This is a stupid question. the inference of causality comes from the observation of the natural world. existence itself doesn't imply cause. finite existence does. the physical world is inherently finite(will give explanation when asked). that is why it imperative to see its cause. the nature of God's existence is unknown. that is why I HAVE NO BASIS, outside of mere curiosity, where God comes from. this world, however, does have a basis.
Most scientists agree that virtual particle fluctuations are uncaused, however some people contest this and say "there may be something we don't know about that causes these, meaning there is no reason to say they are uncaused"
The problem is there can be no hidden variables causing these fluctuations, meaning they are uncaused.
Thus, disproving your "science demands cause and effect" theory.
@theBartone9119, this is obviously just a demonstration of the conservation of matter.
matter constitutes the extent of nature our senses can detect. this is obviously why conservation was inferred in the first place...nothing can cause fluctuations because nothing exists beyond matter physically.
I think these "compositional errors" are exactly what Theists are counting on for the argument to succeed. The argument seems to have force the reader in this video to forsake reason and accept the unknowable. He concedes points which no good atheist should and gets himself all twisted up saying things like: things outside the universe can't create the universe. What he said was basically, "God doesn't' obey the laws of physics." But of course, theists agree. Now we're back where we started.
4) Your final refutation starts with a premise that is completely unsupported and baseless. How do you substantiate this assertion that "everything that is sentient has a cause"??
3) The Kalam does not define the Universe as "all that exists". William Lane Craig (if you've been listening during his debates) makes it clear that the Universe refers to all space, time, and matter. The Cause of the Universe would thus be, in Craig's own words: "immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and personal". That is certainly not "non-existence".
2) There is no compositional fallacy since the statement "anything that begins to exist has a cause" is not an inferrence from things we've seen in the Universe. It is a statement of rational necessity, and one (I might add) which Philosophers of Science have always agreed upon: out of nothing, nothing comes. This is much more plausible than its negation for numerous reasons, and has nothing to do with the compositional fallacy.
Sorry, Dhorpatan, but I just stumbled across this video, and while I commend the effort that was put in it, I do not feel your arguments hold water.
1) Premise A does not beg the question by excluding God. It excludes all things that didn't begin to exist, including things that still don't exist, and things that exist necessarily (like numbers).
@Mentat1231 WLC himself says "something cannot come into being uncaused". yet that's exactly what he says happened with his god. That is a direct refutation to "whatever begins to exist has a cause. Since his god at some point had to begin to exist then it must have had a cause.
You must not have listened to Craig very well. God did not come into being, but has always existed. Indeed, God is not even a contingent being, but rather a logically necessary one, according to Craig. Since He did not begin to exist, He does not fall under that category.
@Mentat1231 I know the arguements for his god and I don't buy them. He says that his god is the only exception to the rules. Why? Because that's the way that it must be? Or because that's the only way it can be for his god to have done anything. A god can't be logically necessary since a god can't be proven to be necessay. For any type of existance, existance must first be proven and no arguement out proves that any god exists.
But you are arguing in a circle. You are saying that a Maximally Great Being, which is by definition a logically necessary being, needs to be proven to exist. Well, the Ontological Argument is just an extrapolation from His being an MGB, which shows that He logically *must* exist. In other words, you are saying the Ontological Argument can't prove God exists because we first have to prove that God exists. That's circular.
@Mentat1231 Been through this with somebody else. The OA relies on god existing as he is defined (self-existance). You also say that god is maximally great and gove nothing other than the definition for proof. You must prove that god has the qualities that it is claimed to have. Definitions aren't proof, just descriptions. Now where is your proof that it is maxiamlly great or self-existant.
No no no, whoever debated this with you before got it wrong. Indeed, if you were correct, then the OA would beg the question right from the start.It does not rely on God existing as he is defined; it *proves* He exists as defined. Quite a difference. It gives a definition of God as a Maximally Great Being, defines the terms, and then proves from logical inference that that being must exist.
I'm having difficulty even understanding some of your post, let me *try* to address it...
@Mentat1231 The OA relies on god being self-existant. You must prove self-existance is possible before you can say that anything is self-existant. You have no proof of self-existance or that your god is self-existant. Where is your proof of that your god is self-existant? Can't come from the OA since self-existance ins needed to for the OA to be true.
You're not getting it. In a world where I can't locate an unmarried person and bring him forth for your approval, "bachelor" is still a well-defined concept and a very plausible entity. I just can't point one out. And so, the lautz73 of that world comes to me and says "Prove that your hypothetical bachelor is really unmarried! All you have is the definition of a bachelor as being unmarried, but I've never seen one; nor have you proven that he would be unmarried!"... See the problem?
1) "You say god is maximally great and give nothing other than the definition as proof". Um... yeah. What else would I give? I claim that all bachelors are unmarried, and I give only the definition of "bachelor" as proof. I claim that all circles are round, and I give only the definition as proof. What else would I give??
2) The ontological argument IS the proof! You keep insisting we prove God exists BEFORE discussing the OA, which makes no sense at all. The OA *is* the proof.
@Mentat1231 You can bring in an unmarried man to prove that the definition of a bachlor is true. The definition describes but the person proves it true. The OA relies on your god being self-existant in order for it to be true. Until you can prove that your god is SELF-existant then you can't say that the OA is true.
In other words, I am saying that Entity A has qualities X, Y, and Z, by definition. If some entity did not possess these qualities, it would not be "A", since the qualities are part of what it means to be Entity A. Now Entity A may or may not actually exist, but if it does it most certainly possesses qualities X, Y, and Z. So, if it is possible that Entity A exists, then in the Possible Worlds where A *does* exist, it possesses qualities X, Y, and Z. cont...
cont... And, if quality X is "logical necessity", then in any Possible World where Entity A exists, it has the quality of "logical necessity". No two ways about it. Do you understand now?
@Mentat1231 You don't get it. You must prove that entity A has qualities X, Y and Z before you can use those qualities as proof for entity A. Since you have no proof that entity A has those qualities then you can't use them to say that entity A exists. The bachalor is the perfect example. Either prove that the bachalor is unmarried or you can't say that such a thing as a bachalor exists. It's possible that 1 does but without proof you can say that 1 actually does.
I certainly hope I'm not frustrating you. I myself am more than a little perplexed at your argument. But let me try again. I'll do it in logical format:
Premise 1: "Bachelor" means unmarried man.
Corallory 1: If there really are bachelors in the world, they will be unmarried men.
Corallory 2: If I meet a married man, he is definitely not a bachelor.
Premise 2: It is possible that bachelors exist.
Conclusion: In the Possible Worlds where bachelors exist, they are unmarried men.
@Mentat1231 That is true but you must still prove that bachalors exist prior to making the statement that they do, in fact, exist. You can only say that it's possible that they exist. The same is true for god. It's possible that it exists but you can't prove that it does, in fact, exist. You use the definition of god to aide in proving god true but you can't prove that the definition is accurate so it can't be used to prove your god.
Bear with me, my friend, I'm getting to that. I'm just trying to exorcise a problem in your reasoning here, namely: I do not need to prove that bachelors exist, before showing that IF they existed they would be unmarried and male. These qualities are part of their very definition, so that IF they do exist, bachelors are definitely unmarried men. And, therefore, in every possible world where there are bachelors, they are unmarried men. Can we at least agree to that much?
@Mentat1231 That's true. But that doesn't mean that bachelors exist in every possible world. That is something that you attribute to god and haven't been able to prove that. Modal Axiom S5 attempts to but it stops short of saying that it does. It only suggests (implies is the word used) that it does.
Slow down! LOL. I'm not there yet. I just want to make sure you understand how the reasoning works on the easy example of the bachelor first. I'll get back to MGBs, etc, in a moment. But, you seem to keep saying that we have to prove bachelors exist before we can prove that IF they existed they'd be unmarried, and I'm trying to show that that is completely false. Do you understand?
@Mentat1231 The conclusion requires the assumption that bachelors exist. You still haven't proven that they do in fact exist. You've just confirmed the definition of a bachelor.
No no, the conclusion does not require the assumption that bachelors exist. Not at all. Are you unfamiliar with the concept of "Possible Worlds"? All my argument says is that, *in any Possible World" where a bachelor existed, that entity would be an unmarried man*. All that means it that bachelors may or may not exist; but, if they do, they are unmarried men by definition.
@Mentat1231 What your going to say is that since that it's possible that your god exists that means that your definition of god must be true. That being your god is a MGB, self-existant and everything else. But if any 1 of those things is wrong then the entire definition is wrong. Since there is no proof that a MGB is even possible then the entire definition is wrong.
That's sounding really closed-minded, but even in your attempt to dismiss the logical consequence of our discussion, you affirmed the OA. Unintentionally, I'm sure, but nevertheless you just affirmed what the Ontological Argument says: If an MGB is possible, then it exists. If it is impossible, then it does not exist. That's all. No big mystery or logical trickery.
Now you are in the camp with the traditional arguments against the OA, which aimed at proving MGBs were impossible.
@Mentat1231 I do say that a MGB is possible but that doesn't mean that 1 exists. Again it must be proven that an MGB exists and a definition isn't enough to prove the existance of such a being. It must be proven that a MGB exists, possibility doesn't mean necessity.
Possibility of a contingent being doesn't mean it necessarily exists. But the possibility of a *logically necessary* being DOES INDEED prove that it exists, which is the entire thesis of the Ontological Argument. If it is even possible (that is to say, logically coherent, and with no rational objections to its possibility) that a certain logically necessary being exists, then that being does exist. In other words, every logically necessary being that can exist does exist.
@Mentat1231 But god hasn't been proven to be logically necessary as logically necessary must contain self-existance. Since self-existance is impossible to prove then it can't be said to be part of god and thus makes it so god can't be logically necessary. Any claim made about god that includes something that can't be proven must be dismissed.
And do you have some reason to think they are impossible? The burden of proof is on you, since all I'm saying is that I'm open to the possibility, and see nothing logically wrong or implausible about the idea of an MGB. To defeat the OA, you have to prove that there is something logically incoherent about MGBs. Can you do that?
