@kkwillsaveus If you read Karl Jaspers, the revolutionary German Philosopher, he presents what has been called the most intriguing mystery of the modern age. He coined the term "Axial Age"...READ ON
Human: the only machine that can *wilfully* revolt against it's creator all in the name of selfish will then watch itself and it's kind break down rapidly for multiple thousands of years as a result, only to continue the same pattern. My computer often contracts viruses deliberately created to deviate order into dissolution. But I've never once witnessed my computer rejecting antivirus software at will in order to gain something for it's own ego. On contrary: my computer values truth. Unlike man
@kkwillsaveus Quite honestly, I wasn't able to pinpoint the primary point you advanced in your response. You mentioned what another person argued, and essentially argued against the argument that person made. However, since we are debating, you're supposed to focus on MY arguments, which you still haven't done. My argument was that there are scientific grounds for belief in God, and I even buttressed that argument with the second law of thermodynamics. Your argument was.......it wasn't....
" I said howcome human beings didn't massacre one and other in the 200,000 years before Jesus"
Objective morals from which G-d gives is implanted in you from the beginning of time so even if Jesus never came you would still have it.But people ignore these objective morals so they do horrible things like what you described.
The debate of religion will never be resolved, stopped, talked, discussed, fight, hurting, killing, murder, love, hate, war. Those things will never stop no matter what religious group you come from Atheist, Christians, Islamic, Jewish, etc. It won't ever stop, so we must be tolerant towards one another and disregard ones religion. - From a Fellow Atheist
An almost, to us humans, infite amount of energy. But the amount of energy is finite. Reacted to??? I don't know. But before there was no mass and no time.
Consider Einsteins E=MC2 meaning Energy=mass * constant. The constant being the speed of light. The amount of mass in the universe is to much for us to understand and the amount of energy is so much greater. But before the big bang, it was held in a singularity and then it started. The energy wasn't created. It was always there.
@schratch I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. The energy wrought by the Big Bang has not always been available. According to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe is entering a state of entropy, meaning that it's becoming "chaotic" due to a significant loss of available energy. Since it's losing energy, it is plausible to suggests that its energy source isn't infinite, i.e., without beginning nor end, but rather began to be available.
@beliefsarenottruth a singularity is a definition of this, where matter and time as we understand it doesn't exist. If there is no time, then there is nothing "before" that. The place where the singularity was would be at the center of the universe, since the universe is expanding scientists have calculated that since everything moves away from another, then it must have a startingpoint. The point is where the singularity is
@HelFKiernan I agree with you on that, and I would absolutely enjoy having this conversation via email. Let me know how you'd like to proceed. Take care.
@HelFKiernan I just want to tell you that I have greatly enjoyed conversing with you, and that I too apologize if I have offended you in any way. I'm glad that you are bold enough to speak about what you believe, and why you believe it (even though I disagree), and engage someone who holds to an opposing view. Now, I'd like to make clear that I have not "inherited" Christianity, but have "chosen" it, as the most sensible and viable option amongst a myriad of competing truth claims. (cont'd)...
@HelFKiernan The Bible clearly teaches that "homosexuals" and "heterosexuals" alike are made in God's image, as they are human beings (Gn. 1:26-27). While God does not approve of homosexual relationships, He nonetheless loves the homosexual person equally as he loves the heterosexual persons. Romans 2:11 reads "For God shows no partiality (ESV)." This means that, at the end of the day, he loves all people equally, even those who do not love, or have a relationship with, Him.
@HelFKiernan The Bible in no way makes claims as to any one human being or group of human beings having greater inherent value than another. Even "nonbelievers" are explicitly said to be of equal value with believers. For example, Cain murdered his brother (see Gn. 4:8), and subsequently feared being murdered himself. Yet, God reminded Cain that, although he had sinned greatly, his life was still valuable (Gn. 4:13-15), and He would ensure Cain's safety.
@HelFKiernan With all due respect, your arguments aren't cogent in the least, and are little more than diatribe. I'll grant that there are some extremely enigmatic passages, but, as I've already stated, I strongly believe they can be made sense of. Also, I find it quite funny how Christians are accused of being bigots, and how you are calling me "blind to anything that contradicts [my] image of godliness." That kind of "argument" is Ad hominem, and is really not an argument at all.
@HelFKiernan With all due respect, like kkwillsaveus, you've made astounding claims such as the Bible is "illogical, contradictory, [and] supports immoral actions," and have not offered any justification whatsoever for those claims. If the Bible is illogical, then please give me a list of 5 passages that you think are particularly illogical. If it is contradictory, then please list 5 contradictory passages. If it supports immoral actions, then please list 5 passages that demonstrate so.
@HelFKiernan Also, I was not using the Bible to "prove" its veracity. I simply used it to demonstrate that the claim HelFKiernan made concerning the Bible, was incongruent with the Bible's own claims. Also, if you are sincerely looking for "evidence" for the existence of God, then I commend to you the following two books: 1. Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell and 2. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. Take Care. Happy New Year.
@HelFKiernan If you are going to make truth claims about someone, it is only right that you allow that someone to speak in his own defense. Likewise, if one is going to make truth claims about the Bible, it is only right that one goes to the Bible itself and see whether or not the claims one is making are aligned with the Bible. This concept is a judicial one. For example, In a court of law a witness is allowed to testify on his own behalf. So too, the Bible should be allowed to speak for itself
Your statement exemplifies a profound misunderstanding of Scripture, and no knowledge of hermeneutical principles. There are enigmatic passages in the Bible that APPEAR to be contradictory, but that, after careful exegesis, are rendered sensible. The Bible is replete with passages that can only be accurately understood with the aid of the Holy Spirit. See 2 Peter 3:15-16 (ESV).
2 Peter 3:15-16 reads, "And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." Also, 2 Timothy 2:7 reads, "Think over what I say, for THE LORD will give you understanding in everything."
@kkwillsaveus Atheists only use the Bible in an attempt to highlight its apparent contradictions. Thus, if you strip it of its contradictions by way of carefully interpreting enigmatic, but by no means inscrutable, passages, then you prevent them from being able to employ it for their desired purposes. Hence, why I thought it important to refer to principles of interpretation.
@Chess15 You were wrong. The events of the Bible have been factually disproven. How do you account for human beings having been on the planet at the time God was said to have created us? How do you account for evolution?
@kkwillsaveus I'm not wrong. You make the claim "the events of the Bible have been factually disproven," but then you offer no justification for that claim, i.e., you offer none of those "facts" whatsoever in support of your claim. Well, I'd like to list a few of the Bible's claims that have been factually verified. The list will be in the above response.
1. The existence of Jesus Christ as recorded by Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, the Talmud, and Lucian.
2. The Roman historian, Cornelius Tacitus, records that Jesus Christ is the man from whom Christians derive their name when he wrote about Nero's burning of Rome.
3. Also, from Pliny the Younger's letter to Emperor Trajan (dated A.D. 112), we learn of some of the beliefs and practices of the early church, which correspond with the New Testament.
@kkwillsaveus Furthermore, the Bible is NOT at odds with evolution. There are many Christians who affirm evolution and the Big Bang (Theistic Evolutionists). For example Dinesh D'Souza, author of "What's So Great about Christianity?" is a theistic evolutionist. Lastly, the Bible makes NO CLAIM about, as you put it "the time God was said to have created us." Not a single verse says that God made man at a certain time. Rather, we are told God made man in a certain way, i.e., in His image.
@Chess15 Where in the Bible does it show God to create us with life expectancy of around 20, most dying in childhood or in famine? Also, given humans have been on the planet around 250,000 years why did God only show himself 2000 years ago once in the less educated part of the world? Also why the absolute morality. 'Thou shalt not lie' what even if a Jew is in your back room and Hitler's at the door? You can't steal food to survive?
@kkwillsaveus God did not, as you put it, "only show himself 2000 years ago once in the less educated part of the world." In fact Romans 1:20 reads, " For SINCE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse (NIV)." God has been revealing Himself to mankind since the start. However the first written record of His revelation was composed ca. 6,000 yrs. ago
@Chess15 'his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what he has been made, so that people are without excuse' Could you be more partisan, could you try using your own words? Human's were only the planet 100,000 years ago, where was God? Where has he been in the last 2000 years? Isn't it telling he hasn't shown himself in the more sophisticated era of man? Newsflash, the Bible's a fiction, God either doesn't exist or is unbelievable callous.
@kkwillsaveus I will acquiesce to your request for me to phrase the excerpt from Paul's epistle in my own words. The Bible claims that since the inception of mankind, God has been revealing Himself, i.e. making Himself known, to mankind by way of His creation. This mode of communication from God to His creatures is called "general revelation." Thus, to answer your first question, the Bible teaches God has been "speaking," i.e., giving signs of His existence and immanence, to humans since day one
@kkwillsaveus Where has God been in the last 2,000 years? The Bible teaches that ca. 2000 years ago, God took on human flesh and dwelt amongst His creatures in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:1-3, 14; Acts 20:28; Rm. 9:5; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1). As I've proven below (cf. the historical extrabiblical sources that prove Jesus existed), Jesus was a real person. You may not believe He is God, but to deny that He existed is to commit an absurdity of gargantuan proportion.
@Chess15 Why do you believe what's in the Bible? What evidence is there that any of it is true? I don't deny Jesus was a person. I'm saying He came in a lesser age of mankind and there is no evidence to suggest he was the son of something beyond this world, his story shows signs of being from the less sophisticated age, and that his promotion of absolute morality is worrying. Tell me, you've got a Jew in your back room, a Nazi officer asks if you have at the door, do you lie?
@kkwillsaveus That depends on what you think "evidence" is, and what sources you are willing to extract information from. Truth is, each book in the New Testament was written at a different time, in a different place, and by a different author. Meaning, the New Testament was NOT written all at once as part two of the Bible. Rather, the documents the New Testament is comprised of, were individually written as historical works, i.e, works written to preserve actual historical events.
@kkwillsaveus Thus, as historical documents, if you are willing to accept the claims made therein as true, then there is certainly an abundance of evidence in favor of Jesus' divinity. Here's a list:
1. the miracles He performed (Mk. 5:21-43; John 11:1-44; Lk. 5:1-11; Lk. 9:10-17)
2. the claims to deity He made (John 8:58; John 10:30; Mk. 14:60-62)
3. Jesus' prophesies of His own death and resurrection (Mt. 20:17-19 cf. Mt. 27:50)
4. His actually being resurrected (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).
@kkwillsaveus Thus, from a historical standpoint, the historical documents of the New Testament provide any abundance of evidence in favor of Jesus' divinity (status of being God). However, if one's naturalistic, materialistic, presuppositions PRECLUDE one from believing in the claims made in the historical documents that have come to be compiled and known as the "New Testament," then, certainly, there is no "evidence" in favor of Jesus' divinity.
