For top philosophy of religion & sceptical analysis of Bible & religion try Robert M Price, John W. Loftus, Dan Barker, Victor J. Stenger. E.A.Wallis Budge translation of, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', Thomas Paine, Joseph Wheless, Robert Ingersoll, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Bart Ehrman, Gary Greenberg, Richard Carrier, Valerie Tarico, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein
Why doesn't god just tell us himself instead using representatives that only makes the whole idea that much more shady i mean whats the difference if he wants to spread the word why not just yell to earth i don't get all these exuses from theists why a god wouldn't display power if its really in control of everything. A father would yell at his kids he wouldn't send someone else to do it right? The bible is just the first comic book you need a villian (devil) to make it work for salvation lol
if God yells at you, then you would have no other choice but to believe Him and obey Him. If He yells, you can only be His pet. He doesn't want that. He didn't create you unworthy. But He created you so you could reason and think.
it's not even funny to claim that by chances the universe is and you are.
you are 100% aware that you will die one way. But Why do you die? what happens when you die?
@DiatonicSoul Thats not true the evidence existed already before they created this concept of god we have evidence that the christian god was created we have no evidence of this being before the bible. Not one sorce every mentioned a christian god before the bible so sorry comrade you chrisitans don't get to spin off reality to fit your god concept.
This chinese guy going up to the podium and explaining that there is a God concept in china is totally amazing.! Here you have all these schoolars that thinks they know this and that and the chinese dude just turns everyones perception upsidedown.
Do you realize how silly you sound every time you try to "read my mind"? How many times have you said something to the effect of "you know it's true, but you don't like it." That tactic is not only silly - you really can't know what I think outside of what I tell you - but it's also unprofessional.
QM particals aren't not something out of nothing, it's the fluctuation of energy to matter. "One thing become painfully obvious..." I have no idea what you were even talking about in this paragraph
@Roper122 "What is upsetting you is that I am not arguing how you want me to. You are presenting arguments that have worked for you in the past, but have nothing to do with what I'm saying." There you go again trying to read my mind and getting way off. For one, I'm not upset at all. Actually, I've found you to be quite amusing through most of this debate.
Craig is full of shit when he says Hell is just separation from God, and not literal torture, since he's well aware that for anti-theists who don't mind being separated form God, such version of Hell would, in fact be Heaven. and I doubt Craig coud bear the thought that a person might not be in a desperate need of Jesus(the way he is, for him life without God is meaningless, absurd) and be perfectly happy without Him. Otherwise he'd be a "moderate", not an hypocritical evangelical fundamentalist
@Roper122 Do you go to church regularly? Have you ever been on a mission field in places like china or africa or south america? Because unless you have positioned yourself in a place where one would actually expect to see a miracle, it is silly to denounce miracles because your have never seen one. Being someone who goes to church regularly for many years and knows many people who have lived on the mission field I can tell you Craig is absolutely right - miracles happen all the time.
You are implying that "miracles" just magically tend to happen, in remote places where there's no one else around, and everyone present just happens to be christian believers.
Surprise Surprise
There's a reason that Craig doesn't use miracles to argue for god... because he knows he would be absolutely torn apart.
@Roper122 Point one, of course they are all christians. How often do athiests pray for miracles? Point two, the remoteness of the area is irrelivent, it is the necessity that is important.
Off topic, may I ask you a question I have wanted to ask a non-believer for awhile? What WOULD make you believe in God? Is there anything you can think of that would change your mind?
@Msjrward ...Point One, yes but other religions claim miracles too
Point Two - Odd that miracles tend to occur in areas where verification is virtually impossible and the only witnesses are believers - wouldn't you agree?
As far as evidence for god...it needs to something that has no other possible explanation, than direct intervention by a being with the powers you claim.
This has never, even come close to happening.
I have a question for you - why is evidence for god so hard to find?
@Roper122 P1)Indeed, and such religions should be investigated carefully before dismissed. P2)I don't think its odd. God is not a magic show. His miracles have a practical purpose: bodily healing for his people in a fallen world. Evidence for God is not hard to find, you just don't believe any of it.
So you wouldn't believe in God unless something w/ no other explanation happened. And if God does exist but he never shows you this, would he be unfair to then let you go to hell?
@Msjrward ...no god isn't is a magic show, he sends healing to his people...he just strangely does where no one else can see it, so they can claim anything they want.
As for investigating other religions - what would be the point? They would just claim that their god isn't a magic show etc etc...
Evidence for god is not hard to find...GOOD evidence for god is impossible to find.
god isn't hiding...he's just not there.
And no, if something has another explanation, why would you use god?
@Roper122 I've seen publicized miracles. I saw one show that interviewed a man and his doctor and another medical expert. The man had had been shot in the chest, he came to church and then coughed up the bullet when he came home. Both doctors said such a thing was impossible. Let me guess - he was lying and he just wanted 15 mintutes of fame. You don't hear about most miracles because people don't want fame, not even 15 mintues of it.
Do you seriously think, that if even one genuine " miracle " occurred that was scientifically verifiable, and had legitimate witnesses that the church wouldn't shout it from the rooftops? It'd be world news.
It's much like UFO sightings...
I've seen publicized UFO sightings too.
With witnesses and evidence, and they happened in remote areas.
Do you believe them all?
Let me guess - they were lying and just wanted 15 mintutes of fame?
@Roper122 You really don't understand Christian's at all. In the church I go to both the pastor's son and a close friend were paraplegics, miraculously healled. All Christian's want is to share the truth with others and let's face it for all atheists say about miracles, they don't belive them when they are publicized. I think God could come to earth as a human and go around performing miracles and people would still reject him...in fact that sounds familiar...
@Msjrward " You really don't understand Christian's at all. "
???? oh please... Thats you're big point? I say that miracles always seem to be religious folk who have no real proof, and you counter with " my pastor's son "??
Simple fact is, if anyone...anywhere...EVER...had evidence of an honest miracle, then this discussion would be over.
Some people are willing to believe anything.. in fact I think people would even believe someone if he claimed to be god...sound familiar?
However, what you said brings up a good point. You said you would believe if you saw a mirracle, but I've talked of the existence of miracles and you've both underminded them or implied I was a liar. I don't think you would believe in God even if you saw a miracle. You would dismiss it. God loves you and he would never SEND you to hell, but our sin is sending us to hell and only when we truly desire his salvation can he give it to us.
@Msjrward - I don't mind the occasional bit of childishness.
Actually I didn't say I needed a miracle ( although that's probably how you'd define anything attributable to god ), but I do need something.
I'm not willing to stop thinking based on the stories of your particular religion, that is being unfair to every other religion or belief system, because there's no reason to put one higher than the other.
( By the way, "hell" is a terribly immoral concept )
@Roper122 I disagree about hell. I think hell is demonstrative of the idea of morality itself. Hell is the concentration of absolute evil minus any good, i.e. God. Only complete goodness can be in the presence of God.
I think allowing humans to go to hell is to treat us like adults, dealing with the consequences of our decisions. It's not unbelief that sends one to hell. All sin does it. It's just that BELIEF is the key to salvation from sin.
@Roper122 There should be more to a religion than simply it's aclamation of miracles. There is more to Christianity than that. All aspects of the religion should be investigated and if it is trust worthy, all aspects will hold up. I am confident enough to be able to see if what I believe is bonk or what someone else believes is more reliable.
Oh, and you still didn't answer my question about hell.
If god expects to send people to eternal punishment, then he'd better present more evidence than some TV show that you saw once.
To send people to burn for eternity for the heinous crime of not believing in him, while revealing himself only in highly questionable, unproven, " miracles " that seem to apply to every religion or belief and therefore don't help narrow down the choices... seems a little unfair YES
@Roper122 That's an interesting point, but lets explore this. Unless God gives irrefutabl evidence (which cannot be clearly defined, its kind of a know it when you see it deal) then it is unfair to let them go to hell. (God is not SENDING them to hell)
However, God didn't show me miracles and I still found him. I don't know any Christian that came to God because of miracles. We were searching for the truth and God revealed himself. So how is GOD unjust simply because YOU demanded MORE proof?
@Msjrward " So how is GOD unjust simply because YOU demanded MORE proof "
First of all.. I don't demand more proof, I demand ANY proof.
Any good proof.
Any believable proof.
As for god being unjust..
if god created me with a level of rational intellect and standards, that have served me well and been successful in every other area of my life, and then he suddenly punished me for not dramatically lowering those standards with regard to superstitious claims...
@Roper122 Good proof is subejctive. Like I've said, plenty of people have believed with what God has given them. The problem may not be God's standard of judgment, but yours. Imagine A teacher giving a test over all the material covered in a class. Some of the kids pass, some fail. Was the the grading unfair? After all it's not like all the kids failed, only some. How much more true would this be if the kids said the reason they failed was they didn't BELIEVE the teacher?
@Msjrward " So every time someone fails a test it is the teachers fault, even if other students passed? "
Nope... but if every other test makes sense, and then suddenly one test changes all the rules, and rewards nonsensical answers...and some students pass with a thinking process that actually causes them to fail at everything else.
Then something suspicious is going on.
Either the test is fixed...or in fact the teacher doesn't really exist, and these kids are just making it up.
@Roper122 I don't think one must abandon what usually makes sense to believe in God. Atheists have no proof against God and of course, you can't. You can't disprove a negative. But is there evidence for God? I think there is, Dr. Craig's for example. I don't think any of it is definitive - accept for his cosmological argument, but that can only prove a supernatural creator and not a loving or christian God. However that and my own personal experiences with God are definitive.
@Msjrward ...You have to abandon logic and reason to believe in god.
People like Craig attempt to find a way to avoid this..but they can't.
As you point out, none of his arguments prove anything ( even the cosmological one )... they all depend on what he calls "plausibility "...in short hand - his opinion.
If you use actual probability...then the whole thing falls like a house of cards.
As for your personal experience - fine...but don't expect anyone else to take it seriously.
@Roper122 That's not what I said at all. I stated his cosmological argument proves a supernatural creator, but not the Christian God.
"You have to abandon logic and reason to believe in God" - how so? The cosmological argument is from logic. If it is logical to believe in an inteligent creator, it is reasonable to believe that such a creator is able to speak to humans right. I think studying relgions is therefore not only reasonable but WISE.
@Roper122 Right. As Craig lays it out it is 1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2) The universe began to exist. 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
BTW I was not trying to sound arrogant in my last comment, I just love cosmology...
@Msjrward .. OK then, well how can you justify saying that
" Whatever begins to exist has a cause "
What other things that, to paraphrase your words " weren't there and then were "
are you basing this assumption on?