@Mentat1231 I say that there's no proof that it's possible, not that it's impossible. I know linguistics can be tricky. It's a subtle difference but it is there. To defeat the OA all I have to do is prove 1 premise false. Since premise 3 relies on god being a self-existant being and since self-existance can't be proven that makes premise 3 false, thus the conclusion false.
Let me help you out of your linguistic pretzel ;-)... Logical necessity is to God as the unmarried state is to the bachelor. There is no "proving" to be done; it is part of what it means to be "God". You see, you should have let me finish my line of reasoning. I thought you'd gotten it, but you missed the vital point: I do NOT need to prove that bachelors would be unmarried, or that unicorns would have a horn, or that God would be a logically necessary being.
@Mentat1231 Any claim made about a thing must be proven to be true or that thing can't be said to have what it's claimed to have. That's the point that you don't get. By definition god is logically necessary but you must prove that logical necessity is even possible before saying that any being can have it.
Ok, but this is very different from your original argument. You are agreeing that logical necessity is part of the definition of God; therefore God (if He existed) would be a logically necessary being (in addition to all the other qualities He would also have). All you're debating now is whether it is possible to be a logically necessary being; or, as you put it, to be "self-existent". But things like numbers and sets are said to be precisely that. So it is a possible quality.
@Mentat1231 Numbers aren't self-existant as they had to be created by man and haven't always existed. Sets might have always existed but they needed numbers to make them sets. Logically necessary (by modal logic) means that a thing must exist in all possible worlds. Self-existance is the only way to exist in all possible worlds. So self-existance is part of logical necessity. No self-existance no logical necessity.
Numbers were *symbolized* by man. But if there are two objects in the worlds, the number two exists. Indeed, if there are any number of objects (including zero objects) in a world, then numbers exist, as do sets (even if it's the null set). There is no Possible Worlds without numbers and sets, because they exist as a logical necessity.
This proves that logically necessary things can exist. It also seems to indicate that being such is greater than being contingent
cont... I say this second point because being logically necessary makes the entity absolutely reliable. Axiomatic, if you will. An absolute truth, upon which theorems, hypotheses, and even entire logical frameworks can be built. So, logical necessity is likely a GMP, if anything is.
@Mentat1231 Logically necessary means that they must exist in all possible worlds. What about a possible world without space and time? Do numbers exist there? It is a possible world and numbers can't exist there so numbers aren't logically necessary. God isn't logically necessary either if you take away self-existance (making there a world where god didn't exist). Self-existance is needed to prove god exists so self-existance must be proven before god can be said to be existant in all worlds.
As I already said, even in a Possible World with absolutely nothing, you have the number zero and the null set. These exist (and by inferrence so do all the rest of the numbers and sets, they just have nothing to describe). But zero and the null set describe the Possible World with no spacetime. Once again, numbers and sets exist necessarily.
You'll notice I'm not addressing the "self-existence" point, because I don't claim it, except as it is equivalent to "logical necessity".
@Mentat1231 Nothing in spacetime means the absense of everything and that includes numbers.
Self-existance must be part of a logically necessary being, not equivalent to but a part of. No self-existance then no possibility of logical necessity (existing in every possible world). Only existance in 1 possible world.
Numbers are not a material thing taking up space and time. Numbers exist metaphysically, and are independent of space and time. If they did depend on spacetime, then we'd have a real problem since there are infinite numbers in a finite spacetime. No, it is clear to any philosopher I've ever heard discuss it that numbers exist in every possible world, as do sets, and certain other mathematical/logical entities.
But, I don't see how using the term "self-existence" changes anything.
Just to be clearer on the subject of numbers existing in every logical world: Zero is a number. And the description of Possible Worlds in terms of how many entities there are in it will, of necessity, define it in terms of a number (even if that number is zero). This is logically inescapable, which is what it means for something to be "logically necessary". Same argument goes for sets, since the "null set" is still a set.
@Mentat1231 Withour spacetime nothing can exist unless it exists outside of spacetime. Numbers don't exist outside of spacetime. You need something to exist to have numbers mean anything.
Numbers to indeed exist outside of spacetime. Spacetime is physical. Numbers are metaphysical. And you don't need anything to physically exist, in order to have numbers (or sets), since you have the number zero which perfectly describes how many physical things there are in that Possible World. You should know that this is a widely accepted point in Philosophy (that numbers and sets are logically necessary in all Possible Worlds).
And your wording is still throwing me off, though I'm pretty sure I know what you mean... I'm really not trying to nit-pick, but when you say, "Any claim made about a thing must be proven to be true or that thing can't be said to have what it's claimed to have", you make me worry that I need to go back over the bachelor/unicorn example. A unicorn would definitely have a horn on its head, if it existed. That does not need proving. All that need be proven is whether a unicorn exists.
@mtaob90 Exactly, which is why the theory if God is illogical...It leads to infinite regression. I mean my parents created me, so it's only logical to ask "who created them?" this could go on for an infinite amount of time, only problem is the universe had a beginning. That means all the causes in the universe begin to to stop at the singularity. Where caused events stop, uncaused events begin. The Universe was uncaused.
@theBartone9119 Not at all. Who created God is not a logical question. God is an uncaused being, becaus he is atemporal or, in other terms, eternal. So, because God is uncaused the Universe can be caused. The Kalam is a real nice argument.
@mtaob90 The Kalam is a horrible argument. Here is why:
(1) A cause is a rearrangement of existing matter that precedes its effect in time
(2) Time and matter did not exist before the universe
(3) The universe did not have a cause
Also you are just making the baseless assertion that if God exists, he is uncaused. This cannot be the case, because anything preceding a cause must also logically be a cause, because a cause IS an effect.
@theBartone9119 Your argument is circular. The cause can only exists if the Universe was created. So it begans to exists, and, therefore, the universe is caused.
@mtaob90 How is my argument circular? You just don't know what a cause is apparently. A cause is a rearrangement of existing matter in space that precedes its effect in time. Matter, space and time did not exist before The Big Bang, therefore it's impossible for a cause of the universe to exist. Also, everything that exists, has a beginning. so if your theory is God had no beginning, he cannot exist. Your logic as almost as non existent as your God. Gotta love irony.
@theBartone9119 Your mistake is the definition of cause here. Cause is the same as reason and motive, something related to will. I do not see your definition related to that.
But, everything that exists in this universe has a beginning. How can you be so sure if another eternal parallel universe exists?
@mtaob90 "Your mistake is the definition of cause here. Cause is the same as reason and motive, something related to will".
Wrong. If there is a pond of water, and the temp drops below zero, then it will cause ice without any motive or will. My definition still fits perfectly:
A cause is a rearrangement of existing matter that precedes its effect in time
@mtaob90 Some people have sex and the cause is a child, when their motive for having sex never involved a child but it happened anyway because of the laws of nature. Sometimes motive and will has absolutely nothing to do with it.
@theBartone9119 But they might want the child, and you cannot be absolute sure in this case. Correlating it to the creation, God have the will to create or not the universe, but he decide to do it.
I understand what is your motivation. But if the universe is caused every event related to the universe creation is also caused. So, these events are direct related to the universe existence, and, therefore, it has a cause to.
@mtaob90 "But if the universe is caused every event related to the universe creation is also caused"
Wrong. A cause is the re-arrangement of matter that precedes it's effect in time.
Matter and time didn't exist before The Big Bang so there could be no cause.
If you trace all preceding causes back in time they stop at very beginning of The Big Bang and cease to exist. If causes cease to exist at this point, any event must be uncaused.
@mtaob90 "How can my will re-arrang matter that precedes it's effect in time?"
If something falls and it was knocked over, what caused it? Your arm moving lets say for example. Your arm moving is a re-arrangement of matter, and it has to happen before the effect (knocking over something). So the cause is a re-arrangement of matter that precedes its effect in time. How come you don't understand this?
@mtaob90 If a star gets too big it could collapse and cause a black hole simply because of gravity without the motive or will of any conscious being involved. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the picture.
@theBartone9119 I think you may not have understand me. Let's say there is some random mechanism in this universe. God, when he created the universe, these random mechanism was also created. And as the creation of the universe has a cause, every random event has a cause, direct related to the universes cause.
I understood you perfectly. You said a cause is the same as reason, motive and will. I just disproved that this is the case for most things and completely destroyed that argument. Also God didn't create the universe, he doesn't exist.
@mtaob90 "The cause can only exists if the Universe was created"
So you are saying that causes can only exist after the universe came into being, this means that the universe could not be caused though because a cause comes before the effect. So, if the effect of the universe coming into being is what brought causes into being, then the universe can have no cause. You pretty much much destroyed your own argument.
@protectorian "all known science facts demand a cause & effect"
Except for virtual particle fluctuations, Bell's inequality tells us that these are uncaused.
Also cause and effect is only something observed within the universe, there is no reason to believe that if anything exists outside the universe, it would be the same.
"intelligence"
Well if you believe in cause and effect so much, then you must agree that the brain causes the mind. Without biological processes there is no effect of mind
It's like watching two people have a blazing row about the possible contents of a locked and windowless room.
We don't know!!! The rough tool of lanuage will not allow you valid insight into that unknown 'place', Science might one tell you about it, but it hasn't yet. Until then...
@Dhorpatan Eh? No, not because I say so. What a weird thing to say. We don't know because we don't know. That's all. These tortured and twisted arguments, like the Kalam argument, are trying to unlock the pre-universe using a couple of written statements.
It's, well, optimistic, would be a polite word to describe it.
You have no idea how incredibly ignorant you sound. The Kalam has ample supporting argumentation. For you to claim that the Kalam is using a couple of written statements, is incredibly ignorant.
Study the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology's Kalam section. It's 101 pages. Far from a couple of written statements.
You're so out of it, I'm not even sure what you are claiming we don't know. You just seem to love exclaiming your SKEPTICISM AND IGNORANCE.
@Dhorpatan So... you can find the hiding place of an all powerful being who QUITE CLEARLY wishes to remain hidden, can you? Despite this omnipotent, onicognisant being's clear desire to remain obscure, you can unlock his hiding place like a stage magician pulling a rabbit from a hat.
