i think we are arguing different points here. Your original question was: "How did we even conclude that all things that start have a cause?" Answer: ALL physicists agree about causality (every effect requires a cause). which means the only logical conclusion of the universes origin is an infinite chain of causes and effects with no beginning or end. OR, religion claims god started the chain of cause and effect and he was infinite. but, both require that something was always there.
@MJFAN666 can you think of anything that has a beginning but doesn't have anything to cause its beginning? (and dont say the universe, because thats circular reasoning, and the thing we are trying to figure out has a cause). go ahead and look into it, not a single serious scientist on either side of the argument refutes the established laws of cause and effect. basically that every cause has an effect and every effect has a cause.
@mwebful I should think that the particles that pop in and out of existence constantly can be one example and also if a particles is to go faster than light, the entropy of time for it is to be reversed. If that happens, effect occurs b4 cause. And I still don't get how the Cause is God.. AND WHAT MOVED THE MOVER?
@MJFAN666 first. i assume you're talking about virtual particles. and those aren't technically even "real". they have only been verified indirectly through the Casimir Effect which requires attraction between 2 neutral, parallel conducting plates placed in a vacuum. basically I'm saying you need certain ingredients for particles to pop in and out of existence. therefore they are the cause (it couldn't have happened otherwise). And an person has to cause the plates and the vacuum to be as well.
@mwebful lmao, why a person? Why YOUR version of God?> Y can't it be my pet unicorn conjuring all this shit? Your Kalam Cosmological Argument is trash. Proves nothing. Just replaces one ununderstood mystery with another. And what made the "person" that you r talking about?
@MJFAN666 So you you DO understand that everything needs something that came before it, cause you asked, "what MADE the person?" and this ISN'T my even argument. even well known atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Neil Degrasse Tyson will concede that everything has something that caused it. That argument has been settled for a while. the argument is that there either was an infinite number of unintelligent causes (atheism) or one ultimate original cause ( theism, or god ).
@mwebful "So you you DO understand that everything needs something that came before it, cause you asked, "what MADE the person?" " No, I am just using your argument of cause and effect to show you that your statement is self-contradictory. Why is God the initial cause, if we grant that there is one? Y not Richard Dawkins? or As I said, My pet unicorn?
@recalibration He's an academic. They use different language to describe knowledge. If you can't follow it, just watch Richard Dawkins' videos for mindless nonsense and entertainment; he's more your level.
Sorry, what? You're really going to have me believe Dawkins, a doctor of philosophy & professor of biology fr Oxford (the same school that Stephen Hawking attended... in the very country you reside), is mindless nonsense?
Then I trust you have much more prestigious credentials, but I doubt it, as you don't seem to know the fallacy of argumentum ad lapidem.
@recalibration It doesn't apply here because I'm not engaging with any particular argument.
Also, I can't tell if you're aware of this or not from your reply, but Dawkins has no credentials in philosophy. His PhD is biology (or zoology). Craig, on the other hand, has 2 PhDs, one in Philosophy and one in Theology. So yeah, I'd personally recommend Craig for metaphysical discussion, and Dawkins for biological discussion. Dawkins is not worth listening to on philosophical/theological matters.
Fair point & I must acknowledge my error: I read Dawkin's CV incorrectly that, in 1966, he received a D.Phil fr Oxford. The nature of a D.Phil does _not_ limit it solely to philosophy. Thank you for challenging that point.
@recalibration That's OK, but I feel I should emphasise that in Britain all non-medical doctorates are 'Doctor of Philosophy', whether or not they contain any actual philosophy. Thus a straight Maths PhD still bears that title. Our doctoral programs are extremely narrow, and basically focus only on one thing.
His P1 of the Kalam is asserting an arbitrary demarcation of an absolute which is an unfalsifiable. This, I welcome anyone to enlighten me how I could *not* hold P1 as presupposition or begging the question.
Furthermore his Arg #2 is, IMO, absurd as the nature of its construction allow the varibles to be equally rearranged, but leading to the very antithesis of what he's trying to offer as a logical conclusion Thus, I charge anyone who would enlighten me in explaining how my variant of #2 is incorrect must naturally dismiss Craig's original form of it.
In conculsion, I find Craig to be using transparent gambits. He needs to cease proselytizing & start proving.
@recalibration I'll be honest with you, I've given up trying to defend Craig in the detail of his arguments. I've read his stuff for years and seen him time and time again satisfactorily defend (in particular) kalaam. He answers a question every Monday on his website; check it out if you haven't already. Atheists always claim he provides no evidence or logic, but that's all he does. A lot of people simply don't understand his material, unfortunately. And then there's Plantinga...
Thanks, I think I'll start posting there. As I quickly scan the forum related to Kalam, I'm none too hopeful... I see a lot of "well, why _shouldn't_ we accept P1" ...
Verum quaere et insaniam inveni! Off I go, further into the mania! XD
Do the youtube Atheists even watch the Craig videos before they dislike them? There shouldn't be that many dislikes. Craig isn't a kook or a crackpot. He has taught me more than Dawkins has, for real.
Cause 4:) You don't need evidence to support your claim as long as it explains things.
You know... kinda like the logic they once used to explain that the sun was a chariot being driven across the sky. No other explanation, therefore God did it.
Watch a Craig debate and that's exactly how it comes out. He always neglects to mention rather significant premises like treating the bible as fact and shifting the burden of proof away from himself.
@vaguevocalist17 Evidence is an attribute of logic? This is backwards, logic is an attribute of evidence. However, I do agree that there is no evidence for logic. There never will be evidence since evidence itself applies logic.
We all have FAITH that logic exists.despite the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE for its existence.
@Halfturretslicer It is not backwards. Logic dictates what is considered evidence through deductive reasoning. But I won't expect you to understand this, as you think evidence and logic are faith based. Logic is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. A=A. A does not equal not A. Stuff like this. If you need faith to see this this is true, than you don't understand what evidence or logic is.
@Halfturretslicer Wow. So you are using logical fallacies to show that logical fallacies aren't valid? Good one. Tell you what. You go and have faith in an invisible man with infinite power that watches you at all times and hears your prayers and cares whether or not you wear clothing with more than one fiber in it. I'll stick with my "faith" that A=A and that A does not equal not A. Hope it gets you somewhere.
@Hoogz20 Yup. For example: You cannot make a square circle. You can't sit and not sit at the same time. You also can't choose to neither sit or not sit. Something cannot exist and not have properties. 1=1. etc.
@Halfturretslicer I don't claim to understand the logic of quantum mechanics beyond the solutions it gives mathematically. I'll freely admit that there are many paradoxes that arise in the realm of quantum mechanics, but claiming that they defy logic is ridiculous. Mathematics is strictly based on logic, and the solutions are extremely precise. However, they are just an approximation. No one will say that quantum mechanics is absolute. It is an inherently flawed system.
@vaguevocalist17 I am not making a case for the invalidity of logic, so no, I am not using logical fallacies to show that logical fallacies are invalid. I believe in logic through faith. You believe in logic through logic, which commits a fallacy of logic itself and is ridiculously self-refuting.
@Halfturretslicer Haha. I don't "believe" in logic "through" logic. I understand logic. But if you really want to label my understanding of logic as faith, go for it. It won't give your argument for faith based knowledge any more validity. Evidence or proof is still required to indicate the truth of any claim.
@vaguevocalist17 If logic is believed in through faith, then why can't a god be believed in through faith? Moreover, there is circumstantial evidence for the existence of a deity such as the fact there is something rather than nothing, the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life, the orgin of life, infomation in DNA, and things that are not part of the natural world such as logic, mathematics, love, etc.
@Halfturretslicer Something rather than nothing: This just moves the problem back one step. Why was there a god as opposed to no god? Therefore, your explanation has the same issue that what it explained had.
Fine tuning: There is no evidence indicating that it COULD be any other way. Without that, the "fine tuning" argument is flawed and invalid.
@vaguevocalist17 The fact that there is something rather than nothing leads logically to a first uncaused cause, necessary in its own existence, that is powerful enough to be responsible for the existence of everything else, something that is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial since it exists outside of matter, time, and material which are contained in the finite universe. This points to a deity.
@Halfturretslicer Hehe. Something spaceless, timeless, and immaterial? Something can't be somewhere without space. Timeless? Something cannot change or create without time. Immaterial? Something can't exist in non-existence.
Asking what is before the big bang is like asking what is north of the north pole. Stephen Hawking has been able to scientifically, logically, and mathematically show that the universe could have just happened without anything to spur it on.
@vaguevocalist17 You are applying principles that exist within our universe to outside of the universe. Heck, even within our universe, logic, mathematics, morals, etc. exist without taking up space. Same with the existence argument, logic, mathematics, morals, etc. exist without being material.
As far as a god and time.... The fact that time began at the big bang does not prevent a causal predecessor to the universe.
@Halfturretslicer Even if I grant you all those arguments, why is it that this deity is your god? Why isn't it any of the other hundreds of Gods that man says is out there?
@vaguevocalist17 I believe in the Christian God through faith, and also through the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, which William Lane Craig defends very well.
@vaguevocalist17 The anthropic principle does indeed indicate that the physical constants and natural laws as we know them are not necessary in their own nature. There would be no anthropic principle in the first place if these physical constants and natural laws couldn't have been differerent.
@Halfturretslicer "I am a puddle, and this hole that I am in fits me perfectly. It hugs my every curve and bump without fail. This hole must have been made specifically for me."
Also, the anthropic principal is not testable or falsifiable, therefore not a scientifically valid claim.
@vaguevocalist17 It has been shown that it is possible for abiogenesis to occur, but the chances are infinitesimally small. Now, some say, "Well, it's improbable, but improbable things happen all the time!" Not of this degree of improbability they don't. The probability of abiogenesis occurring is the same as a monkey randomly typing out a several-hundred page novel word-for-word on a typewriter, or Mt. Rushmore occurring by the processes of weathering and erosion.
