "necessary beings" is a logical necessity, because their absence creates problems such as infinite causal regress.
@monitor301 in order for your god to BE a "necessary being" you are willing him into existence. there is no proof. even if there was a ncesessity for an uncaused cause it will ALWAYS stand to reason by the SAME argument that even THAT must have had a first cause. You can pick and choose when suits lol. Oh it only applies to everything but god. riiiight.
Empirico-deductive arguments are proof, you're just not scientifically nor philosophically astute enough to see how they operate as proof.
"You can pick and choose when suits lol"
This isn't special pleading because it's consistent with ontological premises. Look up the Munchausen trilemma for why "ontologically necessary" beings are necessary. :)
"even if you were to believe the universe had a first cause and attribute that to your god, your own argument suggests something must have created that god too ..."
/sigh
Leibnizian ontology states that all things in existence can be divided into two categories - they either exist necessarily (ie. are ontologically foundational) or are contingent (ie. have a cause for their existence). God is a necessary being, by definition.
"cosmological (sic) states a) Whatever exists has a cause. - WHO SAYS? 2) The universe exists. - AGREED 3) Therefore the universe had a cause. - WAIT, WHAT? WHY?"
This isn't the Kalam cosmological argument. Let me amend it for you:
Premise one is an intermarriage of the causal principle, which is a central tenet of the aetiological foundations of scientific rationalism, with Liebnizian ontology - specifically that all things in existence fall into a dichotomy of necessity versus contingency of existence.
By these criteria, if something "begins to exist", it is disqualified from ontological necessity, and must therefore be ontologically contingent. ie. It must have a cause for its existence.
@monitor301 oh i see you are using smenatic to say "whatever begins to exist must have a cause" rather than whatever exists has a cause". ok thats a strawman because who is claiming with certainty that the universe even began to exist? just because in our current understanding we can understand what happened close to the big bang does not mean we know if there were infinite bangs and implosions before.
Look up the paper and refute the findings then. :)
Here's the reference: A. Borde, A. Guth and A. Vilenkin (2003). "Inflationary space-times are incomplete in past directions". Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (15): 151301
"just because in our current understanding we can understand what happened close to the big bang does not mean we know if there were infinite bangs and implosions before."
Past-deflationary universes have far too many problems to be considered seriously in cosmology.
One of the biggest problems is that, for a deflation to successfully progress to inflation, the deflationary phase must be "neatly uniform" without irregularities.
Premise two is derived from the scientific field of cosmology - namely the Borde Guth Vilenkin theorem, which mathematically deduces that an expanding universe must have a space-time boundary at inception in all cases except for past-deflationary universes (which are far too problematic to be given any weigh.)
ie. It's an empirically-derived scientific finding which claims that the universe "began to exist" at a point in its past.
@monitor301 "inception in all cases except for past-deflationary universes (which are far too problematic to be given any weigh" - yeah only problematic to your theory of a First Cause.
@monitor301 look all this intellectual funkiness must turn you on, but its turning you off from basic common sense. you are making so many assumptions and drawing any but only one possible prediction of the infinite possible that could be infered from the data patterns we have and will continue to gather. just simple questions because you seem to start one topic and move onto the next without acknowledging anything. from the evidence do you conclude that there is a creator good god?
No assumptions have been made in the cosmological argument, aside from the axiomatic foundations of the scientific method. ie. The precepts of empiricism and scientific rationalism (which encompasses casual priority and regression).
If you assert that these positions are arbitrary assumptions, then you are, by definition, anti-science. Good going. :)
"which are you referring to? maybe it was in reply to monitor301"
No, he was referring to your ignorance with regard to the cosmological, teleological and ontological arguments. For example, among other issues, you had to be corrected on the basic form of the Kalam argument.
@monitor301 i dont need to know the exact details of your made up definitions for these anyway redundant arguments just like I do not need to know the mechanical details of every ufo that is sighted. if the premise of a ufo is so improbable why argue what the ufo looked like. yours, wlcs, kalam, whoever believers arguments are flawed because they are all based on an assumption that a god exists and r then worked backwards but manipulated to look like this assumption is the conclusion
@GBJ83 if we were to assume the first two premises of either of these dumb arguments were true there is still no way we can deduce that god did it. there are still an infinite number of possibilities as to what happnd b4 the big bang apart from god. after the bb requires no god or intervention. explain in your own words wht makes u think any of this is proof of the supernatural. i want you to convince me so we can move on and I can ask you what proof you have for knowing the nature of god
"if we were to assume the first two premises of either of these dumb arguments were true there is still no way we can deduce that god did it"
If the premises are true then the conclusion NECESSARILY FOLLOWS - this is one of the most basic tenets of formal logic and critical thinking.
The universe cannot be a cause unto its own existence, meaning the cause must be independent of the universe and its physical laws. The personal attributes to this cause also have a deductive basis.
"i dont need to know the exact details of your made up definitions for these anyway redundant (sic) arguments"
Then you are technically attacking straw men.
Why is it atheists who are scientifically and philosophically literate, who are formally qualified in these fields, address these arguments as important, valid academic issues, whereas greasy teenage atheist basement dwellers don't?
I alluded to the Dunning-Kruger effect earlier. I suspect it was a large part to play here.
@monitor301 look im not sure who you are trying to dazzle with your "philosophical copy paste literacy" . im asking the most simple questions inbasic english and you dont seem to comprehend or want to glosss over. who cares what other atheists think? atheists arent a group.thinking for MYSELF unlke you lot, i cannot deduce that god necessarily follows and that the universe itself cannot come from nothing/or itself.
@GBJ83 or indeed that the universe is eternal with no real beginning at all, just perceived beginnings and ends in endless unbroken infinite link of time cycles. if we havent understood the fundamentals of time and there is so much yet to be discovered about the nature of the universe why would we want to limit our possible conclusions? especially to something that is inserted by definition as more complicated than the universe which solves nothing in the end but causes a greater problem
@GBJ83 why can there not be laws without a lawmaker. why is it a requirement that soething needs divine intervention to change its state. why can the object itself not be its own cause for change. why can cause and effect not be two sides of the same coin. there could be no seperation iin time between perceived cause and effect making god and "his" creation a self sustaining self changing model with no requirement for "an external other"
@monitor301 no i didnt just say physical laws. and no not "why causality is right?" but "why is EXTERNAL causality ALWAYS right?" do some thinking of your own.
I'm very happy to discuss these issues with you to the extent that my own personal time and the limitations of the comments system allows, and I will happily direct you to the relevant references for your own education.
However, to ask that I hand-hold you through each of these individual references is simply unrealistic. Sorry, but nothing beats formal tuition or self-directed learning in a topic. :)
@monitor301 i agree, i dnt want hand holding unless I feel someone has a greater understanding of s'thng than me which I dont believe you have. Im asking for your personal reasoning, not those of others. i feel the use of my word "academically" earlier has sent you on a rant of citations and quotations which in hindsight I can say was my fault. see..cause/effect one of the same lol..i also dont like this comment system. cant always see your messages, nor in any easy order..how else?
These issues are very basic epistemological and metaphysical issues.
Do I need "personal reasoning" to calculate that "1+1=2"? No, it's an objective, mathematically coherent solution, evident from mathematical axioms. For you to ask for my personal opinion on the nature of deductive syllogisms is equally non-sensical.
My philosophy has idiosyncracies to distinguish them from textbook definitions, but you've done little to elicit them.
@monitor301 with regard to your personal view, what will be interesting to find out that if for whatever remote reason there indeed is an uncaused god, what difference does it make? whats wrong with just calling that the universe? what happens next? it is clear from real life that there is no divine intervention since the big bang so we have solved nothing by attributing some name to a possible first cause.