I can't think of anything else..ever ( well maybe one, but we'll get to that in a minute ), so where exactly does this premise draw it's credibility from?
@Roper122 I'm not certain I understand your question. What things weren't there, but then were with a cause? Is that what you are asking me? Everything. Things do not come into being without a cause, this is a fact of nature.
@Msjrward ...alright, I'll explain...none of your examples were the result of the rearrangement of existing matter, and yet your whole premise rests on the rearrangement of pre-existing matter. When you say " everything " you mean everything that we have ever observed, all of which has changed from one thing to another, not things that have never existed in any form.
So the whole basis for the first premise is flawed.
@Roper122 But that is an incorrect assesment of the universe. 1) The assumption that the universe has always existed causes mathematical contradictions. Infinity cannot exist in reality. For example, WHEN did the FIRST event occur in the universe? "When" and "first" are possible in the finite, but not in the infinite. However, there must have been a first event, thus the contradiction.
2) Modern cosmology supports the point of view that the universe BEGAN at the big bang.
Actually what I am saying is that you are using the phrase " begin to exist " in two different ways.
You infer that is the case because you have seen things begin, but all those things have been put together from other matter... you can infer absolutely nothing about anything "coming into existence" from nothing... you have no grounds to even make the statement.
@Roper122 Ok, I see your point, but I do not see how it makes the first premise incorrect. Unless you, or anyone for that matter, has seen something come into being from nothing than the premise is at most inconclusive.
Further, the premise is taken from reason. It is completely unreasonable to believe that out of complete nothingness and for no reason at all something can come into being.
@Msjrward ... OK then, "inconclusive"...either way it fails.
Nothing about the behaviour of matter which already exists gives you any right to make predictions about matter coming into existence in the first place.
You are at best 50/50 ( and that's generous )
As for "reason"... no, you are simply stating your opinion, which is fine, but that again undermines the credibility of the premise.
So the Kalam argument is based on a 50/50 guess and opinion...
@Roper122 Let's review the facts. You claimed that in order to believe in God one must abandon reason and logic. However you are willing to accept the idea that something can suddenly exist from nothing - a phenomenon we have never witnessed in science and which in fact goes against everything we observe in science.
Even if I accept your 50/50 chance, I'm not abandoning reason, I'm just opting for the equally viable scenario.
Actually what you are doing is using a 50/50 guess and an opinion, to justify the first premise... not to actually believe in god.
That requires more guesses, and more opinions...and they start to pile up and up.
Each one decreasing the probability overall.
Second, you keep telling me that I "have" to believe something came from nothing...well I don't "have" to believe anything, I have to admit I don't know, as theists should, but don't.
@Roper122 Well are you atheist or agnostic? I know something didn't come from nothing - the entire idea is proposterous. If it was possible for something to come from nothing why don't we see more of that in nature? Are you actually contending that it is a reasonable view that at the moment of the big bang everything came into existence from nothing but never has since?
The case for God is accumalative, I agree, but how does that decrease it's probability?
@Msjrward .. Before we get to me. Let's just go over a few things.
First of all... I was just pointing out the problems with just the first premise of the Kalam argument. Which I successfully did.
Second, now you've moved on, and you are claiming that you know enough about the nature of Quantum reality to state that any event which created what we know as time and space itself, couldn't have happened, and your evidence is that "things" don't pop into existence?
@Roper122 You did not successfully point out the problem with the first premise. The first premise is based on all of human experience to this point. The best you did was say, "That might not be true of thepoint in which things actually came into being..." Unless you can successfully show that things indeed come from nothing you cannot disprove the first premise and it is thus more reasonable to accept it than to reject it.
@Msjrward ... Sorry, but I did successfully point out the fault.
The whole basis of the first premise simply does not apply to "creation" because it is comparing apples to oranges.
It should rightly say, " Everything that has been a simple rearranging of existing matter has a cause...therefore the appearance of matter itself has a cause "
It simply doesn't follow.
As you say.. " it might not be true " .. might not... is more than enough.
@Msjrward " We have never observed "new" matter coming into existence without a cause so why should we assume "
The correct finish to this line is...
" why should we assume ... anything "
You are making assumptions, and you are yet to get past the first premise of you your first argument ( not proof mind you...argument ) and your best defence is to simply call it ridiculous.
You haven't dealt with my point at all... and you haven't listened to a word Dennett said.
@Msjrward ....as far as the "cumulative" case for god.
If you have an event that is a 0.5 probability of happening, and then you follow it with another event which has a 0.5 probability of happening... then the chances of both happening....are 0.25. The more you have the lower it drops.
( obviously this is simplified...but you get the jist )
A cumulative case just piles unlikelihood on top of unlikelihood.
@Roper122 Alright, let's deal with probabilities. The beginning of the universe: for the sake of argument earlierI ac cept your 50/50 probability, but considering that we have never seen something come out of nothing and would have to take it completely on faith that that's what the universe did, I would say it is a low probability that the universe came out of nothing and thus a high probability that the universe came out of something.
@Msjrward " I would say it is a low probability that the universe came out of nothing and thus a high probability that the universe came out of something. "
Would you? That's great... I'm pleased you have an opinion.
As I pointed out the whole Kalam argument is guesses and opinions.
Regardless... I think it takes faith to further complicate the issue by conjuring up an imaginary being, and further decreasing the probabilities.
But hey.. I'm not claiming to have proved anything.
@Roper122 Alright, you think it is a high probablitly that the universe came out of nothing - which goes against everything we observe in the natural world?
@Msjrward ... besides, the behaviour of subatomic particles has already been shown to be counter-intuitive, which doesn't prove anything in and of itself ( and I would never assume that it does ), but at the very least throws doubt onto the first premise.
So again.. the first premise of your best argument... is flawed.
I think it's a high probability that there are options....and if there are options then the first premise doesn't hold...and you just choose to believe, because it suits you.
@Roper122 You say it is highly probable that their are options and as long as their are options the first premise doesn't hold, but the best you have given me is alternative possibilities that we can IMAGINE could be true. I have given you a valid argument for believing things don't come from nothing. Your best counterargument was: we weren't there when there was nothing so we cannot know.
@Roper122 In all, the best you have done in this discussion is to prove options in believing in God, but there are options in most anything one believes. So I ask you again: in what way must one abandon reason and logic to believe in God?
@Roper122 You claimed repeatedly that I have "no reason" for my argument. However, I have stated that my reason is we have never seen anything come out of nothing. Your counterargument was that we were not there at the beginning when there truly was nothing so we cannot know. That is nothing but a counterargument. It DOES NOT (a) disprove my argument or (b) show it as invalid and so my argument is not flawed until you can do so.
@Msjrward ...I get it now. You just don't understand. Some theists and Craig fans are out and out dishonest, but in your case I think you genuinely don't understand what I've said. Either that or you don't understand how the argument works.
It's one of Craigs many tricks.
And if you want to be technical...no, the argument isn't invalid...it's unsound, and it commits the fallacy of equivocation.
@Roper122 This conversation has proved your ability to be snide and insulting. Too bad you have not equally proved an ability to articulate an argument against mine. The argument is unsound? Prove it. It commits the fallacy of equivocation?? Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist, therefore it has a cause. Cause is used in exactly the same sense. I tried to go into how we can rule out a natural cause but you weren't willing to.
@Msjrward ... No, I'm sorry.. but it's not insulting to simply point out what is going on. I've explained again and again. You are simply ignoring my main point because you have no answer for it.
Cause is not used in the same sense, you know exactly what the problem is, and you haven't answered my point at all.
I'm willing to go into whatever else you want... but you haven't got past my first point. I'm not being evasive, I had laid out my objection, plain and simple.
@Roper122 I understand your point exactly; where we differ is the implications. You're argument does not disprove that the universe had a cause - we do at least agree on that? - it's simply that we cannot know for certain that it had a cause. Correct?
'A cause' means 'a cause'. Explain to me the different sences.
I agree you have laid out your objections "plain and simple", but your objections have failed to show the illogicallity and unreasonableness of the argument.
@Roper122 1) You have not shown that the kalam argument is unsound. You have argued that the the first premise MIGHT NOT be true of the beginning just because it is true of everything since.
2) "You know the different senses of cause I mean..." No, sorry, I don't; you must bear witht his irrational Christian... By cause I mean a cause. What sort of cause is irrelevent at this point in the argument.
@Msjrward ...1. If the first premise 'might not' be true, then the argument 'might not ' be sound. An argument is only sound if it's premises are all true. So before we go any further...that's the point.
2. It's not the word 'cause', Its 'begins'. In the first premise it means to be rearranged into something else. In the second it means to be actually brought into existence from nothing. Two different meanings.
If it was just an opinion, fine. But it claims to be a serious argument.
@Roper122 You clearly don't understand arguments and how they work. You can make a counterargument against the first premise but unless YOU - and notice the burden of proof rests most heavily on you here because one can't disprove a negative - can prove that it is fails you cannot claim that it is unreasonable for me to hold to it.
Remember: we're talking about whether one has to throw away reason and logic to believe in God.
@Roper122 I am not claiming you don't understand THIS argument; you don't understand argumentS. Offering an alternative possibility WITHOUT PROOF doesn't show that the first premise doesn't work. You reject the first premise - your opinion. I accept that first premise - my opinion. But the first premise stands as a reasonable option until you can disprove it.
It doesn't commit the fallacy of equivocation because it still began to exist.
@Roper122 2. A human, a plant, or a solar system may be the rearrangement of matter, but the matter was caused to rearrange. It is not unreasonable to extend this princinple (needing a cause) to the big bang. One cannot prove it, but my argument has more substance because I have a reason why I am extending this to the big bang, i.e. what I see in the natural world.
Again: must one throw away reason and logic to believe in God? You are failing to show that one must.
@Roper122 You seem stuck on "my opinions", but unless you have logical or scientific proof, whatever you say is just YOUR opinion. We're not talking about opinions, we're discussing the illogicality of belief in God. The Kalam argument is deductive, which means if one takes the premises to be true, then the conclusion follows irrefutably. You are rejecting the first premise, yet claiming you don't need evidence to do so. However, if you are going to logically refute the argument, you do.
@Roper122 From nothing nothing comes is a metaphysical princinple. Physical properties are irrelevent because this is a principle.
Principle: There was no human, now there is. Why? There was no car, now there is. Why? There was no sun, now there is. Why? There was no universe, now there is. Why?
A painting is a very different effect from a child or a galaxy, but the principle of a cause holds to all 3. So too of the universe. To make the bold claim it doesn't requires evidence.