It is illogical to speak confidently of 'causes' for the start of the universe. You're applying 'universal' laws to a non-universal 'place'. Which QM and string theory suggests is a very, VERY weird place indeed
@strangestdude Have you seen him on TV recently. God, if there is one, obviously does not wish to provide proof of existence. So, if he exists, he QUITE CLEARLY wishes to remain hidden.
@USERNAMEfieldempty Seeing as you out the 'if he exists' in front then that's fine. But when addressed the other dude you seemed to be stating like your conclusion like you knew for certain that God exists. But then again how would you know he wishes to be hidden, rather than simply god doesn't care if you believe in God or not. Or perhaps Physics will someday reveal the 'god molecule', simply because we haven't achieved the means to glimpse 'God' doesn't mean it is hiding.
@protectorian Paintings, sculptures, computers, and human brains are all rearrangements of preexisting matter. The KCA plays on our intuitive sense of familiar objects like these "beginning to exist" or "being created." We have zero experience with anyone or anything "creating something" or something "beginning to exist" without the use of preexisting matter. It has literally never been observed.
@llkeith77 We're talking not only about the birth of the universe, but of space-time itself. If time began when the universe began, then there were no moments prior to the universe springing forth.
If there were no moments before the universe (and time) began, how could anything "precede" the existence of the universe?
A cause precedes its subsequent effect ; it's a temporal relationship. How could something temporal in nature occur BEFORE time itself began?
@protectorian Also, the Big Bang does not posit that something came from nothing. The Big Bang states that the universe sprang forth from the singularity. We don't know what happened before the singularity.
Why invent an extra-universal realm inhabited by an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect being who is eternal?
Why can't the singularity or the string of events that led to the singularity be eternal? How does adding a complex being to the mix explain anything at all?
If I am understanding you correctly, you seem to be suggesting that some eternal God created our universe. In Christian theology, a set of characteristics is associated with this deity. These qualities are omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, and transcendence. To me, any being fitting that description is very complex indeed.
Do you prescribe to that notion of God? How do you personally define God?
@protectorian You say that this mysterious immortal being is observable in the mortal world. How so? What evidence to you have to support your claim that such a being exists?
@protectorian If you don't have evidence for God, what reasons do you have for believing in his existence?
Of course you have the right to believe in just about anything. If you care about whether or not your beliefs are true; however, you will actually be concerned about having evidence for those beliefs.
I do feel pretty strongly that our beliefs should cohere logically and be supported by evidence. I'm not sure why that encourages you to say "Oh shuv it!"
@protectorian You said that you believe that God exists. If you care about whether or not your beliefs are true, you need to have good reasons, i.e., evidence, for your claims.
I'm not asking for "proof." I realize that absolute certainty isn't necessary for forming a sensible world view. We have to operate on less than perfect information all the time - that's life.
But we can (and do) assign degrees of likelihood to the veracity of various claims.
@llkeith77 You should read a book called ''The case for the resurrection of Jesus''. I suggest you search God with all your heart and mind. We all walk by faith. If your hope is that God does not exist you will reject any evidence and instead put your faith in fallacious refutations of those evidences. Choose carefully in what you put your faith in. Especially if there is no hope in your worldview. God did not hide Himself. He came and died for you because He loves you.
@Dhorpatan Yes we all walk by faith. When you pass under a bridge you have faith that it won't fall on you. When you sit on a chair you have faith it won't break. You simply don't think of it when living your life. First of all do you want God in your life? If God existed would you want Him to take charge of your life? If God did die for you and rose again would you want to put your trust in Him? I think you should start by asking yourself those questions before searching for Him.
@axe414 When I pass under a bridge, I assume it will not fall on top of me for several reasons.
1. I have passed under many, many bridges in my lifetime. None have ever collapsed on top of me.
2. I am able to at least quickly glance at the bridge to examine its condition. Any glaring deficiencies in the bridge are at least in principle detectable.
3. I am passing under the bridge for a relatively short period of time. The chances of it collapsing in that very moment are likely slim
@llkeith77 People actually died while passing under a bridge or overpass. They didn't think the bridge would fall on them. What happens if you don't have the time to examine it's condition because you're driving too fast? Even if you calculate the chances hat something will or won't happen. When you make the choice you put your trust and faith into something. That's called an idol.
@axe414 Granted, I'm talking about inductive reasoning here. We form a model of the world based upon our sensory input. We extrapolate from past occurrences in an attempt to figure out what the future likely holds. It helps us to make predictions.
I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's pretty damn good most of the time.
What I'm describing is not faith, it's reasonable expectation. Faith is believing something despite NOT having good reasons.
You can hope for junk all you want. Doesn't mean there is a God. I hope you shut up and stop blabbing about your mushy God belief. My "faith" that you will do that, doesn't mean there is a God.
So have faith all you want if that's what you need to get by, but faith is worthless as far as truth and facts.
@Dhorpatan Fact and truth are not on your side. Jesus Christ is the Truth, the Way and the Life. You obviously are not the way. I'm glad Jesus died for me and loves me so much. Yes I have hope in my Risen Lord Jesus Christ. One question for you. If you found Jesus really was the Truth, would you give your life to Him? No need to answer if you're going to bash on me again. I don't care what you think of me or my faith. Greater is He that is in me than he that is in the world :)
IMO the more educated one is, the less inclined one will believe unsubstantiated claims that basically boil down to tautology, anecdotal evidence, argumentum ad divintas/populum, argumentum ad baculum/consequentiam & lack of understanding of the scientific method.
@recalibration Jesus claimed to be the Truth :) Love can not be explained by the ''scientific method'' You are so arrogant to think that ''educated people'' will reject God'' You have no idea how much very educated people love the Lord. Again Hitchens have been demolished by William Lane Crag. By the way Craig is very educated ;)
"Love can not be explained by the ''scientific method''
Yes it can. All life is DNA at the fundamental level. DNA is constantly trying to replicate. One way DNA replicates is by sexual reproduction. Love is ultimately to encourage reproduction. It's so we can secure a partner with which to reproduce our genes. That is the FUNCTION of love..It does not take away the beauty from the experience of love. So, in the end, science can explain why love occurs.
Love is merely emotional attachment due to chemical reactions. And it serves a necessary function especially in social species. It's doesn't need to be so mystical..
@itzahazylife "Love is merely emotional attachment due to chemical reactions. And it serves a necessary function especially in social species. It's doesn't need to be so mystical.."
Chemistry is a process, it has no power. It has no teleology, direction, or purpose. It is a process, also what is empathy according to naturalism and why should it be followed or obeyed? I see no reason why it should be followed if it is just a chemical reaction in the body.
@itzahazylife Sure, brains are involved, but the source? If that is the case, then emotions like love, sadness, etc., are not real, in the sense that they are truly meaningful, but are mere reactions in the sense that when I touch a hot stove, I get burned. Just a physical reaction. When you say to your husband or wife, I love you, you really mean, my brain is having a response to you, but then, my brain could change and then, you're out of luck.
The source is chemical reactions. All of the scientific and neurological evidence cries out that the brain produces the mind. The brain is the generator of mind. And the totality of mind is consciousness. It is also untrue for you to say that it makes love meaningless. What causes love does not take away from the direct experience of love itself. A sexy woman is merely made of cells and molecules, but, even though I know this, I'd still get blown away by her beauty.
Your love for your wife is still coming from you. Your brain IS you. It's a fantasy to think there's some all encompassing force within your mind which is "you". That's an illusion brought about by that little voice that exists inside your head. Who you are is a product of your mind. Which is a product of your brain. Which is an electrochemical generator of mind, thought, emotions, etc..Love is still love. The experience is what it is regardless.
@itzahazylife How does Ketamine allow a person to report veridically what occurred while they were in a state of flat brain waves? Please explain that to me.
@itzahazylife Also, the fact that Ketamine produces similar experiences to some NDEs may not mean as much as you might think. First, it does not mean that the mind is reducible to the brain, but only that when you reduce the effects of the brain, the mind is freed up. It seems that the opposite should be the case as both Drs. Greyson and Alexander indicated.
@itzahazylife Others have also cited the difference between the state caused by the use of Ketamine and those caused by the brain ceasing to function.So, it seems that although there may be similarities to the two experiences,there is not a complete comparison,nor can Ketamine provide anadequate explanation for the phenomena reported by those who have experienced NDEs.
Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century By Edward F. Kelly, Emily Williams Kelly, Adam Crabtree, Alan Gauld
@itzahazylife Dr. Greyson makes the case that in the extreme cases, the brain and the mind do not seem to be the same thing. This includes NDEs and people with dementia who become lucid prior to death. In his testimony before the U.N. he cites the fact that when the brain ceases to function, it is in a state that cannot support consciousness.
@itzahazylife Yet, these people are able to report goings on in the hospital room during this state and even report events outside of the range of their physical body. How does one explain this from a materialistic standpoint? It seems that unless you can present a physical explanation for these types of events, the best explanation is that the mind survives the brain and that the mind is able to gather information that is physically out of range of the brain.
@itzahazylife However, not all of these accounts are merely anecdotal. Greyson and others are testing these experiences with cardiac and other patients.
How this relates to God is that it serves as one more piece of evidence for an immaterial reality. A part of a cumulative case for the existence of God.
Jesus claims a lot of things; the least of which is OT law is absolutely valid.
MDMA easliy simulates the emotion. Also, wikipedia(.)org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love .
"You have no idea how much very educated people love the Lord."
Until you cite definations of "very educated" & "love", actual figures, geographic scope, repeatable testing technique(s), reputable sources, nor do you.
Craig is an ass of a philosopher who depends on the ignorance of his audience. See A03
Considering you believe the existence of morality & ethics began w/ a book complied (note I say "complied", not "written") 1.5 millennia *after* your Christ, you hardly have the grounds to judge.
@axe414 That's a poetic way of putting it, but I don't think faith is a legitimate pathway to truth.
I need some kind of evidence. I need outside referents accessible to all. I don't need appeals to the unfalsifiable, untestable, undetectable, etc.
I DON'T need absolute certainty, but I DO need to have solid reasons for my beliefs. I want to have beliefs that correspond as closely to reality as possible.
Faith just doesn't help me figure out what is most likely to be true.