"whats wrong with just calling that the universe?"
Because it's demonstrable in physics that the universe began to exist. The cause for the existence of the universe cannot be the universe itself. Basic formal logic?
"what happens next?"
This depends on what you mean by "happens" and "next." Are you referring to causal priority or temporal priority?
"there is no divine intervention since the big bang"
I'd like to see you prove this mathematically or scientifically. :)
"[i didnt just say] "why causality is right?" but "why is EXTERNAL causality ALWAYS right?""
Where is it asserted in the cosmological argument that everything needs a cause? I've stated to you very clearly what premise one asserts ("whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause") and related it to the Liebnizian dichotomy of necessity versus contingency.
No wonder you think the Kalam argument is easily defeated - you constantly straw man defective cosmological arguments in its place.
@monitor301 listen and listen good. you are clearly saying that the kalaam argument has get out clauses so proves nothing one way or the other. on its own we all personally have no scientific testable evidence and no reason to conclude that everything that begins to exist has a cause and certainly not that they "must" have a cause. with the propping from some further philosphical diorrhoea from Liebniz it now according apparently holds some validity?
@GBJ83 and as for necessity vs contingency, this does not have to be the case. in light of more evidence things can be both true and false at the same time depending on who by and how the thing is seen. it may be impossible to deduce the ultimate truth about something because of limitations in our own perceptions, we cant help but have a bias. there is a theory in janism called anekantveda
@GBJ83 and i mean come on. you still havent explained what makes you or your fellow creation "philosophers" accept that the universe has to be something that fits into the "begins to exist" rather than "begins to exist in its current form as we can observe"
"you still havent explained what makes you or your fellow creation "philosophers" accept that the universe has to be something that fits into the "begins to exist" rather than "begins to exist in its current form as we can observe""
Because in both cases, regardless of our perceptual limits, if the universe begins to exist, then it needs a transcendental (ie. non-physical) cause.
"and as for necessity vs contingency, this does not have to be the case"
So you, without scientific, philosophical or epistemological training, have single-handedly, in one afternoon solved one of the significant unresolved problems in epistemology - the Munchausen trilemma - which has eluded the greatest minds in philosophy for hundreds of years?
Congratulations. Would you care to put your proof in writing?
@monitor301 Syād-asti – “in some ways it is”, syād-nāsti - “in some ways it is not”, syād-asti-nāsti - “in some ways it is and it is not”, syād-asti-avaktavyaḥ - “in some ways it is and it is indescribable”, syād-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ - “in some ways it is not and it is indescribable”, syād-asti-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ - “in some ways it is, it is not and it is indescribable”, syād-avaktavyaḥ- “in some ways it is indescribable”
"in light of more evidence things can be both true and false at the same"
Have you ever heard of the law of non-contradiction? It's one of the most fundamental axioms of classical logic. In other words, by claiming simultaneity of truth and falsity of a proposition, you fail at basic logic.
"... impossible to deduce the ultimate truth about something because of limitations in our own perceptions"
Absolutely, humans have epistemic limitations. This is what philosophy addresses.
@monitor301 philosophy cannot address paradoxes in any complete way, its a constantly evolving application as concepts involved evolve. based on scientific evidence we can see what the most fitting inference is likely to be. and there are more plausible explanations for everything that exists than a first cause. and there is certainly literally any evidence for any sort of divine intervention since the possible "beginning" of our universe's current state.
"philosophy cannot address paradoxes in any complete way"
Finally some philosophically competent remarks. The correct statement should be:-
1. Science cannot address paradoxes at all.
2. The purpose of philosophy is to address epistemological problems, including paradoxes.
Remember, paradoxes occur due to a conflict between two or more epistemic foundational beliefs provoked by empirical findings. ie. It is an epistemological problem.
@JCrownwell thanks Captain Obvious. we all know science is what throws up the paradoxes and then we use philosophy to tackle them. um duh? however the instrinsic nature of philosophy from a human perspective means we cant make complete and absolutist claims unless that is the type of philosophical attitude you are making the claim from
Just to clarify, you're still speaking to monitor301. This is my iPad login (I never bother to remember youtube account details.)
"we all know science is what throws up the paradoxes and then we use philosophy to tackle them"
The clear inference from your remark was that paradoxes are intrinsically refractory to philosophical reasoning. This is wrong. You're basically shifting the goal posts now.
@JCrownwell no you made a wrong judgement based on you prior bias of science vs philosophy. dont project, thanks for telling me you are monitor lol, i was wondering actually and slated yo down there. :)
I'm sorry but your reasoning is really starting to fall apart with the last few comment sets, and it was pretty shaky to start off with.
I've repeated some points now three or more times, only to see you go off at a complete tangent to what is being discussed, or dodge, contort or contrive your way out of a cogent reply. These ideas are not *that* difficult.
In this context, I must ask the following: Are you a parodist? :)
Are you actually someone making fun of dumb atheists?
"i want to help you understand why these three special creation arguments are assertions not based in sound reasoning"
You've categorically failed to provide ANY substantive argument against any of these arguments. You even had to be corrected on what these arguments actually were.
If your comments ARE serious, and not parodic, then I genuinely don't think moving to PMs will help you understand any better. But go ahead, if you think it will change things. Personally I don't.
@JCrownwell who said it is? im just asking believers why it is relevant to establish a being created the universe if it appears he has left it alone since.
"based on scientific evidence we can see what the most fitting inference is likely to be"
Based on scientific evidence we know the universe began to exist.
Based upon reasoning/scientific rationalism, namely the causal principle, we can deduce that things which begin to exist have a cause. Something cannot be cause unto its own existence. Therefore the universe has a transcendent cause.
@JCrownwell we do not know the universe began to exist. we know it has begun life in its current state which says nothing about it coming from nothing because whatever its made of could have always existed. at what point can you say a human begins to exist? as an adult? as a kid? as a baby? embryo? egg/serm, gleam in fathers eye? human ancestors, all the way back to the big bang. there is no observation of any true spontaneous thing. just a manipulation of what is already there.
@JCrownwell irrelevant waffle? what science can we use as evidence to draw a conclusion from. where in life can we observe something that came about with no prior processes to deduce with any assertion that everything that has a beginning must have a single cause? how is that science lol. its idiocy
"where in life can we observe something that came about with no prior processes to deduce with any assertion that everything that has a beginning must have a single cause?"
Are you claiming that logic and causality are provable using evidence? You don't seem to understand the epistemological concept of the axiom, or foundationalism.
Both logic and causality are referred to as "apriori" knowledge - meaning knowledge before experience. Once again, read any basic textbook.
@GBJ83 this will be scientific uevidence and then understanding of the universes begining. when we can recreate the big bang and create a universe. then we can observe if it required us or if there are any natural processes that could have caused this kickstart. then we can eliminate your god from that equation and move onto discovering how the processes before caused the proces that did the kick start and so on
@JCrownwell i didnt claim everything in science must be direectly observable. i claimed it would be near undeniable evidence of what processes were involved at the time of a big bang and a helpful way of eliminating god, fairies, unicorns and god farting to kick start. you two guys fail at basic conversation because your heads are stuck with your conclusion and work backwards to justify your possible claim.
"i claimed it would be near undeniable evidence of what processes were involved at the time of a big bang and a helpful way of eliminating god, fairies, unicorns and god farting to kick start."
No, you were challenging scientific cosmological findings by trying to redefine empiricism. Stop shifting the goal posts.