@Roper122 "Desperately reaching for metaphysical answer..." The argument rests on a metaphysical principle. The "why questions" were making a point about causality.
"Please stop asking me for evidence, I'm not the one with the argument that requires a 'true' premise." But you are the one who attacked the premise as being false and so you must provide evidence otherwise your claim cannot be taken seriously and I am fully within my rights of reason to accept it.
@Roper122 In scientific research, he would be within his right to ask you to disprove his assertion. But, and this is the critical point, you are within your right to ask for exactly what can be falsified. Anyone making an assertion and not a belief statement, if they truly wish for the Truth, are aware of the falsification limits and in fact encourage them to be explored so the Truth can be determined.
@CliffStamp ...well, no ones proved anything in the first place, so scientifically I don't have to disprove much. Right now I'm just showing how the arguments don't work
@Roper122 The burden lies on the assertion, if you claim someone is wrong you should give a reason why, simply asking them to prove it is rude at best. So if you are discussing burden of proof, the point would be who is making the assertion that a change of position is necessary for the other party, they have the burden of proof. It is more than just who makes the assertion, it is the intent of the assertion.
@Roper122 “You are within your rights to accept it, but not to claim it is true.” If I have a reason for the premise I can claim it's true. If you prove the premise false I am logically required to abandon it. (I'm not saying you haven't been trained in informal logic, but I have and this is how it works.)
“It must be true in all cases” You can’t disprove a negative. Under your logic the argument: "All polar bears are white. Polo is a polar bear, therefore Polo is white" would be illogical.
@Roper122 Okay, I'm done with this debate. You don't understand informal logic. "I've clearly shown it commits the fallacy of equivocation and you havn't shown any reason why that isn't the case." ??? Playing with semantics??? Oh and now I CAN claim the premise is true? Cus I'm pretty sure earlier you said I couldn't...
You made the bold assertion that one must abandon reason and logic to believe in God but you have not only failed to prove how, you've shown your own lack of those skills.
@Roper122 How could I 'get past the first premise' when you demanded I PROVE the universe has a cause? That demand shows a poor grasp of informal logic. Your earlier assertion that the argument fails even when I pointed out that at WORST under your logic it was inconclusive, bears this out even better.
@Msjrward ....Look, do you really not understand or are you just being defensive, because nothing you are saying has done anything to refute my point.
I have an absolute grasp on what I'm saying, and you seem to arguing with someone else. The argument commits the fallacy of equivocation, you haven't shown otherwise...because you can't.
I'm sure you enjoy accusing me of not understanding and dragging in irrelevant statements, but none of it is helping you. You can't deal with my point.
Definition of the fallacy of equivocation: using the same phrase in 2 different senses
Definition of "begins to exist": currently exists, but didn't always
Argument: 1. Whatever "currently exists but didn't always" has a cause. 2. The universe "currently exists but didn't always". 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
No equivocation.
I'm sorry we couldn't have a more civil conversation. I apologize if that was my fault. I wish you well.
@Msjrward " Definition of "begins to exist": currently exists, but didn't always "
Definition of Begins to Exist 1 - Has been created by rearranging matter.
Definition of begins to Exist 2 - The matter itself has been created,
Two definitions...One argument.
Equivocation.
Pretty clear.
Actually I think this has been a civil conversation, we just got nowhere because you won't accept this point, because " intuitively " it seems right to you
@Roper122 I know I said I wouldn't post anymore, but you're redefinition of begins to exist is a strawman argument. I - and assumingly Craig and the scholars that first developed this argument - mean "begins to exist" as I defined. The fact that matter coming into existence is a completely different from it's rearrangement is understood, but we're using this as a general principle. A human coming to existence is completely different from a car, but the causal principle remains.
@Msjrward ....Yes I agree that you and Craig mean the definition that way...it's clear how you mean it, and it's clear that it's wrong.
I'm sorry but going on about theories of Quantum mechanics or the infinity of the universe does nothing to avoid the fallacy in the argument.
I know you mean it as a " general principle ", but you have absolutely no grounds for making that assertion. It is a different process and you just admitted it.
You understand the problem, you just don't like it.
@Roper122 Remember, you were supposed to show me how one has to throw out reason and logic to believe in God. However, you don't even understand logic. If Craig and I mean "begins to exist" without equivocation than it does not commit the fallacy of equivocation. You disagree that they can be compared, that's one thing. But it's not a fallacy because, as you said, "it's clear" WE use the same sense in begins to exist. Our having no grounds is A PERSONAL OPINION.
@Roper122 In conclusion, I really don't wish to continue the debate into QM. Originally I was waiting for that discussion, but now I don't see any point: you don't understand logic (sorry) why should I discuss it with you?
Of course, you've already read my mind and know the real reason is that I'm cowaring at having to defend "something cannot come from nothing" just because we've never seen this happen and yes - it goes against my reasoning (intuition).
@Roper122 Further, this is not just MY intuition. Dennett, Krauss, Hawking, Russel etc. all have theorized the cause of the universe be it "itself" or "Quantum Mechanics" or "it always existed." I would say, the idea that the universe must have had a cause is uniformly accepted in science. The question is "what was it?"
@Msjrward ....interestingly ( and I'm only continuing for my own interest since you'll never admit the basic flaw with the argument ).... If you bring up Quantum Mechanics then you introduce virtual particles, which do appear to " begin to exist " uncaused.
Which, if nothing else, actually makes the first premise even weaker.
One thing becomes painfully obvious, making any statement like that is woefully premature and naive, and the very best we can say is..." we don't know "
@Roper122 What you’re dubbing 'intuition' is reason so actually you believe one must throw away reason NOT to believe in God. Is this defense is from Dennett? If so you should know his explanation for the universe: it brought itself into existence. It was it's own cause. However, Craig got him to publically admit that such could not be true because something cannot bring itself into existence or it would exist before it exists.
@Roper122 "Would you like to move on from Kalam"? Only if you are willing to concede that thus far you have failed to show that in order to believe in God one must throw out reason and logic.
@Roper122 No one is claiming it is foolproof, that's a strawman argument. (One can't make counterarguments against foolproof arguments). But you have failed to DISPROVE it and until you do why should I go against my natural intuition to accept your alternative hypothesis? Further, it does not commit the fallacy of equivocation because “begins to exist” still means “begins to exist” despite the prior conditions. If prior conditions are important to the equation YOU MUST SHOW HOW.
@Roper122 So, what kind of something must the universe come out of. Could it be a natural something ? Could it have always existed recycling over and over again. No - that's not only improbable, that's impossible. There cannot be an infinity of past events - it's mathematically contradictory. So, that "something" which the universe came out of must be infinite AND intelligent, otherwise it would mindlessly bring into existence an infinity of events which one cannot have.
@Msjrward ... " There cannot be an infinity of past events "
If you're going to mindlessly quote William Lane Craig, at least wait until I actually use an argument before you rush to refute it.
I could care less whether infinities are mathematically or actually possible ( although it's a fascinating question, that is nowhere near as cut and dried as you imply ) , but you haven't even got past the first premise.
@Roper122 I'll remind you again: you said to believe in God one must abandon reason and logic. However, your reason for denying one can prove God is that we were not present at creation so we cannot know if it came out of nothing or not. Reason will assume that if A is true in every known case A is likely true in all cases. This is true of whatever one deals with so one can apply the same logic to God that one does in other areas of life.
@Msjrward " Reason will assume that if A is true in every known case A is likely true in all cases. "
Maybe... but you have yet to provide me with a known case of matter appearing from nowhere. You don't seem to get it, in order for the first premise to work, you're the one who has to be able to make absolute statements about matter coming into existence..not me.
@Msjrward " Why would I have to be the one to show you that matter can appear from nothing? "
You see.. this is where atheists get so frustrated, you have completely missed the point.. you simply don't understand, and yet you go on and on about the strength of your position.
Once more
For the first premise to work.. you have to show that everything that comes into existence from nothing has a cause... and yet you have no precedent, no examples, and no basis for making this claim.
This debate like inviting a schizophrenic person to publicly argue with a serious philosopher the existence of voices in his head. Its a side show. I'm quite glad the audience is not really taking Craig seriously.
at 1:50 "metaphorical" AND definitive non-metaphorical teachings within the same teachings has always been more effective b/c the dynamics of unique cultures is far better reached. Even Confucionism (Confucious Chinese philospher) ustilizes the same methodology. Stories better teach us moralities b/c human living is within the confines of the same stories whereas a scientific analysis approach is often disembodied from the human perspective & only governs quantifiable data.
Again...I reiterate. Ideas change. Including religions. That's why, cubcake, we have had so many religions already. Including christianity. You KNOW how many versions of your retarded religion there are. The question remains, which one is thecorrect one. Pfff..hahaha. Your one, no doubt.
No matter how many books you can offer me on ontology, they cannot and do not prove god in any shape or form.
Yes, we're all evolving and always will keep evolving. Ideas will keep changing. Look at religions. Always changing. New religions coming and rivaling current religions. Look at christinaity alone. So many diff versions. Question is, which one is right.
Answer: none.
You, buddy boy, are still stuck on semantics. Ideas will change, but there are certain theories which remain unaltered IE 2+2=4.
If you can show me proof of your god. I'll convert tomorrow. Come on...
We're ALL evolving mucus-boy. Constantly. Again, you're being unoriginal by using my labels of you and turning back onto me. Use your imagination. You've been using it very so far by talking to your imaginative god.
You are talking about semantics. Of course I deny the existence of god(s), dumbass. I don't believe in a god(s).
Even if I did, I'd still want to kick him in his god nuts. So the denial of this deiety works both ways--ass!
me being an atheist. The only thing an atheist has anything in common with another atheist is not believing in gods. That's all.
Again, you are talking out of your fuzzy arsehole about educating myself on atheism. It's dumb!
Also, your gestapo shit you're trying to scare me with isnt working. I'd have to believe in this crap to feel threatened. yet another silly move, buddy.
Me calling you a dick, to which you reply with 'no, you're a dick' isn't a great come back, Mucus-boy.
You say I have so much to learn from atheism...HAHAHA! What's there to learn other than realising there is no god, butt-crack. Not much brain power required here. At least not for all of us apparently.
Atheism isn't supposed to give anything. It isn't a raffle. Or anything other than not believing in deieties. Even believign in ghosts can justify...
You seem to be stuck on that repetitive theory on the mucus, mucus-boy. PLease move on. Oh, sorry, you're a theist. Too ambitious for you.
Atheism is the intellectual journey. Theism is not. That is the reason WHY atheists are such. Because of education, which brought them to a conclusion.