@llkeith77 Maybe try (if you didn't) read what Jesus said and see if it is the truth. You are obviously already searching for empirical and historical evidence. The evidences are there. This whole world and the satanic agenda going on is a testimony of truth also. Jesus told the truth but people reject Him not because of lack of proof. Jesus came to free us from bondage but people wants to stay in bondage. They want it their own way always. Jesus is Lord and Savior lucky for us...
The supposed Jesus made many true statements. So what? So did Buddha. So did John Lennon. But, it's the superstitious ridiculous crap you believe that's written in the Bible. It makes you out to be a fool. You believe that Jesus was the son of some invisible, immaterial god entity, and that he rose from the dead, performed miracles, was born of a virgin etc, all because it's written in an ancient book. A book composed of copies of copies of copies. It's asinine.
@itzahazylife Lennon was a follower of Aleister Crowley. He was a pawn for the NWO. like many many artists.Buddha taught the same ''mysteries'' as Crowley. Jesus said He is the Way, the Truth and the Life and no one comes to the Father but by Him. God is Spirit. But He manifested Himself to the world through His son. Jesus is the Word who became flesh. You assume God dosen't exist when speaking about miracles. God being real makes all those miracles possible.
"You assume God dosen't exist when speaking about miracles. God being real makes all those miracles possible."
God's existence is an assumption. You assume that because the universe had a cause, that it must be a God. And not just any God, but the God of the Bible. And why do you believe that? Because the Bible asserts that it is all true. The truth could be ANYTHING. Yet, you assert that it is thru Jesus and only Jesus. You preach absolute certainty. You are unwise.
@axe414 Imagine someone were to ask me as I approached the bridge, "WHY don't you think the bridge will collapse upon you?" I would be able to list reasons. My reasons would be accessible to everyone. My reasons would require no belief in anything supernatural or unfalsifiable.
Having those types of reasons is not the same as "taking something on faith."
To me, faith is that which people resort to when they lack solid reasons.
@llkeith77 yet at the end you have faith in your reasons. You are describing in what you put your faith. In yourself. Solid reasons or not is not the point. Yes solid reasons may help you to decide to do or not do something but you will always need to trust into something. You may well be simply a brain in a jar connected to a computer and the bridge may not even exist. Ultimately everything is based on faith.
@axe414 Certainly, we can list all sorts of "possible" scenarios: brain in a vat, the matrix, evil aliens running an experiment, Chalmerean zombies, etc. Just because we can imagine unfalsifiable scenarios, doesn't mean they are worth our time.
I'm more concerned with what is LIKELY to be true.
I have five senses that work in conjunction. I receive input about the world around me via those senses. While not perfect, my senses have proven reliable.
@axe414 The Resurrection is a downright fascinating topic. I really enjoyed the debate between Ehrman and Licona. The debate between Carrier and Licona was also interesting.
Also, I don't have a desire for a god or gods NOT to exist. In fact, if I ever see evidence or have a personal experience that shows a god exists, I'll start believing.
I'm not sure why you are saying that my worldview has no hope. I have plenty of hopes and aspirations without theism.
@llkeith77 Good to know you're not a hardheaded atheist. I do not think there can be any hope without God. Everything will cease to exist one day so everything is ultimately hopeless. You can create false hopes and aspirations but ultimately everything we create and hope for will cease to exist. Without an ultimate truth there can't be an ultimate hope. Jesus Christ is that ultimate hope. By the way there is a great delusion coming very soon by the satanic NWO. God bless you!
@axe414 I understand that you believe what you are saying. You may have had some type of personal experience that justifies your belief in Jesus. Even though I don't believe the claims of Christianity, I can respect your beliefs.
I hope you can recognize that just because you believe Jesus is necessary for "true" hope, others don't feel the same.
Many Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, Muslims, etc., are full of hopes, and they don't feel they are "false."
@llkeith77 In a world where there is no God there is no ultimate purpose. Then your only choice is to create your own purpose. I personally could not live that way. I think this is madness.
@recalibration You are the slave here. There is evidence for God philosophically and also the universe is a testimony of His creation. You have been lied to by the father of lies. Jesus came to deliver us from bondage. The real question is, if you found out that Jesus really is the King of the universe, would you give your life to Him and serve Him?
There is evidence for God philosophically? HAHA. Philosophy isn't evidence of anything. Philosophy is meaningless when it comes to proving whether or not something objectively exists.
@itzahazylife Materialism and naturalism is madness. There are Objective moral truths and they are not physical. There are things that you can not prove scientifically and physically.
This is a stupid question. the inference of causality comes from the observation of the natural world. existence itself doesn't imply cause. finite existence does. the physical world is inherently finite(will give explanation when asked). that is why it imperative to see its cause. the nature of God's existence is unknown. that is why I HAVE NO BASIS, outside of mere curiosity, where God comes from. this world, however, does have a basis.
Sudhish86 1 week ago
"...it says there
can be no hidden variables that's all."
Exactly.
Most scientists agree that virtual particle fluctuations are uncaused, however some people contest this and say "there may be something we don't know about that causes these, meaning there is no reason to say they are uncaused"
The problem is there can be no hidden variables causing these fluctuations, meaning they are uncaused.
Thus, disproving your "science demands cause and effect" theory.
theBartone9119 2 weeks ago
@theBartone9119, this is obviously just a demonstration of the conservation of matter.
matter constitutes the extent of nature our senses can detect. this is obviously why conservation was inferred in the first place...nothing can cause fluctuations because nothing exists beyond matter physically.
The answer can be found as simply as that...
Sudhish86 1 week ago
I think these "compositional errors" are exactly what Theists are counting on for the argument to succeed. The argument seems to have force the reader in this video to forsake reason and accept the unknowable. He concedes points which no good atheist should and gets himself all twisted up saying things like: things outside the universe can't create the universe. What he said was basically, "God doesn't' obey the laws of physics." But of course, theists agree. Now we're back where we started.
BagofHay 3 weeks ago
Kalam aleikum.
Logical fallacy be upon you.
doGoNsIylbaborPerehT 1 month ago
4) Your final refutation starts with a premise that is completely unsupported and baseless. How do you substantiate this assertion that "everything that is sentient has a cause"??
Mentat1231 1 month ago
3) The Kalam does not define the Universe as "all that exists". William Lane Craig (if you've been listening during his debates) makes it clear that the Universe refers to all space, time, and matter. The Cause of the Universe would thus be, in Craig's own words: "immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and personal". That is certainly not "non-existence".
Mentat1231 1 month ago
cont...
2) There is no compositional fallacy since the statement "anything that begins to exist has a cause" is not an inferrence from things we've seen in the Universe. It is a statement of rational necessity, and one (I might add) which Philosophers of Science have always agreed upon: out of nothing, nothing comes. This is much more plausible than its negation for numerous reasons, and has nothing to do with the compositional fallacy.
Mentat1231 1 month ago
Sorry, Dhorpatan, but I just stumbled across this video, and while I commend the effort that was put in it, I do not feel your arguments hold water.
1) Premise A does not beg the question by excluding God. It excludes all things that didn't begin to exist, including things that still don't exist, and things that exist necessarily (like numbers).
cont...
Mentat1231 1 month ago
@Mentat1231 WLC himself says "something cannot come into being uncaused". yet that's exactly what he says happened with his god. That is a direct refutation to "whatever begins to exist has a cause. Since his god at some point had to begin to exist then it must have had a cause.
lautz73 1 month ago
@lautz73
You must not have listened to Craig very well. God did not come into being, but has always existed. Indeed, God is not even a contingent being, but rather a logically necessary one, according to Craig. Since He did not begin to exist, He does not fall under that category.
Mentat1231 1 month ago
@Mentat1231 I know the arguements for his god and I don't buy them. He says that his god is the only exception to the rules. Why? Because that's the way that it must be? Or because that's the only way it can be for his god to have done anything. A god can't be logically necessary since a god can't be proven to be necessay. For any type of existance, existance must first be proven and no arguement out proves that any god exists.
lautz73 1 month ago
@lautz73
But you are arguing in a circle. You are saying that a Maximally Great Being, which is by definition a logically necessary being, needs to be proven to exist. Well, the Ontological Argument is just an extrapolation from His being an MGB, which shows that He logically *must* exist. In other words, you are saying the Ontological Argument can't prove God exists because we first have to prove that God exists. That's circular.
Mentat1231 1 month ago
@Mentat1231 Been through this with somebody else. The OA relies on god existing as he is defined (self-existance). You also say that god is maximally great and gove nothing other than the definition for proof. You must prove that god has the qualities that it is claimed to have. Definitions aren't proof, just descriptions. Now where is your proof that it is maxiamlly great or self-existant.
lautz73 1 month ago
@lautz73
No no no, whoever debated this with you before got it wrong. Indeed, if you were correct, then the OA would beg the question right from the start.It does not rely on God existing as he is defined; it *proves* He exists as defined. Quite a difference. It gives a definition of God as a Maximally Great Being, defines the terms, and then proves from logical inference that that being must exist.
I'm having difficulty even understanding some of your post, let me *try* to address it...
Mentat1231 1 month ago
@Mentat1231 The OA relies on god being self-existant. You must prove self-existance is possible before you can say that anything is self-existant. You have no proof of self-existance or that your god is self-existant. Where is your proof of that your god is self-existant? Can't come from the OA since self-existance ins needed to for the OA to be true.
lautz73 1 month ago
@lautz73
You're not getting it. In a world where I can't locate an unmarried person and bring him forth for your approval, "bachelor" is still a well-defined concept and a very plausible entity. I just can't point one out. And so, the lautz73 of that world comes to me and says "Prove that your hypothetical bachelor is really unmarried! All you have is the definition of a bachelor as being unmarried, but I've never seen one; nor have you proven that he would be unmarried!"... See the problem?
Mentat1231 1 month ago
@lautz73
1) "You say god is maximally great and give nothing other than the definition as proof". Um... yeah. What else would I give? I claim that all bachelors are unmarried, and I give only the definition of "bachelor" as proof. I claim that all circles are round, and I give only the definition as proof. What else would I give??
2) The ontological argument IS the proof! You keep insisting we prove God exists BEFORE discussing the OA, which makes no sense at all. The OA *is* the proof.