@Halfturretslicer First of all, abiogenesis isn't the only possible explanation. And even if it is that unlikely (which is contrived anyway) it still WOULD eventually happen due to the law of large numbers.
Regardless, I don't claim to KNOW how life started. It COULD have been a god, but there is no logical reason to assume that it was until we have clear scientific evidence.
@vaguevocalist17 So I would conclude that a deity is a much more plausible explanation for the origin of life, just as I would find it more plausible that Mt. Rushmore was sculpted by an intelligent being rather than being caused by weathering and erosion.
@Halfturretslicer Anyway, I'm done trying to explain to you that you DO need evidence to claim that god exists. Claiming that it's "the most likely thing" is no better than the vikings thinking there was no better explanation to explain solar eclipses.
@vaguevocalist17 Your last few posts seem to suggest that something needs to be proven scientifically in order to be rationally believed.
As William Lane Craig states, science cannot prove science, science cannot prove logic, science cannot prove mathematics, science cannot prove aesthetics, science cannot prove the reality of the external world, science cannot prove that the past is real.
@vaguevocalist17 DNA is a chain of information, simply put. There are processes that create it and replicate it but it is information. that's like saying a newspaper is really a printing press. Well no, the newspaper really IS a newspaper that was created as a result OF a printing press.
@82dr89bg DNA contains information like words on that newspaper contain information. Those words aren't literally "information". They are blots of carefully placed bits of ink that, in a certain context relay what was on the printing press. This does not indicate an intelligent designer.
@82dr89bg Let's say that DNA is information. Nothing but information. Lets say that we didn't evolve from monkeys. Lets even say that the earth is 10,000 years old. Still wouldn't indicate an ID. There are other explanations that wouldn't involve the need to assume the existence of an all powerful being that we'll go see after we die. I suppose it is a possibility, but not a probability.
@vaguevocalist17 Do you honestly believe that all that vast, incalculable and intricate detail in DNA just arranged itself by chance? What was the driving force behind it? What told it to do that or otherwise be nothing more than a pile of useless particles? What galvanized it into action to form what it did?
@82dr89bg You honestly believe that you know what did all that? You honestly believe that you know enough to justify saying your personal god did that? No. I don't believe that at happened by "chance". I believe it's too complicated for me to personally understand right now. That doesn't mean a god did it. There have always been things we don't yet understand. There will always be things we don't yet understand. That does not mean a god did it.
@82dr89bg I'll postulate that it was a giant miniature invisible pink unicorn that did it all. It was a spaceless, timeless, ethereal creature with so much power that it was the one that created god. This creature has come down and told me PERSONALLY that the christian god is a dick and is just fuckin' with man kind, and I shouldn't pay any attention to Him. Makes sense too, because I didn't have a good scientific explanation for how God came to be. This explains it though. Tootles!
@citizenghosttown So we agree that not by chance. Then by WHAT? Law? would that imply someone or something attributed behavior to a given thing? Something just doesn't decide to behave a certain way- gravity didn't at one point decide that instead of pushing smaller (or less mass) objects away, the greater object with greater mass would attract it so that planets would decide to form and (on ours particularly) particles would ban together to form intricate life for no reason or purpose at all.
@Halfturretslicer The origin of life: We have been able to show that organic life can arise from non-organic matter. (Still is a poor argument as it is a "god of the gaps" statement)
Information in DNA: There isn't "information" in DNA. DNA is a purely chemical process.
Not part of natural world:
-Logic: A rock would still be a rock and not not-a-rock where there no minds.
First,just because something exist it doesn't determine what created it.To simply plug an unexplainable supernatural being declaring IT as the probable cause for the undetermined existence of something,is foolish.With logic already out the window,following dynamic of this trainwreak carries on w/t an unjustifiable exception to the rule,one which must disregard inclusion of necessitated parameters of proof and evidence for it.I ask,how the hell can this not be regarded as argument of ignorance?
That's assuming Craig even has an argument. Craig cannot assert that the 'most plausible explanation' is in fact one that we know to be impossible. Consciousness as we know it depends upon a physical body... no evidence suggests otherwise.
For him to assert a noncorporeal being is the cause of the universe, he must first demonstrate that such a being CAN exist. Without a proper foundation for his intergalactic superman to exist, Craig cannot build anything upon that assumption.
@BattleshipAgincourt How do you know it's impossible that consciousness and rationality can exist without a brain? Sure, the lack of evidence for it after such a long and intense search is good reason not to believe in such things (although Craig claims that the existence of anything at all, what he sees as the apparent design of the universe, and the miracles of Jesus recorded in the Gospels are evidence), but when it comes to metaphysical certitude, can you prove the impossibility of God?
I am not going to, because I don't say that consciousness without a physical body is absolutely impossible... we simply don't have any evidence to support such a being is even possible.
That being so, Craig's claim losses all credibility. One cannot assert such a being without first demonstrating that it's even possible. Noncorporeal beings to our knowledge don't exist, therefore Craig lies when he asserts that a nonphysical god is the 'most plausible' explanation of god.
Craig's assertion to the creation of the universe being created by a noncorporeal being contradicts all that we currently know about consciousness. While it may indeed be possible that a god does exist, all available evidence indicates that consciousness cannot exist without a physical body.
That therefore completely invalidates Craig's argument. You cannot make a valid argument without first establishing a solid foundation, which is exactly what he never does.
@BattleshipAgincourt Since we do not presently know what physical phenomenon gives rise to consciousness or how to conclusively determine its presence, there's no solid basis for your own premise that nothing but brains can produce consciousness. Thus, this is an argument from incredulity. It's unacceptable to address Craig's arguments by deriding the conclusion as impossible, when (since metaphysical dualism is not open to any scientific test at this time) this can only be a personal opinion.
It's unacceptable for Craig to derive an argument by deriving a conclusion as though it were fact, when (since metaphysical dualism is not open to any scientific test at this time) this can only be a personal opinion.
I don't have to prove it impossible for consciousness to exist without a physical mind... Craig must demonstrate it as fact BEFORE he makes the assertion, otherwise he has no argument.
@BattleshipAgincourt But the existence of God is the conclusion of his argument, not a premise. If, as he claims, his arguments prove that an incorporeal consciousness does exist, then he has proved by example that an incorporeal consciousness can exist.
Even then, supposing that we grant the premise that consciousness can exists without a physical body, that still doesn't mean that only a noncorporeal being could have created the universe.
Craig's argument is unfounded because he makes an assertion and fails to provide the foundation for his argument to be true. For anyone to even CONSIDER his argument, Craig must first demonstrate that noncorporeal beings can exist... which he can't.
Our understanding of consciousness thus far indicates that a physical mind is required for the process to work. Craig is using an unsupported premise to make an illogical conclusion. If he otherwise COULD prove that a conscious mind can exist without a physical body, then his 'god' argument gains merit. Without establishing that foundation FIRST, he cannot logically deduce that his noncorporeal god can even exists... let alone create the universe.
@BattleshipAgincourt If you could empirically prove that there was no such thing as an incorporeal consciousness, I would agree that it would falsify Craig's premises, but unless you think he is bringing the possibility in somewhere as an unstated premise, it is irrelevant to argue that he hasn't first shown that the conclusion is possible. If he has eliminated every possibility but the existence of a personal god, then that is the truth.
Why are you asking me? I'm not the one making the extraordinary claim here... Craig is.
Do you seriously not understand what I presented to you? Even if the given presumption Craig uses IS possible, it's on his head to prove that a noncorporeal being CAN exist before asserting that it does... what he calls the 'most plausible' explanation.
Given as that explanation DEFIES everything we already know about consciousness, Craig's argument is in fact among the LEAST likely to be true.
@BattleshipAgincourt I understand what you're saying, but you're simply wrong. It is not incumbent on Craig to prove that an incorporeal intelligence can exist before proving...that an incorporeal intelligence exists, unless you can identify a premise of his argument that there is no reason to accept unless one already believes that incorporeal intelligences can exist (in which case he would be begging the question). It doesn't matter how outrageous you find his conclusion.
'I understand what you're saying, but you're simply wrong.'
Based on what? What's wrong with my logic?
It IS on Craig's head to provide a foundation for his premise before he can make an assertion. If he cannot do that, then he has no right to make such an outrageous assertion.
If I told you that magic explains why your car keys went missingt, am I under no obligation to prove first that magic exists before you even consider the possibility I might be right?
@BattleshipAgincourt If you were to argue that 1) My keys were removed to another place by either a natural cause or a supernatural cause (by definition, both possibilities cannot be false); 2) My keys could not have been removed to another place by a natural cause (for example, they were locked in a safe, and a security camera shows no one coming around it since I left my keys in it); then you have established 3) My keys were removed to another place by a supernatural cause.
Seriously! Do you really believe the last time you lost your keys... that they disappeared by magic?
I'm going on the assumption that you're a sensible person and don't seriously consider magic or the supernatural as a serious possibility for anything you can't explain. The scenario here is that someone ASSERTS that they took your keys by magic... are you seriously going to consider that he's a real wizard, or that there's a more sensible explanation? Maybe that it was of trick?
@BattleshipAgincourt Are you saying that you wouldn't believe in magic even if you were faced with very persuasive evidence? That's not a very scientific attitude. If I could repeatedly put my keys in a safe and open it to find my keys had disappeared by magic every time, and I had examined the safe thoroughly to rule out natural explanations, that shows magic is part of the world. I was firmly convinced of the law of gravity without anyone explaining how there could be such a thing as gravity.
Really? Well if I ever encountered a magic safe that could do that, it would be VERY compelling. When has this happened? When did you find a real magic safe that did that?
I would have to say that knowing the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of matter, such a feat would be impossible. If you have a magic safe that can do that, you'd be famous! You've got to show it to the scientific community! They have to know!
@BattleshipAgincourt But according to you, that explanation is so implausible that it has to be rejected on its face. By that standard, "my keys were moved by either a natural or a supernatural cause" is not an acceptable premise, and we could only say "if my keys were removed to another place, there was a natural cause." Then if we can't find a natural cause, we have to conclude the keys are still there, which is absurd. Do you see how it's you who are introducing an unjustified premise here?