@Chess15 God hasn't removed his humanity, but has showed his arms. Imagine if a police officer allowed your family to be beaten, murdered and rape for thousands of years then showed himself once, arrested a few people, left most criminals out there, and said, hey I'm still here, would you be satisfied? No, one appears 2000 years ago is no exoneration from all the shit God could've prevented.
In stark contrast to your claim that "there is no evidence to suggest he was the son of something beyond this world, his story shows signs of being from the less sophisticated age," Sir William Mitchell Ramsay(1851-1939), an eminent archeologist and New Testament scholar and longtime professor at Oxford University, writes, "“Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy … this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.
To verify, see: Ramsay, Sir W. M., The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915, p. 222.
@Chess15 You've again done what every religion person does, ignored mass evidence, took one person who backs up your view and used it as if it were the only set of evidence. So the Holocaust is an example of God's existence. Let me ask you this, is morality linked to religion in your viewpoint?
@kkwillsaveus No, the holocaust is not evidence for God's existence. The fact that we know that the actions undertaken by the Nazis during the holocaust were utterly reprehensible, is evidence that we human beings have an inherent sense of an objective standard of right and wrong. Now, that objective standard is evidence that a Being who transcends us imbued us with an awareness of that standard, which is in itself evidence for the existence of God.
@kkwillsaveus Taken "one person?" Do you even know who you are referring to? Sir William Ramsay is hailed by the most prominent historians today as the greatest historian of the 20th century, and his testimony reflects the views that are held by numerous others (cf. Jesus Under Siege by Gregory Boyd, Jesus Under Fire by Michael j Wilkins, History and Christianity by John W. Montgomery, et al).
@Chess15 So you think morality descends from religion? Answer me this then, in the hundreds of thousands of year when humans were on the planet before God, (and yes, it was hundreds of thousands, you as a Christian must believe that human's lived in famine, unable to hunt food or comminicate for 200,000 years at least before God showed himself) how did we survive? If morality descends from religion, why did we not kill each other before religion?
@kkwillsaveus I'll tell you why, because empathy is part of the human condition. Upon leaving religion, nobody turns to evil. We survived without massacring each other for hundreds of thousands of years. Tell me, how does my abhorrence at the prospect of the Haulocaust derive from God?
@kkwillsaveus "Upon leaving religion, nobody turns to evil." That's ludicrous! Have you even heard of the 20th century? Hitler was raised Catholic but turned toward a Nietzschean philosophy. Stalin was raised Orthodox but turned toward the ideological materialism of Marxism. Other's have done similarly. Many have left Christianity to become monsters.
@yeoberry Science > History. Science has proven there were humans on the planet 250,000 years ago, all history or religion is far shorter than that. The oldest belief in deity stems from the Greeks, and I'm guessing that's no more than 11,000 years ago.
@yeoberry Actually I thought I'd better ask, you do know humans haven't always been able to communicate with one and other, don't you? How could there have been religion with no communication? Or don't you believe in evolution?
@kkwillsaveus So, if they weren't able to communicate, then (1) you have no evidence (since there is no communication) and (2) you've just assumed; that is, you've assumed that religion is a later development, without evidence, and stated that assumption as if it were historical fact. Is that right?
@yeoberry For the last time, science trumphs history anyday. You don't base your life on sourcework. It's not if they weren't able to communicate, they weren't, read some Darwin, I know evolution crushes your world view but deal with it. What I've assumed at a time when humans couldn't read or talk or barely think they weren't told of morality and religion, don't think that's unfair, do you?
@kkwillsaveus you're just stating unproven dogma. I asked you for proof that there was a time when human beings were not religious. You (1) assume they were; (2) that they couldn't communicate and so could preserve records of what you assume they were; and (3) you assert that that is "science." It's nothing but your unproven dogma. You have no proof.
@TheImpactEditor I do not assume human beings could not communicate at one stage. This is a given fact and part of Darwin's theory of evolution. Ok, let me ask when, when in your opinion were human beings first placed on earth? What condition was this in? What knowledge of religion was there in the first nanosecond of mankind's existence? Oh don't tell me, it was Adam and Eve, around 4000 BC?
@TheImpactEditor dude what's wrong with you no offense but are you really that closed minded? you are asking an atheist to prove to you that there was a time when human were not religious... are you serious or are you kidding me? because you know i'm a guy who hate's religion you see here's the thing when god created the universe and when he created us humans there was no religion at that time all we had back was god no religion
@TheImpactEditor and besides who needs religion when you have God Jesus The Holy Spirit and The Bible with Contains The Holy Word Of God that's all i need when it comes to Faith in Fact that's all anyone really need's when it come to Faith i put my Faith and Trust in God Jesus The Holy Spirit and The Bible with Contains The Holy Word Of God because that is what a True Believer is i'm not a christian but i will always be a true believer for all of Eternity!
@TheImpactEditor oh and by the way the reason why i am telling tou this is because of the way you where talking to that atheist and i just assumed that you are a Believer if you are a Believer i hope that you understand what i am telling you if you are not a Believer and if you are an atheist please don't reply to me because i have no intention to debate with an atheist on youtube because i see no point in talking to someone that will get mad and start fighting with me.
@yeoberry You think it's implausible to suggest at a time human beings could not communicate or properly get food for each other religion wasn't preached to them? You have no proof of religion, may I remind you there was at least 100,000 years minimum before any human beings could write, how then was religion spread?
@yeoberry You think it's implausible to suggest at a time human beings could not communicate or properly get food for each other religion wasn't preached to them? You have no proof of religion, may I remind you there was at least 100,000 years minimum before any human beings could write, how then was religion spread?
@Chess15 Also, there's not an iota of scientific evidence. Historical evidence is not as reliable. I trust that in 1914 the First World War emerged, would I base my live on it, certainly not, give me scientific proof.
@kkwillsaveus Not an iota of scientific evidence? Firstly, it is impossible to prove a negative existential. You have been making universal truth claims, i.e., claiming the impossibility of the existence of certain things, but have not offered very persuasive arguments in defense of your position. However, I will prove to you that there are MYRIAD scientific pieces of evidence in support of God's existence. Firstly, there is the second law of thermodynamics (READ ON)...
@kkwillsaveus According to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe is entering a state of entropy, meaning that it's becoming "chaotic" due to a significant loss of available energy. This simply means, in layman's terms, that the universe is "ending." Because the universe is ending, it is only logical to conclude that it began, as things that are eternal neither begin nor end, but things that are temporal both begin and end. Thus, the universe began to exist at some time READ ON...
@kkwillsaveus Now, there are two ways to think about this. 1. Either the Universe Created itself. 2. Either the Universe was creates. Let's examine choice one: The Universe Created Itself. Is this logical? What does it mean to create? Well, to create means to bring something into existence. Now, what does it mean to be created? To be created means to be brought into existence. Thus, if one affirms that the Universe created itself, one is essentially affirming that the universe (Read On)...
@kkwillsaveus Thus, if one affirms that the universe created itself, one is essentially affirming that the universe both created, and was created by, itself, which is to say, that it both existed (in order to create) and did not exist (in order to be created). THIS IS A LOGICAL CONTRADICTION. Thus, it is illogical to claim that the universe created itself. Now let's examine our second choice: The universe was created. (READ ON)
@kkwillsaveus If the universe was created, then it was brought into existence by a Being who exists independent of it. This is logical. The second law of thermodynamics (which is a law of physics) is what establishes the basis of this argument, which by the way, is formally known as the cosmological argument for the existence of God.
@kkwillsaveus Additionally, there are nineteen or so finely tuned laws of physics, known as the cosmological constants, that demonstrate that the universe rests on a razor's edge. This means that the universe appears to have been designed by an intelligent designer. By the way, the intelligent design movement is comprised of numerous prominent scientists and mathematicians who believe the universe was designed by a designer. Some of these individuals are Dr. William Dembski and Michael Behe
@Chess15 I don't doubt the universe rests on a razor's edge, how does this prove God's existence? Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean something causes it. Oh and tell me, seen as you know so much about the universe, when were human beings first placed on earth? And in what condition were they?
@kkwillsaveus From the onset, my intention has been to provide good reasons to believe that God exists. Never has my intention been to "prove" that God exists. I cannot prove that God exists; nor can you "prove" that God doesn't exist. What I have endeavored to do is simply provide "evidence" for the existence of God. It is incumbent upon us to make a distinction between "proofs" and "evidences." (READ ON)...
Proofs are pieces of information that MAKE CERTAIN the reality/validity of something. Evidence are pieces of information that MAKE PROBABLE the reality/validity of something. Thus, as has already been stated. I cannot prove that God exists, but you CANNOT prove He doesn't. Now, one might think this leaves us at agnosticism. However, upon closer examination it becomes readily evident that it does not. (READ ON)
@Chess15 I'm telling you there's a teapot between here and Mars, it can't be seen by the power of human telescope, and for now, we don't have the space ships to read it. This teapot not only created us but controls our destiny. Do you believe it? If not, why not, and how in any way does that differ from God? The burden is to prove not to disprove.
@kkwillsaveus You are making a categorical error in thinking that you can liken belief in God (an animate object Who create the universe) with belief in a teapot (an inanimate object and product of the universe). If I were arguing for belief in a teapot as the Supreme Being, I would be guilty of faulty reasoning because I would be arguing that a product of the universe (teapot) created the universe. (READ ON 1 of3 )
@kkwillsaveus Clearly, that is not the kind of argument I'm making. When arguing for God's existence, I'm positing that a Being who created the universe exists. This IS NOT the same as arguing for the belief in a teapot (product of the universe) as a Supreme Being who created the universe. Such a claim violated the law of noncontradiction which asserts that something cannot be both X (product of universe) and non-X (creator of universe) at the same time. (Read on 2 of 3)
@kkwillsaveus I'm arguing that a Being who both created and transcends the universe exists. This is NOT a logical contradiction, but is in fact logically consistent.
@kkwillsaveus The agnostic says that not only can we not prove God's existence, or non-existence, but we cannot apprehend evidence for God's existence, or non-existence, either. However, I do believe that there is evidence for the existence of God, and I have presented them to you.