@JCrownwell lets take this to email so you get the entier picture rather than picking on random things i use to respond to your own random points. my basic questions have been ignored and all the rest is circular, i want to discuss why the there is no evidence of god, ponies, fairies yet people belive it. i want to help you understand why these three special creation arguments are assertions not based in sound reasoning. im happy to reword, even happy to talk over skype
What I would personally recommend is that you reply succinctly to the questions that you've dodged, *one at a time* so that you can no longer obfuscate your way out of a response:-
You claimed earlier that you have an "absence of belief" in God. In that case, which of the following categories of absence of belief describes your position?
(1) Atheism "God does not exist"
(2) Agnosticism "I don't believe nor disbelieve in God"
"i cannot deduce ... that the universe is eternal with no real beginning at all"
Your basic literacy is also a concern.
If you wish to contend the notion that the universe had a defined beginning to its existence, the reference (which is a consensus view in cosmology) you want to refute is: A. Borde, A. Guth and A. Vilenkin (2003). "Inflationary space-times are incomplete in past directions". Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (15): 151301.
@monitor301 why are you repeatedly not answering for yourself? do you HAVE to reply with the philosophy of others because you have somehow qualified them to fit with your argument? SIMPLE QUESTIONS require SIMPLE answers. A professionally trained atheist? atheism is the NORMAL state, you dont need to be trained into not believing something.
Behavioural studies in children argue otherwise: That we are born with an innate teleological and causal priority appreciation regressing to belief in absolute, foundational belief in a God.
Atheism is a discrete positive belief. It is the positive assertion that God does not exist, not merely the absence of belief in God. Note the etymology: "atheos" (denial of the gods) -ism.
For a funny video on the definition of atheism: watch?v=AHIIjfxr4o0
@monitor301 now you're just getting wacky. and no atheists dont categorically deny the concept of a possible god. they deny any of the gods that have currently or historically been attributed to everything. however it is true to say that in light of science and the current facts as we know them do not require an intervening god so there is no reason to believe in one. maybe you need to understand this. you are also an atheist with regard to the tons of hindu gods
@monitor301 atheism is not an assertion to the notion of no god, its the lack of belief in any claimed gods. its a reactionary response. its true im more agnostic with relation to the notion of the remote possibility of some being that kickstarted the universe into its current form. anything is possible in that realm for now. but certainly as close to 100% sure im an atheist about any intervening god since the big bang as i am about gravity for example. labels are crap sometimes
Craig is thorough
SanEverett 2 weeks ago
Craig is so caught up in the technical terms of the debate and getting people to walk through the door he wants that it seems like he just doesn't give a damn about what is true or correct.
Tibberclaw 2 weeks ago
@Tibberclaw Out of interest, Tibberclaw, why do you think truth is important? I agree that it is, of course; but so often the question isn't addressed.
RFunofficial 2 weeks ago
@RFunofficial Because people are always better off with the truth. Particularly in the case of God/Religion. People invest a lot of time into this, and their beliefs about God can have profound implications (e.g. 9/11).
I cannot stand religious discussions centered around whether a belief has beneficial social effects or not. Who cares what the majority believes is "delusional" (as technically defined)?
Is belief X true? What does the evidence say about X? This is all that should matter...
Tibberclaw 2 weeks ago
@Tibberclaw Not to offend you or anything, but I think your position is a bit inconsistent. If I've understood you correctly, you think that people should believe the truth because their beliefs (particularly religious beliefs) can have profound implications, and then go on to write that you cannot stand religious discussions centred around the societal implications of beliefs. Perhaps you could clarify?
RFunofficial 2 weeks ago
@RFunofficial My point is that people are mistaken in thinking that there is a difference between what is true and what is beneficial. They are the same. You can't find truth by searching for what is beneficial. It only works in the other direction; you find what is ultimately beneficial by finding what is true.
This is why science progresses, and older, false beliefs are discarded. There is no rational for believing a falsehood in the long-run. Eventually the truth gets in your way...
Tibberclaw 2 weeks ago
@Tibberclaw I guess a concern I have is that, if atheism is true, there seems (to me at least) to be a dearth of good reasons to seek truth or persuade others of truth. Perhaps I'm wrong; I'd like to hear what you have to say on the matter.
RFunofficial 2 weeks ago
@Tibberclaw For example, if atheism is true, why bother building expensive equipment to study black holes, dark matter, quantum physics, and the like? It's hard to see how discoveries in these fields could benefit the average human being in the long run (although, of course, they might).
For all of our supposed "truth-finding," contemporary Western society is full of abuse, depression, and the never-satisfied pursuit of happiness...
RFunofficial 2 weeks ago
@RFunofficial Well, the track record of science would disagree on this point. In fact, I can't think of a single scientific discovery that proved to be anything less than profoundly useful either directly or indirectly.
Just because we haven't reached a perfect utopia doesn't mean things haven't improved dramatically. Even unhappy people today would still rather not live 500 years ago, at least once they really consider what they would lose (e.g. running water, electricity, the internet).
Tibberclaw 2 weeks ago
@Tibberclaw What do you say, then, to folks who, like Peter Williams, Bill Craig, and I, have looked into the evidence for Christian theism and find it compelling? Are we all deluded? We *might* be wrong, of course; but deluded?
RFunofficial 2 weeks ago
@RFunofficial Well, now we are back to the pointless 'wrong' vs. 'deluded' distinction. My position is simple. I find the deistic concept of god lacking in substantial evidence, and the idea is inherently unfalsifiable. The theistic god is defined much more specifically, in various different ways, but always in a way that includes characteristics that seem to contradict reality. Like that he cares specifically about humanity, that prayer actually works, that the bible is god's literal word, etc.
Tibberclaw 2 weeks ago
@Tibberclaw Well, actually, it's an important distinction. I don't think theism, even Christian theism, entails or leads to the belief that, for instance, the Bible is God's *literal* word. The Bible is a collection of different books in different literary genres, so I don't think "the Bible is God's literal word" makes much sense. So I think you're *wrong* on this matter, but not *deluded*.
RFunofficial 2 weeks ago
@Tibberclaw Now, Bill and Peter tried to lay out some reasons for thinking that God is not a delusion. Perhaps God does not exist (although I'm convinced that he does), but belief in God can at least be rational, and I think that sceptics should earnestly seek God in the knowledge that theism is a rational position that doesn't require believers to throw their minds out the window.
RFunofficial 2 weeks ago
@RFunofficial Ok, could you list some examples of theistic beliefs that are not uncomfortably inconsistent with reality? There is nothing I've come across that I can, in good conscience, accept as reasonable or plausible. This is not to say they are all logically impossible, but illogical enough to cause cognitive dissonance in trying to assimilate them.
Tibberclaw 2 weeks ago
@Tibberclaw Well, that's a bit unfair, isn't it? ;-) As a Christian theist, I don't know of any beliefs of mine that are "uncomfortably inconsistent with reality"; if you or I knew we had such beliefs, we'd change them, surely? (Well, maybe not. We humans are pretty stubborn. But I remain hopeful.)
But back to the question you asked a bit earlier... Do you think that God would answer prayers offered to him simply for the sake of testing whether or not God answers prayers?
RFunofficial 2 weeks ago
@RFunofficial I'm glad that you express the willingness to change your beliefs if logic/evidence demands it. You've earned some respect from me.
Tibberclaw 2 weeks ago
@RFunofficial I don't understand how the benefits of truth have anything to do with atheism or theism. How is god's existence even relevant? It is like people who are outraged by the idea of human love being a biological manifestation. What added value is derived from viewing love as a mysterious, magical property? Why is a supernatural explanation inherently better than a natural one?