No, I don't. I haven't asserted anything... Craig has, using his god of the gaps argument to explain away everything.
According to Craig if your keys disappeared (and there are as yet hundreds of natural explanations you've not yet considered), then the most plausible explanation is that they magically disappeared and you'll never see them again. That right there is Craig logic.
@BattleshipAgincourt Whether or not it "sounds reasonable," there is no a priori reason to discount the possibility of a willful creator of the universe.
I am not DISCOUNTING the possibility that a god may have created the universe... only that there is insufficient evidence (and lots of contradictory evidence) supporting the existence of a god.
Assume for a moment that god doesn't exist, how else can one disprove its existence except by lack of evidence? Therefore atheism is the default position, at least in the absence of evidence. For Craig's argument to be plausible, he MUST present extraordinary evidence, which he doesn't.
What is this "lots of contradictory evidence" that you claim stands as objective-empirical-evidence for the cosmos and viable life to credit their origination/s to self-propagated naturalistic mechanistic processes?
You have made an extraordinary claim, so you should be able to support it with examples of objective evidence as you speciously assert that Craig should have to. Go! "Extraordinary" Crickets.............................
"I'll answer that when you answer how consciousness can exist without a physical body"
I must still be a "prick" according to Blathership's trollish fool poor losers logically void pocket compendium, because you've Failed! to provided a valid explanation.
The deal was that I would respond to yours when you tell me how conscious existence came to exsist from non-conscious, non-living materials, or my "prickness" shall persist.
@BattleshipAgincourt The fact that you have heretofore encountered only conscious beings with brains doesn't prove that a brain is necessary condition for consciousness, since it could be that there are other kinds of consciousnesses, but you have just not yet encountered them, or they have no way of communicating with you. You can't even prove a brain is sufficient for consciousness, since you can't know whether the people around you are conscious beings like yourself or philosophical zombies.
Given as all the available evidence indicates that consciousness cannot exist without a physical body, Craig CANNOT assert his god without first providing a foundation by which such a being is possible... which he doesn't.
For an explanation to be 'plausible,' it should be complemented by evidence. Craig's explanation isn't complemented by, but directly defies available evidence. That is why his logic is fallacious.
Am I saying that consciousness is impossible without a physical body... absolutely not. Only that Craig always fails to provide any evidence that supports his bold argument that such being is possible.
And because he deliberately misrepresents evidence in order to sell his argument to gullible audiences, I have little reason for giving him the benefit of the doubt. His arguments are deceitful and he says really very little for quite a lot.
@BattleshipAgincourt "And because he deliberately misrepresents evidence in order to sell his argument to gullible audiences, I have little reason for giving him the benefit of the doubt. His arguments are deceitful..."
This is a very serious accusation. I expect proof.
@BattleshipAgincourt But Craig at least has a plausible idea of how the universe was brought into existence, how arrogant it is to ask someone to show you where God is. It's not possible. It is like a thief trying to find a policeman in your case as and Atheist I assume?
Afraid he doesn't. Advocating the universe was conjured by magic is the laziest and most useless answer anyone could produce because it doesn't really answer anything.
And yes, there very well should be extraordinary evidence supporting an extraordinary claim. If miracles such as those from the bible happened every now and again, that would be very compelling reason to believe in a god. You don't have to know they occur, but they should very definitely produce results.
1, Only God is spaceless and timeless and could have caused the universe to begin to exist (not perhaps some as yet unknown natural conditions that we do not currently understand?)
2, "The initial conditions of the universe are not due to law or chance, so they must be due to intelligence".... Well why not? They may well be due to law or chance! The argument against is basically.... "it's unlikely". Not good enough.
@111RockNRoll111 No he doesn't make the assumption that only God is spaceless and timelesss. If you've watched his arguments for long enough, you'll know that he points to abstract objects like numbers and say they are spaceless and immaterial as well. Second, he is defining God as the Prime Cause of all that is in existence. By saying that there are some other natural explanation(which i dont doubt there are) all your doing is(continued)
@BattleshipAgincourt Cosmological constants. Ever heard of that? And numbers do exist. They are abstract concepts we use to conduct equations and experimentation. What your basically saying is that the very fountain of our scientific and mathematical knowledge is based on something that doesn't exist, which is non-sense
Mathematics doesn't physically exist. That's the whole point. It's a human construct we made for the purpose of sorting out the universe in a useful way. The same thing can be said about god... it does exist as an idea. However a construct doesn't have any measurable influence on the known universe.
Obviously mathematics exist, but as mental constructs... it doesn't physically change or define the laws of the universe. And neither does god, because it only exists as an idea.
If you agree that mathematics doesn't phisically exist, and yet this IMMATERIAL thing is used to, as you say "sort out the universe', then why can't you accept that an entity such as GOD, which is ALSO an IMMATERIAL thing, can also be used to 'sort out the universe', and yes...perhaps explain its existence?
@BattleshipAgincourt What we use to systematize our concepts of Mathematics is a construct of our minds. Sure.But lets go in the back door on this one. Lets say there was a hypothetical universe in which there were 3 rocks. Where you use the terminology 3 or some other word to categorize how many rocks there are, it doesn't take away from the fact that there are 3 rocks......
@jamaicanification Well why couldn't the universe have been accidentally excreted into existence by a non-conscious, non-intelligent, process that isn't God? There's exactly the same amount of evidence that the cause was God or something else(so far, none each way!) So my point was: If one is to argue that because we have no knowledge of such a process(Which doesn't mean there is or isn't one!) and therefore God is the only answer, then Dawkins' is right by calling it God of the gaps.
@111RockNRoll111 I know what your saying. And maybe there is a natural explanation that we will find out that explains what happened before the singularity where the laws of physics breaks down(Stephen Hawking proposes a curvature and M theory). But what theist have always been saying is that God is the efficient cause. Meaning, all causes, however far down the road you kick the can come from him. So any discoveries in science really dont hurt my faith at all......
"We don't know how the universe came to exist yet, therefore everything in the bible is true and the Christian God exists" - Wiliam Lane Craig(or it misewell be)
Ok William Craig, you can't accept the premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause when the very thing you believe exists is causeless. This is why the smartest creationists are delusional
He is not saying that everthing that exists has a cause, he is saying everything which BEGAN to exist has a cause. The points that everything which BEGAN to exist has a cause and that God exists without a cause are compatible with each other because God is eternal, he did not BEGIN to exist, he has always been, unlike the universe which scientists say began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. This is why you have to fully understand the argument before commenting on it.
@radbot1 While scientists say that the universe as we know it started 13.7 billion years ago, none of them state that it's impossible that the universe is cyclic or that we are in fact part of a multiverse. It's a shame the opposition never mentions this when debating Dr. Craig, since both of these ideas are (at least) equally plausible as some divine being who happens to have always existed.
@BenjaminGoose It has been mentioned in a debate against him and he refuted it by saying that a multiverse does nothing more than push the problem back a step, and a cyclic universe would have to be infinately fine tuned to keep cycling whilst also not explaining how that cycle first came to be which is why the theory does not actually have much support amongst scientists. But even if it were without these huge problems, it does not match our observations of what our universe should be like.
To believe in God or in a guiding force because someone tells you to is the height of stupidity. We are given senses to receive our information within. With our own eyes we see, and with our own skin we feel. With our intelligence, it is intended that we understand. But each person must puzzle it out for himself or herself.
Why does WLC assume that the beginning of the Universe was the beginning of time? He doesn't know that. However the Universe came to exist, there's no evidence that it was created by an intelligent being. There are many amazing things that come about in a natural way, that it doesn't seem reasonable to take the one thing we don't know the cause of and assume it was supernatural. WLC is a master of playing with words, but if you really examine his arguments closely they're not so great.
@VitalSigns1 The secular scientists claim that time and space did begin with the big bang. They say there was no such thing as (before the big bang) and no such thing as time and space (after the big rip). Time only exists in between and so the universe starts when it ends but doesn't end until (an estimated) 100 billion years after the big bang. So common sense says that it "loops", like the same DVD being played "on repeat" for eternity! We r living an "eternal" life right now and don't know.
@VitalSigns1 So we think the DVD is only played back once (while never being able to remember the last play-back). If time and space did exist either end (of the big bang and big rip) the DVD would only be played back once. Time would just continue for ever after we die. But time is obviously a closed loop within the confines of the big bang and big rip. And from our personal point-of-view, we die (but we are NEVER dead). Are we living an eternal life right now?
@VitalSigns1 Unfortunately all of his arguments are based on what we DON'T know in science, rather than what we DO. Which makes it all the more ironic that he tries to invoke science to prove his indoctrinated beliefs. What he fails to mention is that there's no proof that the universe isn't cyclic (meaning it could have technically always existed), or that we could be part of a multiverse. He's actually very quick to say that the latter has no evidence, and then uses 'God' to explain the gap.
The thing about the beginning of the Universe, is that even if science finds what caused the Universe, people would still keep asking "well what caused that? and what caused that?" etc. etc. And yet they say that God didn't have a cause either. How can that possibly be? How can God simply exist without a cause?
why be so negative ? religious and intelligent people like Craig never act like asshats like pseudo-intelligent Dawkins i mean Dawkins is rather unappealing guy almost psychopatic
@skuterixas91 Simply insulting the other side goes to show that you're one of those who isn't in search of the truth, but just in search for something that helps affirm their dogmatic beliefs. I feel sorry for you.
WLC loves to distort arguments. 1) The Big Bang started from a singularity. We don't know what was before the singularity, so "god did it" is a claim that is dropped in due to our ignorance. 2) Deductive arguments require a justified premise, we have no basis to suppose a disembodied mind as the cause of anything. Of course such a claim begs the question of WHERE did the intelligence come from...which then gets to SPECIAL PLEADING...
@MyContext you stated "The Big Bang started from a singularity. We don't know what was before the singularity" just what exactly is your definition of that singularity that started the big bang? please explain?