Just name the arguments. If they are of your own creation, then put them in syllogism form.
I haven't come across any myself, but if you have evidence then I would be happy to hear it. I will also assume that it is logical in nature, like all the rest of the evidence for God.
Not only have a found an abundance of well-worded, logically acceptable refutations to all of Craig's musings, I have also looked at all of the arguments thathe doesn't present and tore those apart as well. There are simple answers to his arguments, and I don't see them as much of an obstacle.
I was mainly asking for this guy's evidence. If you have an argument you want to name, I'll gladly tell you why it is incorrect.
@ninetailschris Yes he does. Dr. William Lane Craig is a Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot University in La Mirada, California, and is an apologist extraordinaire. He has authored or edited several books, which include "Reasonable Faith," "On Guard," "God is great, God is good," and "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview."
@YetAnotherInfidel Gladly. I will begin by presenting the kalam cosmological argument, whose primary proponent is Dr. William Lane Craig, Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot Theological Seminary, in La Mirada, California. I will present this argument in its most basic syllogistic form:
1. Everything THAT BEGINS TO EXIST has to have a cause.
2. The Universe BEGAN to exist (cf. 2nd law of thermodynamics)
@YetAnotherInfidel Clearly, the conclusion follows logically from the premises, making the argument VALID. However, is the argument SOUND, i.e, are the primary and secondary premises true? I believe so. Let's start by examining premise one:
1. Everything that beings to exist has to have a cause.
According to the law of causality, which is the first principle upon which all scientific enterprise is built, observable phenomena (series of observable occurrences) appear to have causes. READ ON
@YetAnotherInfidel If at all possible, I'd thoroughly enjoy having a private conversation with you. For the record, you raised a number of thoughtful points, and although I disagree with your central claims, I hold you in high regard. It was a pleasure to engage you in debate, which I believe is an integral part of a free society.
@YetAnotherInfidel Im well aware that at the subatomic level, e.g. quantum physics, phenomena appears to occur without having been caused. However, there might be a CAUSE for that. Also, why would we conclude, on the basis of quantum mechanics, that since at the subatomic level phenomena appears to been uncaused, that on the universal level, phenomena MUST THEREFORE BE uncaused. This is quite literally a "quantum" leap, to use a double entendre. (READ ON)
@YetAnotherInfidel The fact remains that phenomena appears to have causes (cf. law of causality). Thus, we can at least say that premise one APPEARS to be true (this isn't the same as affirming that it is in fact true). Now, let's look at premise two:
2. The universe began to exist.
According to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe is entering into a state of entropy (disorder) which means that it is losing available heat energy (hence "thermo"), and it is therefore "ending." READ ON
@YetAnotherInfidel If it's "ending," as the 2nd law of thermodynamics suggests, then it is logical to conclude that it began. Now, this leaves us with three possibilities. Either a. the universe created itself, b. the universe is eternal, c. the universe was created. Which is the most logical? Let's look at our first possibility: a. the universe created itself. To be created is to be brought into existence. To created means to bring into existence. So to say the universe created itself READ ON
@YetAnotherInfidel to say the universe created itself is to affirm a logical contradiction (that it existed to bring itself into existence (create itself), and that it did not exist to be brought into existence (be created). So, our first possibility (a. the universe created itself) is illogical. What about our second: b. the universe is eternal. This is a contradiction of terms. To be eternal is to be without beginning/end. Yet, the 2nd law of thermodynamics shows that the universe is READ ON
@Chess15 If God exists them something created him. He created us, we are infinitely complicated, so God must be infinitely more complicated, and so on and so forth. The simplest explanation is that we came into being from nothing.
@kkwillsaveus What are beginnings and ends? Beginnings and ends are products of time and space, which are products of the universe. We measure "time" based on the earth's rotation around the sun, and the earth's rotation around the sun spans a certain cosmic "space (distance between two things)." Thus time (earth's rotation around the sun) and space (distance between two or more things) are products of the Unverse. READ ON
@kkwillsaveus This argument is certainly valid, i.e, the conlcusion logically follows from the premises. One does not have to believe that it is sound, i.e., its conclusion is truthful, in order to concede that it is valid. Thus, back to my original question: is the Christian belief that God is without beginning and end logical? YES. As I have demonstrated in syllogistic form, the Christian belief in an eternal God is at the very least LOGICALLY VALID. READ ON
@kkwillsaveus Also, your claim that "The simplest explanation is that we came into being from nothing," is in fact the orthodox Christian claim. The technical term we use for that view is creatio ex nihilo, which is a Latin term that literally means, "creation out of nothing." According to this view, God created the universe and all that is within it without the use of any pre-existing materials (hence, out of nothing). READ ON
@kkwillsaveus Now, "creatio ex nihilo," i.e., "creation out of nothing," is quite different from "creatio sin persona," i.e., "creation without person." According to the latter view, not only did the universe come into existence without any pre-exsting materials, but without the superintendence of a Higher Power. Your view is actually the latter, not the former. Now, of course, due to the cosmological constants, I do not think "creatio sin persona" is scientifically tenable.
@YetAnotherInfidel the 2nd law of thermodynamics shows that the universe is ending, so it cannot be eternal, i.e., without beginning nor end. Now, what about our third possibility: c. the universe was created? Is this logical? Yes. It is completely logical to assert that something that began was brought into existence. So, premise 2 (the universe began to exist) APPEARS to be true.
@YetAnotherInfidel So, let's revisit the kalam cosmlogical argument in its most basic form:
1. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause (cf. law of causality)
2. The universe began to exist (cf. 2nd law of thermodynamics)
3. The universe has a cause.
Not only is the argument valid (meaning its premises logically lead to its conclusion), but it's sound (meaning the premises and the conclusion they lead up to APPEAR to be true). Thanks for reading this lengthy response :)
Not to appear condescending, but I would prefer not to waste my time with you, nor would I enjoy typing the 10,000 word essay required to cover the applied information.
However, I will throw some things out there, so be ready.
Go ahead and flow quantum physics to aff, I see it as a non issue.
-----
Premise one, stating that all things that exist must have a cuase, is faulty. This is true for many reasons. I am down to 50 characters, so I will need more space...
Now, the first premise assume we know what happened at the first second of the big bang. We don't. It isn't the negative's responcibility to supply sceintific evidence, mind you, as the doesn't fall into our BoP.
This simple fact draws attention to the uncertainty of the need for the universe to have a causal relationship, as we simply aren't yet capable of knowing what actually happened.
Also, this argument doesn't defend for oscillating universes that can have a finite---
Beginning and end, but simply reset to "nothingness" and reset all attributes neccesary for any causal reationship to occur, those being time, space, matter, and energy.
Therefore, the set of universe and the loop it reset in would be unending, possibly eternal. End conclusion, we simply lack information on this topic to be able to so pertly assert such a "logical" truth. To do so would be dishonest.
@YetAnotherInfidel I find it absolutely baffling that you refered to Occham as an authority on logical matters, when he was among the greatest of the English scholastic MONKS, who would have vehenemtly disagreed with you had he ever engaged you in discourse. Also, you, as most atheists do, made a universal truth claim, i.e., "ANYTHING is a better, more logically flowing concept than God," and then proceeded to offer no justification for that claim.
@Chess15 Ok, several things, will you please stop with the whole explaining what logical consistency is, you've done it many times and it's patronising. You threw in the 2nd law of thermodynamics without realising Earth is not a closed system which the 2nd law requires, and the other 3 laws undermine your case. You've claimed it is impossible that something arose from nothing, then when asked where God came from rewrote the rules to be as narrow as possible.
@kkwillsaveus You mentioned that I "rewrote the rules," but I beg to differ. What rules did I "re-write?" I simply demonstrated that the belief that God is without beginning is logically valid in light of the belief that
a) beginnings and ends are products of time and space
b) time and space are properties of the universe
c) God created the universe.
d) God created beginnings and ends, and is therefore without beginning nor end.
@kkwillsaveus I've had to routinely explain what logical validity is, because you incessantly dismiss my arguments as being illogical, although it is evident that they are at least logically valid. Also, perhaps after a cursory look at wikipedia's page on thermodynamics, you claim that "...the other 3 laws [of thermodynamics] undermine [my] case." Again, you make a claim, but offer no warrant for it. In what sense do the other 3 laws undermine my case? Also, concerning the second law...READ ON
@kkwillsaveus Also, concerning the second law of thermodynamics, I never stated, as you claimed, that "...Earth is a closed system." Rather, when I appealed to the second law of thermodynamics, I did so with the understanding that it is a "universal" law of physics, i.e., it pertains to the universe. It would've been sublimely ludicrous for me to claim that so miniscule a celestial body as Earth is a closed system. The universe is a closed system, albeit it is ever expanding...READ ON
@kkwillsaveus However, the second law of thermodynamics isn't the only scientific piece of evidence for a finite universe. Noteworthy examples are the radiation echo, which demonstrates that there is still an abundance of detectable radiation left over from the cosmic explosion we have dubbed "the Big Bang." Also, the very fact that our universe is expanding indicates that if it were compressed, it could be condensed back to its "starting point," so to speak. READ ON
@kkwillsaveus Thus, there is ample scientific data in support of the claim that the universe is finite. Again, please demonstrate how, as you claimed, "...the other 3 laws [of thermodynamics] undermine [my] case."
@Chess15 Everytime I've answered a point you've changed or twisted it. Point, there's not a single bit of evidence to suggest God created the universe. Given we are infinitly complicated, he must be infinitely more complicated to have created us, and so therefore someone must have created him, and so on, and so forth, simplest explanation is, we are all that there is.
Perhaps you ought to focus on what was actually said and NOT who would have disagreed with me had I been there contemporary. Try to keep the Red Herrings to a minimum.
My justification for my claim that you are citing is Occham's razor itself. Anything that isn't logically neccesary or "extra" ought to be cut from an explanation, especially if there is no evidence either way or, in this case, cannot be any evidence either way.
@YetAnotherInfidel Precisely what do you mean by, "anything that isn't logically necessary or 'extra' ought to be cut from an explanation? Have you no familiarity with the nature of logical necessity? The arguments I have propounded for a finite universe, and, by extension, an infinite God, are logically valid, regardless of whether or not one gives them credence as logically sound. READ ON
Oddly enough, I do have a bit of experience with the nature of logical necessity, and it is all thanks to people like you who thing the Kalaam Cosmological arg. is worth my time.