Spit in god's face? How can I? I don't know where the fuck the Jessie is.Inevitably though, yes, I whole heartedly reject your god.
But...But aren't you the sheep? Er...sorry...lamb of god? The shoe fits, sugarlump.
When I converse with theists (like you) I think to myself: it speaks, it types, it talks, but it does not think.
I don't know about you, but yes, I think humans are valuable. Also, I wouldn't show what you've just written to your wifey. You just said she's not valuable, ya nipplehead.
ANd no, it's not theory that mucus cannot do all those things I've mentioned. It's in practice not theory DUH!
...no choice but to follow instinct- which lead to yes, murder, rape etc etc.
The interaction over hundreds of thousands of years in groups has taught us that cooperation with each other and helping pick each others' fleas (grooming if you will) is more beneficial as a species to survive than to rape and kill each other.
Killing in the name of god(s) has been happening since the dawn of mankind. Nobody kills in the name of atheism. Atheists have killed , but not in the name of atheism.
Let me get this straight. You think atheists, including myself think that endorsing rape murder, yadda yadda, interferes with the genetic process?
Maybe. If you break it down to basics. But we don't actually. I don't know why you even think that unless you're stirring shit up.
You're right, all these things are part of nature, but because we have intelligence, we can choose to either contribute to the person's benefit, or not. As opposed to other animals which have ...
you will see that your bible has been edited hundredsd of times, and embellished by whatever writers wanted to have a personal contribution. History of your bible says so. That's called [evidence]. We have the evidence.
We all know what happens to a copy of a copy of a copy. It becomes distorted.
Science IS research, dumbass. You keyboard that you type your piffle with IS testament to science.
BOW YOUR HEAD TO SCIENCE, worm!
Secondly, Dawkins doesn't claim to be a philosopher. He proclaims his position, foremost, as a biologist/scientist , thirdly, what thefuck does science and philosophy have in common. NIX. Nothing!
The only evidence you have of your tin god is your bible, and if you've done your research, which you have not obviously, ...
actual evidence should be placed into science. Why you ask? Because...science can be tested and retested infinately, whereas your god(s) cannot.
No, brain chemistry isn't based on truth (nor was I implying that, duh!). But the knowledge that our brain chemistry ALLOWS us, IS based on truth and knowledge.
So dear little fellow, we can trade insults to your heart's content, but truth in this case speaks for itself.
Asto your proof of a god...um...we're still waiting. And waiting.
No, my fuzzy little friend. Dense? Quite on the contrary.
Ever read the 'Selfish Gene'? By Dawkins. It really breaks it down for lamens like you and I. And it makes sense.
I mean what would you rather trust in? A friggin virgin priest? Or a scientist. I insist on the latter.
I don't have ground breaking research, however research, it is. Just as much as research has been done to help your dying mother to replace her failing kidney or whatever, the same trust, which is backed up by actual ...
HAHA. No, no no no no. I won't let you get away that easily. I was probably more religious than you are or ever were. I read the bible cover to cover twice! (third time was for philosophical purposes after turning atheist). Prayed all the time. I actually come from a Roman Catholic family, later to be reborn.
Oh, I remeber those fuzzy wuzzy feelings I used to get after prayer and all that shit.
It's a silly, puerile and childish concept an any adult should shed by at least puberty.
But I don't mind if you believe in this. But I have to look upon this as humorous, and simply shake my head side to side in disbelief that adults (like yourself) still adhere to these drakonian mythologies.
It's just funny to me. And sorry to sound disparraging, but ... sad.
This has been flagged as spam show
For top philosophy of religion & sceptical analysis of Bible & religion try Robert M Price, John W. Loftus, Dan Barker, Victor J. Stenger. E.A.Wallis Budge translation of, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', Thomas Paine, Joseph Wheless, Robert Ingersoll, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Bart Ehrman, Gary Greenberg, Richard Carrier, Valerie Tarico, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein
zytigon 4 months ago
Why doesn't god just tell us himself instead using representatives that only makes the whole idea that much more shady i mean whats the difference if he wants to spread the word why not just yell to earth i don't get all these exuses from theists why a god wouldn't display power if its really in control of everything. A father would yell at his kids he wouldn't send someone else to do it right? The bible is just the first comic book you need a villian (devil) to make it work for salvation lol
wachnathan 11 months ago
@wachnathan
if God yells at you, then you would have no other choice but to believe Him and obey Him. If He yells, you can only be His pet. He doesn't want that. He didn't create you unworthy. But He created you so you could reason and think.
it's not even funny to claim that by chances the universe is and you are.
you are 100% aware that you will die one way. But Why do you die? what happens when you die?
eddiedko 8 months ago
@eddiedko Entropy.
wowamonn 4 months ago
@wachnathan Because there is an avalanche of evidence that he exists, This could also have a negative affect against God.
DiatonicSoul 3 weeks ago
@DiatonicSoul Thats not true the evidence existed already before they created this concept of god we have evidence that the christian god was created we have no evidence of this being before the bible. Not one sorce every mentioned a christian god before the bible so sorry comrade you chrisitans don't get to spin off reality to fit your god concept.
wachnathan 3 weeks ago
This chinese guy going up to the podium and explaining that there is a God concept in china is totally amazing.! Here you have all these schoolars that thinks they know this and that and the chinese dude just turns everyones perception upsidedown.
dannywizz 1 year ago 3
Do you realize how silly you sound every time you try to "read my mind"? How many times have you said something to the effect of "you know it's true, but you don't like it." That tactic is not only silly - you really can't know what I think outside of what I tell you - but it's also unprofessional.
QM particals aren't not something out of nothing, it's the fluctuation of energy to matter. "One thing become painfully obvious..." I have no idea what you were even talking about in this paragraph
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward " QM particals aren't not something out of nothing "
nope.. never said they were.
You see, you're obsessed with the whole "something out of nothing " ...
which I haven't mentioned once.
I never said that about QM particles at all.
What is upsetting you is that I am not arguing how you want me to.
You are presenting arguments that have worked for you in the past, but have nothing to do with what I'm saying.
Sorry.
Roper122 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Roper122 "What is upsetting you is that I am not arguing how you want me to. You are presenting arguments that have worked for you in the past, but have nothing to do with what I'm saying." There you go again trying to read my mind and getting way off. For one, I'm not upset at all. Actually, I've found you to be quite amusing through most of this debate.
Msjrward 1 year ago
Craig is full of shit when he says Hell is just separation from God, and not literal torture, since he's well aware that for anti-theists who don't mind being separated form God, such version of Hell would, in fact be Heaven. and I doubt Craig coud bear the thought that a person might not be in a desperate need of Jesus(the way he is, for him life without God is meaningless, absurd) and be perfectly happy without Him. Otherwise he'd be a "moderate", not an hypocritical evangelical fundamentalist
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AgeOfReasonXXI well put.
freakiest421 3 months ago
" We are seeing miracles happen all of the time. "
Oh? Do we?
The great thing is... when you stop arguing with Craig, and just let him ramble, he let's his guard down and shows his true colors.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 Do you go to church regularly? Have you ever been on a mission field in places like china or africa or south america? Because unless you have positioned yourself in a place where one would actually expect to see a miracle, it is silly to denounce miracles because your have never seen one. Being someone who goes to church regularly for many years and knows many people who have lived on the mission field I can tell you Craig is absolutely right - miracles happen all the time.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward .. I'm sorry to be so dismissive, but..
Nonsense.
You are implying that "miracles" just magically tend to happen, in remote places where there's no one else around, and everyone present just happens to be christian believers.
Surprise Surprise
There's a reason that Craig doesn't use miracles to argue for god... because he knows he would be absolutely torn apart.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 Point one, of course they are all christians. How often do athiests pray for miracles? Point two, the remoteness of the area is irrelivent, it is the necessity that is important.
Off topic, may I ask you a question I have wanted to ask a non-believer for awhile? What WOULD make you believe in God? Is there anything you can think of that would change your mind?
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward ...Point One, yes but other religions claim miracles too
Point Two - Odd that miracles tend to occur in areas where verification is virtually impossible and the only witnesses are believers - wouldn't you agree?
As far as evidence for god...it needs to something that has no other possible explanation, than direct intervention by a being with the powers you claim.
This has never, even come close to happening.
I have a question for you - why is evidence for god so hard to find?
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 P1)Indeed, and such religions should be investigated carefully before dismissed. P2)I don't think its odd. God is not a magic show. His miracles have a practical purpose: bodily healing for his people in a fallen world. Evidence for God is not hard to find, you just don't believe any of it.
So you wouldn't believe in God unless something w/ no other explanation happened. And if God does exist but he never shows you this, would he be unfair to then let you go to hell?
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward ...no god isn't is a magic show, he sends healing to his people...he just strangely does where no one else can see it, so they can claim anything they want.
As for investigating other religions - what would be the point? They would just claim that their god isn't a magic show etc etc...
Evidence for god is not hard to find...GOOD evidence for god is impossible to find.
god isn't hiding...he's just not there.
And no, if something has another explanation, why would you use god?
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 I've seen publicized miracles. I saw one show that interviewed a man and his doctor and another medical expert. The man had had been shot in the chest, he came to church and then coughed up the bullet when he came home. Both doctors said such a thing was impossible. Let me guess - he was lying and he just wanted 15 mintutes of fame. You don't hear about most miracles because people don't want fame, not even 15 mintues of it.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward .. as for your publicized miracles.
Do you seriously think, that if even one genuine " miracle " occurred that was scientifically verifiable, and had legitimate witnesses that the church wouldn't shout it from the rooftops? It'd be world news.
It's much like UFO sightings...
I've seen publicized UFO sightings too.
With witnesses and evidence, and they happened in remote areas.
Do you believe them all?
Let me guess - they were lying and just wanted 15 mintutes of fame?
Hmmmm...
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 You really don't understand Christian's at all. In the church I go to both the pastor's son and a close friend were paraplegics, miraculously healled. All Christian's want is to share the truth with others and let's face it for all atheists say about miracles, they don't belive them when they are publicized. I think God could come to earth as a human and go around performing miracles and people would still reject him...in fact that sounds familiar...
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward " You really don't understand Christian's at all. "
???? oh please... Thats you're big point? I say that miracles always seem to be religious folk who have no real proof, and you counter with " my pastor's son "??
Simple fact is, if anyone...anywhere...EVER...had evidence of an honest miracle, then this discussion would be over.
Some people are willing to believe anything.. in fact I think people would even believe someone if he claimed to be god...sound familiar?
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 "In fact I think people would even believe someone if he claimed to be god...sound familiar?"