@6gunwalker The singularity according to the Big Bang theory was a highly condensed point of matter. When this point of matter started to expand this was the start of the universe in the form that we observe now. Currently, there are many points of conjecture as to what was before the singularity, however, at this time it is unknown.
@MyContext but would you agree that in your argument the singular matter would had to have been a product of something? fair call that science cannot answer these questions now and theres nothing wrong with not knowing only on the circumstance that one knows for certain where ones notions of the bigbang end up.. because we know that the universe had a beginnig and a end
@6gunwalker Possibilities: 1) In some fashion beyond our current knowledge energy/matter was created 2) The energy/matter was always here. These are the possibilities at the moment. Neither of these positions speaks to an ultimate beginning. So, ANY claim would be a point of conjecture. There is nothing wrong with speculating, however, it would be inappropriate to claim a point of conjecture as truth.
@MyContext sir, you do realise where youre going with this argument? ill try another route of reasoning so you can see where this is heading.. i can respect yr assertion that you dont know how matter/energy came about.. but lets assume you know.. that matter/energy came from XY (lets call it that for the sake of argument) then you would have to explain scientifically where XY came from so on and so on.. which in my view would be illogic and infinite.
@6gunwalker We stop at whatever point we have evidence to support. We have no basis to go further than we have existence with no basis to claim how or why it is, but we do know that it is. The claim of god, however, would be a fictional thing, since, given the depictions - god is impossible given what we currently know. So, to claim something that from our knowledge is impossible is speculation of the wildest sort. So, which is more logic and which is more illogical to you?
@MyContext i respect yr opinion but i must say in my view there are landslide evidence and arguments that point to a creator then to just chance and coincidence... its far more illogical to me that us intelligent beings and our beautifully designed enviroment and universe with so many deep and meaningful designs to have just appear out of random chance in which the odds are overwhelming stacked agaisnt.. that to me is rediculously silly. universe created from chance.
@6gunwalker There are indeed many arguments for the claim of a god. However, I must ask what are you calling evidence, since, I find none. So, for many claims of god I will simply say there is no support. I reject the Abrahamic notion of god as due to evidence against. The depictions of the bible are not logically coherent.
@6gunwalker i hope you find and accept the truth. i'm sorry if i've offended. honestly, some focused research just on the net, developing an understanding of science, i assure you, will show you the light. there is nothing more brilliant and awe-inspiring than the magic of reality.
Theists badger atheists on how the universe came into existence, as if to prove the reality of a god. So to be fair, level the standard of the proof. Theists must prove how god came into existence and not settle for the pathetic 'god of the gaps' postulate that is complacent in seeking no scientific evidence.
@mithilag God is eternal there is no beginnig nor end with God.. he is the alpha and the omega.. but to put to rest yr question who created God? my reply... you dont need an explanation for an explanation.. fr example.. who designed the car.. answer mankind.. we did.. full stop no further explanations... if you apply what you say who created mankind then youre defecting from the first question in who created the car. an explanation for an explanation will destroy science and is contradictory
@MyContext mithilag bought up the "explanation for an explanation" argument when he asked me the question who created God? in reference to my cause n effect argument... i argued that there is nothing before God, and used the car analogy. who designed the car? answer= mankind.. do we need a further explanation? no.. and pointed out that if one was to use the "explanation of the explanation" in scientific inquiry, that notion would literaly destroy science logic.. you know what i mean?
@6gunwalker imagine applying an explanation of the explanation to the law of gravity for an example, the explanation would have to run into the infinite which will inevidibly cause all forms of contradictions...
@6gunwalker We could simply stop at - we had a singularity and that was the start of everything. The logical stop is an honest answer of we do not know. The moment we claim a point of conjecture as truth we have ceased to be honest.
@6gunwalker We know about cars, we know about mankind, we know about evolution... However, claims of god are points of ignorance, since, there are only claims and arguments, but no support found to be thus far. I grant there is lots of attribution, however, please don't forget the ULINK (see profile) with regard to the problem of attribution without a definite linkage.
@6gunwalker ... you clearly don't know what you're talking about. don't claim to know about scientific inquiry, when you are so wrong. in the car example, a person exists and we see how they are created. whereas god is not seen, so the need for proving its existence is needed to validate your argument. if you can't, then you can't claim he exists.
@mithilag ive never claimed i know everything, nor claim to be an expert, im just putting out my arguments and observations in the hopes that i am able to compare what i believe is correct with your perfectly legitimate arguments so i, we can all draw our own conclusions and in the end weak claims fall by the waste and the landslide truth stand.. thats all im doing here, i dont mean to offend you in any way..
WLC's beard looks badass. Good look for him. lulz
xCxx2x 3 days ago
i think we are arguing different points here. Your original question was: "How did we even conclude that all things that start have a cause?" Answer: ALL physicists agree about causality (every effect requires a cause). which means the only logical conclusion of the universes origin is an infinite chain of causes and effects with no beginning or end. OR, religion claims god started the chain of cause and effect and he was infinite. but, both require that something was always there.
mwebful 2 weeks ago
This has been refuted a trillion times. How did we even conclude that all things that start have a cause?
MJFAN666 2 weeks ago
@MJFAN666 can you think of anything that has a beginning but doesn't have anything to cause its beginning? (and dont say the universe, because thats circular reasoning, and the thing we are trying to figure out has a cause). go ahead and look into it, not a single serious scientist on either side of the argument refutes the established laws of cause and effect. basically that every cause has an effect and every effect has a cause.
mwebful 2 weeks ago
@mwebful I should think that the particles that pop in and out of existence constantly can be one example and also if a particles is to go faster than light, the entropy of time for it is to be reversed. If that happens, effect occurs b4 cause. And I still don't get how the Cause is God.. AND WHAT MOVED THE MOVER?
MJFAN666 2 weeks ago
@MJFAN666 first. i assume you're talking about virtual particles. and those aren't technically even "real". they have only been verified indirectly through the Casimir Effect which requires attraction between 2 neutral, parallel conducting plates placed in a vacuum. basically I'm saying you need certain ingredients for particles to pop in and out of existence. therefore they are the cause (it couldn't have happened otherwise). And an person has to cause the plates and the vacuum to be as well.
mwebful 2 weeks ago
@mwebful lmao, why a person? Why YOUR version of God?> Y can't it be my pet unicorn conjuring all this shit? Your Kalam Cosmological Argument is trash. Proves nothing. Just replaces one ununderstood mystery with another. And what made the "person" that you r talking about?
MJFAN666 2 weeks ago
@MJFAN666 So you you DO understand that everything needs something that came before it, cause you asked, "what MADE the person?" and this ISN'T my even argument. even well known atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Neil Degrasse Tyson will concede that everything has something that caused it. That argument has been settled for a while. the argument is that there either was an infinite number of unintelligent causes (atheism) or one ultimate original cause ( theism, or god ).
mwebful 2 weeks ago
@mwebful "So you you DO understand that everything needs something that came before it, cause you asked, "what MADE the person?" " No, I am just using your argument of cause and effect to show you that your statement is self-contradictory. Why is God the initial cause, if we grant that there is one? Y not Richard Dawkins? or As I said, My pet unicorn?
MJFAN666 2 weeks ago
"Again, it all depends on weather or not those premises are true & I think they are..."
"it depends...", "I think...".
Exactly. People listen to this idiot? Assertions without evidence are conjecture, therefore irrelevant [including this one ;P ].
recalibration 2 weeks ago
@recalibration He's an academic. They use different language to describe knowledge. If you can't follow it, just watch Richard Dawkins' videos for mindless nonsense and entertainment; he's more your level.
MagicSkeleton 2 weeks ago
@MagicSkeleton
Sorry, what? You're really going to have me believe Dawkins, a doctor of philosophy & professor of biology fr Oxford (the same school that Stephen Hawking attended... in the very country you reside), is mindless nonsense?
Then I trust you have much more prestigious credentials, but I doubt it, as you don't seem to know the fallacy of argumentum ad lapidem.
(1/1 MS00)
recalibration 2 weeks ago
@recalibration It doesn't apply here because I'm not engaging with any particular argument.
Also, I can't tell if you're aware of this or not from your reply, but Dawkins has no credentials in philosophy. His PhD is biology (or zoology). Craig, on the other hand, has 2 PhDs, one in Philosophy and one in Theology. So yeah, I'd personally recommend Craig for metaphysical discussion, and Dawkins for biological discussion. Dawkins is not worth listening to on philosophical/theological matters.
MagicSkeleton 2 weeks ago
@MagicSkeleton
Fair point & I must acknowledge my error: I read Dawkin's CV incorrectly that, in 1966, he received a D.Phil fr Oxford. The nature of a D.Phil does _not_ limit it solely to philosophy. Thank you for challenging that point.
(1/3 MS01)
recalibration 2 weeks ago
@recalibration That's OK, but I feel I should emphasise that in Britain all non-medical doctorates are 'Doctor of Philosophy', whether or not they contain any actual philosophy. Thus a straight Maths PhD still bears that title. Our doctoral programs are extremely narrow, and basically focus only on one thing.
MagicSkeleton 2 weeks ago
@MagicSkeleton
I thank you for making me more educated today than I was yesterday. As a fellow member of the Commonwealth, cheers! :-)
(1/1 MS02)
recalibration 2 weeks ago
@recalibration Cheers!
MagicSkeleton 2 weeks ago
@MagicSkeleton
Still, I charge my points against Craig stand:
His P1 of the Kalam is asserting an arbitrary demarcation of an absolute which is an unfalsifiable. This, I welcome anyone to enlighten me how I could *not* hold P1 as presupposition or begging the question.
(2/3 MS01)
recalibration 2 weeks ago
@MagicSkeleton
Furthermore his Arg #2 is, IMO, absurd as the nature of its construction allow the varibles to be equally rearranged, but leading to the very antithesis of what he's trying to offer as a logical conclusion Thus, I charge anyone who would enlighten me in explaining how my variant of #2 is incorrect must naturally dismiss Craig's original form of it.