You seem to enjoy the capacity to ignore imput and blast away with output: you ignore my points refuting the essentiality of a God on the grounds that, at this point in time, there is no explicit need at all. You could defeat this, perhaps, by explaining away the distinct possibility of oscillation.
@YetAnotherInfidel Granted, at times throughout our discussion I have been excessively adversarial, and I sincerely apologize. Back to the question at issue. You typed, "...[I] could defeat [your objections] by explaining away the distinct possibility of oscillation." Thus, I will now attempt to do just that. The oscillating model theory of origins, is, a metaphysical philosophy masquerading as science. Allow me to expound on that claim. READ ON
So you have a heart after all. It's ok, I'll get upset faster than you more often due to the fact that I'm 17, and I like a little heat in my discussions.
I made sure to read through to see if you backed up your little comment on the oscillation model beind "a metaphysical philosophy masquerading as science", and it seems I am not the only one making unfounded claims without evidence. Sure, there was evidence on your other claims, but don't say you gave some for that bit.
@YetAnotherInfidel According to the oscillating model theory of origins, the universe is simply the result of a big bang that was simply one of an infinite number of successive explosions (hence the name "oscillating," whose mathematical definition is "infinite"). However, this theory of origins entirely dismisses the second law of thermodynamics, according to which, the universe is finite. READ ON
@YetAnotherInfidel Thus, this theory makes a categorical error by claiming that within a FINITE SYSTEM, i.e., the universe, there is an INFINITE ENTITY, i.e., the infinite sequence of cosmic explosions of which the Big Bang was part. Therefore, the oscillating model theory of origins, is self-contradictory and is thus illogical.
Not gonna lie, you lost me. I am into this science lingo, but either your explanitory power is subpar in the field of "informing Nick", or I just won't be able to get this concept. Hopefully we won't have to go through the latter.
Are you saying that a system of energy cannot infinitely rebound, like a ball bouncing? I can see that. But that would only put us in one of the oscillatory cycles, so it doesn't effect my argument.
@YetAnotherInfidel Also, your altruistic linguistic suggestion was much appreciated. Likewise, I hope mine is eagerly received. Try to find a synonym for "extra" and "cut," it seems rather elementary to use those terms to advance your point. In the words of a sage I once engaged, "Remember the forum you are wring on, this is key to making your point."
Increasingly I find myself losing my patience with your simple minded folly based purely on semantics while vague and out of focus when concentrating on my points.
Indeed, I may have used "elementary" vacabulary, but it illustrated my point- I only wanted to bring to your attention the overuse of whatever word you had used ad nauseum throughout your posts.
Congradulations, you can pick out grammar mistakes and shove them in my face.
@YetAnotherInfidel I'm becoming ever more indebted to you for exemplifying how bigoted, dogmatic, and intolerant an atheist can be. As a token of my appreciation, I'd like to award you the most coveted title of "archetype dogmatist." I hope you'll relish this momentous occasion. Though other atheists were considered, the committee finally concluded that your statement, "I find myself losing my patience with your simple minded folly..." was the most vituperative it had seen, bar none.
I'm overjoyed that I was able to help with the deliverance of your title, and ever more happy to accept it. I am adamantly opposed to exchanges that boil down to pointless discussion on a critique I legitmately meant.
If you find that makes me an "archetypal dogmatist", then so be it. I tend to enjoy contention, and not responces of coercion meant only to play on the pathos of readers.
Once again, I do NOT intend on wasting time with red herrings.
@YetAnotherInfidel You typed, "I had better stop," but I have painstakingly looked, to no avail, for where you started. in response to my argument, you typed, "Premise one, stating that all things that exist must have a cuase, is faulty," and then you cite ignorance as a basis for your view. Thus, you appealed to ignorance to buttress what you know, and essentially said, "I know your premise is faulty, because I don't know...." READ ON
Well I am soory that you had to scour for a quote among 2000 characters or less. :P
Must have reaaally been aweful.
I cite ignorance as a reason to disregard the first premise. We simply don't know enough yet to make that claim, even if we can get within 3 minutes. The point is, we can't get within... well, the exact time of creation. It seems very possible though, and I hope for it within my lifetime.
"I know your premise is faulty, because no one knows..."
@YetAnotherInfidel Respectfully, your response implicitly contradicts the argument you are trying to advance. You typed, "The point is, we can't get within... well, the exact time of CREATION (emphasis added)." What "creation?" Isn't your argument "sustained" (I've implemented your semantic admonition) by the belief that the universe is eternal? If it is eternal, how can you affirm that it was "created?" Don't you know that to be "created," means "to begin to exist?" READ ON
Regardless, your point in this post is null and your semantic argument falls flat.
Here's why:
My point on the eternal nature of the universe was, principally, composed in such a way as to alleviate any unneccesary responces- like this one. I made sure to post that the univese could oscillate by nature, collapsing and renewing itself forever.
"I'm convinced that you have either not read my posts, or have profound misunderstandings concerning them."
@YetAnotherInfidel Also, we do have a pretty clear picture of what took place during the universe's inceptive moments. In fact, in yet another case of striking irony, a fellow "infidel" of yours, named Dr. Steven Weinberg, who earned his doctorate from Harvard, published a work on the subject entitled, "The First Three Minutes: A Modern View Of The Origin Of The Universe." Also, there's a specific academic discipline named COSMOGONY dedicated to the issue of beginnigs READ ON
Anyway, the point is that without the knowledge of what heppened at the time of the big bang, to the exact moment of first expansion, is one reason why the first premise ought to be discarded. Another two are eternal oscillation and the possibility of creatio ex nihilo, which you dropped and thus flow to me for the time being.
@YetAnotherInfidel I'm convinced that you have either not read my posts, or have profound misunderstandings concerning them. All along, I have affirmed "creatio ex nihilo," a Latin phrase that means "creation out of nothing," that depicts what just so happens to be the orthodox Christian belief that God created the universe without the use of any pre-existing materials. So, in appealing to creatio ex nihilo, you're strengthening my point, thereby working against yourself. READ ON
This is an issue I knew would come up, having ignored my own mistake from the get go; my point, if I may, is only partially on the violation of Occham's razor, but mainly on the fact that your whole argument rests on the premises that things that begin to exist need a cause. But, if the universe began to exist ex nihilo, it would be silly to posit the neccesity of a cause.
You are positing a God to solve for a problem that may not even exist.
@YetAnotherInfidel That would be that case for all ideas ever since, everything is founded on belief in some way or another. Any premise you may posit is, in some way or another, a solution to a different problem that may not exist.
Not even sure what you are trying to address, leaving your refutation hollow and meaningless...
I think you might have meant that... I won't even try to decode the meaning, but I can explain what is going on to you so you could make a comprhensible responce.
This guy presented the cosmological argument, and I said that the first premise isn't grounded in fact as there are possibilities that are still possible that solve for the first premises problems.
@YetAnotherInfidel But enough with the accolades, let's now move on to your area of expertise: logical discourse. Again, you've committed the same logical error. You typed, "...if the universe began to exist ex nihilo, it would be silly to posit the necessity of a cause." What?! Are you actually claiming that although the universe BEGAN TO EXIST, it is unreasonable to conclude that it was "probably" brought into existence? READ ON
He types like his brother.
giorgiv18 2 weeks ago
@kkwillsaveus If you read Karl Jaspers, the revolutionary German Philosopher, he presents what has been called the most intriguing mystery of the modern age. He coined the term "Axial Age"...READ ON
beliefsarenottruth 2 weeks ago
Human: the only machine that can *wilfully* revolt against it's creator all in the name of selfish will then watch itself and it's kind break down rapidly for multiple thousands of years as a result, only to continue the same pattern. My computer often contracts viruses deliberately created to deviate order into dissolution. But I've never once witnessed my computer rejecting antivirus software at will in order to gain something for it's own ego. On contrary: my computer values truth. Unlike man
blattt188 2 weeks ago
@blattt188 You do realize that you contradict yourself there?
Religion is a virus, the cure is to inoculate yourself against religion.
l337pwnage 1 week ago
Comment removed
Chess15 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Chess15 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Chess15 3 weeks ago
@kkwillsaveus Quite honestly, I wasn't able to pinpoint the primary point you advanced in your response. You mentioned what another person argued, and essentially argued against the argument that person made. However, since we are debating, you're supposed to focus on MY arguments, which you still haven't done. My argument was that there are scientific grounds for belief in God, and I even buttressed that argument with the second law of thermodynamics. Your argument was.......it wasn't....
Chess15 3 weeks ago
@Chess15 What are the other three laws of Thermodynamics?
kkwillsaveus 3 weeks ago
Art is important -- it is a way of knowing where we create meaning :3
Inannawhimsey 3 weeks ago
@kkwillsaveus
" I said howcome human beings didn't massacre one and other in the 200,000 years before Jesus"
Objective morals from which G-d gives is implanted in you from the beginning of time so even if Jesus never came you would still have it.But people ignore these objective morals so they do horrible things like what you described.
ninetailschris 3 weeks ago
Hemingway also said the thinking man is an atheist, evidently given this video.
kkwillsaveus 3 weeks ago
The debate of religion will never be resolved, stopped, talked, discussed, fight, hurting, killing, murder, love, hate, war. Those things will never stop no matter what religious group you come from Atheist, Christians, Islamic, Jewish, etc. It won't ever stop, so we must be tolerant towards one another and disregard ones religion. - From a Fellow Atheist
Shutteroos 1 month ago
Infinite not infite... sorry
schratch 1 month ago
Comment removed
Chess15 4 weeks ago
An almost, to us humans, infite amount of energy. But the amount of energy is finite. Reacted to??? I don't know. But before there was no mass and no time.
Consider Einsteins E=MC2 meaning Energy=mass * constant. The constant being the speed of light. The amount of mass in the universe is to much for us to understand and the amount of energy is so much greater. But before the big bang, it was held in a singularity and then it started. The energy wasn't created. It was always there.
schratch 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@schratch I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. The energy wrought by the Big Bang has not always been available. According to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe is entering a state of entropy, meaning that it's becoming "chaotic" due to a significant loss of available energy. Since it's losing energy, it is plausible to suggests that its energy source isn't infinite, i.e., without beginning nor end, but rather began to be available.
Chess15 4 weeks ago
@schratch *suggest NOT suggests...that was an inadvertent typing error of mine. My apologies.