Touche! The big question is then, what's waiting for the wrong believer?
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward " Touche! The big question is then, what's waiting for the wrong believer? "
Hello Pascal's Wager.
( Now you're school teacher is saying
" If you fail this test, I'm putting you in jail forever.. "
actually it's worse, the teacher is saying
" If you don't believe that these answers are correct, even if you give the right ones, you're still going to jail forever " )
This is simply a fear tactic... besides you cannot make someone "believe" something that they don't.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 What I wrote was childish.
However, what you said brings up a good point. You said you would believe if you saw a mirracle, but I've talked of the existence of miracles and you've both underminded them or implied I was a liar. I don't think you would believe in God even if you saw a miracle. You would dismiss it. God loves you and he would never SEND you to hell, but our sin is sending us to hell and only when we truly desire his salvation can he give it to us.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward - I don't mind the occasional bit of childishness.
Actually I didn't say I needed a miracle ( although that's probably how you'd define anything attributable to god ), but I do need something.
I'm not willing to stop thinking based on the stories of your particular religion, that is being unfair to every other religion or belief system, because there's no reason to put one higher than the other.
( By the way, "hell" is a terribly immoral concept )
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 I disagree about hell. I think hell is demonstrative of the idea of morality itself. Hell is the concentration of absolute evil minus any good, i.e. God. Only complete goodness can be in the presence of God.
I think allowing humans to go to hell is to treat us like adults, dealing with the consequences of our decisions. It's not unbelief that sends one to hell. All sin does it. It's just that BELIEF is the key to salvation from sin.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward " I disagree about hell "
That's a lovely little story about hell, but it doesn't respond to my point.
Tell me how is hell not an infinite punishment for a finite crime?
I don't think that is treating people like adults...I think it's cruel and ridiculous.
It's a construct used to scare people into believing.
The people who invented it should be made to face the consequences of that decision.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 There should be more to a religion than simply it's aclamation of miracles. There is more to Christianity than that. All aspects of the religion should be investigated and if it is trust worthy, all aspects will hold up. I am confident enough to be able to see if what I believe is bonk or what someone else believes is more reliable.
Oh, and you still didn't answer my question about hell.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward ... Hell Question?
If god expects to send people to eternal punishment, then he'd better present more evidence than some TV show that you saw once.
To send people to burn for eternity for the heinous crime of not believing in him, while revealing himself only in highly questionable, unproven, " miracles " that seem to apply to every religion or belief and therefore don't help narrow down the choices... seems a little unfair YES
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 That's an interesting point, but lets explore this. Unless God gives irrefutabl evidence (which cannot be clearly defined, its kind of a know it when you see it deal) then it is unfair to let them go to hell. (God is not SENDING them to hell)
However, God didn't show me miracles and I still found him. I don't know any Christian that came to God because of miracles. We were searching for the truth and God revealed himself. So how is GOD unjust simply because YOU demanded MORE proof?
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward " So how is GOD unjust simply because YOU demanded MORE proof "
First of all.. I don't demand more proof, I demand ANY proof.
Any good proof.
Any believable proof.
As for god being unjust..
if god created me with a level of rational intellect and standards, that have served me well and been successful in every other area of my life, and then he suddenly punished me for not dramatically lowering those standards with regard to superstitious claims...
then yes...he is unjust.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 Good proof is subejctive. Like I've said, plenty of people have believed with what God has given them. The problem may not be God's standard of judgment, but yours. Imagine A teacher giving a test over all the material covered in a class. Some of the kids pass, some fail. Was the the grading unfair? After all it's not like all the kids failed, only some. How much more true would this be if the kids said the reason they failed was they didn't BELIEVE the teacher?
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward ...You completely ignored my point.
Using your teacher analogy.
A teacher not only teaches a class material, he/she teaches them how to think.
So if a teacher teaches a class how to think and reason, and then marks them down for doing exactly that - that teacher is unjust.
Life does not teach us that it is good to believe in supernatural stories without proof..in fact the exact opposite.
The teacher is wrong - change schools!
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 So every time someone fails a test it is the teachers fault, even if other students passed?
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward " So every time someone fails a test it is the teachers fault, even if other students passed? "
Nope... but if every other test makes sense, and then suddenly one test changes all the rules, and rewards nonsensical answers...and some students pass with a thinking process that actually causes them to fail at everything else.
Then something suspicious is going on.
Either the test is fixed...or in fact the teacher doesn't really exist, and these kids are just making it up.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 I don't think one must abandon what usually makes sense to believe in God. Atheists have no proof against God and of course, you can't. You can't disprove a negative. But is there evidence for God? I think there is, Dr. Craig's for example. I don't think any of it is definitive - accept for his cosmological argument, but that can only prove a supernatural creator and not a loving or christian God. However that and my own personal experiences with God are definitive.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward ...You have to abandon logic and reason to believe in god.
People like Craig attempt to find a way to avoid this..but they can't.
As you point out, none of his arguments prove anything ( even the cosmological one )... they all depend on what he calls "plausibility "...in short hand - his opinion.
If you use actual probability...then the whole thing falls like a house of cards.
As for your personal experience - fine...but don't expect anyone else to take it seriously.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 That's not what I said at all. I stated his cosmological argument proves a supernatural creator, but not the Christian God.
"You have to abandon logic and reason to believe in God" - how so? The cosmological argument is from logic. If it is logical to believe in an inteligent creator, it is reasonable to believe that such a creator is able to speak to humans right. I think studying relgions is therefore not only reasonable but WISE.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward " The cosmological argument is from logic. "
The cosmological argument attempts to use logic - yes.
But it fails to prove it's conclusion, so no, it does not make it logical to believe in a creator.
And given that, anyone who attempts to convince you that his creator "talks" to them... is to say the least...questionable.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 How does it fail to prove it's conclusion?
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward ..The cosmological argument?
Where do I start?
The first premise for example.
Everything that begins has a cause?
Show me one thing that has "begun", in the sense that this argument is referring to. Just one.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 I know you specifically asked for just one, but I can't help myself:
1. Time
2. Space
3. Matter
All began at the big bang
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward ...I'm pleased you can't help yourself, must be exciting...
Unfortunately none of those things fit the criteria..
...can you help yourself now?
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 "None of those things fit the criteria". Please explain.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward ... Well, this makes it difficult for me... because I don't want to be accused of choosing my own version of the cosmological argument.
So would you agree that the first premise is..
Whatever begins to exist has a cause?
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 Right. As Craig lays it out it is 1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2) The universe began to exist. 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
BTW I was not trying to sound arrogant in my last comment, I just love cosmology...
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward OK..define " begins to exist "
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 Just like it sounds: it wasn't there and then it was. There was no time, space or matter and then there was time space and matter.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward .. OK then, well how can you justify saying that
" Whatever begins to exist has a cause "
What other things that, to paraphrase your words " weren't there and then were "
are you basing this assumption on?
I can't think of anything else..ever ( well maybe one, but we'll get to that in a minute ), so where exactly does this premise draw it's credibility from?
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 I'm not certain I understand your question. What things weren't there, but then were with a cause? Is that what you are asking me? Everything. Things do not come into being without a cause, this is a fact of nature.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward ...alright, I'll explain...none of your examples were the result of the rearrangement of existing matter, and yet your whole premise rests on the rearrangement of pre-existing matter. When you say " everything " you mean everything that we have ever observed, all of which has changed from one thing to another, not things that have never existed in any form.
So the whole basis for the first premise is flawed.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 But that is an incorrect assesment of the universe. 1) The assumption that the universe has always existed causes mathematical contradictions. Infinity cannot exist in reality. For example, WHEN did the FIRST event occur in the universe? "When" and "first" are possible in the finite, but not in the infinite. However, there must have been a first event, thus the contradiction.
2) Modern cosmology supports the point of view that the universe BEGAN at the big bang.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward ...No, that's not what I'm saying, those are all different issues, nothing you just said has disagreed with me at all.
The first premise is still wrong...you've just moved onto the second.
Roper122 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Roper122 So you are denying that whatever begins to exist has a cause?
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward ... it seems not only have you moved on to the second premise...
you've moved on from trying to defend it at all.
Sorry for actually pointing out the problems.
Hope you have better luck in your future discussions.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 Sorry, I could have sworn I had answered your last post!
I'm not sure I understand your problems with the first premise. Are you saying you believe certain things can begin to exist without a cause?
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward ...Fair enough.
Actually what I am saying is that you are using the phrase " begin to exist " in two different ways.
You infer that is the case because you have seen things begin, but all those things have been put together from other matter... you can infer absolutely nothing about anything "coming into existence" from nothing... you have no grounds to even make the statement.
The first premise is incorrect.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 Ok, I see your point, but I do not see how it makes the first premise incorrect. Unless you, or anyone for that matter, has seen something come into being from nothing than the premise is at most inconclusive.
Further, the premise is taken from reason. It is completely unreasonable to believe that out of complete nothingness and for no reason at all something can come into being.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward ... OK then, "inconclusive"...either way it fails.
Nothing about the behaviour of matter which already exists gives you any right to make predictions about matter coming into existence in the first place.
You are at best 50/50 ( and that's generous )
As for "reason"... no, you are simply stating your opinion, which is fine, but that again undermines the credibility of the premise.
So the Kalam argument is based on a 50/50 guess and opinion...
Suddenly not so convincing.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 Let's review the facts. You claimed that in order to believe in God one must abandon reason and logic. However you are willing to accept the idea that something can suddenly exist from nothing - a phenomenon we have never witnessed in science and which in fact goes against everything we observe in science.
Even if I accept your 50/50 chance, I'm not abandoning reason, I'm just opting for the equally viable scenario.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward ...yes, let's review the facts.
Actually what you are doing is using a 50/50 guess and an opinion, to justify the first premise... not to actually believe in god.
That requires more guesses, and more opinions...and they start to pile up and up.
Each one decreasing the probability overall.
Second, you keep telling me that I "have" to believe something came from nothing...well I don't "have" to believe anything, I have to admit I don't know, as theists should, but don't.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 Well are you atheist or agnostic? I know something didn't come from nothing - the entire idea is proposterous. If it was possible for something to come from nothing why don't we see more of that in nature? Are you actually contending that it is a reasonable view that at the moment of the big bang everything came into existence from nothing but never has since?
The case for God is accumalative, I agree, but how does that decrease it's probability?
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward .. Before we get to me. Let's just go over a few things.
First of all... I was just pointing out the problems with just the first premise of the Kalam argument. Which I successfully did.