Tibberclaw 2 weeks ago
@Tibberclaw I don't think a sharp line can necessarily be drawn between "natural" and "supernatural" explanations, but I suppose the answer to that question would depend on the phenomena to be explained.
I, for one, have no major issues with the idea that human beings are entirely physical beings (with no independent soul or spirit). And I'm open to the possibility that God may have brought about belief in God, love and altruism, and so on through an evolutionary process.
RFunofficial 2 weeks ago
@Tibberclaw And I really am interested in finding out what you think about people who do think that the evidence points strongly in the direction of God's existence... ;-)
RFunofficial 2 weeks ago
@RFunofficial Well, I guess I don't understand why they would think that. Particularly since even those who claim to believe based on evidence, rarely seem to consult evidence on specific issues. Take the efficacy of prayer. Every study ever conducted on the subject shows no statistically significant correlation between a prayer and the outcome. If a person actually believes prayer works, then I would expect them to find this fact troubling, but they don't. Why?
Tibberclaw 2 weeks ago
@Tibberclaw Well, do you think God would answer prayers simply offered for the sake of testing the efficacy of intercessory prayer? Why, or why not?
RFunofficial 2 weeks ago
@RFunofficial How else can he expect people to believe it works? Otherwise your belief could very easily be based on confirmation bias, and there is good reason to fear this. Why else would people of various religious backgrounds engage in prayer and come out of the experience believing God told them mutually exclusive truths that conveniently affirm their presuppositions? Obviously they aren't all right, and at the least, most are led by confirmation bias. Why think yourself special?
Tibberclaw 2 weeks ago
@Tibberclaw Okay. Why don't you establish scientific studies to establish the efficacy of requests made to your friends, your family, your parents, and other people in general? I think your position on such matters may be a bit inconsistent.
Are you open to the idea of God's reality? Do you earnestly seek God in prayer and repentance? So often I find that sceptics ask for divine pyrotechnics and aren't open to God in his terms.
RFunofficial 2 weeks ago
@RFunofficial I was raised in a religious family, but I wouldn't say I ever "deconverted" because I never developed a conviction of any of it being true at first. I've had suspicions about the intellectual merits of belief as long as I can remember, even as a younger kid around 8-14. I tried praying many times and only ever with real intent and sincerity. I made my requests as undemanding as possible: You don't need to prove your existence, just show me how to approach the issue. Logic or faith?
Tibberclaw 2 weeks ago
@Tibberclaw Well, I'd encourage you to keep seeking God. It's not as if he minds you making "demanding" requests, provided your motives are right! ;-)
I have faith in my friends because I have experienced their love, trustworthiness, and reliability and trusting them seems to be a logical response. Similarly, I have faith in God because I've experienced his goodness and trusting him seems to be the most logical response. So I guess I think logic and faith are connected.
RFunofficial 2 weeks ago
@RFunofficial By 'pyrotechnics' you mean something verifiable? If so, then I don't understand how an honest person can go about this without expecting a pyrotechnical response...
Tibberclaw 2 weeks ago
@Tibberclaw Rather than giving some sort of cheap response, I'll write something up on my blog and send you a link.
RFunofficial 2 weeks ago
When you have some time, check out some of Paul Moser's work (e.g. Google "Agapeic Theism: Personifying Evidence and Moral Struggle" or "The Elusive God").
RFunofficial 2 weeks ago
@Tibberclaw I'm actually writing something on scientific studies in intercessory prayer at the moment. I'll send you a link when it's finished.
RFunofficial 2 weeks ago
@Tibberclaw As a Christian theist, I think that pretty good evidence for God's existence is available. My approach is somewhat different from (say) Bill Craig's, although I do have enormous respect for Bill (hey, he got me interested in philosophical theology in the first place!).
RFunofficial 2 weeks ago
Just look at the enormous hubris and narcissism of Copson, Arif and quite a significant amount of the atheistic audience. They mock Dr. Craig, they laugh at him, they see him and other theists as simply foolish and delusional. It is their hubristic arrogance that blinds them. The question that the student asks at 39:40 his voice, his body language and words, they portray such a nervous and angry arrogance such hatred for theistic belief its just disgusting sometimes.
KINOVINO92 3 weeks ago
1:05:18 - 1:05:40 = Pure pwnage...
Autumn6 1 month ago
Why are militant atheists so irascible? Ahmed is the worst I've seen and as they say, never believe an angry man
colquest 1 month ago
Comment removed
monitor301 1 month ago
Comment removed
monitor301 1 month ago
I loved the debate though.. Always love a debate with William Lane Craig, best debater on the planet
lukeism2 1 month ago
He was quite manipulative when he was playing into people's emotions to get the house vote.. Then Ahmed in true sportsmanship gave the audience a bit of respect without trashing Bill..
lukeism2 1 month ago
They started saying, "oh well we're going to show God exists, so it's not a delusion." Then it was like, "well the point is whether believing in God is a delusion, not if He exists or not."..
lukeism2 1 month ago
I have deleted a comment that labeled members of the university that hosted the debate "dumb." The poster is welcome to rephrase the comment in a more academic fashion.
RFunofficial 1 month ago
@RFunofficial i cant believe i sat through the whole thing only to learn this university is in agreement with delusional beliefs. feel sorry for them, guess not even oxford would help them see reason lol.
we all knew what ahmed said about his mate telling hiim never to argue with christians was true before the result though
more academic fashion? p-lease. just admit you guys are guessing and there is no reason to let me destroy you academically. which i can do
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83 Sure.
RFunofficial 1 month ago
@RFunofficial will you promise that you and Monitor301 wont run away in shame and draw me into strawman arguments? ill promise to destroy you if you stick around. otherwise its just another waste of energy. as it is im only going to be rehashing the blindingly obvious.
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83 I'm not interested in winning debates. If you want to respond to the arguments used by Craig and Williams, go ahead. My belief that God exists isn't based on their arguments, at any rate; so don't lump me in so quickly with them!
You might want to write your responses on a blog rather than post them here, because YouTube doesn't allow for particularly long comments. It's up to you. Let me know what you decide to do.
RFunofficial 1 month ago
@RFunofficial im interested in a discussion not a monologue. if you have sound arguments for your reasons for belief I am excited to hear them. My mind is always receptive to new ideas and different ways of thinking. but i woulnt want you to think I think you are a coward by saying this so I wont draw you into a debate. i understand your reluctance if the belief you hold is so personal to you but at least im glad you wont remove my comments from here.
GBJ83 1 month ago
@RFunofficial i'd just like to reiterate that I and most others are probably much more interested in hearing personal reasons that the same tiresome arguments put forward by these professional debaters. If you feel what is true for you is true then there shouldnt be much of a reason why I shouldnt either. I could be missing something and maybe you can help?
GBJ83 1 month ago
Comment removed
monitor301 1 month ago
Comment removed
monitor301 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"... let me destroy you academically. which i can do"
Go ahead.
Demonstrate to us that you aren't epistemologically inept, that you can formulate cogent objections to the cosmological and ontological arguments, and that your statement here isn't yet another demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect by a philosophically illiterate atheist.
monitor301 1 month ago
@monitor301 lol 5 tries and chewing ten dictionaries to throw up some fanciful words won't help you against plain common sense. give me until I wake up before I answer it, too long to type on my phone. prepare to be destroyed muahahahaha
GBJ83 1 month ago
Comment removed
monitor301 1 month ago
@monitor301 The Ontological argument as WLC put it, is completely circular.
God is the greatest coneceivable being hence he exists.
Doesn't even make sense.