In conculsion, I find Craig to be using transparent gambits. He needs to cease proselytizing & start proving.
(3/3 MS01)
recalibration 2 weeks ago
@recalibration I'll be honest with you, I've given up trying to defend Craig in the detail of his arguments. I've read his stuff for years and seen him time and time again satisfactorily defend (in particular) kalaam. He answers a question every Monday on his website; check it out if you haven't already. Atheists always claim he provides no evidence or logic, but that's all he does. A lot of people simply don't understand his material, unfortunately. And then there's Plantinga...
MagicSkeleton 2 weeks ago
@MagicSkeleton
Thanks, I think I'll start posting there. As I quickly scan the forum related to Kalam, I'm none too hopeful... I see a lot of "well, why _shouldn't_ we accept P1" ...
Verum quaere et insaniam inveni! Off I go, further into the mania! XD
(1/1 MS03)
recalibration 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Humm... how about:
P1: The initial conditions of the universe are due either to law, chance or intelligence.
P2: The initial cond. are not due to intelligence or law.
P3: Therefore they are due to chance.
recalibration 2 weeks ago
#2
P1: The initial conditions of the universe are due either to law, chance or intel.
P2: The initial cond. are not due to chance or law.
P3: Therefore they are due to intelligence.
recalibration 2 weeks ago
Kalam P1: "Whatever begins to exist has a cause."
Presupposition & begging the question.
recalibration 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
recalibration 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
recalibration 2 weeks ago
Do the youtube Atheists even watch the Craig videos before they dislike them? There shouldn't be that many dislikes. Craig isn't a kook or a crackpot. He has taught me more than Dawkins has, for real.
983215ljhlkadbspig6y 2 weeks ago
@983215ljhlkadbspig6y really, what exactly did WLC teach you?
adstanra 2 weeks ago
Clause 1:) Everything that exists has a cause.
Clause 2:) The Universe exists
Clause 3:) Therefore the universe has a cause
and my favorite un-numbered clause
Cause 4:) You don't need evidence to support your claim as long as it explains things.
You know... kinda like the logic they once used to explain that the sun was a chariot being driven across the sky. No other explanation, therefore God did it.
vaguevocalist17 3 weeks ago
@vaguevocalist17 Please provide evidence to support your claim. Thanks.
Povidius 3 weeks ago
@Povidius
Watch a Craig debate and that's exactly how it comes out. He always neglects to mention rather significant premises like treating the bible as fact and shifting the burden of proof away from himself.
BattleshipAgincourt 3 weeks ago
@BattleshipAgincourt I don't see that myself, but then again, I haven't viewed many of his debates yet. I'll keep that in mind going forward.
Povidius 3 weeks ago
@vaguevocalist17 What evidence do you have for logic?
Halfturretslicer 2 weeks ago
@Halfturretslicer Your question is non-nonsensical. Evidence is an attribute of logic. You do not have evidence for logic.
vaguevocalist17 2 weeks ago
@vaguevocalist17 Evidence is an attribute of logic? This is backwards, logic is an attribute of evidence. However, I do agree that there is no evidence for logic. There never will be evidence since evidence itself applies logic.
We all have FAITH that logic exists.despite the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE for its existence.
Halfturretslicer 2 weeks ago
@Halfturretslicer It is not backwards. Logic dictates what is considered evidence through deductive reasoning. But I won't expect you to understand this, as you think evidence and logic are faith based. Logic is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. A=A. A does not equal not A. Stuff like this. If you need faith to see this this is true, than you don't understand what evidence or logic is.
vaguevocalist17 2 weeks ago
@vaguevocalist17 You're using logic to try and show that logic is real. Textbook example of circular reasoning.
Halfturretslicer 2 weeks ago
@Halfturretslicer Wow. So you are using logical fallacies to show that logical fallacies aren't valid? Good one. Tell you what. You go and have faith in an invisible man with infinite power that watches you at all times and hears your prayers and cares whether or not you wear clothing with more than one fiber in it. I'll stick with my "faith" that A=A and that A does not equal not A. Hope it gets you somewhere.
vaguevocalist17 2 weeks ago
@vaguevocalist17 Do you believe that there are absolute laws of logic?
Hoogz20 2 weeks ago
@Hoogz20 Yup. For example: You cannot make a square circle. You can't sit and not sit at the same time. You also can't choose to neither sit or not sit. Something cannot exist and not have properties. 1=1. etc.
vaguevocalist17 2 weeks ago
@vaguevocalist17 Quantum mechanics would beg to differ.
Halfturretslicer 2 weeks ago
@Halfturretslicer I don't claim to understand the logic of quantum mechanics beyond the solutions it gives mathematically. I'll freely admit that there are many paradoxes that arise in the realm of quantum mechanics, but claiming that they defy logic is ridiculous. Mathematics is strictly based on logic, and the solutions are extremely precise. However, they are just an approximation. No one will say that quantum mechanics is absolute. It is an inherently flawed system.
vaguevocalist17 2 weeks ago
@vaguevocalist17 I am not making a case for the invalidity of logic, so no, I am not using logical fallacies to show that logical fallacies are invalid. I believe in logic through faith. You believe in logic through logic, which commits a fallacy of logic itself and is ridiculously self-refuting.
Halfturretslicer 2 weeks ago
@Halfturretslicer Haha. I don't "believe" in logic "through" logic. I understand logic. But if you really want to label my understanding of logic as faith, go for it. It won't give your argument for faith based knowledge any more validity. Evidence or proof is still required to indicate the truth of any claim.
vaguevocalist17 2 weeks ago
@vaguevocalist17 If logic is believed in through faith, then why can't a god be believed in through faith? Moreover, there is circumstantial evidence for the existence of a deity such as the fact there is something rather than nothing, the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life, the orgin of life, infomation in DNA, and things that are not part of the natural world such as logic, mathematics, love, etc.
Halfturretslicer 2 weeks ago
@Halfturretslicer Something rather than nothing: This just moves the problem back one step. Why was there a god as opposed to no god? Therefore, your explanation has the same issue that what it explained had.
Fine tuning: There is no evidence indicating that it COULD be any other way. Without that, the "fine tuning" argument is flawed and invalid.
CONT...
vaguevocalist17 2 weeks ago
@vaguevocalist17 The fact that there is something rather than nothing leads logically to a first uncaused cause, necessary in its own existence, that is powerful enough to be responsible for the existence of everything else, something that is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial since it exists outside of matter, time, and material which are contained in the finite universe. This points to a deity.
Halfturretslicer 2 weeks ago
@Halfturretslicer Hehe. Something spaceless, timeless, and immaterial? Something can't be somewhere without space. Timeless? Something cannot change or create without time. Immaterial? Something can't exist in non-existence.
Asking what is before the big bang is like asking what is north of the north pole. Stephen Hawking has been able to scientifically, logically, and mathematically show that the universe could have just happened without anything to spur it on.
vaguevocalist17 2 weeks ago
@vaguevocalist17 You are applying principles that exist within our universe to outside of the universe. Heck, even within our universe, logic, mathematics, morals, etc. exist without taking up space. Same with the existence argument, logic, mathematics, morals, etc. exist without being material.
As far as a god and time.... The fact that time began at the big bang does not prevent a causal predecessor to the universe.
Halfturretslicer 2 weeks ago
@Halfturretslicer Even if I grant you all those arguments, why is it that this deity is your god? Why isn't it any of the other hundreds of Gods that man says is out there?
vaguevocalist17 2 weeks ago
@vaguevocalist17 I believe in the Christian God through faith, and also through the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, which William Lane Craig defends very well.
Halfturretslicer 2 weeks ago
@vaguevocalist17 The anthropic principle does indeed indicate that the physical constants and natural laws as we know them are not necessary in their own nature. There would be no anthropic principle in the first place if these physical constants and natural laws couldn't have been differerent.
Halfturretslicer 2 weeks ago
@Halfturretslicer "I am a puddle, and this hole that I am in fits me perfectly. It hugs my every curve and bump without fail. This hole must have been made specifically for me."
Also, the anthropic principal is not testable or falsifiable, therefore not a scientifically valid claim.
vaguevocalist17 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
vaguevocalist17 2 weeks ago
@vaguevocalist17 It has been shown that it is possible for abiogenesis to occur, but the chances are infinitesimally small. Now, some say, "Well, it's improbable, but improbable things happen all the time!" Not of this degree of improbability they don't. The probability of abiogenesis occurring is the same as a monkey randomly typing out a several-hundred page novel word-for-word on a typewriter, or Mt. Rushmore occurring by the processes of weathering and erosion.
Halfturretslicer 2 weeks ago
@Halfturretslicer First of all, abiogenesis isn't the only possible explanation. And even if it is that unlikely (which is contrived anyway) it still WOULD eventually happen due to the law of large numbers.
Regardless, I don't claim to KNOW how life started. It COULD have been a god, but there is no logical reason to assume that it was until we have clear scientific evidence.
vaguevocalist17 2 weeks ago
@vaguevocalist17 So I would conclude that a deity is a much more plausible explanation for the origin of life, just as I would find it more plausible that Mt. Rushmore was sculpted by an intelligent being rather than being caused by weathering and erosion.
Halfturretslicer 2 weeks ago
@Halfturretslicer Anyway, I'm done trying to explain to you that you DO need evidence to claim that god exists. Claiming that it's "the most likely thing" is no better than the vikings thinking there was no better explanation to explain solar eclipses.
vaguevocalist17 2 weeks ago
@vaguevocalist17 Your last few posts seem to suggest that something needs to be proven scientifically in order to be rationally believed.
As William Lane Craig states, science cannot prove science, science cannot prove logic, science cannot prove mathematics, science cannot prove aesthetics, science cannot prove the reality of the external world, science cannot prove that the past is real.
Halfturretslicer 2 weeks ago
@vaguevocalist17 So we all rationally believe lots of things that have not been scientifically proven.
Halfturretslicer 2 weeks ago
@vaguevocalist17 DNA is information, I don't know what else to say.