Chess15 4 weeks ago
@schratch And where was this "singularity" before the bang?
beliefsarenottruth 2 weeks ago
@beliefsarenottruth a singularity is a definition of this, where matter and time as we understand it doesn't exist. If there is no time, then there is nothing "before" that. The place where the singularity was would be at the center of the universe, since the universe is expanding scientists have calculated that since everything moves away from another, then it must have a startingpoint. The point is where the singularity is
schratch 2 weeks ago
@schratch is / was
schratch 2 weeks ago
Can anybody explain to me in simple terms how the big bang started?
MichaeIRedd 1 month ago
Very interested in reading this book.
ledzkreep 1 month ago
@Chess15 You're the most intelligent Christian I've ever seen on YouTube.
TheAssesKicker 1 month ago
@TheAssesKicker Thank you :)
Chess15 4 weeks ago
Good to expose the hostility that drives modern atheism.
yeoberry 1 month ago
@HelFKiernan I agree with you on that, and I would absolutely enjoy having this conversation via email. Let me know how you'd like to proceed. Take care.
Chess15 1 month ago
@HelFKiernan I just want to tell you that I have greatly enjoyed conversing with you, and that I too apologize if I have offended you in any way. I'm glad that you are bold enough to speak about what you believe, and why you believe it (even though I disagree), and engage someone who holds to an opposing view. Now, I'd like to make clear that I have not "inherited" Christianity, but have "chosen" it, as the most sensible and viable option amongst a myriad of competing truth claims. (cont'd)...
Chess15 1 month ago
@HelFKiernan The Bible clearly teaches that "homosexuals" and "heterosexuals" alike are made in God's image, as they are human beings (Gn. 1:26-27). While God does not approve of homosexual relationships, He nonetheless loves the homosexual person equally as he loves the heterosexual persons. Romans 2:11 reads "For God shows no partiality (ESV)." This means that, at the end of the day, he loves all people equally, even those who do not love, or have a relationship with, Him.
Chess15 1 month ago
@HelFKiernan The Bible in no way makes claims as to any one human being or group of human beings having greater inherent value than another. Even "nonbelievers" are explicitly said to be of equal value with believers. For example, Cain murdered his brother (see Gn. 4:8), and subsequently feared being murdered himself. Yet, God reminded Cain that, although he had sinned greatly, his life was still valuable (Gn. 4:13-15), and He would ensure Cain's safety.
Chess15 1 month ago
@HelFKiernan The Bible itself, and its main character, i.e., Christ Jesus, encourages Christians to think for themselves. For example:
1. Matthew 22:37 "And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your MIND."
2. 2 Timothy 2:7 "THINK over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything."
3. 1 Corinthians 14:20 "Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your THINKING be mature."
Chess15 2 months ago
@HelFKiernan With all due respect, your arguments aren't cogent in the least, and are little more than diatribe. I'll grant that there are some extremely enigmatic passages, but, as I've already stated, I strongly believe they can be made sense of. Also, I find it quite funny how Christians are accused of being bigots, and how you are calling me "blind to anything that contradicts [my] image of godliness." That kind of "argument" is Ad hominem, and is really not an argument at all.
Chess15 2 months ago
@HelFKiernan With all due respect, like kkwillsaveus, you've made astounding claims such as the Bible is "illogical, contradictory, [and] supports immoral actions," and have not offered any justification whatsoever for those claims. If the Bible is illogical, then please give me a list of 5 passages that you think are particularly illogical. If it is contradictory, then please list 5 contradictory passages. If it supports immoral actions, then please list 5 passages that demonstrate so.
Chess15 2 months ago
@HelFKiernan Also, I was not using the Bible to "prove" its veracity. I simply used it to demonstrate that the claim HelFKiernan made concerning the Bible, was incongruent with the Bible's own claims. Also, if you are sincerely looking for "evidence" for the existence of God, then I commend to you the following two books: 1. Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell and 2. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. Take Care. Happy New Year.
Chess15 2 months ago
@HelFKiernan... In line two of the above response, I meant t type the claim that kkwillsaveus made...I apologize for that typo.
Chess15 2 months ago
@HelFKiernan If you are going to make truth claims about someone, it is only right that you allow that someone to speak in his own defense. Likewise, if one is going to make truth claims about the Bible, it is only right that one goes to the Bible itself and see whether or not the claims one is making are aligned with the Bible. This concept is a judicial one. For example, In a court of law a witness is allowed to testify on his own behalf. So too, the Bible should be allowed to speak for itself
Chess15 2 months ago
@HelFKiernan Okay, Merry Christmas, but I am still concerned why I was attacked for simply saying a prayer for this man's brother's soul.
TraditionalistThomas 2 months ago
@HelFKiernan Read properly, the Bible can be the most powerful athiest piece of all.
kkwillsaveus 2 months ago
Your statement exemplifies a profound misunderstanding of Scripture, and no knowledge of hermeneutical principles. There are enigmatic passages in the Bible that APPEAR to be contradictory, but that, after careful exegesis, are rendered sensible. The Bible is replete with passages that can only be accurately understood with the aid of the Holy Spirit. See 2 Peter 3:15-16 (ESV).
Chess15 2 months ago 2
2 Peter 3:15-16 reads, "And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." Also, 2 Timothy 2:7 reads, "Think over what I say, for THE LORD will give you understanding in everything."
Chess15 2 months ago 2
In summation, in the absence of a relationship with the Lord, is the presence of a misunderstanding of His work (the Scriptures).
Chess15 2 months ago 2
@Chess15 I didn't say the Bible was contradictory, I said it could be an Athiest piece.
kkwillsaveus 2 months ago
@kkwillsaveus Atheists only use the Bible in an attempt to highlight its apparent contradictions. Thus, if you strip it of its contradictions by way of carefully interpreting enigmatic, but by no means inscrutable, passages, then you prevent them from being able to employ it for their desired purposes. Hence, why I thought it important to refer to principles of interpretation.
Chess15 2 months ago
@Chess15 You were wrong. The events of the Bible have been factually disproven. How do you account for human beings having been on the planet at the time God was said to have created us? How do you account for evolution?
kkwillsaveus 2 months ago
@kkwillsaveus I'm not wrong. You make the claim "the events of the Bible have been factually disproven," but then you offer no justification for that claim, i.e., you offer none of those "facts" whatsoever in support of your claim. Well, I'd like to list a few of the Bible's claims that have been factually verified. The list will be in the above response.
Chess15 2 months ago
@kkwillsaveus List:
1. The campaign into Israel by Pharaoh Shishak
(1 Kings 14:25-26) is recorded on the walls of the Temple of Amun in Thebes, Egypt.
2.The revolt of Moab against Israel
(2 Kings 1:1; 3:4-27) is recorded on the Mesha Inscription.
3. The fall of Samaria
(2 Kings 17:3-6, 24; 18:9-11) to Sargon II, king of Assyria, is recorded on his palace walls.
4. The fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians
(Daniel 5:30-31) is recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder.
Let's see another list.
Chess15 2 months ago
@kkwillsaveus List (#2):
1. The existence of Jesus Christ as recorded by Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, the Talmud, and Lucian.
2. The Roman historian, Cornelius Tacitus, records that Jesus Christ is the man from whom Christians derive their name when he wrote about Nero's burning of Rome.
3. Also, from Pliny the Younger's letter to Emperor Trajan (dated A.D. 112), we learn of some of the beliefs and practices of the early church, which correspond with the New Testament.
Chess15 2 months ago
@kkwillsaveus Furthermore, the Bible is NOT at odds with evolution. There are many Christians who affirm evolution and the Big Bang (Theistic Evolutionists). For example Dinesh D'Souza, author of "What's So Great about Christianity?" is a theistic evolutionist. Lastly, the Bible makes NO CLAIM about, as you put it "the time God was said to have created us." Not a single verse says that God made man at a certain time. Rather, we are told God made man in a certain way, i.e., in His image.
Chess15 2 months ago
@Chess15 Where in the Bible does it show God to create us with life expectancy of around 20, most dying in childhood or in famine? Also, given humans have been on the planet around 250,000 years why did God only show himself 2000 years ago once in the less educated part of the world? Also why the absolute morality. 'Thou shalt not lie' what even if a Jew is in your back room and Hitler's at the door? You can't steal food to survive?
kkwillsaveus 2 months ago
@kkwillsaveus God did not, as you put it, "only show himself 2000 years ago once in the less educated part of the world." In fact Romans 1:20 reads, " For SINCE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse (NIV)." God has been revealing Himself to mankind since the start. However the first written record of His revelation was composed ca. 6,000 yrs. ago
Chess15 1 month ago
@Chess15 'his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what he has been made, so that people are without excuse' Could you be more partisan, could you try using your own words? Human's were only the planet 100,000 years ago, where was God? Where has he been in the last 2000 years? Isn't it telling he hasn't shown himself in the more sophisticated era of man? Newsflash, the Bible's a fiction, God either doesn't exist or is unbelievable callous.
kkwillsaveus 1 month ago
@kkwillsaveus I will acquiesce to your request for me to phrase the excerpt from Paul's epistle in my own words. The Bible claims that since the inception of mankind, God has been revealing Himself, i.e. making Himself known, to mankind by way of His creation. This mode of communication from God to His creatures is called "general revelation." Thus, to answer your first question, the Bible teaches God has been "speaking," i.e., giving signs of His existence and immanence, to humans since day one
Chess15 1 month ago
@kkwillsaveus Where has God been in the last 2,000 years? The Bible teaches that ca. 2000 years ago, God took on human flesh and dwelt amongst His creatures in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:1-3, 14; Acts 20:28; Rm. 9:5; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1). As I've proven below (cf. the historical extrabiblical sources that prove Jesus existed), Jesus was a real person. You may not believe He is God, but to deny that He existed is to commit an absurdity of gargantuan proportion.
Chess15 1 month ago
@Chess15 Why do you believe what's in the Bible? What evidence is there that any of it is true? I don't deny Jesus was a person. I'm saying He came in a lesser age of mankind and there is no evidence to suggest he was the son of something beyond this world, his story shows signs of being from the less sophisticated age, and that his promotion of absolute morality is worrying. Tell me, you've got a Jew in your back room, a Nazi officer asks if you have at the door, do you lie?
kkwillsaveus 1 month ago
@kkwillsaveus That depends on what you think "evidence" is, and what sources you are willing to extract information from. Truth is, each book in the New Testament was written at a different time, in a different place, and by a different author. Meaning, the New Testament was NOT written all at once as part two of the Bible. Rather, the documents the New Testament is comprised of, were individually written as historical works, i.e, works written to preserve actual historical events.