Mentat1231 1 month ago
@Mentat1231 You can bring in an unmarried man to prove that the definition of a bachlor is true. The definition describes but the person proves it true. The OA relies on your god being self-existant in order for it to be true. Until you can prove that your god is SELF-existant then you can't say that the OA is true.
lautz73 1 month ago
@lautz73
In other words, I am saying that Entity A has qualities X, Y, and Z, by definition. If some entity did not possess these qualities, it would not be "A", since the qualities are part of what it means to be Entity A. Now Entity A may or may not actually exist, but if it does it most certainly possesses qualities X, Y, and Z. So, if it is possible that Entity A exists, then in the Possible Worlds where A *does* exist, it possesses qualities X, Y, and Z. cont...
Mentat1231 1 month ago
@lautz73
cont... And, if quality X is "logical necessity", then in any Possible World where Entity A exists, it has the quality of "logical necessity". No two ways about it. Do you understand now?
Mentat1231 1 month ago
@Mentat1231 You don't get it. You must prove that entity A has qualities X, Y and Z before you can use those qualities as proof for entity A. Since you have no proof that entity A has those qualities then you can't use them to say that entity A exists. The bachalor is the perfect example. Either prove that the bachalor is unmarried or you can't say that such a thing as a bachalor exists. It's possible that 1 does but without proof you can say that 1 actually does.
lautz73 1 month ago
@lautz73
I certainly hope I'm not frustrating you. I myself am more than a little perplexed at your argument. But let me try again. I'll do it in logical format:
Premise 1: "Bachelor" means unmarried man.
Corallory 1: If there really are bachelors in the world, they will be unmarried men.
Corallory 2: If I meet a married man, he is definitely not a bachelor.
Premise 2: It is possible that bachelors exist.
Conclusion: In the Possible Worlds where bachelors exist, they are unmarried men.
Mentat1231 1 month ago
@Mentat1231 That is true but you must still prove that bachalors exist prior to making the statement that they do, in fact, exist. You can only say that it's possible that they exist. The same is true for god. It's possible that it exists but you can't prove that it does, in fact, exist. You use the definition of god to aide in proving god true but you can't prove that the definition is accurate so it can't be used to prove your god.
lautz73 1 month ago
@lautz73
Bear with me, my friend, I'm getting to that. I'm just trying to exorcise a problem in your reasoning here, namely: I do not need to prove that bachelors exist, before showing that IF they existed they would be unmarried and male. These qualities are part of their very definition, so that IF they do exist, bachelors are definitely unmarried men. And, therefore, in every possible world where there are bachelors, they are unmarried men. Can we at least agree to that much?
Mentat1231 1 month ago
@Mentat1231 That's true. But that doesn't mean that bachelors exist in every possible world. That is something that you attribute to god and haven't been able to prove that. Modal Axiom S5 attempts to but it stops short of saying that it does. It only suggests (implies is the word used) that it does.
lautz73 1 month ago
@lautz73
Slow down! LOL. I'm not there yet. I just want to make sure you understand how the reasoning works on the easy example of the bachelor first. I'll get back to MGBs, etc, in a moment. But, you seem to keep saying that we have to prove bachelors exist before we can prove that IF they existed they'd be unmarried, and I'm trying to show that that is completely false. Do you understand?
Mentat1231 1 month ago
@Mentat1231 The conclusion requires the assumption that bachelors exist. You still haven't proven that they do in fact exist. You've just confirmed the definition of a bachelor.
lautz73 1 month ago
@lautz73
No no, the conclusion does not require the assumption that bachelors exist. Not at all. Are you unfamiliar with the concept of "Possible Worlds"? All my argument says is that, *in any Possible World" where a bachelor existed, that entity would be an unmarried man*. All that means it that bachelors may or may not exist; but, if they do, they are unmarried men by definition.
Mentat1231 1 month ago
@Mentat1231 What your going to say is that since that it's possible that your god exists that means that your definition of god must be true. That being your god is a MGB, self-existant and everything else. But if any 1 of those things is wrong then the entire definition is wrong. Since there is no proof that a MGB is even possible then the entire definition is wrong.
lautz73 1 month ago
@lautz73
That's sounding really closed-minded, but even in your attempt to dismiss the logical consequence of our discussion, you affirmed the OA. Unintentionally, I'm sure, but nevertheless you just affirmed what the Ontological Argument says: If an MGB is possible, then it exists. If it is impossible, then it does not exist. That's all. No big mystery or logical trickery.
Now you are in the camp with the traditional arguments against the OA, which aimed at proving MGBs were impossible.
Mentat1231 1 month ago
@Mentat1231 I do say that a MGB is possible but that doesn't mean that 1 exists. Again it must be proven that an MGB exists and a definition isn't enough to prove the existance of such a being. It must be proven that a MGB exists, possibility doesn't mean necessity.
lautz73 1 month ago
@lautz73
Possibility of a contingent being doesn't mean it necessarily exists. But the possibility of a *logically necessary* being DOES INDEED prove that it exists, which is the entire thesis of the Ontological Argument. If it is even possible (that is to say, logically coherent, and with no rational objections to its possibility) that a certain logically necessary being exists, then that being does exist. In other words, every logically necessary being that can exist does exist.
Mentat1231 1 month ago
@Mentat1231 But god hasn't been proven to be logically necessary as logically necessary must contain self-existance. Since self-existance is impossible to prove then it can't be said to be part of god and thus makes it so god can't be logically necessary. Any claim made about god that includes something that can't be proven must be dismissed.
lautz73 1 month ago
@lautz73
And do you have some reason to think they are impossible? The burden of proof is on you, since all I'm saying is that I'm open to the possibility, and see nothing logically wrong or implausible about the idea of an MGB. To defeat the OA, you have to prove that there is something logically incoherent about MGBs. Can you do that?
Mentat1231 1 month ago
@Mentat1231 I say that there's no proof that it's possible, not that it's impossible. I know linguistics can be tricky. It's a subtle difference but it is there. To defeat the OA all I have to do is prove 1 premise false. Since premise 3 relies on god being a self-existant being and since self-existance can't be proven that makes premise 3 false, thus the conclusion false.
lautz73 1 month ago
@lautz73
Let me help you out of your linguistic pretzel ;-)... Logical necessity is to God as the unmarried state is to the bachelor. There is no "proving" to be done; it is part of what it means to be "God". You see, you should have let me finish my line of reasoning. I thought you'd gotten it, but you missed the vital point: I do NOT need to prove that bachelors would be unmarried, or that unicorns would have a horn, or that God would be a logically necessary being.
Mentat1231 1 month ago
@Mentat1231 Any claim made about a thing must be proven to be true or that thing can't be said to have what it's claimed to have. That's the point that you don't get. By definition god is logically necessary but you must prove that logical necessity is even possible before saying that any being can have it.
lautz73 1 month ago
@lautz73
Ok, but this is very different from your original argument. You are agreeing that logical necessity is part of the definition of God; therefore God (if He existed) would be a logically necessary being (in addition to all the other qualities He would also have). All you're debating now is whether it is possible to be a logically necessary being; or, as you put it, to be "self-existent". But things like numbers and sets are said to be precisely that. So it is a possible quality.
Mentat1231 1 month ago
@Mentat1231 Numbers aren't self-existant as they had to be created by man and haven't always existed. Sets might have always existed but they needed numbers to make them sets. Logically necessary (by modal logic) means that a thing must exist in all possible worlds. Self-existance is the only way to exist in all possible worlds. So self-existance is part of logical necessity. No self-existance no logical necessity.
lautz73 1 month ago
@lautz73
Numbers were *symbolized* by man. But if there are two objects in the worlds, the number two exists. Indeed, if there are any number of objects (including zero objects) in a world, then numbers exist, as do sets (even if it's the null set). There is no Possible Worlds without numbers and sets, because they exist as a logical necessity.
This proves that logically necessary things can exist. It also seems to indicate that being such is greater than being contingent
cont...
Mentat1231 1 month ago
@lautz73
cont... I say this second point because being logically necessary makes the entity absolutely reliable. Axiomatic, if you will. An absolute truth, upon which theorems, hypotheses, and even entire logical frameworks can be built. So, logical necessity is likely a GMP, if anything is.
Mentat1231 1 month ago
@Mentat1231 Logically necessary means that they must exist in all possible worlds. What about a possible world without space and time? Do numbers exist there? It is a possible world and numbers can't exist there so numbers aren't logically necessary. God isn't logically necessary either if you take away self-existance (making there a world where god didn't exist). Self-existance is needed to prove god exists so self-existance must be proven before god can be said to be existant in all worlds.
lautz73 1 month ago
@lautz73
As I already said, even in a Possible World with absolutely nothing, you have the number zero and the null set. These exist (and by inferrence so do all the rest of the numbers and sets, they just have nothing to describe). But zero and the null set describe the Possible World with no spacetime. Once again, numbers and sets exist necessarily.
You'll notice I'm not addressing the "self-existence" point, because I don't claim it, except as it is equivalent to "logical necessity".
Mentat1231 1 month ago
@Mentat1231 Nothing in spacetime means the absense of everything and that includes numbers.
Self-existance must be part of a logically necessary being, not equivalent to but a part of. No self-existance then no possibility of logical necessity (existing in every possible world). Only existance in 1 possible world.
lautz73 1 month ago
@lautz73
Numbers are not a material thing taking up space and time. Numbers exist metaphysically, and are independent of space and time. If they did depend on spacetime, then we'd have a real problem since there are infinite numbers in a finite spacetime. No, it is clear to any philosopher I've ever heard discuss it that numbers exist in every possible world, as do sets, and certain other mathematical/logical entities.
But, I don't see how using the term "self-existence" changes anything.
Mentat1231 1 month ago
@lautz73
Just to be clearer on the subject of numbers existing in every logical world: Zero is a number. And the description of Possible Worlds in terms of how many entities there are in it will, of necessity, define it in terms of a number (even if that number is zero). This is logically inescapable, which is what it means for something to be "logically necessary". Same argument goes for sets, since the "null set" is still a set.