Halfturretslicer 2 weeks ago
@Halfturretslicer Sorry dude. DNA isn't information. It's a chemical process. Go ask your local biologist.
vaguevocalist17 2 weeks ago
@vaguevocalist1 I've discussed DNA with numerous college professors, and they have all said it is information.
Halfturretslicer 2 weeks ago
@vaguevocalist17 DNA is a chain of information, simply put. There are processes that create it and replicate it but it is information. that's like saying a newspaper is really a printing press. Well no, the newspaper really IS a newspaper that was created as a result OF a printing press.
82dr89bg 2 weeks ago
@82dr89bg DNA contains information like words on that newspaper contain information. Those words aren't literally "information". They are blots of carefully placed bits of ink that, in a certain context relay what was on the printing press. This does not indicate an intelligent designer.
vaguevocalist17 2 weeks ago
@vaguevocalist17 That was a nice vain attempt at splicing hairs there buddy...but i do believe DNA indicates ID.
82dr89bg 2 weeks ago
@82dr89bg Let's say that DNA is information. Nothing but information. Lets say that we didn't evolve from monkeys. Lets even say that the earth is 10,000 years old. Still wouldn't indicate an ID. There are other explanations that wouldn't involve the need to assume the existence of an all powerful being that we'll go see after we die. I suppose it is a possibility, but not a probability.
vaguevocalist17 2 weeks ago
@vaguevocalist17 Do you honestly believe that all that vast, incalculable and intricate detail in DNA just arranged itself by chance? What was the driving force behind it? What told it to do that or otherwise be nothing more than a pile of useless particles? What galvanized it into action to form what it did?
82dr89bg 2 weeks ago
@82dr89bg You honestly believe that you know what did all that? You honestly believe that you know enough to justify saying your personal god did that? No. I don't believe that at happened by "chance". I believe it's too complicated for me to personally understand right now. That doesn't mean a god did it. There have always been things we don't yet understand. There will always be things we don't yet understand. That does not mean a god did it.
vaguevocalist17 2 weeks ago
@82dr89bg I'll postulate that it was a giant miniature invisible pink unicorn that did it all. It was a spaceless, timeless, ethereal creature with so much power that it was the one that created god. This creature has come down and told me PERSONALLY that the christian god is a dick and is just fuckin' with man kind, and I shouldn't pay any attention to Him. Makes sense too, because I didn't have a good scientific explanation for how God came to be. This explains it though. Tootles!
vaguevocalist17 2 weeks ago
@82dr89bg
"Do you honestly believe that all that vast, incalculable and intricate detail in DNA just arranged itself by chance?"
Nope and neither do scientists who, overwhelmingly, accept evolution. Molecules are organized according to their chemcal properties.
The larger problem with ID is that 1) it's an exercise in appealing to ignorance and 2) it isn't science because it's not falsifiable.
citizenghosttown 2 weeks ago
@citizenghosttown So we agree that not by chance. Then by WHAT? Law? would that imply someone or something attributed behavior to a given thing? Something just doesn't decide to behave a certain way- gravity didn't at one point decide that instead of pushing smaller (or less mass) objects away, the greater object with greater mass would attract it so that planets would decide to form and (on ours particularly) particles would ban together to form intricate life for no reason or purpose at all.
82dr89bg 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Halfturretslicer The origin of life: We have been able to show that organic life can arise from non-organic matter. (Still is a poor argument as it is a "god of the gaps" statement)
Information in DNA: There isn't "information" in DNA. DNA is a purely chemical process.
Not part of natural world:
-Logic: A rock would still be a rock and not not-a-rock where there no minds.
-Math: Same as logic
-Love: Chemical process in the brain.
vaguevocalist17 2 weeks ago
First,just because something exist it doesn't determine what created it.To simply plug an unexplainable supernatural being declaring IT as the probable cause for the undetermined existence of something,is foolish.With logic already out the window,following dynamic of this trainwreak carries on w/t an unjustifiable exception to the rule,one which must disregard inclusion of necessitated parameters of proof and evidence for it.I ask,how the hell can this not be regarded as argument of ignorance?
godof79 3 weeks ago
I don't care what background you have, you can't refute this argument presented by William Lane Craig.
Kmessenger1974 3 weeks ago
@Kmessenger1974
That's assuming Craig even has an argument. Craig cannot assert that the 'most plausible explanation' is in fact one that we know to be impossible. Consciousness as we know it depends upon a physical body... no evidence suggests otherwise.
For him to assert a noncorporeal being is the cause of the universe, he must first demonstrate that such a being CAN exist. Without a proper foundation for his intergalactic superman to exist, Craig cannot build anything upon that assumption.
BattleshipAgincourt 3 weeks ago
@BattleshipAgincourt How do you know it's impossible that consciousness and rationality can exist without a brain? Sure, the lack of evidence for it after such a long and intense search is good reason not to believe in such things (although Craig claims that the existence of anything at all, what he sees as the apparent design of the universe, and the miracles of Jesus recorded in the Gospels are evidence), but when it comes to metaphysical certitude, can you prove the impossibility of God?
cengime 3 weeks ago
@cengime
I am not going to, because I don't say that consciousness without a physical body is absolutely impossible... we simply don't have any evidence to support such a being is even possible.
That being so, Craig's claim losses all credibility. One cannot assert such a being without first demonstrating that it's even possible. Noncorporeal beings to our knowledge don't exist, therefore Craig lies when he asserts that a nonphysical god is the 'most plausible' explanation of god.
BattleshipAgincourt 3 weeks ago
Correction:
Craig's assertion to the creation of the universe being created by a noncorporeal being contradicts all that we currently know about consciousness. While it may indeed be possible that a god does exist, all available evidence indicates that consciousness cannot exist without a physical body.
That therefore completely invalidates Craig's argument. You cannot make a valid argument without first establishing a solid foundation, which is exactly what he never does.
BattleshipAgincourt 3 weeks ago
@BattleshipAgincourt Since we do not presently know what physical phenomenon gives rise to consciousness or how to conclusively determine its presence, there's no solid basis for your own premise that nothing but brains can produce consciousness. Thus, this is an argument from incredulity. It's unacceptable to address Craig's arguments by deriding the conclusion as impossible, when (since metaphysical dualism is not open to any scientific test at this time) this can only be a personal opinion.
cengime 3 weeks ago
@cengime
So you agree that Craig's argument fails?
It's unacceptable for Craig to derive an argument by deriving a conclusion as though it were fact, when (since metaphysical dualism is not open to any scientific test at this time) this can only be a personal opinion.
I don't have to prove it impossible for consciousness to exist without a physical mind... Craig must demonstrate it as fact BEFORE he makes the assertion, otherwise he has no argument.
BattleshipAgincourt 3 weeks ago
@BattleshipAgincourt But the existence of God is the conclusion of his argument, not a premise. If, as he claims, his arguments prove that an incorporeal consciousness does exist, then he has proved by example that an incorporeal consciousness can exist.
cengime 3 weeks ago
@cengime
Even then, supposing that we grant the premise that consciousness can exists without a physical body, that still doesn't mean that only a noncorporeal being could have created the universe.
Craig's argument is unfounded because he makes an assertion and fails to provide the foundation for his argument to be true. For anyone to even CONSIDER his argument, Craig must first demonstrate that noncorporeal beings can exist... which he can't.
That's where his argument fails.
BattleshipAgincourt 3 weeks ago
@cengime
Continued)
Our understanding of consciousness thus far indicates that a physical mind is required for the process to work. Craig is using an unsupported premise to make an illogical conclusion. If he otherwise COULD prove that a conscious mind can exist without a physical body, then his 'god' argument gains merit. Without establishing that foundation FIRST, he cannot logically deduce that his noncorporeal god can even exists... let alone create the universe.
Do you understand now?
BattleshipAgincourt 3 weeks ago
@BattleshipAgincourt If you could empirically prove that there was no such thing as an incorporeal consciousness, I would agree that it would falsify Craig's premises, but unless you think he is bringing the possibility in somewhere as an unstated premise, it is irrelevant to argue that he hasn't first shown that the conclusion is possible. If he has eliminated every possibility but the existence of a personal god, then that is the truth.
cengime 3 weeks ago
@cengime
Why are you asking me? I'm not the one making the extraordinary claim here... Craig is.
Do you seriously not understand what I presented to you? Even if the given presumption Craig uses IS possible, it's on his head to prove that a noncorporeal being CAN exist before asserting that it does... what he calls the 'most plausible' explanation.
Given as that explanation DEFIES everything we already know about consciousness, Craig's argument is in fact among the LEAST likely to be true.
BattleshipAgincourt 3 weeks ago
@BattleshipAgincourt I understand what you're saying, but you're simply wrong. It is not incumbent on Craig to prove that an incorporeal intelligence can exist before proving...that an incorporeal intelligence exists, unless you can identify a premise of his argument that there is no reason to accept unless one already believes that incorporeal intelligences can exist (in which case he would be begging the question). It doesn't matter how outrageous you find his conclusion.
cengime 3 weeks ago
@cengime
'I understand what you're saying, but you're simply wrong.'
Based on what? What's wrong with my logic?
It IS on Craig's head to provide a foundation for his premise before he can make an assertion. If he cannot do that, then he has no right to make such an outrageous assertion.
If I told you that magic explains why your car keys went missingt, am I under no obligation to prove first that magic exists before you even consider the possibility I might be right?
BattleshipAgincourt 3 weeks ago
@BattleshipAgincourt If you were to argue that 1) My keys were removed to another place by either a natural cause or a supernatural cause (by definition, both possibilities cannot be false); 2) My keys could not have been removed to another place by a natural cause (for example, they were locked in a safe, and a security camera shows no one coming around it since I left my keys in it); then you have established 3) My keys were removed to another place by a supernatural cause.
cengime 3 weeks ago
@cengime
Seriously! Do you really believe the last time you lost your keys... that they disappeared by magic?