Chess15 1 month ago
@kkwillsaveus Thus, as historical documents, if you are willing to accept the claims made therein as true, then there is certainly an abundance of evidence in favor of Jesus' divinity. Here's a list:
1. the miracles He performed (Mk. 5:21-43; John 11:1-44; Lk. 5:1-11; Lk. 9:10-17)
2. the claims to deity He made (John 8:58; John 10:30; Mk. 14:60-62)
3. Jesus' prophesies of His own death and resurrection (Mt. 20:17-19 cf. Mt. 27:50)
4. His actually being resurrected (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).
Chess15 1 month ago
@kkwillsaveus Thus, from a historical standpoint, the historical documents of the New Testament provide any abundance of evidence in favor of Jesus' divinity (status of being God). However, if one's naturalistic, materialistic, presuppositions PRECLUDE one from believing in the claims made in the historical documents that have come to be compiled and known as the "New Testament," then, certainly, there is no "evidence" in favor of Jesus' divinity.
Chess15 1 month ago
Now, I'll present an argument in the form of a syllogism (you don't have to believe in Jesus to follow my thought).
1. If it is true that God took on flesh and lived amongst human beings in the person of Christ Jesus. Then,
2. God revealed Himself to mankind in the most tangible way possible (face-to-face/person-to-person communication). Therefore,
3. God has not been removed from humanity (as you suggested), but has instead extended loving His arms (quite literally) out to us.
Chess15 1 month ago
@Chess15 God hasn't removed his humanity, but has showed his arms. Imagine if a police officer allowed your family to be beaten, murdered and rape for thousands of years then showed himself once, arrested a few people, left most criminals out there, and said, hey I'm still here, would you be satisfied? No, one appears 2000 years ago is no exoneration from all the shit God could've prevented.
kkwillsaveus 1 month ago
In stark contrast to your claim that "there is no evidence to suggest he was the son of something beyond this world, his story shows signs of being from the less sophisticated age," Sir William Mitchell Ramsay(1851-1939), an eminent archeologist and New Testament scholar and longtime professor at Oxford University, writes, "“Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy … this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.
Chess15 1 month ago
@kkwillsaveus
To verify, see: Ramsay, Sir W. M., The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915, p. 222.
Chess15 1 month ago
@Chess15 You've again done what every religion person does, ignored mass evidence, took one person who backs up your view and used it as if it were the only set of evidence. So the Holocaust is an example of God's existence. Let me ask you this, is morality linked to religion in your viewpoint?
kkwillsaveus 1 month ago
@kkwillsaveus No, the holocaust is not evidence for God's existence. The fact that we know that the actions undertaken by the Nazis during the holocaust were utterly reprehensible, is evidence that we human beings have an inherent sense of an objective standard of right and wrong. Now, that objective standard is evidence that a Being who transcends us imbued us with an awareness of that standard, which is in itself evidence for the existence of God.
Chess15 1 month ago
@kkwillsaveus Taken "one person?" Do you even know who you are referring to? Sir William Ramsay is hailed by the most prominent historians today as the greatest historian of the 20th century, and his testimony reflects the views that are held by numerous others (cf. Jesus Under Siege by Gregory Boyd, Jesus Under Fire by Michael j Wilkins, History and Christianity by John W. Montgomery, et al).
Chess15 1 month ago
@Chess15 So you think morality descends from religion? Answer me this then, in the hundreds of thousands of year when humans were on the planet before God, (and yes, it was hundreds of thousands, you as a Christian must believe that human's lived in famine, unable to hunt food or comminicate for 200,000 years at least before God showed himself) how did we survive? If morality descends from religion, why did we not kill each other before religion?
kkwillsaveus 1 month ago
@kkwillsaveus I'll tell you why, because empathy is part of the human condition. Upon leaving religion, nobody turns to evil. We survived without massacring each other for hundreds of thousands of years. Tell me, how does my abhorrence at the prospect of the Haulocaust derive from God?
kkwillsaveus 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kkwillsaveus "Upon leaving religion, nobody turns to evil." That's ludicrous! Have you even heard of the 20th century? Hitler was raised Catholic but turned toward a Nietzschean philosophy. Stalin was raised Orthodox but turned toward the ideological materialism of Marxism. Other's have done similarly. Many have left Christianity to become monsters.
yeoberry 1 month ago
@kkwillsaveus there is no human history without religion. Your question makes no sense and is not based on reality.
yeoberry 1 month ago
@yeoberry Yes there is. How about you tell me what the major religion of the world was 250,000 years ago, when humans were on the planet?
kkwillsaveus 1 month ago
@kkwillsaveus Show any historical data of any human culture without religion.
yeoberry 1 month ago
@yeoberry Science > History. Science has proven there were humans on the planet 250,000 years ago, all history or religion is far shorter than that. The oldest belief in deity stems from the Greeks, and I'm guessing that's no more than 11,000 years ago.
kkwillsaveus 1 month ago
@kkwillsaveus baseless
yeoberry 1 month ago
@yeoberry Actually I thought I'd better ask, you do know humans haven't always been able to communicate with one and other, don't you? How could there have been religion with no communication? Or don't you believe in evolution?
kkwillsaveus 1 month ago
@kkwillsaveus So, if they weren't able to communicate, then (1) you have no evidence (since there is no communication) and (2) you've just assumed; that is, you've assumed that religion is a later development, without evidence, and stated that assumption as if it were historical fact. Is that right?
yeoberry 1 month ago
@yeoberry For the last time, science trumphs history anyday. You don't base your life on sourcework. It's not if they weren't able to communicate, they weren't, read some Darwin, I know evolution crushes your world view but deal with it. What I've assumed at a time when humans couldn't read or talk or barely think they weren't told of morality and religion, don't think that's unfair, do you?
kkwillsaveus 1 month ago
@kkwillsaveus you're just stating unproven dogma. I asked you for proof that there was a time when human beings were not religious. You (1) assume they were; (2) that they couldn't communicate and so could preserve records of what you assume they were; and (3) you assert that that is "science." It's nothing but your unproven dogma. You have no proof.
TheImpactEditor 1 month ago
@TheImpactEditor I do not assume human beings could not communicate at one stage. This is a given fact and part of Darwin's theory of evolution. Ok, let me ask when, when in your opinion were human beings first placed on earth? What condition was this in? What knowledge of religion was there in the first nanosecond of mankind's existence? Oh don't tell me, it was Adam and Eve, around 4000 BC?
kkwillsaveus 1 month ago
@TheImpactEditor dude what's wrong with you no offense but are you really that closed minded? you are asking an atheist to prove to you that there was a time when human were not religious... are you serious or are you kidding me? because you know i'm a guy who hate's religion you see here's the thing when god created the universe and when he created us humans there was no religion at that time all we had back was god no religion
JapaneseMusicCenter 1 month ago
@TheImpactEditor and also religion is just a bunch of man made bullshit to hell with stupid manmade religion bullshit
JapaneseMusicCenter 1 month ago
@TheImpactEditor and besides who needs religion when you have God Jesus The Holy Spirit and The Bible with Contains The Holy Word Of God that's all i need when it comes to Faith in Fact that's all anyone really need's when it come to Faith i put my Faith and Trust in God Jesus The Holy Spirit and The Bible with Contains The Holy Word Of God because that is what a True Believer is i'm not a christian but i will always be a true believer for all of Eternity!
JapaneseMusicCenter 1 month ago
@TheImpactEditor oh and by the way the reason why i am telling tou this is because of the way you where talking to that atheist and i just assumed that you are a Believer if you are a Believer i hope that you understand what i am telling you if you are not a Believer and if you are an atheist please don't reply to me because i have no intention to debate with an atheist on youtube because i see no point in talking to someone that will get mad and start fighting with me.
JapaneseMusicCenter 1 month ago
@yeoberry You think it's implausible to suggest at a time human beings could not communicate or properly get food for each other religion wasn't preached to them? You have no proof of religion, may I remind you there was at least 100,000 years minimum before any human beings could write, how then was religion spread?
kkwillsaveus 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yeoberry You think it's implausible to suggest at a time human beings could not communicate or properly get food for each other religion wasn't preached to them? You have no proof of religion, may I remind you there was at least 100,000 years minimum before any human beings could write, how then was religion spread?
kkwillsaveus 1 month ago
@Chess15 Also, there's not an iota of scientific evidence. Historical evidence is not as reliable. I trust that in 1914 the First World War emerged, would I base my live on it, certainly not, give me scientific proof.
kkwillsaveus 1 month ago
@kkwillsaveus Not an iota of scientific evidence? Firstly, it is impossible to prove a negative existential. You have been making universal truth claims, i.e., claiming the impossibility of the existence of certain things, but have not offered very persuasive arguments in defense of your position. However, I will prove to you that there are MYRIAD scientific pieces of evidence in support of God's existence. Firstly, there is the second law of thermodynamics (READ ON)...
Chess15 1 month ago
@kkwillsaveus According to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe is entering a state of entropy, meaning that it's becoming "chaotic" due to a significant loss of available energy. This simply means, in layman's terms, that the universe is "ending." Because the universe is ending, it is only logical to conclude that it began, as things that are eternal neither begin nor end, but things that are temporal both begin and end. Thus, the universe began to exist at some time READ ON...
Chess15 1 month ago
@kkwillsaveus Now, there are two ways to think about this. 1. Either the Universe Created itself. 2. Either the Universe was creates. Let's examine choice one: The Universe Created Itself. Is this logical? What does it mean to create? Well, to create means to bring something into existence. Now, what does it mean to be created? To be created means to be brought into existence. Thus, if one affirms that the Universe created itself, one is essentially affirming that the universe (Read On)...
Chess15 1 month ago
@kkwillsaveus Thus, if one affirms that the universe created itself, one is essentially affirming that the universe both created, and was created by, itself, which is to say, that it both existed (in order to create) and did not exist (in order to be created). THIS IS A LOGICAL CONTRADICTION. Thus, it is illogical to claim that the universe created itself. Now let's examine our second choice: The universe was created. (READ ON)
Chess15 1 month ago
@kkwillsaveus If the universe was created, then it was brought into existence by a Being who exists independent of it. This is logical. The second law of thermodynamics (which is a law of physics) is what establishes the basis of this argument, which by the way, is formally known as the cosmological argument for the existence of God.