Mentat1231 1 month ago
@Mentat1231 Withour spacetime nothing can exist unless it exists outside of spacetime. Numbers don't exist outside of spacetime. You need something to exist to have numbers mean anything.
lautz73 1 month ago
@lautz73
Numbers to indeed exist outside of spacetime. Spacetime is physical. Numbers are metaphysical. And you don't need anything to physically exist, in order to have numbers (or sets), since you have the number zero which perfectly describes how many physical things there are in that Possible World. You should know that this is a widely accepted point in Philosophy (that numbers and sets are logically necessary in all Possible Worlds).
Mentat1231 1 month ago
@Mentat1231 Hey, bro. I tried to continue our PM conversation about the Chalmerean zombies, but I was having some kind of technical difficulties.
I had some more thoughts on the modal OA that I wanted to share with you as well. Hit me up on PM.
llkeith77 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lautz73
And your wording is still throwing me off, though I'm pretty sure I know what you mean... I'm really not trying to nit-pick, but when you say, "Any claim made about a thing must be proven to be true or that thing can't be said to have what it's claimed to have", you make me worry that I need to go back over the bachelor/unicorn example. A unicorn would definitely have a horn on its head, if it existed. That does not need proving. All that need be proven is whether a unicorn exists.
Mentat1231 1 month ago
@lautz73
Please tell me what's wrong with my premises or conclusion in that post.
Mentat1231 1 month ago
Lame. Who created God leeds to a infinite regression. Shame on you.
mtaob90 2 months ago
@mtaob90 Exactly, which is why the theory if God is illogical...It leads to infinite regression. I mean my parents created me, so it's only logical to ask "who created them?" this could go on for an infinite amount of time, only problem is the universe had a beginning. That means all the causes in the universe begin to to stop at the singularity. Where caused events stop, uncaused events begin. The Universe was uncaused.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 Not at all. Who created God is not a logical question. God is an uncaused being, becaus he is atemporal or, in other terms, eternal. So, because God is uncaused the Universe can be caused. The Kalam is a real nice argument.
mtaob90 2 months ago
@mtaob90 The Kalam is a horrible argument. Here is why:
(1) A cause is a rearrangement of existing matter that precedes its effect in time
(2) Time and matter did not exist before the universe
(3) The universe did not have a cause
Also you are just making the baseless assertion that if God exists, he is uncaused. This cannot be the case, because anything preceding a cause must also logically be a cause, because a cause IS an effect.
The cosmological argument is 2nd Grade logic.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 Your argument is circular. The cause can only exists if the Universe was created. So it begans to exists, and, therefore, the universe is caused.
mtaob90 2 months ago
@mtaob90 How is my argument circular? You just don't know what a cause is apparently. A cause is a rearrangement of existing matter in space that precedes its effect in time. Matter, space and time did not exist before The Big Bang, therefore it's impossible for a cause of the universe to exist. Also, everything that exists, has a beginning. so if your theory is God had no beginning, he cannot exist. Your logic as almost as non existent as your God. Gotta love irony.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 Your mistake is the definition of cause here. Cause is the same as reason and motive, something related to will. I do not see your definition related to that.
But, everything that exists in this universe has a beginning. How can you be so sure if another eternal parallel universe exists?
mtaob90 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mtaob90 "Your mistake is the definition of cause here. Cause is the same as reason and motive, something related to will".
Wrong. If there is a pond of water, and the temp drops below zero, then it will cause ice without any motive or will. My definition still fits perfectly:
A cause is a rearrangement of existing matter that precedes its effect in time
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@mtaob90 Some people have sex and the cause is a child, when their motive for having sex never involved a child but it happened anyway because of the laws of nature. Sometimes motive and will has absolutely nothing to do with it.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 But they might want the child, and you cannot be absolute sure in this case. Correlating it to the creation, God have the will to create or not the universe, but he decide to do it.
I understand what is your motivation. But if the universe is caused every event related to the universe creation is also caused. So, these events are direct related to the universe existence, and, therefore, it has a cause to.
mtaob90 2 months ago
@mtaob90 "But if the universe is caused every event related to the universe creation is also caused"
Wrong. A cause is the re-arrangement of matter that precedes it's effect in time.
Matter and time didn't exist before The Big Bang so there could be no cause.
If you trace all preceding causes back in time they stop at very beginning of The Big Bang and cease to exist. If causes cease to exist at this point, any event must be uncaused.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 How can my will re-arrang matter that precedes it's effect in time?
mtaob90 2 months ago
@mtaob90 "How can my will re-arrang matter that precedes it's effect in time?"
If something falls and it was knocked over, what caused it? Your arm moving lets say for example. Your arm moving is a re-arrangement of matter, and it has to happen before the effect (knocking over something). So the cause is a re-arrangement of matter that precedes its effect in time. How come you don't understand this?
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 But if my will do not produces any action? It is just a will.
mtaob90 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theBartone9119 "But if my will do not produces any action?"
Maybe you have gone paralyzed, and need to see a doctor.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@mtaob90 Since time and matter didn't exist before The Big Bang, a cause is impossible.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@mtaob90 If a star gets too big it could collapse and cause a black hole simply because of gravity without the motive or will of any conscious being involved. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the picture.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@mtaob90 Just for fun I will continue to show how illogical your statement was.
1) Lighting can strike a tree and cause it to split - No motive or will
2) Wind conditions can cause hurricanes - No motive or will
3) Tsunamis can cause water to flood land - No motive or will
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 I think you may not have understand me. Let's say there is some random mechanism in this universe. God, when he created the universe, these random mechanism was also created. And as the creation of the universe has a cause, every random event has a cause, direct related to the universes cause.
mtaob90 2 months ago
@mtaob90 "I think you may not have understand me"
I understood you perfectly. You said a cause is the same as reason, motive and will. I just disproved that this is the case for most things and completely destroyed that argument. Also God didn't create the universe, he doesn't exist.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 Cleary not!
mtaob90 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mtaob90 "The cause can only exists if the Universe was created"
So you are saying that causes can only exist after the universe came into being, this means that the universe could not be caused though because a cause comes before the effect. So, if the effect of the universe coming into being is what brought causes into being, then the universe can have no cause. You pretty much much destroyed your own argument.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 The Kalam argument bears merit:
(1) all known science facts demand a cause & effect in the physical
aspects of those facts, there is no effect without cause.
(2) string theory posits alternate universes thus time & matter
can be transferred to new universes including by intelligence.
(3) every effect has a cause therefor the physical properties
& motions of the universe DO have a cause.
(4) If sting theory is correct God could have evolved in
another universe.
protectorian 2 weeks ago
@protectorian "all known science facts demand a cause & effect"
Except for virtual particle fluctuations, Bell's inequality tells us that these are uncaused.
Also cause and effect is only something observed within the universe, there is no reason to believe that if anything exists outside the universe, it would be the same.
"intelligence"
Well if you believe in cause and effect so much, then you must agree that the brain causes the mind. Without biological processes there is no effect of mind
theBartone9119 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
protectorian 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theBartone9119 nothing I said contested biological processes.
What i've said may support it in the big picture of the
creation vs evolution issue where evolution reveals creation
& God is revealed as evolution, the brain behind the
mind of the universe. Since intelligence exists its logical to
assume such a purpose when even the simplest organism
has information in the genes
.
Bells inequality, not true, it states that the correlation
between random variables in 2 systems is limited.
protectorian 2 weeks ago
the way u talk makes me laugh xD
MrYusuf2310 2 months ago
I just wasted six minutes of my life watching this terrible video.
I am almost speechless at how bad it is.
Kuartus 3 months ago
@theGroveMan God evolved.
protectorian 5 months ago
>I meant things that move are composed of finite elements, just so there is no misinterpretation.<
07Aristotle 6 months ago
great video Dhorpatan!! Thanks for the upload
lordrazr 6 months ago
xD jajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaja xD fail
LaResistanceChannel 6 months ago
oh yea good choice of music
human453 7 months ago
Thank you for this
human453 7 months ago
It's like watching two people have a blazing row about the possible contents of a locked and windowless room.
We don't know!!! The rough tool of lanuage will not allow you valid insight into that unknown 'place', Science might one tell you about it, but it hasn't yet. Until then...
we...
don't....
know...
USERNAMEfieldempty 9 months ago
@USERNAMEfieldempty
We don't know. Why? Because some dude named Usernamefieldempty said so. Oh, that settles everything. (S C)
Dhorpatan 9 months ago
@Dhorpatan Eh? No, not because I say so. What a weird thing to say. We don't know because we don't know. That's all. These tortured and twisted arguments, like the Kalam argument, are trying to unlock the pre-universe using a couple of written statements.
It's, well, optimistic, would be a polite word to describe it.
USERNAMEfieldempty 9 months ago
@USERNAMEfieldempty
You have no idea how incredibly ignorant you sound. The Kalam has ample supporting argumentation. For you to claim that the Kalam is using a couple of written statements, is incredibly ignorant.
Study the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology's Kalam section. It's 101 pages. Far from a couple of written statements.
You're so out of it, I'm not even sure what you are claiming we don't know. You just seem to love exclaiming your SKEPTICISM AND IGNORANCE.
Dhorpatan 9 months ago
@Dhorpatan So... you can find the hiding place of an all powerful being who QUITE CLEARLY wishes to remain hidden, can you? Despite this omnipotent, onicognisant being's clear desire to remain obscure, you can unlock his hiding place like a stage magician pulling a rabbit from a hat.
It is illogical to speak confidently of 'causes' for the start of the universe. You're applying 'universal' laws to a non-universal 'place'. Which QM and string theory suggests is a very, VERY weird place indeed
USERNAMEfieldempty 9 months ago
@USERNAMEfieldempty how do you know what the will of God is? By claiming he QUITE CLEARLY wishes to be hidden implies you know god's will
strangestdude 7 months ago
@strangestdude Have you seen him on TV recently. God, if there is one, obviously does not wish to provide proof of existence. So, if he exists, he QUITE CLEARLY wishes to remain hidden.