I'm going on the assumption that you're a sensible person and don't seriously consider magic or the supernatural as a serious possibility for anything you can't explain. The scenario here is that someone ASSERTS that they took your keys by magic... are you seriously going to consider that he's a real wizard, or that there's a more sensible explanation? Maybe that it was of trick?
BattleshipAgincourt 3 weeks ago
@BattleshipAgincourt Are you saying that you wouldn't believe in magic even if you were faced with very persuasive evidence? That's not a very scientific attitude. If I could repeatedly put my keys in a safe and open it to find my keys had disappeared by magic every time, and I had examined the safe thoroughly to rule out natural explanations, that shows magic is part of the world. I was firmly convinced of the law of gravity without anyone explaining how there could be such a thing as gravity.
cengime 3 weeks ago
@cengime
Really? Well if I ever encountered a magic safe that could do that, it would be VERY compelling. When has this happened? When did you find a real magic safe that did that?
I would have to say that knowing the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of matter, such a feat would be impossible. If you have a magic safe that can do that, you'd be famous! You've got to show it to the scientific community! They have to know!
BattleshipAgincourt 3 weeks ago
@BattleshipAgincourt But according to you, that explanation is so implausible that it has to be rejected on its face. By that standard, "my keys were moved by either a natural or a supernatural cause" is not an acceptable premise, and we could only say "if my keys were removed to another place, there was a natural cause." Then if we can't find a natural cause, we have to conclude the keys are still there, which is absurd. Do you see how it's you who are introducing an unjustified premise here?
cengime 3 weeks ago
@cengime
No, I don't. I haven't asserted anything... Craig has, using his god of the gaps argument to explain away everything.
According to Craig if your keys disappeared (and there are as yet hundreds of natural explanations you've not yet considered), then the most plausible explanation is that they magically disappeared and you'll never see them again. That right there is Craig logic.
Does that sound reasonable? Didn't think so.
BattleshipAgincourt 3 weeks ago
@BattleshipAgincourt Whether or not it "sounds reasonable," there is no a priori reason to discount the possibility of a willful creator of the universe.
cengime 3 weeks ago
@cengime
I am not DISCOUNTING the possibility that a god may have created the universe... only that there is insufficient evidence (and lots of contradictory evidence) supporting the existence of a god.
Assume for a moment that god doesn't exist, how else can one disprove its existence except by lack of evidence? Therefore atheism is the default position, at least in the absence of evidence. For Craig's argument to be plausible, he MUST present extraordinary evidence, which he doesn't.
BattleshipAgincourt 3 weeks ago
@BattleshipAgincourt
What is this "lots of contradictory evidence" that you claim stands as objective-empirical-evidence for the cosmos and viable life to credit their origination/s to self-propagated naturalistic mechanistic processes?
You have made an extraordinary claim, so you should be able to support it with examples of objective evidence as you speciously assert that Craig should have to. Go! "Extraordinary" Crickets.............................
LizardLeaps 3 weeks ago
@Troll
I'll answer that when you answer how consciousness can exist without a physical body.
Since you were a prick the last time, I'm going to do exactly the same to you.
BattleshipAgincourt 3 weeks ago
@BattleshipAgincourt Why are you wasting your time with an inferior mind that doesn't even see his own contradictions.
365to173repubsPWNED 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BattleshipAgincourt
"I'll answer that when you answer how consciousness can exist without a physical body"
I must still be a "prick" according to Blathership's trollish fool poor losers logically void pocket compendium, because you've Failed! to provided a valid explanation.
The deal was that I would respond to yours when you tell me how conscious existence came to exsist from non-conscious, non-living materials, or my "prickness" shall persist.
So "prick"still waiting?
LizardLeaps 3 weeks ago
@BattleshipAgincourt The fact that you have heretofore encountered only conscious beings with brains doesn't prove that a brain is necessary condition for consciousness, since it could be that there are other kinds of consciousnesses, but you have just not yet encountered them, or they have no way of communicating with you. You can't even prove a brain is sufficient for consciousness, since you can't know whether the people around you are conscious beings like yourself or philosophical zombies.
cengime 3 weeks ago
@cengime
So what's your point?
Given as all the available evidence indicates that consciousness cannot exist without a physical body, Craig CANNOT assert his god without first providing a foundation by which such a being is possible... which he doesn't.
For an explanation to be 'plausible,' it should be complemented by evidence. Craig's explanation isn't complemented by, but directly defies available evidence. That is why his logic is fallacious.
BattleshipAgincourt 3 weeks ago
@cengime
Am I saying that consciousness is impossible without a physical body... absolutely not. Only that Craig always fails to provide any evidence that supports his bold argument that such being is possible.
And because he deliberately misrepresents evidence in order to sell his argument to gullible audiences, I have little reason for giving him the benefit of the doubt. His arguments are deceitful and he says really very little for quite a lot.
BattleshipAgincourt 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BattleshipAgincourt "And because he deliberately misrepresents evidence in order to sell his argument to gullible audiences, I have little reason for giving him the benefit of the doubt. His arguments are deceitful..."
This is a very serious accusation. I expect proof.
cengime 3 weeks ago
@BattleshipAgincourt "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Kmessenger1974 3 weeks ago
@Kmessenger1974
The absence of evidence is not evidence that something exists.
So in other words... Craig fails.
BattleshipAgincourt 3 weeks ago
@BattleshipAgincourt But Craig at least has a plausible idea of how the universe was brought into existence, how arrogant it is to ask someone to show you where God is. It's not possible. It is like a thief trying to find a policeman in your case as and Atheist I assume?
Kmessenger1974 3 weeks ago
@Kmessenger1974
Afraid he doesn't. Advocating the universe was conjured by magic is the laziest and most useless answer anyone could produce because it doesn't really answer anything.
And yes, there very well should be extraordinary evidence supporting an extraordinary claim. If miracles such as those from the bible happened every now and again, that would be very compelling reason to believe in a god. You don't have to know they occur, but they should very definitely produce results.
BattleshipAgincourt 3 weeks ago
He makes two HUGE assumptions:
1, Only God is spaceless and timeless and could have caused the universe to begin to exist (not perhaps some as yet unknown natural conditions that we do not currently understand?)
2, "The initial conditions of the universe are not due to law or chance, so they must be due to intelligence".... Well why not? They may well be due to law or chance! The argument against is basically.... "it's unlikely". Not good enough.
to sum up, Dawkins is right. God of the gaps.
111RockNRoll111 1 month ago
@111RockNRoll111 Agreed.
Mindaugas7100 1 month ago
@111RockNRoll111 Agreed.
Mindaugas7100 1 month ago
@111RockNRoll111 No he doesn't make the assumption that only God is spaceless and timelesss. If you've watched his arguments for long enough, you'll know that he points to abstract objects like numbers and say they are spaceless and immaterial as well. Second, he is defining God as the Prime Cause of all that is in existence. By saying that there are some other natural explanation(which i dont doubt there are) all your doing is(continued)
jamaicanification 1 month ago
@jamaicanification
So Craig refutes himself by saying that god is just as nonexistent as numbers.
When's the last time you ever saw numbers in some way influence the physical universe? When's the last time you saw a god influence the universe?
BattleshipAgincourt 3 weeks ago
@BattleshipAgincourt Cosmological constants. Ever heard of that? And numbers do exist. They are abstract concepts we use to conduct equations and experimentation. What your basically saying is that the very fountain of our scientific and mathematical knowledge is based on something that doesn't exist, which is non-sense
jamaicanification 3 weeks ago
@jamaicanification
Mathematics doesn't physically exist. That's the whole point. It's a human construct we made for the purpose of sorting out the universe in a useful way. The same thing can be said about god... it does exist as an idea. However a construct doesn't have any measurable influence on the known universe.
Obviously mathematics exist, but as mental constructs... it doesn't physically change or define the laws of the universe. And neither does god, because it only exists as an idea.
BattleshipAgincourt 3 weeks ago
@BattleshipAgincourt
If you agree that mathematics doesn't phisically exist, and yet this IMMATERIAL thing is used to, as you say "sort out the universe', then why can't you accept that an entity such as GOD, which is ALSO an IMMATERIAL thing, can also be used to 'sort out the universe', and yes...perhaps explain its existence?
MsPROOFthatGODexists 3 weeks ago
@MsPROOFthatGODexists
What do you mean 'why can't I accept that an entity such as GOD...' can exist?
For reasons being that god is a logical contradiction. It is an idea... I accept that much.
BattleshipAgincourt 3 weeks ago
@BattleshipAgincourt What we use to systematize our concepts of Mathematics is a construct of our minds. Sure.But lets go in the back door on this one. Lets say there was a hypothetical universe in which there were 3 rocks. Where you use the terminology 3 or some other word to categorize how many rocks there are, it doesn't take away from the fact that there are 3 rocks......
jamaicanification 3 weeks ago
@BattleshipAgincourt He never stated God didn't exist at all, I think you are misunderstanding.
Kmessenger1974 3 weeks ago
@111RockNRoll111 is kicking the can down the road. You haven't refuted the idea of a God or the Kalam Cosmological Argument that he is presenting
jamaicanification 1 month ago
@jamaicanification Well why couldn't the universe have been accidentally excreted into existence by a non-conscious, non-intelligent, process that isn't God? There's exactly the same amount of evidence that the cause was God or something else(so far, none each way!) So my point was: If one is to argue that because we have no knowledge of such a process(Which doesn't mean there is or isn't one!) and therefore God is the only answer, then Dawkins' is right by calling it God of the gaps.