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83 The Ontological argument as my lil sis would put it, is also circular but completely logical of course. My Little Ponies are the greatest coneceivable beings hence they exist. They exist in her mind and since they are the greatest beings they must also exist in reality in order to be truly great. More proof they also exist in reality because people have made physical models of these wondrous beings. Therefore My Little Ponies definitely exist and are the greatest beings conceived.
GBJ83 1 month ago
@monitor301 The Cosmological argument as the Euro "science" student put across is illogical. The complexity in the universe is in no way proof of a creator.
We have proof for why a complex engine exists, we can trace it to a creator by proof.
Complex NATURAL things in the universe have an explanation that doesn't necessarily require a creator .Plus if natural things were designed why are there so many flaws.
Any smart human can now design a lifeform better than many existing now
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83 Do you mean the teleological argument? The cosmological argument has nothing to do with the presence of complex life-forms in the universe. And your criticism of the ontological argument is mistaken. Are the little ponies omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (power, and knowledge, and benevolence are great-making properties)? If not, then they are not the greatest conceivable beings. If so, then "the little ponies" is just a descriptor for what the theist means by "God."
RFunofficial 1 month ago
@RFunofficial the teleo and cosmologicals hold the same fallacies. just because many things appear like they may have been designed does not mean everything has to have had a designer and just because many things appear to have a first cause does not mean everything has to have a first cause.
why cant the My Little Ponies be omnieverything? Of course they are to her. My sister is apparently normally right about these things. She has the wildest imagination of anyone i know
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83 they surely seem to know everything because she talks to them through her dolls and she does what they say. they are definitely beyond time and space and are everywhere because she says she experiences them when she dreams. she's not sure about the benevolence thing because she wonders why babies die and people are born delusional, but they seem to make her happy when she ignores those minor details.
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83 she is trying to make us believe that because the universe is complex it must have been designed at some point and that designer must not be gradual nature but god. or an uncaused first cause. but to invoke a first cause, or a being as being uncaused it suddenly is a thing. and every thing must have a cause according to her. so ask her who caused god? cus i dont know
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83 Are you trying to refute your sister's arguments, or Williams', or Craig's? No Christian philosopher would claim that _everything_ needs a cause. Perhaps everything cries out for an _explanation_, in which case the orthodox Christian theist would hold that God's explanation is found in the necessity of His own nature.
Can you lay out the teleological and cosmological arguments that you are critical of in standard logical form (with premises and a conclusion), please?
RFunofficial 1 month ago
@RFunofficial take your pick. You can see im refuting all three at once, in fact refuting any claim from anyone claiming to know of the existence of a supernatural being.
GBJ83 1 month ago
@RFunofficial yes I can lay them out for you, but what didnt you understand from my posts? because i just destroyed both showing their fallacy. Here it is again teleological states a) Complexity implies a designer. - NO IT DOESNT, b) The universe is highly complex - SO WHAT? c) Therefore, the universe must have a designer. - WAIT, WHAT? WHY?
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"a) Complexity implies a designer. - NO IT DOESNT, b) The universe is highly complex - SO WHAT? c) Therefore, the universe must have a designer. - WAIT, WHAT? WHY?"
This isn't the teleological argument. Try again.
monitor301 1 month ago
@monitor301 helpful. how about you give your definition and ill break it down for you. has NOTHING ive said in ten posts resonated with you?
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"has NOTHING ive said in ten posts resonated with you?"
I've responded to your points directly and cogently. If you can't at least understand their relevance to your comments, then I'm afraid your literacy is a concern.
monitor301 1 month ago
@GBJ83 teleological...even if you were to assume that the universe has a purpose why one earth does it have to be god, not just gradual nature? this circular argument is no argument for god. cosmological...even if you were to believe the universe had a first cause and attribute that to your god, your own argument suggests something must have created that god too so you have again solved nothing with this circular reasoning except created a bigger mystery.
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"teleological...even if you were to assume that the universe has a purpose why one earth does it have to be god, not just gradual nature?"
If nature (ie. the universe itself) were to be the "purpose" for the universe, then that would be formally illogical.
monitor301 1 month ago
@GBJ83 i dont know if you are receptive to anything I have said or if it will all be ignored, but heres more reason...my mum who is a jain has reason to believe the universe is inifinite with no start. i abstain from such knowledge. but if there is a possibility that her beliefs were true then automatically there is no reason to believe that anything must have a first cause because infinity is not even a remote possibility with the cosmological argument so nor is something like a god
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"my mum who is a jain has reason to believe the universe is inifinite with no start"
She's entitled to her beliefs, but the consensus view in cosmology is in agreement with the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem.
ie. Most trained cosmologists accept that the universe must have had a definable beginning to its existence.
monitor301 1 month ago
@monitor301 and anyone can claim whatever they want. where is the sound evidence? there is none. If I was to trust anyone with wild claims Ill choose a claim from a philosophy that doesnt require belief in a god. Ill take Carl Sagan's word over my mum and Ill take my mums views over any of you untrained anythings
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"where is the sound evidence?"
For the cosmological argument? The Borde Guth Vilenkin theorem is based on empirical observations of the universe ie. it is solidly evidence-based.
The causal principle is what is referred to as apriori knowledge, a "metaphysical axiom." It is necessary for scientific rationalism, and its absence or denial would be pervasively destructive of scientific progress.
monitor301 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"your own argument suggests something must have created that god too ..."
Let me simplify my last point, so that it's more comprehensible to you.
Premise one of the KCA states that everything which BEGINS to exist has a cause. God did not "begin to exist". He is what is defined, in ontology (the study of existence) as a "necessary being."
The existence of such "necessary beings" is a logical necessity, because their absence creates problems such as infinite causal regress.
monitor301 1 month ago
@monitor301 in order for your god to BE a "necessary being" you are willing him into existence. there is no proof. even if there was a ncesessity for an uncaused cause it will ALWAYS stand to reason by the SAME argument that even THAT must have had a first cause. You can pick and choose when suits lol. Oh it only applies to everything but god. riiiight.
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"there is no proof"
Empirico-deductive arguments are proof, you're just not scientifically nor philosophically astute enough to see how they operate as proof.
"You can pick and choose when suits lol"
This isn't special pleading because it's consistent with ontological premises. Look up the Munchausen trilemma for why "ontologically necessary" beings are necessary. :)
monitor301 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"even if you were to believe the universe had a first cause and attribute that to your god, your own argument suggests something must have created that god too ..."
/sigh
Leibnizian ontology states that all things in existence can be divided into two categories - they either exist necessarily (ie. are ontologically foundational) or are contingent (ie. have a cause for their existence). God is a necessary being, by definition.
monitor301 1 month ago
@monitor301 how can you NOT see why this is circular????? how have you answered anything
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"how can you NOT see why this is circular????? how have you answered anything"
Neither the Kalam argument, teleological nor ontological arguments are circular. Point out precisely the mechanism of circularity. :)
monitor301 1 month ago
@GBJ83 No such argument was made by Craig or Williams in the debate. You're criticising a straw man.
RFunofficial 1 month ago
@RFunofficial cosmological states a) Whatever exists has a cause. - WHO SAYS?
2) The universe exists. - AGREED
3) Therefore the universe had a cause. - WAIT, WHAT? WHY?
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"cosmological (sic) states a) Whatever exists has a cause. - WHO SAYS? 2) The universe exists. - AGREED 3) Therefore the universe had a cause. - WAIT, WHAT? WHY?"
This isn't the Kalam cosmological argument. Let me amend it for you:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
monitor301 1 month ago
@GBJ83
Premise one is an intermarriage of the causal principle, which is a central tenet of the aetiological foundations of scientific rationalism, with Liebnizian ontology - specifically that all things in existence fall into a dichotomy of necessity versus contingency of existence.