Chess15 1 month ago
@kkwillsaveus Additionally, there are nineteen or so finely tuned laws of physics, known as the cosmological constants, that demonstrate that the universe rests on a razor's edge. This means that the universe appears to have been designed by an intelligent designer. By the way, the intelligent design movement is comprised of numerous prominent scientists and mathematicians who believe the universe was designed by a designer. Some of these individuals are Dr. William Dembski and Michael Behe
Chess15 1 month ago
@Chess15 I don't doubt the universe rests on a razor's edge, how does this prove God's existence? Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean something causes it. Oh and tell me, seen as you know so much about the universe, when were human beings first placed on earth? And in what condition were they?
kkwillsaveus 1 month ago
@kkwillsaveus From the onset, my intention has been to provide good reasons to believe that God exists. Never has my intention been to "prove" that God exists. I cannot prove that God exists; nor can you "prove" that God doesn't exist. What I have endeavored to do is simply provide "evidence" for the existence of God. It is incumbent upon us to make a distinction between "proofs" and "evidences." (READ ON)...
Chess15 4 weeks ago
@kkwillsaveus (Continued...)
Proofs are pieces of information that MAKE CERTAIN the reality/validity of something. Evidence are pieces of information that MAKE PROBABLE the reality/validity of something. Thus, as has already been stated. I cannot prove that God exists, but you CANNOT prove He doesn't. Now, one might think this leaves us at agnosticism. However, upon closer examination it becomes readily evident that it does not. (READ ON)
Chess15 4 weeks ago
@Chess15 I'm telling you there's a teapot between here and Mars, it can't be seen by the power of human telescope, and for now, we don't have the space ships to read it. This teapot not only created us but controls our destiny. Do you believe it? If not, why not, and how in any way does that differ from God? The burden is to prove not to disprove.
kkwillsaveus 3 weeks ago
@kkwillsaveus You are making a categorical error in thinking that you can liken belief in God (an animate object Who create the universe) with belief in a teapot (an inanimate object and product of the universe). If I were arguing for belief in a teapot as the Supreme Being, I would be guilty of faulty reasoning because I would be arguing that a product of the universe (teapot) created the universe. (READ ON 1 of3 )
Chess15 3 weeks ago
@kkwillsaveus Clearly, that is not the kind of argument I'm making. When arguing for God's existence, I'm positing that a Being who created the universe exists. This IS NOT the same as arguing for the belief in a teapot (product of the universe) as a Supreme Being who created the universe. Such a claim violated the law of noncontradiction which asserts that something cannot be both X (product of universe) and non-X (creator of universe) at the same time. (Read on 2 of 3)
Chess15 3 weeks ago
@kkwillsaveus I'm arguing that a Being who both created and transcends the universe exists. This is NOT a logical contradiction, but is in fact logically consistent.
Chess15 3 weeks ago
@kkwillsaveus The agnostic says that not only can we not prove God's existence, or non-existence, but we cannot apprehend evidence for God's existence, or non-existence, either. However, I do believe that there is evidence for the existence of God, and I have presented them to you.
Chess15 4 weeks ago
@Chess15
Cool, evidence of God?
Just name the arguments. If they are of your own creation, then put them in syllogism form.
I haven't come across any myself, but if you have evidence then I would be happy to hear it. I will also assume that it is logical in nature, like all the rest of the evidence for God.
YetAnotherInfidel 3 weeks ago
@YetAnotherInfidel
I would suggest looking up the channel drcraigvideos I believe that channel has great arguments for god.Have a good day.
ninetailschris 3 weeks ago
@ninetailschris
Not only have a found an abundance of well-worded, logically acceptable refutations to all of Craig's musings, I have also looked at all of the arguments thathe doesn't present and tore those apart as well. There are simple answers to his arguments, and I don't see them as much of an obstacle.
I was mainly asking for this guy's evidence. If you have an argument you want to name, I'll gladly tell you why it is incorrect.
YetAnotherInfidel 3 weeks ago
@ninetailschris Yes he does. Dr. William Lane Craig is a Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot University in La Mirada, California, and is an apologist extraordinaire. He has authored or edited several books, which include "Reasonable Faith," "On Guard," "God is great, God is good," and "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview."
Chess15 3 weeks ago
@YetAnotherInfidel Gladly. I will begin by presenting the kalam cosmological argument, whose primary proponent is Dr. William Lane Craig, Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot Theological Seminary, in La Mirada, California. I will present this argument in its most basic syllogistic form:
1. Everything THAT BEGINS TO EXIST has to have a cause.
2. The Universe BEGAN to exist (cf. 2nd law of thermodynamics)
3. The Universe has a cause
(READ ON 1 of 2)
Chess15 3 weeks ago
@YetAnotherInfidel Clearly, the conclusion follows logically from the premises, making the argument VALID. However, is the argument SOUND, i.e, are the primary and secondary premises true? I believe so. Let's start by examining premise one:
1. Everything that beings to exist has to have a cause.
According to the law of causality, which is the first principle upon which all scientific enterprise is built, observable phenomena (series of observable occurrences) appear to have causes. READ ON
Chess15 3 weeks ago
@Chess15
If I am able, I will send you a private message with my responce. This got big and I originally wanted this to either be small scale or PMs.
If I cannot respond in PM form, I will likely not respond at all.
YetAnotherInfidel 4 days ago
@YetAnotherInfidel If at all possible, I'd thoroughly enjoy having a private conversation with you. For the record, you raised a number of thoughtful points, and although I disagree with your central claims, I hold you in high regard. It was a pleasure to engage you in debate, which I believe is an integral part of a free society.
Until next time,
a Christian theist.
Chess15 4 days ago
@YetAnotherInfidel Im well aware that at the subatomic level, e.g. quantum physics, phenomena appears to occur without having been caused. However, there might be a CAUSE for that. Also, why would we conclude, on the basis of quantum mechanics, that since at the subatomic level phenomena appears to been uncaused, that on the universal level, phenomena MUST THEREFORE BE uncaused. This is quite literally a "quantum" leap, to use a double entendre. (READ ON)
Chess15 3 weeks ago
@YetAnotherInfidel The fact remains that phenomena appears to have causes (cf. law of causality). Thus, we can at least say that premise one APPEARS to be true (this isn't the same as affirming that it is in fact true). Now, let's look at premise two:
2. The universe began to exist.
According to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe is entering into a state of entropy (disorder) which means that it is losing available heat energy (hence "thermo"), and it is therefore "ending." READ ON
Chess15 3 weeks ago
@YetAnotherInfidel If it's "ending," as the 2nd law of thermodynamics suggests, then it is logical to conclude that it began. Now, this leaves us with three possibilities. Either a. the universe created itself, b. the universe is eternal, c. the universe was created. Which is the most logical? Let's look at our first possibility: a. the universe created itself. To be created is to be brought into existence. To created means to bring into existence. So to say the universe created itself READ ON
Chess15 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Chess15 3 weeks ago
@YetAnotherInfidel to say the universe created itself is to affirm a logical contradiction (that it existed to bring itself into existence (create itself), and that it did not exist to be brought into existence (be created). So, our first possibility (a. the universe created itself) is illogical. What about our second: b. the universe is eternal. This is a contradiction of terms. To be eternal is to be without beginning/end. Yet, the 2nd law of thermodynamics shows that the universe is READ ON
Chess15 3 weeks ago
@Chess15 If God exists them something created him. He created us, we are infinitely complicated, so God must be infinitely more complicated, and so on and so forth. The simplest explanation is that we came into being from nothing.
kkwillsaveus 3 weeks ago
@kkwillsaveus What are beginnings and ends? Beginnings and ends are products of time and space, which are products of the universe. We measure "time" based on the earth's rotation around the sun, and the earth's rotation around the sun spans a certain cosmic "space (distance between two things)." Thus time (earth's rotation around the sun) and space (distance between two or more things) are products of the Unverse. READ ON
Chess15 2 weeks ago
@kkwillsaveus And now for my argument:
1. Because beginnings and ends are products of time and space,
2. And because time and space are prodcuts of the universe,
3. And the universe was created by God,
4. Then, God Himself created beginnings and ends when He created the universe.
5. Therefore, God did not begin to exist, but is eternal (without beginning nor end, since He trascnedns time and space). READ ON
Chess15 2 weeks ago
@kkwillsaveus This argument is certainly valid, i.e, the conlcusion logically follows from the premises. One does not have to believe that it is sound, i.e., its conclusion is truthful, in order to concede that it is valid. Thus, back to my original question: is the Christian belief that God is without beginning and end logical? YES. As I have demonstrated in syllogistic form, the Christian belief in an eternal God is at the very least LOGICALLY VALID. READ ON
Chess15 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kkwillsaveus Also, your claim that "The simplest explanation is that we came into being from nothing," is in fact the orthodox Christian claim. The technical term we use for that view is creatio ex nihilo, which is a Latin term that literally means, "creation out of nothing." According to this view, God created the universe and all that is within it without the use of any pre-existing materials (hence, out of nothing). READ ON
Chess15 2 weeks ago
@kkwillsaveus Now, "creatio ex nihilo," i.e., "creation out of nothing," is quite different from "creatio sin persona," i.e., "creation without person." According to the latter view, not only did the universe come into existence without any pre-exsting materials, but without the superintendence of a Higher Power. Your view is actually the latter, not the former. Now, of course, due to the cosmological constants, I do not think "creatio sin persona" is scientifically tenable.
Chess15 2 weeks ago
@YetAnotherInfidel the 2nd law of thermodynamics shows that the universe is ending, so it cannot be eternal, i.e., without beginning nor end. Now, what about our third possibility: c. the universe was created? Is this logical? Yes. It is completely logical to assert that something that began was brought into existence. So, premise 2 (the universe began to exist) APPEARS to be true.
Chess15 3 weeks ago
@YetAnotherInfidel So, let's revisit the kalam cosmlogical argument in its most basic form:
1. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause (cf. law of causality)
2. The universe began to exist (cf. 2nd law of thermodynamics)
3. The universe has a cause.
Not only is the argument valid (meaning its premises logically lead to its conclusion), but it's sound (meaning the premises and the conclusion they lead up to APPEAR to be true). Thanks for reading this lengthy response :)
Chess15 3 weeks ago
@Chess15
Oh goody.
Not to appear condescending, but I would prefer not to waste my time with you, nor would I enjoy typing the 10,000 word essay required to cover the applied information.
However, I will throw some things out there, so be ready.
Go ahead and flow quantum physics to aff, I see it as a non issue.
-----
Premise one, stating that all things that exist must have a cuase, is faulty. This is true for many reasons. I am down to 50 characters, so I will need more space...