111RockNRoll111 1 month ago
@111RockNRoll111 I know what your saying. And maybe there is a natural explanation that we will find out that explains what happened before the singularity where the laws of physics breaks down(Stephen Hawking proposes a curvature and M theory). But what theist have always been saying is that God is the efficient cause. Meaning, all causes, however far down the road you kick the can come from him. So any discoveries in science really dont hurt my faith at all......
jamaicanification 1 month ago
"We don't know how the universe came to exist yet, therefore everything in the bible is true and the Christian God exists" - Wiliam Lane Craig(or it misewell be)
MegaBlueZOMBIE 1 month ago
Ok William Craig, you can't accept the premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause when the very thing you believe exists is causeless. This is why the smartest creationists are delusional
TheFinalStanza94 1 month ago
@TheFinalStanza94
He is not saying that everthing that exists has a cause, he is saying everything which BEGAN to exist has a cause. The points that everything which BEGAN to exist has a cause and that God exists without a cause are compatible with each other because God is eternal, he did not BEGIN to exist, he has always been, unlike the universe which scientists say began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. This is why you have to fully understand the argument before commenting on it.
radbot1 1 month ago
@radbot1 While scientists say that the universe as we know it started 13.7 billion years ago, none of them state that it's impossible that the universe is cyclic or that we are in fact part of a multiverse. It's a shame the opposition never mentions this when debating Dr. Craig, since both of these ideas are (at least) equally plausible as some divine being who happens to have always existed.
BenjaminGoose 1 month ago
@BenjaminGoose It has been mentioned in a debate against him and he refuted it by saying that a multiverse does nothing more than push the problem back a step, and a cyclic universe would have to be infinately fine tuned to keep cycling whilst also not explaining how that cycle first came to be which is why the theory does not actually have much support amongst scientists. But even if it were without these huge problems, it does not match our observations of what our universe should be like.
radbot1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To believe in God or in a guiding force because someone tells you to is the height of stupidity. We are given senses to receive our information within. With our own eyes we see, and with our own skin we feel. With our intelligence, it is intended that we understand. But each person must puzzle it out for himself or herself.
Nietzschean1000 1 month ago
WLC, is this the best theists can do, the guy is hopeless.
benaberry 1 month ago
Atheists ownes...looooserrrs!!....
RunColorado100 1 month ago
Why does WLC assume that the beginning of the Universe was the beginning of time? He doesn't know that. However the Universe came to exist, there's no evidence that it was created by an intelligent being. There are many amazing things that come about in a natural way, that it doesn't seem reasonable to take the one thing we don't know the cause of and assume it was supernatural. WLC is a master of playing with words, but if you really examine his arguments closely they're not so great.
VitalSigns1 1 month ago
@VitalSigns1 The secular scientists claim that time and space did begin with the big bang. They say there was no such thing as (before the big bang) and no such thing as time and space (after the big rip). Time only exists in between and so the universe starts when it ends but doesn't end until (an estimated) 100 billion years after the big bang. So common sense says that it "loops", like the same DVD being played "on repeat" for eternity! We r living an "eternal" life right now and don't know.
Justwantahover 1 month ago
@VitalSigns1 So we think the DVD is only played back once (while never being able to remember the last play-back). If time and space did exist either end (of the big bang and big rip) the DVD would only be played back once. Time would just continue for ever after we die. But time is obviously a closed loop within the confines of the big bang and big rip. And from our personal point-of-view, we die (but we are NEVER dead). Are we living an eternal life right now?
Justwantahover 1 month ago
@VitalSigns1 Unfortunately all of his arguments are based on what we DON'T know in science, rather than what we DO. Which makes it all the more ironic that he tries to invoke science to prove his indoctrinated beliefs. What he fails to mention is that there's no proof that the universe isn't cyclic (meaning it could have technically always existed), or that we could be part of a multiverse. He's actually very quick to say that the latter has no evidence, and then uses 'God' to explain the gap.
BenjaminGoose 1 month ago
The thing about the beginning of the Universe, is that even if science finds what caused the Universe, people would still keep asking "well what caused that? and what caused that?" etc. etc. And yet they say that God didn't have a cause either. How can that possibly be? How can God simply exist without a cause?
VitalSigns1 1 month ago
why be so negative ? religious and intelligent people like Craig never act like asshats like pseudo-intelligent Dawkins i mean Dawkins is rather unappealing guy almost psychopatic
skuterixas91 1 month ago 2
@skuterixas91 Simply insulting the other side goes to show that you're one of those who isn't in search of the truth, but just in search for something that helps affirm their dogmatic beliefs. I feel sorry for you.
BenjaminGoose 1 month ago
Just another one of Craig's tautologous bullshit.
arktiro 1 month ago
proud to be not a christian anymore <---
Wh1skey 1 month ago
WLC loves to distort arguments. 1) The Big Bang started from a singularity. We don't know what was before the singularity, so "god did it" is a claim that is dropped in due to our ignorance. 2) Deductive arguments require a justified premise, we have no basis to suppose a disembodied mind as the cause of anything. Of course such a claim begs the question of WHERE did the intelligence come from...which then gets to SPECIAL PLEADING...
MyContext 1 month ago
@MyContext you stated "The Big Bang started from a singularity. We don't know what was before the singularity" just what exactly is your definition of that singularity that started the big bang? please explain?
6gunwalker 1 month ago
@6gunwalker The singularity according to the Big Bang theory was a highly condensed point of matter. When this point of matter started to expand this was the start of the universe in the form that we observe now. Currently, there are many points of conjecture as to what was before the singularity, however, at this time it is unknown.
MyContext 1 month ago
@MyContext but would you agree that in your argument the singular matter would had to have been a product of something? fair call that science cannot answer these questions now and theres nothing wrong with not knowing only on the circumstance that one knows for certain where ones notions of the bigbang end up.. because we know that the universe had a beginnig and a end
6gunwalker 1 month ago
@6gunwalker Possibilities: 1) In some fashion beyond our current knowledge energy/matter was created 2) The energy/matter was always here. These are the possibilities at the moment. Neither of these positions speaks to an ultimate beginning. So, ANY claim would be a point of conjecture. There is nothing wrong with speculating, however, it would be inappropriate to claim a point of conjecture as truth.
MyContext 1 month ago
@MyContext sir, you do realise where youre going with this argument? ill try another route of reasoning so you can see where this is heading.. i can respect yr assertion that you dont know how matter/energy came about.. but lets assume you know.. that matter/energy came from XY (lets call it that for the sake of argument) then you would have to explain scientifically where XY came from so on and so on.. which in my view would be illogic and infinite.
6gunwalker 1 month ago
@6gunwalker We stop at whatever point we have evidence to support. We have no basis to go further than we have existence with no basis to claim how or why it is, but we do know that it is. The claim of god, however, would be a fictional thing, since, given the depictions - god is impossible given what we currently know. So, to claim something that from our knowledge is impossible is speculation of the wildest sort. So, which is more logic and which is more illogical to you?
MyContext 1 month ago
@MyContext i respect yr opinion but i must say in my view there are landslide evidence and arguments that point to a creator then to just chance and coincidence... its far more illogical to me that us intelligent beings and our beautifully designed enviroment and universe with so many deep and meaningful designs to have just appear out of random chance in which the odds are overwhelming stacked agaisnt.. that to me is rediculously silly. universe created from chance.
6gunwalker 1 month ago
@6gunwalker There are indeed many arguments for the claim of a god. However, I must ask what are you calling evidence, since, I find none. So, for many claims of god I will simply say there is no support. I reject the Abrahamic notion of god as due to evidence against. The depictions of the bible are not logically coherent.
MyContext 1 month ago
@6gunwalker i hope you find and accept the truth. i'm sorry if i've offended. honestly, some focused research just on the net, developing an understanding of science, i assure you, will show you the light. there is nothing more brilliant and awe-inspiring than the magic of reality.
mithilag 1 month ago
Theists badger atheists on how the universe came into existence, as if to prove the reality of a god. So to be fair, level the standard of the proof. Theists must prove how god came into existence and not settle for the pathetic 'god of the gaps' postulate that is complacent in seeking no scientific evidence.
mithilag 1 month ago
@mithilag cause n effect.. for something to have come into existence something had to have caused it... its a very simple example.
6gunwalker 1 month ago
@6gunwalker right, so what caused god to come into existence? is that also very simple
mithilag 1 month ago
@mithilag God is eternal there is no beginnig nor end with God.. he is the alpha and the omega.. but to put to rest yr question who created God? my reply... you dont need an explanation for an explanation.. fr example.. who designed the car.. answer mankind.. we did.. full stop no further explanations... if you apply what you say who created mankind then youre defecting from the first question in who created the car. an explanation for an explanation will destroy science and is contradictory
6gunwalker 1 month ago
@6gunwalker ??? Destroy science? Is contradictory? Please explain?
MyContext 1 month ago
@MyContext mithilag bought up the "explanation for an explanation" argument when he asked me the question who created God? in reference to my cause n effect argument... i argued that there is nothing before God, and used the car analogy. who designed the car? answer= mankind.. do we need a further explanation? no.. and pointed out that if one was to use the "explanation of the explanation" in scientific inquiry, that notion would literaly destroy science logic.. you know what i mean?
6gunwalker 1 month ago
@6gunwalker imagine applying an explanation of the explanation to the law of gravity for an example, the explanation would have to run into the infinite which will inevidibly cause all forms of contradictions...
6gunwalker 1 month ago
@6gunwalker We could simply stop at - we had a singularity and that was the start of everything. The logical stop is an honest answer of we do not know. The moment we claim a point of conjecture as truth we have ceased to be honest.
MyContext 1 month ago
@6gunwalker We know about cars, we know about mankind, we know about evolution... However, claims of god are points of ignorance, since, there are only claims and arguments, but no support found to be thus far. I grant there is lots of attribution, however, please don't forget the ULINK (see profile) with regard to the problem of attribution without a definite linkage.
MyContext 1 month ago
@6gunwalker ... you clearly don't know what you're talking about. don't claim to know about scientific inquiry, when you are so wrong. in the car example, a person exists and we see how they are created. whereas god is not seen, so the need for proving its existence is needed to validate your argument. if you can't, then you can't claim he exists.
mithilag 1 month ago
@mithilag ive never claimed i know everything, nor claim to be an expert, im just putting out my arguments and observations in the hopes that i am able to compare what i believe is correct with your perfectly legitimate arguments so i, we can all draw our own conclusions and in the end weak claims fall by the waste and the landslide truth stand.. thats all im doing here, i dont mean to offend you in any way..
6gunwalker 1 month ago