By these criteria, if something "begins to exist", it is disqualified from ontological necessity, and must therefore be ontologically contingent. ie. It must have a cause for its existence.
monitor301 1 month ago
@monitor301 oh i see you are using smenatic to say "whatever begins to exist must have a cause" rather than whatever exists has a cause". ok thats a strawman because who is claiming with certainty that the universe even began to exist? just because in our current understanding we can understand what happened close to the big bang does not mean we know if there were infinite bangs and implosions before.
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"oh i see you are using smenatic to say "whatever begins to exist must have a cause""
No, it's not semantical contortion. It is precisely what the Kalam argument states. Look it up.
"ok thats a strawman because who is claiming with certainty that the universe even began to exist?"
Cosmologists do, on a basis of scientific consensus.
monitor301 1 month ago
@monitor301 no they dont.
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"no they dont."
Look up the paper and refute the findings then. :)
Here's the reference: A. Borde, A. Guth and A. Vilenkin (2003). "Inflationary space-times are incomplete in past directions". Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (15): 151301
monitor301 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"just because in our current understanding we can understand what happened close to the big bang does not mean we know if there were infinite bangs and implosions before."
Past-deflationary universes have far too many problems to be considered seriously in cosmology.
One of the biggest problems is that, for a deflation to successfully progress to inflation, the deflationary phase must be "neatly uniform" without irregularities.
monitor301 1 month ago
@GBJ83
Premise two is derived from the scientific field of cosmology - namely the Borde Guth Vilenkin theorem, which mathematically deduces that an expanding universe must have a space-time boundary at inception in all cases except for past-deflationary universes (which are far too problematic to be given any weigh.)
ie. It's an empirically-derived scientific finding which claims that the universe "began to exist" at a point in its past.
monitor301 1 month ago
@monitor301 "inception in all cases except for past-deflationary universes (which are far too problematic to be given any weigh" - yeah only problematic to your theory of a First Cause.
GBJ83 1 month ago
@monitor301 look all this intellectual funkiness must turn you on, but its turning you off from basic common sense. you are making so many assumptions and drawing any but only one possible prediction of the infinite possible that could be infered from the data patterns we have and will continue to gather. just simple questions because you seem to start one topic and move onto the next without acknowledging anything. from the evidence do you conclude that there is a creator good god?
GBJ83 1 month ago
Comment removed
monitor301 1 month ago
Comment removed
monitor301 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"you are making so many assumptions ..."
No assumptions have been made in the cosmological argument, aside from the axiomatic foundations of the scientific method. ie. The precepts of empiricism and scientific rationalism (which encompasses casual priority and regression).
If you assert that these positions are arbitrary assumptions, then you are, by definition, anti-science. Good going. :)
monitor301 1 month ago
@GBJ83 No such argument was made by Craig or Williams in the debate. You're criticising a straw man.
RFunofficial 1 month ago
@RFunofficial which are you referring to? maybe it was in reply to monitor301.
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"which are you referring to? maybe it was in reply to monitor301"
No, he was referring to your ignorance with regard to the cosmological, teleological and ontological arguments. For example, among other issues, you had to be corrected on the basic form of the Kalam argument.
monitor301 1 month ago
@monitor301 i dont need to know the exact details of your made up definitions for these anyway redundant arguments just like I do not need to know the mechanical details of every ufo that is sighted. if the premise of a ufo is so improbable why argue what the ufo looked like. yours, wlcs, kalam, whoever believers arguments are flawed because they are all based on an assumption that a god exists and r then worked backwards but manipulated to look like this assumption is the conclusion
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83 if we were to assume the first two premises of either of these dumb arguments were true there is still no way we can deduce that god did it. there are still an infinite number of possibilities as to what happnd b4 the big bang apart from god. after the bb requires no god or intervention. explain in your own words wht makes u think any of this is proof of the supernatural. i want you to convince me so we can move on and I can ask you what proof you have for knowing the nature of god
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"if we were to assume the first two premises of either of these dumb arguments were true there is still no way we can deduce that god did it"
If the premises are true then the conclusion NECESSARILY FOLLOWS - this is one of the most basic tenets of formal logic and critical thinking.
The universe cannot be a cause unto its own existence, meaning the cause must be independent of the universe and its physical laws. The personal attributes to this cause also have a deductive basis.
monitor301 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"i dont need to know the exact details of your made up definitions for these anyway redundant (sic) arguments"
Then you are technically attacking straw men.
Why is it atheists who are scientifically and philosophically literate, who are formally qualified in these fields, address these arguments as important, valid academic issues, whereas greasy teenage atheist basement dwellers don't?
I alluded to the Dunning-Kruger effect earlier. I suspect it was a large part to play here.
monitor301 1 month ago
@monitor301 look im not sure who you are trying to dazzle with your "philosophical copy paste literacy" . im asking the most simple questions inbasic english and you dont seem to comprehend or want to glosss over. who cares what other atheists think? atheists arent a group.thinking for MYSELF unlke you lot, i cannot deduce that god necessarily follows and that the universe itself cannot come from nothing/or itself.
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83 or indeed that the universe is eternal with no real beginning at all, just perceived beginnings and ends in endless unbroken infinite link of time cycles. if we havent understood the fundamentals of time and there is so much yet to be discovered about the nature of the universe why would we want to limit our possible conclusions? especially to something that is inserted by definition as more complicated than the universe which solves nothing in the end but causes a greater problem
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83 why can there not be laws without a lawmaker. why is it a requirement that soething needs divine intervention to change its state. why can the object itself not be its own cause for change. why can cause and effect not be two sides of the same coin. there could be no seperation iin time between perceived cause and effect making god and "his" creation a self sustaining self changing model with no requirement for "an external other"
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"why can there not be laws without a lawmaker."
This is another straw man.
The existence of physical laws, per se, isn't a premise for any of the three arguments for theism you've mentioned.
"why can cause and effect not be two sides of the same coin."
In other words: Why is causality right?
If you ask this question, you may also ask: Why is logic right? Why is scientific rationalism and empiricism right?
Do some reading on foundationalism and the concept of the "axiom".
monitor301 1 month ago
@monitor301 no i didnt just say physical laws. and no not "why causality is right?" but "why is EXTERNAL causality ALWAYS right?" do some thinking of your own.
GBJ83 1 month ago
Comment removed
monitor301 1 month ago
@GBJ83
I'm very happy to discuss these issues with you to the extent that my own personal time and the limitations of the comments system allows, and I will happily direct you to the relevant references for your own education.
However, to ask that I hand-hold you through each of these individual references is simply unrealistic. Sorry, but nothing beats formal tuition or self-directed learning in a topic. :)
monitor301 1 month ago
@monitor301 i agree, i dnt want hand holding unless I feel someone has a greater understanding of s'thng than me which I dont believe you have. Im asking for your personal reasoning, not those of others. i feel the use of my word "academically" earlier has sent you on a rant of citations and quotations which in hindsight I can say was my fault. see..cause/effect one of the same lol..i also dont like this comment system. cant always see your messages, nor in any easy order..how else?
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"Im asking for your personal reasoning"
These issues are very basic epistemological and metaphysical issues.
Do I need "personal reasoning" to calculate that "1+1=2"? No, it's an objective, mathematically coherent solution, evident from mathematical axioms. For you to ask for my personal opinion on the nature of deductive syllogisms is equally non-sensical.