Second, now you've moved on, and you are claiming that you know enough about the nature of Quantum reality to state that any event which created what we know as time and space itself, couldn't have happened, and your evidence is that "things" don't pop into existence?
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 You did not successfully point out the problem with the first premise. The first premise is based on all of human experience to this point. The best you did was say, "That might not be true of thepoint in which things actually came into being..." Unless you can successfully show that things indeed come from nothing you cannot disprove the first premise and it is thus more reasonable to accept it than to reject it.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward ... Sorry, but I did successfully point out the fault.
The whole basis of the first premise simply does not apply to "creation" because it is comparing apples to oranges.
It should rightly say, " Everything that has been a simple rearranging of existing matter has a cause...therefore the appearance of matter itself has a cause "
It simply doesn't follow.
As you say.. " it might not be true " .. might not... is more than enough.
You know as much, you just don't like it.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 Rediculous! We have never observed "new" matter coming into existence without a cause so why should we assume that it did so at creation?
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward " We have never observed "new" matter coming into existence without a cause so why should we assume "
The correct finish to this line is...
" why should we assume ... anything "
You are making assumptions, and you are yet to get past the first premise of you your first argument ( not proof mind you...argument ) and your best defence is to simply call it ridiculous.
You haven't dealt with my point at all... and you haven't listened to a word Dennett said.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 What does Dennett have to do with anything? The debate was between Craig and Cooke.
"Why should we assume anything"? You are assume God DIDN'T cause it, aren't you?
Msjrward 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Msjrward " What does Dennett have to do with anything? The debate was between Craig and Cooke. "
I apologize...but you clearly watched the comments by Daniel Dennett about Craig, and he articulated exactly this point.. but anyway...whatever.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Msjrward ....as far as the "cumulative" case for god.
If you have an event that is a 0.5 probability of happening, and then you follow it with another event which has a 0.5 probability of happening... then the chances of both happening....are 0.25. The more you have the lower it drops.
( obviously this is simplified...but you get the jist )
A cumulative case just piles unlikelihood on top of unlikelihood.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 Alright, let's deal with probabilities. The beginning of the universe: for the sake of argument earlierI ac cept your 50/50 probability, but considering that we have never seen something come out of nothing and would have to take it completely on faith that that's what the universe did, I would say it is a low probability that the universe came out of nothing and thus a high probability that the universe came out of something.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward " I would say it is a low probability that the universe came out of nothing and thus a high probability that the universe came out of something. "
Would you? That's great... I'm pleased you have an opinion.
As I pointed out the whole Kalam argument is guesses and opinions.
Regardless... I think it takes faith to further complicate the issue by conjuring up an imaginary being, and further decreasing the probabilities.
But hey.. I'm not claiming to have proved anything.
You are.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 Alright, you think it is a high probablitly that the universe came out of nothing - which goes against everything we observe in the natural world?
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward ... besides, the behaviour of subatomic particles has already been shown to be counter-intuitive, which doesn't prove anything in and of itself ( and I would never assume that it does ), but at the very least throws doubt onto the first premise.
So again.. the first premise of your best argument... is flawed.
I think it's a high probability that there are options....and if there are options then the first premise doesn't hold...and you just choose to believe, because it suits you.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 You say it is highly probable that their are options and as long as their are options the first premise doesn't hold, but the best you have given me is alternative possibilities that we can IMAGINE could be true. I have given you a valid argument for believing things don't come from nothing. Your best counterargument was: we weren't there when there was nothing so we cannot know.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward " the best you have given me is alternative possibilities that we can IMAGINE could be "
Sometimes I doubt you're even reading what I write..it's like you're arguing with someone else.
You've given me no reasons at all.. the first premise fails, and you can't deal with it.
Simple as that.
As for giving options that we can IMAGINE... god is the ultimate IMAGINED thing..totally and completely without evidence..IMAGINED.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 In all, the best you have done in this discussion is to prove options in believing in God, but there are options in most anything one believes. So I ask you again: in what way must one abandon reason and logic to believe in God?
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward " the best you have done in this discussion is to prove options ''
Absolutely, but you have provided no evidence or reason that your option is the correct one.. or even close to the likely one.
It's stunning how you keep reflecting onto me exactly what you are doing..
You have an imagined idea, you have no evidence, no precedent, no reason at all..
All you provide are philosophical arguments that I've shown to be flawed flawed.
Stop avoiding the issue and admit that.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 You claimed repeatedly that I have "no reason" for my argument. However, I have stated that my reason is we have never seen anything come out of nothing. Your counterargument was that we were not there at the beginning when there truly was nothing so we cannot know. That is nothing but a counterargument. It DOES NOT (a) disprove my argument or (b) show it as invalid and so my argument is not flawed until you can do so.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward ...I get it now. You just don't understand. Some theists and Craig fans are out and out dishonest, but in your case I think you genuinely don't understand what I've said. Either that or you don't understand how the argument works.
It's one of Craigs many tricks.
And if you want to be technical...no, the argument isn't invalid...it's unsound, and it commits the fallacy of equivocation.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 This conversation has proved your ability to be snide and insulting. Too bad you have not equally proved an ability to articulate an argument against mine. The argument is unsound? Prove it. It commits the fallacy of equivocation?? Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist, therefore it has a cause. Cause is used in exactly the same sense. I tried to go into how we can rule out a natural cause but you weren't willing to.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward ... No, I'm sorry.. but it's not insulting to simply point out what is going on. I've explained again and again. You are simply ignoring my main point because you have no answer for it.
Cause is not used in the same sense, you know exactly what the problem is, and you haven't answered my point at all.
I'm willing to go into whatever else you want... but you haven't got past my first point. I'm not being evasive, I had laid out my objection, plain and simple.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 I understand your point exactly; where we differ is the implications. You're argument does not disprove that the universe had a cause - we do at least agree on that? - it's simply that we cannot know for certain that it had a cause. Correct?
'A cause' means 'a cause'. Explain to me the different sences.
I agree you have laid out your objections "plain and simple", but your objections have failed to show the illogicallity and unreasonableness of the argument.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward ..OK, good, we're getting somewhere.
First of all, I haven't proved that the universe didn't have a creator at all, all I've shown is that the kalam argument is unsound.
The point is, that you cannot use it as "proof" of anything as it doesn't follow.
A 'reasonable" person, using 'logic' would have to admit that.
A cause does mean a cause... but if you're going to use it in an argument you need to be specific. You know the different senses I mean.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 1) You have not shown that the kalam argument is unsound. You have argued that the the first premise MIGHT NOT be true of the beginning just because it is true of everything since.
2) "You know the different senses of cause I mean..." No, sorry, I don't; you must bear witht his irrational Christian... By cause I mean a cause. What sort of cause is irrelevent at this point in the argument.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward ...1. If the first premise 'might not' be true, then the argument 'might not ' be sound. An argument is only sound if it's premises are all true. So before we go any further...that's the point.
2. It's not the word 'cause', Its 'begins'. In the first premise it means to be rearranged into something else. In the second it means to be actually brought into existence from nothing. Two different meanings.
If it was just an opinion, fine. But it claims to be a serious argument.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 You clearly don't understand arguments and how they work. You can make a counterargument against the first premise but unless YOU - and notice the burden of proof rests most heavily on you here because one can't disprove a negative - can prove that it is fails you cannot claim that it is unreasonable for me to hold to it.
Remember: we're talking about whether one has to throw away reason and logic to believe in God.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward " You clearly don't understand arguments "
Let's be very clear here.
This argument doesn't prove the existence of god...it merely aims to prove a first cause.
I understand exactly how it works and I have shown it to be unsound.
That is how arguments work.
I have simply shown that the first premise has not been demonstrated to be true and commits the fallacy of equivocation.
If you want to move on to another argument, that's fine...but telling me I don't understand doesn't help.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 I am not claiming you don't understand THIS argument; you don't understand argumentS. Offering an alternative possibility WITHOUT PROOF doesn't show that the first premise doesn't work. You reject the first premise - your opinion. I accept that first premise - my opinion. But the first premise stands as a reasonable option until you can disprove it.
It doesn't commit the fallacy of equivocation because it still began to exist.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward ..I do understand, and I have shown that you have no basis for claiming that the first premise is true.
I don't need to prove it to be untrue - it has to be true for the argument to work.
The fact that you cannot show it to be true is not my opinion.
I agree we could argue over opinions, but the reason we are doing that, is because the Kalam fails as a proof.
Feel free to message me if you want me to explain it properly.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 2. A human, a plant, or a solar system may be the rearrangement of matter, but the matter was caused to rearrange. It is not unreasonable to extend this princinple (needing a cause) to the big bang. One cannot prove it, but my argument has more substance because I have a reason why I am extending this to the big bang, i.e. what I see in the natural world.
Again: must one throw away reason and logic to believe in God? You are failing to show that one must.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward " It is not unreasonable to extend this princinple "
Again, that's your opinion, and your opinion is different from a logically provable argument.
You are not only talking about two different events, but two different TYPES of events.
You are extending your natural intuition to the subatomic realm.
I am not failing at all..I am forcing you to simply throw your opinion at me...
I need make no claim about what happened, I am simply showing that the argument does not work.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 You seem stuck on "my opinions", but unless you have logical or scientific proof, whatever you say is just YOUR opinion. We're not talking about opinions, we're discussing the illogicality of belief in God. The Kalam argument is deductive, which means if one takes the premises to be true, then the conclusion follows irrefutably. You are rejecting the first premise, yet claiming you don't need evidence to do so. However, if you are going to logically refute the argument, you do.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward " The Kalam argument is deductive, which means if one takes the premises to be true "
Yes we all know how it's supposed to work, and if you and Craig want your argument to be taken seriously, then we must exam the premises seriously.
The premises aren't true, it commits the fallacy of equivocation.
I don't need evidence to point that out.
( I haven't even got to virtual particles, because I don't need them, but they prove it wrong too )
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 From nothing nothing comes is a metaphysical princinple. Physical properties are irrelevent because this is a principle.
Principle: There was no human, now there is. Why? There was no car, now there is. Why? There was no sun, now there is. Why? There was no universe, now there is. Why?
A painting is a very different effect from a child or a galaxy, but the principle of a cause holds to all 3. So too of the universe. To make the bold claim it doesn't requires evidence.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward ..I'm sorry, but you're just drifting off topic again.
Asking " why " questions ( which is a different argument ), and desperately reaching for metaphysical answer.
Please show me an example of a metaphysical event that doesn't have a physical cause...since physical properties are irrelevant.
( don't bother...there isn't one )
And please stop asking me for evidence, I'm not the one with the argument that requires a ' true ' premise.