USERNAMEfieldempty 7 months ago
@USERNAMEfieldempty Seeing as you out the 'if he exists' in front then that's fine. But when addressed the other dude you seemed to be stating like your conclusion like you knew for certain that God exists. But then again how would you know he wishes to be hidden, rather than simply god doesn't care if you believe in God or not. Or perhaps Physics will someday reveal the 'god molecule', simply because we haven't achieved the means to glimpse 'God' doesn't mean it is hiding.
strangestdude 7 months ago
@USERNAMEfieldempty One can infer his existence on the basis of the
existence of the 2nd set, being us. A painting has a painter, A sculpture
has a sculptor. A computer has a designer. A human brain has a...?
I'll leave you to fill in the blank.
protectorian 6 months ago
@protectorian Paintings, sculptures, computers, and human brains are all rearrangements of preexisting matter. The KCA plays on our intuitive sense of familiar objects like these "beginning to exist" or "being created." We have zero experience with anyone or anything "creating something" or something "beginning to exist" without the use of preexisting matter. It has literally never been observed.
llkeith77 6 months ago
@llkeith77 We're talking not only about the birth of the universe, but of space-time itself. If time began when the universe began, then there were no moments prior to the universe springing forth.
If there were no moments before the universe (and time) began, how could anything "precede" the existence of the universe?
A cause precedes its subsequent effect ; it's a temporal relationship. How could something temporal in nature occur BEFORE time itself began?
llkeith77 6 months ago
@protectorian Also, the Big Bang does not posit that something came from nothing. The Big Bang states that the universe sprang forth from the singularity. We don't know what happened before the singularity.
Why invent an extra-universal realm inhabited by an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect being who is eternal?
Why can't the singularity or the string of events that led to the singularity be eternal? How does adding a complex being to the mix explain anything at all?
llkeith77 6 months ago
@llkeith77 No one ever said the being that caused all things was
complex, at least not from my part. We don't require God to be
complex. God can be simple & life & all existence & the singularity
can be simply made by something simple. So simple any complexities
that may evolve from it's first motions may simply be unable to
comprehend it, unless in the case of a complex mind like humans,
it adopts a simple parameter of thought patterns.
The BB without an ID has nothing before the S.
protectorian 5 months ago
@llkeith77 No one ever said the being that caused all things was
complex, at least not from my part. We don't require God to be
complex. God can be simple & life & all existence & the singularity
can be simply made by something simple. So simple any complexities
that may evolve from it's first motions may simply be unable to
comprehend it, unless in the case of a complex mind like humans,
it adopts a simple parameter of thought patterns.
The BB without an ID has nothing before the S.
protectorian 5 months ago
@protectorian
If I am understanding you correctly, you seem to be suggesting that some eternal God created our universe. In Christian theology, a set of characteristics is associated with this deity. These qualities are omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, and transcendence. To me, any being fitting that description is very complex indeed.
Do you prescribe to that notion of God? How do you personally define God?
llkeith77 5 months ago
@llkeith77 I define God as a mysterious being that is non-mortal but observable
in the mortal world. I do not assume Gods omni-anything. The Christian
theologies of God are known to me. If the Bible is true they're right. Their
tenets are dependant on what the Bible says. I did a word search on the
Bible for those things you mentioned.
You can find biblical support for their theologies, such as:
1 John 3:20 & Exodus 18:11
But for objective investigation you can't assume it & I don't.
protectorian 5 months ago
@protectorian You say that this mysterious immortal being is observable in the mortal world. How so? What evidence to you have to support your claim that such a being exists?
llkeith77 5 months ago
@llkeith77 Oh shuv it! You asked how I define God & I answered.
I don't claim to have evidence for God & I never did.
If God is observable it's up to you to observe it. If God is not
observable then we should not hear from anyone God is but
we do.
Just because you don't observe it or deny there is evidence for it
doesn't mean others don't. I do not care about if it is provable
or not only that people have a right to believe it or not.
protectorian 5 months ago
@protectorian If you don't have evidence for God, what reasons do you have for believing in his existence?
Of course you have the right to believe in just about anything. If you care about whether or not your beliefs are true; however, you will actually be concerned about having evidence for those beliefs.
I do feel pretty strongly that our beliefs should cohere logically and be supported by evidence. I'm not sure why that encourages you to say "Oh shuv it!"
llkeith77 5 months ago
Comment removed
protectorian 5 months ago
@llkeith77 I did not say I don't have evidence for God.
I said I don't make that claim.
what you morons who make such fallicious challenges don't realize is
that evidence, ALL evidence is subjective to human interpretation.
I have & can present evidence. I have on my channel to some to degree.
However, proof & evidence are 2 seperate things & even proof is not
absolute so... so... so... believe what what you want; but, don't frak
with me & my God OR, you're asking for trouble. Prove no G
protectorian 5 months ago
@protectorian You said that you believe that God exists. If you care about whether or not your beliefs are true, you need to have good reasons, i.e., evidence, for your claims.
I'm not asking for "proof." I realize that absolute certainty isn't necessary for forming a sensible world view. We have to operate on less than perfect information all the time - that's life.
But we can (and do) assign degrees of likelihood to the veracity of various claims.
llkeith77 5 months ago
@llkeith77 You should read a book called ''The case for the resurrection of Jesus''. I suggest you search God with all your heart and mind. We all walk by faith. If your hope is that God does not exist you will reject any evidence and instead put your faith in fallacious refutations of those evidences. Choose carefully in what you put your faith in. Especially if there is no hope in your worldview. God did not hide Himself. He came and died for you because He loves you.
axe414 3 weeks ago
@axe414
We don't all walk by faith. That's just your biased opinion.
Dhorpatan 3 weeks ago
@Dhorpatan Yes we all walk by faith. When you pass under a bridge you have faith that it won't fall on you. When you sit on a chair you have faith it won't break. You simply don't think of it when living your life. First of all do you want God in your life? If God existed would you want Him to take charge of your life? If God did die for you and rose again would you want to put your trust in Him? I think you should start by asking yourself those questions before searching for Him.
axe414 3 weeks ago
@axe414 When I pass under a bridge, I assume it will not fall on top of me for several reasons.
1. I have passed under many, many bridges in my lifetime. None have ever collapsed on top of me.
2. I am able to at least quickly glance at the bridge to examine its condition. Any glaring deficiencies in the bridge are at least in principle detectable.
3. I am passing under the bridge for a relatively short period of time. The chances of it collapsing in that very moment are likely slim
llkeith77 3 weeks ago
@llkeith77 People actually died while passing under a bridge or overpass. They didn't think the bridge would fall on them. What happens if you don't have the time to examine it's condition because you're driving too fast? Even if you calculate the chances hat something will or won't happen. When you make the choice you put your trust and faith into something. That's called an idol.
axe414 3 weeks ago
@axe414 Granted, I'm talking about inductive reasoning here. We form a model of the world based upon our sensory input. We extrapolate from past occurrences in an attempt to figure out what the future likely holds. It helps us to make predictions.
I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's pretty damn good most of the time.
What I'm describing is not faith, it's reasonable expectation. Faith is believing something despite NOT having good reasons.
llkeith77 3 weeks ago
@llkeith77 Faith is not believing without having good reasons. Faith is the substance of things hoped for.
axe414 3 weeks ago
@axe414
You can hope for junk all you want. Doesn't mean there is a God. I hope you shut up and stop blabbing about your mushy God belief. My "faith" that you will do that, doesn't mean there is a God.
So have faith all you want if that's what you need to get by, but faith is worthless as far as truth and facts.
Dhorpatan 3 weeks ago
@Dhorpatan Fact and truth are not on your side. Jesus Christ is the Truth, the Way and the Life. You obviously are not the way. I'm glad Jesus died for me and loves me so much. Yes I have hope in my Risen Lord Jesus Christ. One question for you. If you found Jesus really was the Truth, would you give your life to Him? No need to answer if you're going to bash on me again. I don't care what you think of me or my faith. Greater is He that is in me than he that is in the world :)
axe414 3 weeks ago
@axe414
IMO the more educated one is, the less inclined one will believe unsubstantiated claims that basically boil down to tautology, anecdotal evidence, argumentum ad divintas/populum, argumentum ad baculum/consequentiam & lack of understanding of the scientific method.
Yet you claim to know truth.
(1/1 A01)
recalibration 2 weeks ago
@recalibration Jesus claimed to be the Truth :) Love can not be explained by the ''scientific method'' You are so arrogant to think that ''educated people'' will reject God'' You have no idea how much very educated people love the Lord. Again Hitchens have been demolished by William Lane Crag. By the way Craig is very educated ;)
axe414 2 weeks ago
@axe414
"Love can not be explained by the ''scientific method''
Yes it can. All life is DNA at the fundamental level. DNA is constantly trying to replicate. One way DNA replicates is by sexual reproduction. Love is ultimately to encourage reproduction. It's so we can secure a partner with which to reproduce our genes. That is the FUNCTION of love..It does not take away the beauty from the experience of love. So, in the end, science can explain why love occurs.
itzahazylife 2 weeks ago
@itzahazylife, that presumes what love is, though. lol. My definition of love is: the will of sufficiency. where and how that comes is only from God.
Sudhish86 1 week ago
@Sudhish86
So basically, you form a definition for love, and then stick in an imagined concept like God to account for you definition. That's ass backwards.
itzahazylife 1 week ago
@Sudhish86
Love is merely emotional attachment due to chemical reactions. And it serves a necessary function especially in social species. It's doesn't need to be so mystical..
itzahazylife 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@itzahazylife "Love is merely emotional attachment due to chemical reactions. And it serves a necessary function especially in social species. It's doesn't need to be so mystical.."
Chemistry is a process, it has no power. It has no teleology, direction, or purpose. It is a process, also what is empathy according to naturalism and why should it be followed or obeyed? I see no reason why it should be followed if it is just a chemical reaction in the body.
lonematrix48 1 week ago
@itzahazylife Sure, brains are involved, but the source? If that is the case, then emotions like love, sadness, etc., are not real, in the sense that they are truly meaningful, but are mere reactions in the sense that when I touch a hot stove, I get burned. Just a physical reaction. When you say to your husband or wife, I love you, you really mean, my brain is having a response to you, but then, my brain could change and then, you're out of luck.