My philosophy has idiosyncracies to distinguish them from textbook definitions, but you've done little to elicit them.
monitor301 1 month ago
@monitor301 with regard to your personal view, what will be interesting to find out that if for whatever remote reason there indeed is an uncaused god, what difference does it make? whats wrong with just calling that the universe? what happens next? it is clear from real life that there is no divine intervention since the big bang so we have solved nothing by attributing some name to a possible first cause.
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"whats wrong with just calling that the universe?"
Because it's demonstrable in physics that the universe began to exist. The cause for the existence of the universe cannot be the universe itself. Basic formal logic?
"what happens next?"
This depends on what you mean by "happens" and "next." Are you referring to causal priority or temporal priority?
"there is no divine intervention since the big bang"
I'd like to see you prove this mathematically or scientifically. :)
monitor301 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"[i didnt just say] "why causality is right?" but "why is EXTERNAL causality ALWAYS right?""
Where is it asserted in the cosmological argument that everything needs a cause? I've stated to you very clearly what premise one asserts ("whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause") and related it to the Liebnizian dichotomy of necessity versus contingency.
No wonder you think the Kalam argument is easily defeated - you constantly straw man defective cosmological arguments in its place.
monitor301 1 month ago
@monitor301 listen and listen good. you are clearly saying that the kalaam argument has get out clauses so proves nothing one way or the other. on its own we all personally have no scientific testable evidence and no reason to conclude that everything that begins to exist has a cause and certainly not that they "must" have a cause. with the propping from some further philosphical diorrhoea from Liebniz it now according apparently holds some validity?
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83 and as for necessity vs contingency, this does not have to be the case. in light of more evidence things can be both true and false at the same time depending on who by and how the thing is seen. it may be impossible to deduce the ultimate truth about something because of limitations in our own perceptions, we cant help but have a bias. there is a theory in janism called anekantveda
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83 and i mean come on. you still havent explained what makes you or your fellow creation "philosophers" accept that the universe has to be something that fits into the "begins to exist" rather than "begins to exist in its current form as we can observe"
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"you still havent explained what makes you or your fellow creation "philosophers" accept that the universe has to be something that fits into the "begins to exist" rather than "begins to exist in its current form as we can observe""
Because in both cases, regardless of our perceptual limits, if the universe begins to exist, then it needs a transcendental (ie. non-physical) cause.
monitor301 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"and as for necessity vs contingency, this does not have to be the case"
So you, without scientific, philosophical or epistemological training, have single-handedly, in one afternoon solved one of the significant unresolved problems in epistemology - the Munchausen trilemma - which has eluded the greatest minds in philosophy for hundreds of years?
Congratulations. Would you care to put your proof in writing?
monitor301 1 month ago
@monitor301 Syād-asti – “in some ways it is”, syād-nāsti - “in some ways it is not”, syād-asti-nāsti - “in some ways it is and it is not”, syād-asti-avaktavyaḥ - “in some ways it is and it is indescribable”, syād-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ - “in some ways it is not and it is indescribable”, syād-asti-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ - “in some ways it is, it is not and it is indescribable”, syād-avaktavyaḥ- “in some ways it is indescribable”
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"in light of more evidence things can be both true and false at the same"
Have you ever heard of the law of non-contradiction? It's one of the most fundamental axioms of classical logic. In other words, by claiming simultaneity of truth and falsity of a proposition, you fail at basic logic.
"... impossible to deduce the ultimate truth about something because of limitations in our own perceptions"
Absolutely, humans have epistemic limitations. This is what philosophy addresses.
monitor301 1 month ago
@monitor301 philosophy cannot address paradoxes in any complete way, its a constantly evolving application as concepts involved evolve. based on scientific evidence we can see what the most fitting inference is likely to be. and there are more plausible explanations for everything that exists than a first cause. and there is certainly literally any evidence for any sort of divine intervention since the possible "beginning" of our universe's current state.
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83 *literally no evidence
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"philosophy cannot address paradoxes in any complete way"
Finally some philosophically competent remarks. The correct statement should be:-
1. Science cannot address paradoxes at all.
2. The purpose of philosophy is to address epistemological problems, including paradoxes.
Remember, paradoxes occur due to a conflict between two or more epistemic foundational beliefs provoked by empirical findings. ie. It is an epistemological problem.
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@JCrownwell thanks Captain Obvious. we all know science is what throws up the paradoxes and then we use philosophy to tackle them. um duh? however the instrinsic nature of philosophy from a human perspective means we cant make complete and absolutist claims unless that is the type of philosophical attitude you are making the claim from
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83
Just to clarify, you're still speaking to monitor301. This is my iPad login (I never bother to remember youtube account details.)
"we all know science is what throws up the paradoxes and then we use philosophy to tackle them"
The clear inference from your remark was that paradoxes are intrinsically refractory to philosophical reasoning. This is wrong. You're basically shifting the goal posts now.
Surprise surprise. :)
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@JCrownwell no you made a wrong judgement based on you prior bias of science vs philosophy. dont project, thanks for telling me you are monitor lol, i was wondering actually and slated yo down there. :)
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"no you made a wrong judgement based on you prior bias of science vs philosophy"
Are you now disagreeing with my claim that philosophy can resolve paradoxes that are refractory to science? :)
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@GBJ83
I'm sorry but your reasoning is really starting to fall apart with the last few comment sets, and it was pretty shaky to start off with.
I've repeated some points now three or more times, only to see you go off at a complete tangent to what is being discussed, or dodge, contort or contrive your way out of a cogent reply. These ideas are not *that* difficult.
In this context, I must ask the following: Are you a parodist? :)
Are you actually someone making fun of dumb atheists?
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@JCrownwell i could have written that exact response. in fact i already did
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"i want to help you understand why these three special creation arguments are assertions not based in sound reasoning"
You've categorically failed to provide ANY substantive argument against any of these arguments. You even had to be corrected on what these arguments actually were.
If your comments ARE serious, and not parodic, then I genuinely don't think moving to PMs will help you understand any better. But go ahead, if you think it will change things. Personally I don't.
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@JCrownwell
Let's compare your versions of these arguments versus the actual arguments:
Your version of the Kalam cosmological argument:
"a) Whatever exists has a cause. - WHO SAYS?"
"2) The universe exists. - AGREED"
"3) Therefore the universe had a cause. - WAIT, WHAT? WHY?"
The actual Kalam cosmological argument:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@GBJ83
Let's also not forget your version of the teleological argument:
"a) Complexity implies a designer. - NO IT DOESNT"
"b) The universe is highly complex - SO WHAT?"
"c) Therefore, the universe must have a designer. WAIT, WHAT? WHY?"
Versus the actual teleological argument:
1. Fine-tuning is either due to chance,necessity or design.
2. Fine-tuning is not due to chance or necessity.
3. Therefore, fine-tuning is due to design.
And you're surprised that I suspect that you're parodist?
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"we all know science is what throws up the paradoxes and then we use philosophy to tackle them"
Yet again, you fail to appreciate the purpose of philosophy :)
The whole point of epistemology is to study issues such as the dichotomy of absolutism and relativism, and the concept of truth values.
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"and there is certainly literally any evidence for any sort of divine intervention since the possible "beginning" of our universe's current state."
Absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence.
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@JCrownwell who said it is? im just asking believers why it is relevant to establish a being created the universe if it appears he has left it alone since.
GBJ83 1 month ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"why it is relevant to establish a being created the universe if it appears he has left it alone since."
This is a theological argument not a theistic argument. For example, deists believe that God did not intervene in the universe after its creation.