Would you like to move on frozm Kalam?
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 "Desperately reaching for metaphysical answer..." The argument rests on a metaphysical principle. The "why questions" were making a point about causality.
"Please stop asking me for evidence, I'm not the one with the argument that requires a 'true' premise." But you are the one who attacked the premise as being false and so you must provide evidence otherwise your claim cannot be taken seriously and I am fully within my rights of reason to accept it.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward " you are the one who attacked the premise as being false "
NO... please read carefully.
I do not have to show the premise is false.
What I have shown is that you have ZERO basis for saying that it is true.
The premise needs to be true in all cases otherwise it is simply your opinion and the argument fails.
You don't understand this. You think because it makes sense to you it is true.
That is not the point
You are within your rights to accept it.. but not to claim that it is true.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 In scientific research, he would be within his right to ask you to disprove his assertion. But, and this is the critical point, you are within your right to ask for exactly what can be falsified. Anyone making an assertion and not a belief statement, if they truly wish for the Truth, are aware of the falsification limits and in fact encourage them to be explored so the Truth can be determined.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp ...well, no ones proved anything in the first place, so scientifically I don't have to disprove much. Right now I'm just showing how the arguments don't work
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 The burden lies on the assertion, if you claim someone is wrong you should give a reason why, simply asking them to prove it is rude at best. So if you are discussing burden of proof, the point would be who is making the assertion that a change of position is necessary for the other party, they have the burden of proof. It is more than just who makes the assertion, it is the intent of the assertion.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CliffStamp " if you claim someone is wrong you should give a reason why, simply asking them to prove it is rude at best "
Rubbish... you're just playing with words.
Atheism would not exist if not for Theism...
Theists make a claim...Atheists ask for proof... none is forth coming...
Case Closed.
You can play your little assertion game all you like.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 “You are within your rights to accept it, but not to claim it is true.” If I have a reason for the premise I can claim it's true. If you prove the premise false I am logically required to abandon it. (I'm not saying you haven't been trained in informal logic, but I have and this is how it works.)
“It must be true in all cases” You can’t disprove a negative. Under your logic the argument: "All polar bears are white. Polo is a polar bear, therefore Polo is white" would be illogical.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward " If I have a reason for the premise I can claim it's true. "
You're just playing with semantics and confusing the issue...
YES you can claim it's true, YES you have a reason.
BUT - it is a bad reason and you have no basis on which to make the claim, as I've shown.
NO I can't 100% disprove it... but that is irrelevant,
YOU are the one who claims to have an argument that proves god...
YOU don't,
You have your intuition... and that is not logic or reason...sorry.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 Okay, I'm done with this debate. You don't understand informal logic. "I've clearly shown it commits the fallacy of equivocation and you havn't shown any reason why that isn't the case." ??? Playing with semantics??? Oh and now I CAN claim the premise is true? Cus I'm pretty sure earlier you said I couldn't...
You made the bold assertion that one must abandon reason and logic to believe in God but you have not only failed to prove how, you've shown your own lack of those skills.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward ...there was no debate to be done with...you gave me nothing.
You're another Craig fan who crumbles completely when questioned.
Now you desperately try to claim the I don't understand. I understand too well.
You couldn't get past the first premise of your favorite argument.
I've stopped you in your tracks, and I lack skills apparently...doesn't look good for you.
Like I've shown, you have your intuition...and that's it.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 How could I 'get past the first premise' when you demanded I PROVE the universe has a cause? That demand shows a poor grasp of informal logic. Your earlier assertion that the argument fails even when I pointed out that at WORST under your logic it was inconclusive, bears this out even better.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward ....Look, do you really not understand or are you just being defensive, because nothing you are saying has done anything to refute my point.
I have an absolute grasp on what I'm saying, and you seem to arguing with someone else. The argument commits the fallacy of equivocation, you haven't shown otherwise...because you can't.
I'm sure you enjoy accusing me of not understanding and dragging in irrelevant statements, but none of it is helping you. You can't deal with my point.
Sorry.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 This will be my last post
Definition of the fallacy of equivocation: using the same phrase in 2 different senses
Definition of "begins to exist": currently exists, but didn't always
Argument: 1. Whatever "currently exists but didn't always" has a cause. 2. The universe "currently exists but didn't always". 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
No equivocation.
I'm sorry we couldn't have a more civil conversation. I apologize if that was my fault. I wish you well.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward " Definition of "begins to exist": currently exists, but didn't always "
Definition of Begins to Exist 1 - Has been created by rearranging matter.
Definition of begins to Exist 2 - The matter itself has been created,
Two definitions...One argument.
Equivocation.
Pretty clear.
Actually I think this has been a civil conversation, we just got nowhere because you won't accept this point, because " intuitively " it seems right to you
( which was Dennett's point ) ; )
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 I know I said I wouldn't post anymore, but you're redefinition of begins to exist is a strawman argument. I - and assumingly Craig and the scholars that first developed this argument - mean "begins to exist" as I defined. The fact that matter coming into existence is a completely different from it's rearrangement is understood, but we're using this as a general principle. A human coming to existence is completely different from a car, but the causal principle remains.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward ....Yes I agree that you and Craig mean the definition that way...it's clear how you mean it, and it's clear that it's wrong.
I'm sorry but going on about theories of Quantum mechanics or the infinity of the universe does nothing to avoid the fallacy in the argument.
I know you mean it as a " general principle ", but you have absolutely no grounds for making that assertion. It is a different process and you just admitted it.
You understand the problem, you just don't like it.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 Remember, you were supposed to show me how one has to throw out reason and logic to believe in God. However, you don't even understand logic. If Craig and I mean "begins to exist" without equivocation than it does not commit the fallacy of equivocation. You disagree that they can be compared, that's one thing. But it's not a fallacy because, as you said, "it's clear" WE use the same sense in begins to exist. Our having no grounds is A PERSONAL OPINION.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward " But it's not a fallacy because, as you said, "it's clear" WE use the same sense in begins to exist. "
Yes you do ... however the thing you are describing is not the same...as you yourself have admitted.
Therefore you are using a word in the same sense, when it is not applicable, therefore you are committing the fallacy of equivocation.
And telling me it's my opinion is ridiculous...
In that case...what you're saying is your opinion...and you get absolutely nowhere.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 In conclusion, I really don't wish to continue the debate into QM. Originally I was waiting for that discussion, but now I don't see any point: you don't understand logic (sorry) why should I discuss it with you?
Of course, you've already read my mind and know the real reason is that I'm cowaring at having to defend "something cannot come from nothing" just because we've never seen this happen and yes - it goes against my reasoning (intuition).
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward " I really don't wish to continue the debate into QM "
I'm not surprised, you haven't got anywhere so far.
What you are doing happens all the time...you have no answer, so you are just claiming the I don't understand and running away.
Effectively knocking over the chess pieces and claiming victory.
And just for laughs, you have thrown in " something comes from nothing " again and you've pointed out that it goes against your intuition...
Yes, and in the end, that's all you have.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 Further, this is not just MY intuition. Dennett, Krauss, Hawking, Russel etc. all have theorized the cause of the universe be it "itself" or "Quantum Mechanics" or "it always existed." I would say, the idea that the universe must have had a cause is uniformly accepted in science. The question is "what was it?"
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward ....interestingly ( and I'm only continuing for my own interest since you'll never admit the basic flaw with the argument ).... If you bring up Quantum Mechanics then you introduce virtual particles, which do appear to " begin to exist " uncaused.
Which, if nothing else, actually makes the first premise even weaker.
One thing becomes painfully obvious, making any statement like that is woefully premature and naive, and the very best we can say is..." we don't know "
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 What you’re dubbing 'intuition' is reason so actually you believe one must throw away reason NOT to believe in God. Is this defense is from Dennett? If so you should know his explanation for the universe: it brought itself into existence. It was it's own cause. However, Craig got him to publically admit that such could not be true because something cannot bring itself into existence or it would exist before it exists.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Roper122 "Would you like to move on from Kalam"? Only if you are willing to concede that thus far you have failed to show that in order to believe in God one must throw out reason and logic.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward .. you make the same mistake over and over..
If you want to simply discuss ideas.. that's one thing.
But if ( like Craig ) you want to claim that you have some kind of foolproof argument, then that argument has to stand up to rigorous inspection.
It doesn't.
It commits the fallacy of equivocation.
It seems intuitive to you.. but that doesn't mean squat.
I'm sorry but until you deal with the problem the argument fails....
and you haven't dealt with the problem.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 No one is claiming it is foolproof, that's a strawman argument. (One can't make counterarguments against foolproof arguments). But you have failed to DISPROVE it and until you do why should I go against my natural intuition to accept your alternative hypothesis? Further, it does not commit the fallacy of equivocation because “begins to exist” still means “begins to exist” despite the prior conditions. If prior conditions are important to the equation YOU MUST SHOW HOW.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward ... Look, you are going in circles.
I have clearly shown that the whole argument commits the fallacy of equivocation...you haven't shown any reason why this isn't the case.
Yes, you would like it to mean the same thing, but it doesn't.
Regardless of prior conditions, it's not even the same process.
You have not one single example of something that you are claiming is " intuitive"
Not one.
The argument simply does not work.
It is your intuition...and that's fine...for you.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 So, what kind of something must the universe come out of. Could it be a natural something ? Could it have always existed recycling over and over again. No - that's not only improbable, that's impossible. There cannot be an infinity of past events - it's mathematically contradictory. So, that "something" which the universe came out of must be infinite AND intelligent, otherwise it would mindlessly bring into existence an infinity of events which one cannot have.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward ... " There cannot be an infinity of past events "
If you're going to mindlessly quote William Lane Craig, at least wait until I actually use an argument before you rush to refute it.
I could care less whether infinities are mathematically or actually possible ( although it's a fascinating question, that is nowhere near as cut and dried as you imply ) , but you haven't even got past the first premise.
So why should I care?
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 I'll remind you again: you said to believe in God one must abandon reason and logic. However, your reason for denying one can prove God is that we were not present at creation so we cannot know if it came out of nothing or not. Reason will assume that if A is true in every known case A is likely true in all cases. This is true of whatever one deals with so one can apply the same logic to God that one does in other areas of life.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward " Reason will assume that if A is true in every known case A is likely true in all cases. "
Maybe... but you have yet to provide me with a known case of matter appearing from nowhere. You don't seem to get it, in order for the first premise to work, you're the one who has to be able to make absolute statements about matter coming into existence..not me.
You'r not applying logic...you're ignoring it.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 "you have yet to provide me with a known case of matter appearing from nowhere"
?????