*paul
lonematrix48 1 week ago
@lonematrix48
The source is chemical reactions. All of the scientific and neurological evidence cries out that the brain produces the mind. The brain is the generator of mind. And the totality of mind is consciousness. It is also untrue for you to say that it makes love meaningless. What causes love does not take away from the direct experience of love itself. A sexy woman is merely made of cells and molecules, but, even though I know this, I'd still get blown away by her beauty.
itzahazylife 1 week ago
@lonematrix48
Your love for your wife is still coming from you. Your brain IS you. It's a fantasy to think there's some all encompassing force within your mind which is "you". That's an illusion brought about by that little voice that exists inside your head. Who you are is a product of your mind. Which is a product of your brain. Which is an electrochemical generator of mind, thought, emotions, etc..Love is still love. The experience is what it is regardless.
itzahazylife 1 week ago
@itzahazylife How does Ketamine allow a person to report veridically what occurred while they were in a state of flat brain waves? Please explain that to me.
lonematrix48 1 week ago
@itzahazylife Also, the fact that Ketamine produces similar experiences to some NDEs may not mean as much as you might think. First, it does not mean that the mind is reducible to the brain, but only that when you reduce the effects of the brain, the mind is freed up. It seems that the opposite should be the case as both Drs. Greyson and Alexander indicated.
lonematrix48 1 week ago
@itzahazylife Others have also cited the difference between the state caused by the use of Ketamine and those caused by the brain ceasing to function.So, it seems that although there may be similarities to the two experiences,there is not a complete comparison,nor can Ketamine provide anadequate explanation for the phenomena reported by those who have experienced NDEs.
Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century By Edward F. Kelly, Emily Williams Kelly, Adam Crabtree, Alan Gauld
lonematrix48 1 week ago
@itzahazylife Dr. Greyson makes the case that in the extreme cases, the brain and the mind do not seem to be the same thing. This includes NDEs and people with dementia who become lucid prior to death. In his testimony before the U.N. he cites the fact that when the brain ceases to function, it is in a state that cannot support consciousness.
lonematrix48 1 week ago
@itzahazylife Yet, these people are able to report goings on in the hospital room during this state and even report events outside of the range of their physical body. How does one explain this from a materialistic standpoint? It seems that unless you can present a physical explanation for these types of events, the best explanation is that the mind survives the brain and that the mind is able to gather information that is physically out of range of the brain.
lonematrix48 1 week ago
@itzahazylife Can you provide an adequate explanation for these phenomena? If not, it is justifiable to conclude that the mind may survive the brain.
lonematrix48 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lonematrix48
"Can you provide an adequate explanation for these phenomena? If not, it is justifiable to conclude that the mind may survive the brain."
Do you know of any links where there are cases other than just anecdotes? What has been the extent of Greyson's research?
itzahazylife 6 days ago
@itzahazylife "Hallucinations can be invoked by administering chemicals or by stimulating the brain with magnetic fields."
That doesn't address my point. Hallucinations are non-veridical, whereas, NDE experiences are often externally verifiable and testable.
lonematrix48 1 week ago
@itzahazylife However, not all of these accounts are merely anecdotal. Greyson and others are testing these experiences with cardiac and other patients.
How this relates to God is that it serves as one more piece of evidence for an immaterial reality. A part of a cumulative case for the existence of God.
*Paul
lonematrix48 1 week ago
@itzahazylife, yes, but what is the purpose of this attatchment? why is it present? what necessary function does it serve?
Sudhish86 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@axe414
Jesus claims a lot of things; the least of which is OT law is absolutely valid.
MDMA easliy simulates the emotion. Also, wikipedia(.)org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love .
"You have no idea how much very educated people love the Lord."
Until you cite definations of "very educated" & "love", actual figures, geographic scope, repeatable testing technique(s), reputable sources, nor do you.
Craig is an ass of a philosopher who depends on the ignorance of his audience. See A03
(1/1 A06)
recalibration 2 weeks ago
@recalibration This verse applies to you.
Rom_1:22 ''Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,''
axe414 2 weeks ago
@axe414
Considering you believe the existence of morality & ethics began w/ a book complied (note I say "complied", not "written") 1.5 millennia *after* your Christ, you hardly have the grounds to judge.
(1/1 A05)
recalibration 2 weeks ago
@axe414 That's a poetic way of putting it, but I don't think faith is a legitimate pathway to truth.
I need some kind of evidence. I need outside referents accessible to all. I don't need appeals to the unfalsifiable, untestable, undetectable, etc.
I DON'T need absolute certainty, but I DO need to have solid reasons for my beliefs. I want to have beliefs that correspond as closely to reality as possible.
Faith just doesn't help me figure out what is most likely to be true.
llkeith77 3 weeks ago
@llkeith77 Maybe try (if you didn't) read what Jesus said and see if it is the truth. You are obviously already searching for empirical and historical evidence. The evidences are there. This whole world and the satanic agenda going on is a testimony of truth also. Jesus told the truth but people reject Him not because of lack of proof. Jesus came to free us from bondage but people wants to stay in bondage. They want it their own way always. Jesus is Lord and Savior lucky for us...
axe414 3 weeks ago
@axe414
The supposed Jesus made many true statements. So what? So did Buddha. So did John Lennon. But, it's the superstitious ridiculous crap you believe that's written in the Bible. It makes you out to be a fool. You believe that Jesus was the son of some invisible, immaterial god entity, and that he rose from the dead, performed miracles, was born of a virgin etc, all because it's written in an ancient book. A book composed of copies of copies of copies. It's asinine.
itzahazylife 2 weeks ago
@itzahazylife Lennon was a follower of Aleister Crowley. He was a pawn for the NWO. like many many artists.Buddha taught the same ''mysteries'' as Crowley. Jesus said He is the Way, the Truth and the Life and no one comes to the Father but by Him. God is Spirit. But He manifested Himself to the world through His son. Jesus is the Word who became flesh. You assume God dosen't exist when speaking about miracles. God being real makes all those miracles possible.
axe414 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@axe414
"You assume God dosen't exist when speaking about miracles. God being real makes all those miracles possible."
God's existence is an assumption. You assume that because the universe had a cause, that it must be a God. And not just any God, but the God of the Bible. And why do you believe that? Because the Bible asserts that it is all true. The truth could be ANYTHING. Yet, you assert that it is thru Jesus and only Jesus. You preach absolute certainty. You are unwise.
itzahazylife 2 weeks ago
@axe414 Imagine someone were to ask me as I approached the bridge, "WHY don't you think the bridge will collapse upon you?" I would be able to list reasons. My reasons would be accessible to everyone. My reasons would require no belief in anything supernatural or unfalsifiable.
Having those types of reasons is not the same as "taking something on faith."
To me, faith is that which people resort to when they lack solid reasons.
llkeith77 3 weeks ago
@llkeith77 yet at the end you have faith in your reasons. You are describing in what you put your faith. In yourself. Solid reasons or not is not the point. Yes solid reasons may help you to decide to do or not do something but you will always need to trust into something. You may well be simply a brain in a jar connected to a computer and the bridge may not even exist. Ultimately everything is based on faith.
axe414 3 weeks ago
@axe414 Certainly, we can list all sorts of "possible" scenarios: brain in a vat, the matrix, evil aliens running an experiment, Chalmerean zombies, etc. Just because we can imagine unfalsifiable scenarios, doesn't mean they are worth our time.
I'm more concerned with what is LIKELY to be true.
I have five senses that work in conjunction. I receive input about the world around me via those senses. While not perfect, my senses have proven reliable.
This not the same as faith.
llkeith77 3 weeks ago
@axe414 The Resurrection is a downright fascinating topic. I really enjoyed the debate between Ehrman and Licona. The debate between Carrier and Licona was also interesting.
Also, I don't have a desire for a god or gods NOT to exist. In fact, if I ever see evidence or have a personal experience that shows a god exists, I'll start believing.
I'm not sure why you are saying that my worldview has no hope. I have plenty of hopes and aspirations without theism.
llkeith77 3 weeks ago
@llkeith77 Good to know you're not a hardheaded atheist. I do not think there can be any hope without God. Everything will cease to exist one day so everything is ultimately hopeless. You can create false hopes and aspirations but ultimately everything we create and hope for will cease to exist. Without an ultimate truth there can't be an ultimate hope. Jesus Christ is that ultimate hope. By the way there is a great delusion coming very soon by the satanic NWO. God bless you!
axe414 3 weeks ago
@axe414 I understand that you believe what you are saying. You may have had some type of personal experience that justifies your belief in Jesus. Even though I don't believe the claims of Christianity, I can respect your beliefs.
I hope you can recognize that just because you believe Jesus is necessary for "true" hope, others don't feel the same.
Many Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, Muslims, etc., are full of hopes, and they don't feel they are "false."
llkeith77 3 weeks ago
@axe414 I believe that this is the one and only life I'm going to ever have. To me, such a belief imbues living with a sense of purpose.
llkeith77 3 weeks ago
@llkeith77 In a world where there is no God there is no ultimate purpose. Then your only choice is to create your own purpose. I personally could not live that way. I think this is madness.
axe414 3 weeks ago
@axe414 As you said, this is a statement about how you personally feel. It is a claim that you wouldn't be justified making in regard to all others.
You couldn't say, "Life for EVERYONE is madness if they have only their own purpose instead of a purpose from God."
If you were to make that type of sweeping claim, you'd have to provide some evidence. Otherwise it's just an unfounded assertion.
llkeith77 3 weeks ago
@axe414
Accepting someone's belief purely w/ out falsifiability is naive & makes you susceptible to manipulation. You are a slave.
(1/1 A00)
recalibration 2 weeks ago
@recalibration You are the slave here. There is evidence for God philosophically and also the universe is a testimony of His creation. You have been lied to by the father of lies. Jesus came to deliver us from bondage. The real question is, if you found out that Jesus really is the King of the universe, would you give your life to Him and serve Him?
axe414 2 weeks ago
@axe414
There is evidence for God philosophically? HAHA. Philosophy isn't evidence of anything. Philosophy is meaningless when it comes to proving whether or not something objectively exists.
itzahazylife 2 weeks ago
@itzahazylife Materialism and naturalism is madness. There are Objective moral truths and they are not physical. There are things that you can not prove scientifically and physically.
axe414 2 weeks ago