"you can join my sister in believing in My Little Ponies "
"My Little Ponies" are cute, but they can't create a universe. For one thing, they are part of the universe. :)
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@JCrownwell so I also guess you can join my sister in believing in My Little Ponies with your statement
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"based on scientific evidence we can see what the most fitting inference is likely to be"
Based on scientific evidence we know the universe began to exist.
Based upon reasoning/scientific rationalism, namely the causal principle, we can deduce that things which begin to exist have a cause. Something cannot be cause unto its own existence. Therefore the universe has a transcendent cause.
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@JCrownwell we do not know the universe began to exist. we know it has begun life in its current state which says nothing about it coming from nothing because whatever its made of could have always existed. at what point can you say a human begins to exist? as an adult? as a kid? as a baby? embryo? egg/serm, gleam in fathers eye? human ancestors, all the way back to the big bang. there is no observation of any true spontaneous thing. just a manipulation of what is already there.
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"we do not know the universe began to exist."
The scientific consensus in cosmology disagrees with you.
If you want to prove otherwise, you do so by refuting the BGV theorem. For the third time, here's the reference:
A. Borde, A. Guth and A. Vilenkin (2003). "Inflationary space-times are incomplete in past directions". Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (15): 151301
The rest of your comment is irrelevant waffle.
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@JCrownwell irrelevant waffle? what science can we use as evidence to draw a conclusion from. where in life can we observe something that came about with no prior processes to deduce with any assertion that everything that has a beginning must have a single cause? how is that science lol. its idiocy
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"where in life can we observe something that came about with no prior processes to deduce with any assertion that everything that has a beginning must have a single cause?"
Are you claiming that logic and causality are provable using evidence? You don't seem to understand the epistemological concept of the axiom, or foundationalism.
Both logic and causality are referred to as "apriori" knowledge - meaning knowledge before experience. Once again, read any basic textbook.
JCrownwell 1 month ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@GBJ83 this will be scientific uevidence and then understanding of the universes begining. when we can recreate the big bang and create a universe. then we can observe if it required us or if there are any natural processes that could have caused this kickstart. then we can eliminate your god from that equation and move onto discovering how the processes before caused the proces that did the kick start and so on
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"this will be scientific uevidence and then understanding of the universes begining. when we can recreate the big bang and create a universe."
Science relies upon empirico-induction - ie. inductive extrapolations of the most likely explanations based upon direct empirical findings.
If you claim that everything in science must be directly observable, you are:-
1. Anti-reason (given that induction is part of human reasoning)
2. Anti-science (anti-empiricoinduction)
Good job.
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@JCrownwell i didnt claim everything in science must be direectly observable. i claimed it would be near undeniable evidence of what processes were involved at the time of a big bang and a helpful way of eliminating god, fairies, unicorns and god farting to kick start. you two guys fail at basic conversation because your heads are stuck with your conclusion and work backwards to justify your possible claim.
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"i claimed it would be near undeniable evidence of what processes were involved at the time of a big bang and a helpful way of eliminating god, fairies, unicorns and god farting to kick start."
No, you were challenging scientific cosmological findings by trying to redefine empiricism. Stop shifting the goal posts.
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@JCrownwell you really are strange
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"you really are strange"
I'm not the one spamming the channel with sanskrit, going off at tangents about jainism, and ranting about your sister's My Little Pony obsession. :)
Everything I've stated is in line with scientific rationalism, empiricism and philosophy.
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@JCrownwell lets take this to email so you get the entier picture rather than picking on random things i use to respond to your own random points. my basic questions have been ignored and all the rest is circular, i want to discuss why the there is no evidence of god, ponies, fairies yet people belive it. i want to help you understand why these three special creation arguments are assertions not based in sound reasoning. im happy to reword, even happy to talk over skype
GBJ83 1 month ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@GBJ83
What I would personally recommend is that you reply succinctly to the questions that you've dodged, *one at a time* so that you can no longer obfuscate your way out of a response:-
You claimed earlier that you have an "absence of belief" in God. In that case, which of the following categories of absence of belief describes your position?
(1) Atheism "God does not exist"
(2) Agnosticism "I don't believe nor disbelieve in God"
(3) Verificationism "The question is meaningless"
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"you are clearly saying that the kalaam argument has get out clauses so proves nothing one way or the other"
Can you point out precisely where I claim this?
"on its own we all personally have no scientific testable evidence"
For the fourth time now, premise 2 is based upon scientific testable evidence. I even gave you references - twice!
"no reason ... that everything that begins to exist has a cause"
Scientific rationalism says so. Are you still claiming to be anti-science?
monitor301 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"i cannot deduce ... that the universe is eternal with no real beginning at all"
Your basic literacy is also a concern.
If you wish to contend the notion that the universe had a defined beginning to its existence, the reference (which is a consensus view in cosmology) you want to refute is: A. Borde, A. Guth and A. Vilenkin (2003). "Inflationary space-times are incomplete in past directions". Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (15): 151301.
You may take some time on this.
monitor301 1 month ago
@monitor301 why are you repeatedly not answering for yourself? do you HAVE to reply with the philosophy of others because you have somehow qualified them to fit with your argument? SIMPLE QUESTIONS require SIMPLE answers. A professionally trained atheist? atheism is the NORMAL state, you dont need to be trained into not believing something.
GBJ83 1 month ago
Comment removed
monitor301 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"atheism is the NORMAL state"
Behavioural studies in children argue otherwise: That we are born with an innate teleological and causal priority appreciation regressing to belief in absolute, foundational belief in a God.
Atheism is a discrete positive belief. It is the positive assertion that God does not exist, not merely the absence of belief in God. Note the etymology: "atheos" (denial of the gods) -ism.
For a funny video on the definition of atheism: watch?v=AHIIjfxr4o0
monitor301 1 month ago
@monitor301 now you're just getting wacky. and no atheists dont categorically deny the concept of a possible god. they deny any of the gods that have currently or historically been attributed to everything. however it is true to say that in light of science and the current facts as we know them do not require an intervening god so there is no reason to believe in one. maybe you need to understand this. you are also an atheist with regard to the tons of hindu gods
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"and no atheists dont categorically (sic) deny the concept of a possible god"
Sorry, but by definition, you do. Atheism, according to its etymology, is denial of the existence of God.
If your position is that you simply have an absence of belief in God, then you fall into one of either three categories:
1. Atheism - the assertion that God does not exist.
2. Agnosticism - "I don't believe nor disbelieve in God"
2. Verificationism - the question is meaningless.
monitor301 1 month ago
@monitor301 atheism is not an assertion to the notion of no god, its the lack of belief in any claimed gods. its a reactionary response. its true im more agnostic with relation to the notion of the remote possibility of some being that kickstarted the universe into its current form. anything is possible in that realm for now. but certainly as close to 100% sure im an atheist about any intervening god since the big bang as i am about gravity for example. labels are crap sometimes
GBJ83 1 month ago
@GBJ83
"atheism is not an assertion to the notion of no god, its the lack of belief in any claimed gods"
Come on now. We've already gone over this.
Atheism is disbelief in the existence of God. It is a truth value commitment in the belief that "God does not exist".
Look up the etymology of the word: atheos ("denial of the gods") -ism.
It is "athe-ism" not "a-theism" (the epistemic absence of theism).
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@GBJ83
If you are claiming that you simply have an "absence of belief" in God, then you fall into one of three categories:
1. Atheism - "I assert there is no God."
2. Agnosticism - "I don't believe nor disbelieve in God."
3. Verificationism - "It's a meaningless or impossible question."
Which of these describes you best, as they say? :)
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@JCrownwell i answered monitor yesterday who copy pasted the very same thing. read the whole page. im all three.
GBJ83 1 month ago