Why would I have to be the one to show you that matter can appear from nothing? You're the one claiming such a thing may be possible.
Msjrward 1 year ago
@Msjrward " Why would I have to be the one to show you that matter can appear from nothing? "
You see.. this is where atheists get so frustrated, you have completely missed the point.. you simply don't understand, and yet you go on and on about the strength of your position.
Once more
For the first premise to work.. you have to show that everything that comes into existence from nothing has a cause... and yet you have no precedent, no examples, and no basis for making this claim.
Roper122 1 year ago
This debate like inviting a schizophrenic person to publicly argue with a serious philosopher the existence of voices in his head. Its a side show. I'm quite glad the audience is not really taking Craig seriously.
Hufflewaffle 1 year ago
There needs to be a sociological study done into miracles??
Seriously?!? does he really think we are that stupid?
Hufflewaffle 1 year ago
Bill Crooke is a crook trying to sell us the myth of atheism lol. The chinese guy just proved him a BIG FAT LIAR.
7tylerjb 1 year ago
only idiots believe in god, as proven by this idiot on the mic.
synkronyk 1 year ago
@synkronyk Only the fool says God does not exist.
1 CORINTHIANS 1:18
" For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish FOOLISHNESS; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God".
virtualguitarist 1 year ago
at 1:50 "metaphorical" AND definitive non-metaphorical teachings within the same teachings has always been more effective b/c the dynamics of unique cultures is far better reached. Even Confucionism (Confucious Chinese philospher) ustilizes the same methodology. Stories better teach us moralities b/c human living is within the confines of the same stories whereas a scientific analysis approach is often disembodied from the human perspective & only governs quantifiable data.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
I have, thus the discussion.
I'm still waiting for your proof of your particular god. Where the frack is it? Other than the bible, because that's just circular logic.
Where? Tick tock and all that, buttercup. Still waiting...
Domzdream 2 years ago
Again...I reiterate. Ideas change. Including religions. That's why, cubcake, we have had so many religions already. Including christianity. You KNOW how many versions of your retarded religion there are. The question remains, which one is thecorrect one. Pfff..hahaha. Your one, no doubt.
No matter how many books you can offer me on ontology, they cannot and do not prove god in any shape or form.
I'm still waiting for this proof. Let's have it.
Domzdream 2 years ago
Well, mucus-boy.
Yes, we're all evolving and always will keep evolving. Ideas will keep changing. Look at religions. Always changing. New religions coming and rivaling current religions. Look at christinaity alone. So many diff versions. Question is, which one is right.
Answer: none.
You, buddy boy, are still stuck on semantics. Ideas will change, but there are certain theories which remain unaltered IE 2+2=4.
If you can show me proof of your god. I'll convert tomorrow. Come on...
Domzdream 2 years ago
...
I am the best evidence for evolution (thanks haha). However, you're not, you poor sap.
Domzdream 2 years ago
We're ALL evolving mucus-boy. Constantly. Again, you're being unoriginal by using my labels of you and turning back onto me. Use your imagination. You've been using it very so far by talking to your imaginative god.
You are talking about semantics. Of course I deny the existence of god(s), dumbass. I don't believe in a god(s).
Even if I did, I'd still want to kick him in his god nuts. So the denial of this deiety works both ways--ass!
...
Domzdream 2 years ago
Well, Mucus-boy.
You wanted lessons. Ok.
Lesson one.
(a quick recitation from an Oxford dictionary what atheism means):
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
So unless you want to argue with people twice your IQ brainpower, I suggest you take it up with them not me.
So my presciption for you would be to write this out a hundred times on your bathroom mirror so you don't forget, dumbass.
Domzdream 2 years ago
@mattetho
Shows what you know about evolution.
Can you spell 'Epic Fail?'
Again, dumbass. Atheism is a non belief. It is the absence of belief...etc, etc.
Domzdream 2 years ago
Yet again, I have to give you a quicky lesson:
It is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.
There.
Wasnt too hard was it?
It obviously was since I keep repeating myself, Mucus-boy.
Anyway, now you know what atheism is. And apparently so do I.
Let me know when you want me to repeat that for you...again.
Domzdream 2 years ago
...
me being an atheist. The only thing an atheist has anything in common with another atheist is not believing in gods. That's all.
Again, you are talking out of your fuzzy arsehole about educating myself on atheism. It's dumb!
Also, your gestapo shit you're trying to scare me with isnt working. I'd have to believe in this crap to feel threatened. yet another silly move, buddy.
You are intellectually devoid!
Domzdream 2 years ago
Again, cough-[Rip-off]- cough, cough!
Me calling you a dick, to which you reply with 'no, you're a dick' isn't a great come back, Mucus-boy.
You say I have so much to learn from atheism...HAHAHA! What's there to learn other than realising there is no god, butt-crack. Not much brain power required here. At least not for all of us apparently.
Atheism isn't supposed to give anything. It isn't a raffle. Or anything other than not believing in deieties. Even believign in ghosts can justify...
Domzdream 2 years ago
How come you're copying me with the mucus-boy insult. That's MY label of YOU. Look back on the messages... Mucus-boy.
Yet again, nothing original from the theists.
Atheists have NO boundaries or rules of study. You theists, however do.
Only a theist wouldthink that dinosaurs lived alongside mankind.
'What's that you're feeding the pet Pterodactyl, dear? Leave that for the pet Apatosaurus'.
Retards!
Domzdream 2 years ago
@mattetho
Pfff...whatever. I couldn't care less.
Domzdream 2 years ago
@mattetho
You seem to be stuck on that repetitive theory on the mucus, mucus-boy. PLease move on. Oh, sorry, you're a theist. Too ambitious for you.
Atheism is the intellectual journey. Theism is not. That is the reason WHY atheists are such. Because of education, which brought them to a conclusion.
Spit in god's face? How can I? I don't know where the fuck the Jessie is.Inevitably though, yes, I whole heartedly reject your god.
How do you know it's a he?
Q: did your god fashion hell?
Domzdream 2 years ago
@mattetho
But...But aren't you the sheep? Er...sorry...lamb of god? The shoe fits, sugarlump.
When I converse with theists (like you) I think to myself: it speaks, it types, it talks, but it does not think.
I don't know about you, but yes, I think humans are valuable. Also, I wouldn't show what you've just written to your wifey. You just said she's not valuable, ya nipplehead.
ANd no, it's not theory that mucus cannot do all those things I've mentioned. It's in practice not theory DUH!
Domzdream 2 years ago
@mattetho
Well, in theory yes. But in practicality, a mucus cannot create a symphony orchestra, build bridges, have empathy, simpathy, charity, etc etc.
We, 'better than the mucus' -genes, can do far more than a mucus or bacteria.
But you're right, we have the same genetic original origin of construct. We all come from the same matter essentialy.
Further, we all apparently come from star stuff (stardust if you will).
I know...deep shit hehehe.
Domzdream 2 years ago
...no choice but to follow instinct- which lead to yes, murder, rape etc etc.
The interaction over hundreds of thousands of years in groups has taught us that cooperation with each other and helping pick each others' fleas (grooming if you will) is more beneficial as a species to survive than to rape and kill each other.
Killing in the name of god(s) has been happening since the dawn of mankind. Nobody kills in the name of atheism. Atheists have killed , but not in the name of atheism.
Domzdream 2 years ago
Let me get this straight. You think atheists, including myself think that endorsing rape murder, yadda yadda, interferes with the genetic process?
Maybe. If you break it down to basics. But we don't actually. I don't know why you even think that unless you're stirring shit up.
You're right, all these things are part of nature, but because we have intelligence, we can choose to either contribute to the person's benefit, or not. As opposed to other animals which have ...
Domzdream 2 years ago
@mattetho
That I can agree on. Yes. There isn't really a choice here. We are eating, fucking, breathing machines. That's the way of the replicator. The gene.
Dawkin's book 'The selfish gene' which I'm currently reading speaks of replication and more in great detail.
Domzdream 2 years ago
...
you will see that your bible has been edited hundredsd of times, and embellished by whatever writers wanted to have a personal contribution. History of your bible says so. That's called [evidence]. We have the evidence.
We all know what happens to a copy of a copy of a copy. It becomes distorted.
Ever played 'broken telephone'? Same thing.
Domzdream 2 years ago
Cubcake, grow up. Mentally that is.
Science IS research, dumbass. You keyboard that you type your piffle with IS testament to science.
BOW YOUR HEAD TO SCIENCE, worm!
Secondly, Dawkins doesn't claim to be a philosopher. He proclaims his position, foremost, as a biologist/scientist , thirdly, what thefuck does science and philosophy have in common. NIX. Nothing!
The only evidence you have of your tin god is your bible, and if you've done your research, which you have not obviously, ...
Domzdream 2 years ago
...
actual evidence should be placed into science. Why you ask? Because...science can be tested and retested infinately, whereas your god(s) cannot.
No, brain chemistry isn't based on truth (nor was I implying that, duh!). But the knowledge that our brain chemistry ALLOWS us, IS based on truth and knowledge.
So dear little fellow, we can trade insults to your heart's content, but truth in this case speaks for itself.
Asto your proof of a god...um...we're still waiting. And waiting.
Domzdream 2 years ago
No, my fuzzy little friend. Dense? Quite on the contrary.
Ever read the 'Selfish Gene'? By Dawkins. It really breaks it down for lamens like you and I. And it makes sense.
I mean what would you rather trust in? A friggin virgin priest? Or a scientist. I insist on the latter.
I don't have ground breaking research, however research, it is. Just as much as research has been done to help your dying mother to replace her failing kidney or whatever, the same trust, which is backed up by actual ...
Domzdream 2 years ago
@mattetho
...
But I now know (after reading and educating myself) that it's basic psychology and brain chemistry.
There is no god. Even philosophically, the god theory capsizes and dissolves.
Domzdream 2 years ago
@mattetho
HAHA. No, no no no no. I won't let you get away that easily. I was probably more religious than you are or ever were. I read the bible cover to cover twice! (third time was for philosophical purposes after turning atheist). Prayed all the time. I actually come from a Roman Catholic family, later to be reborn.
Oh, I remeber those fuzzy wuzzy feelings I used to get after prayer and all that shit.
...
Domzdream 2 years ago
Of course not.
It's a silly, puerile and childish concept an any adult should shed by at least puberty.
But I don't mind if you believe in this. But I have to look upon this as humorous, and simply shake my head side to side in disbelief that adults (like yourself) still adhere to these drakonian mythologies.
It's just funny to me. And sorry to sound disparraging, but ... sad.
Domzdream 2 years ago