YetAnotherInfidel 3 weeks ago
@Chess15
Now, the first premise assume we know what happened at the first second of the big bang. We don't. It isn't the negative's responcibility to supply sceintific evidence, mind you, as the doesn't fall into our BoP.
This simple fact draws attention to the uncertainty of the need for the universe to have a causal relationship, as we simply aren't yet capable of knowing what actually happened.
Also, this argument doesn't defend for oscillating universes that can have a finite---
AHH
YetAnotherInfidel 3 weeks ago
@Chess15
Beginning and end, but simply reset to "nothingness" and reset all attributes neccesary for any causal reationship to occur, those being time, space, matter, and energy.
Therefore, the set of universe and the loop it reset in would be unending, possibly eternal. End conclusion, we simply lack information on this topic to be able to so pertly assert such a "logical" truth. To do so would be dishonest.
YetAnotherInfidel 3 weeks ago
@Chess15
I had better stop...
Are you applying this to the Christian God?
If so, then ANYTHING is a better, more logically flowing concept than God.
Being infinitely complex, this opens Him up to the sharp end of Occham's razor.
Surely you have heard of this.
YetAnotherInfidel 3 weeks ago
@YetAnotherInfidel I find it absolutely baffling that you refered to Occham as an authority on logical matters, when he was among the greatest of the English scholastic MONKS, who would have vehenemtly disagreed with you had he ever engaged you in discourse. Also, you, as most atheists do, made a universal truth claim, i.e., "ANYTHING is a better, more logically flowing concept than God," and then proceeded to offer no justification for that claim.
Chess15 2 weeks ago
@Chess15 Ok, several things, will you please stop with the whole explaining what logical consistency is, you've done it many times and it's patronising. You threw in the 2nd law of thermodynamics without realising Earth is not a closed system which the 2nd law requires, and the other 3 laws undermine your case. You've claimed it is impossible that something arose from nothing, then when asked where God came from rewrote the rules to be as narrow as possible.
kkwillsaveus 2 weeks ago
@kkwillsaveus You mentioned that I "rewrote the rules," but I beg to differ. What rules did I "re-write?" I simply demonstrated that the belief that God is without beginning is logically valid in light of the belief that
a) beginnings and ends are products of time and space
b) time and space are properties of the universe
c) God created the universe.
d) God created beginnings and ends, and is therefore without beginning nor end.
READ ON
Chess15 2 weeks ago
@kkwillsaveus I've had to routinely explain what logical validity is, because you incessantly dismiss my arguments as being illogical, although it is evident that they are at least logically valid. Also, perhaps after a cursory look at wikipedia's page on thermodynamics, you claim that "...the other 3 laws [of thermodynamics] undermine [my] case." Again, you make a claim, but offer no warrant for it. In what sense do the other 3 laws undermine my case? Also, concerning the second law...READ ON
Chess15 2 weeks ago
@kkwillsaveus Also, concerning the second law of thermodynamics, I never stated, as you claimed, that "...Earth is a closed system." Rather, when I appealed to the second law of thermodynamics, I did so with the understanding that it is a "universal" law of physics, i.e., it pertains to the universe. It would've been sublimely ludicrous for me to claim that so miniscule a celestial body as Earth is a closed system. The universe is a closed system, albeit it is ever expanding...READ ON
Chess15 2 weeks ago
@kkwillsaveus However, the second law of thermodynamics isn't the only scientific piece of evidence for a finite universe. Noteworthy examples are the radiation echo, which demonstrates that there is still an abundance of detectable radiation left over from the cosmic explosion we have dubbed "the Big Bang." Also, the very fact that our universe is expanding indicates that if it were compressed, it could be condensed back to its "starting point," so to speak. READ ON
Chess15 2 weeks ago
@kkwillsaveus Thus, there is ample scientific data in support of the claim that the universe is finite. Again, please demonstrate how, as you claimed, "...the other 3 laws [of thermodynamics] undermine [my] case."
Chess15 2 weeks ago
@Chess15 Everytime I've answered a point you've changed or twisted it. Point, there's not a single bit of evidence to suggest God created the universe. Given we are infinitly complicated, he must be infinitely more complicated to have created us, and so therefore someone must have created him, and so on, and so forth, simplest explanation is, we are all that there is.
kkwillsaveus 2 weeks ago
@Chess15
Perhaps you ought to focus on what was actually said and NOT who would have disagreed with me had I been there contemporary. Try to keep the Red Herrings to a minimum.
My justification for my claim that you are citing is Occham's razor itself. Anything that isn't logically neccesary or "extra" ought to be cut from an explanation, especially if there is no evidence either way or, in this case, cannot be any evidence either way.
YetAnotherInfidel 2 weeks ago
@YetAnotherInfidel Precisely what do you mean by, "anything that isn't logically necessary or 'extra' ought to be cut from an explanation? Have you no familiarity with the nature of logical necessity? The arguments I have propounded for a finite universe, and, by extension, an infinite God, are logically valid, regardless of whether or not one gives them credence as logically sound. READ ON
Chess15 2 weeks ago
@Chess15
Oddly enough, I do have a bit of experience with the nature of logical necessity, and it is all thanks to people like you who thing the Kalaam Cosmological arg. is worth my time.
You seem to enjoy the capacity to ignore imput and blast away with output: you ignore my points refuting the essentiality of a God on the grounds that, at this point in time, there is no explicit need at all. You could defeat this, perhaps, by explaining away the distinct possibility of oscillation.
YetAnotherInfidel 2 weeks ago
@YetAnotherInfidel Granted, at times throughout our discussion I have been excessively adversarial, and I sincerely apologize. Back to the question at issue. You typed, "...[I] could defeat [your objections] by explaining away the distinct possibility of oscillation." Thus, I will now attempt to do just that. The oscillating model theory of origins, is, a metaphysical philosophy masquerading as science. Allow me to expound on that claim. READ ON
Chess15 1 week ago
@Chess15
So you have a heart after all. It's ok, I'll get upset faster than you more often due to the fact that I'm 17, and I like a little heat in my discussions.
I made sure to read through to see if you backed up your little comment on the oscillation model beind "a metaphysical philosophy masquerading as science", and it seems I am not the only one making unfounded claims without evidence. Sure, there was evidence on your other claims, but don't say you gave some for that bit.
YetAnotherInfidel 1 week ago
@YetAnotherInfidel According to the oscillating model theory of origins, the universe is simply the result of a big bang that was simply one of an infinite number of successive explosions (hence the name "oscillating," whose mathematical definition is "infinite"). However, this theory of origins entirely dismisses the second law of thermodynamics, according to which, the universe is finite. READ ON
Chess15 1 week ago
@Chess15
Ooh, I talked about that in a previous comment.
Refenence that.
YetAnotherInfidel 1 week ago
@YetAnotherInfidel Thus, this theory makes a categorical error by claiming that within a FINITE SYSTEM, i.e., the universe, there is an INFINITE ENTITY, i.e., the infinite sequence of cosmic explosions of which the Big Bang was part. Therefore, the oscillating model theory of origins, is self-contradictory and is thus illogical.
Chess15 1 week ago
@Chess15
Not gonna lie, you lost me. I am into this science lingo, but either your explanitory power is subpar in the field of "informing Nick", or I just won't be able to get this concept. Hopefully we won't have to go through the latter.
Are you saying that a system of energy cannot infinitely rebound, like a ball bouncing? I can see that. But that would only put us in one of the oscillatory cycles, so it doesn't effect my argument.
YetAnotherInfidel 1 week ago
@YetAnotherInfidel Also, your altruistic linguistic suggestion was much appreciated. Likewise, I hope mine is eagerly received. Try to find a synonym for "extra" and "cut," it seems rather elementary to use those terms to advance your point. In the words of a sage I once engaged, "Remember the forum you are wring on, this is key to making your point."
Surely "you" have heard of this......
Chess15 2 weeks ago
@Chess15
Increasingly I find myself losing my patience with your simple minded folly based purely on semantics while vague and out of focus when concentrating on my points.
Indeed, I may have used "elementary" vacabulary, but it illustrated my point- I only wanted to bring to your attention the overuse of whatever word you had used ad nauseum throughout your posts.
Congradulations, you can pick out grammar mistakes and shove them in my face.
I was genuinely trying to be helpful.
YetAnotherInfidel 2 weeks ago
@YetAnotherInfidel Name calling eh? Classy, and not helpful.
BoxOfAdam 1 week ago
@BoxOfAdam
And I called him...?
Maybe you should actually read into what is being said to avoid looking ignorant.
This responce was intended to be a "cmon, man, I didn't mean it that way...".
I never did call him names, at least not in the responce you chose to reply to.
YetAnotherInfidel 1 week ago
@YetAnotherInfidel I'm becoming ever more indebted to you for exemplifying how bigoted, dogmatic, and intolerant an atheist can be. As a token of my appreciation, I'd like to award you the most coveted title of "archetype dogmatist." I hope you'll relish this momentous occasion. Though other atheists were considered, the committee finally concluded that your statement, "I find myself losing my patience with your simple minded folly..." was the most vituperative it had seen, bar none.
Chess15 1 week ago
@Chess15
I'm overjoyed that I was able to help with the deliverance of your title, and ever more happy to accept it. I am adamantly opposed to exchanges that boil down to pointless discussion on a critique I legitmately meant.
If you find that makes me an "archetypal dogmatist", then so be it. I tend to enjoy contention, and not responces of coercion meant only to play on the pathos of readers.
Once again, I do NOT intend on wasting time with red herrings.
YetAnotherInfidel 1 week ago
@YetAnotherInfidel You typed, "I had better stop," but I have painstakingly looked, to no avail, for where you started. in response to my argument, you typed, "Premise one, stating that all things that exist must have a cuase, is faulty," and then you cite ignorance as a basis for your view. Thus, you appealed to ignorance to buttress what you know, and essentially said, "I know your premise is faulty, because I don't know...." READ ON
Chess15 2 weeks ago
@Chess15
Well I am soory that you had to scour for a quote among 2000 characters or less. :P
Must have reaaally been aweful.
I cite ignorance as a reason to disregard the first premise. We simply don't know enough yet to make that claim, even if we can get within 3 minutes. The point is, we can't get within... well, the exact time of creation. It seems very possible though, and I hope for it within my lifetime.
"I know your premise is faulty, because no one knows..."
This was one point.
YetAnotherInfidel 2 weeks ago
@YetAnotherInfidel Respectfully, your response implicitly contradicts the argument you are trying to advance. You typed, "The point is, we can't get within... well, the exact time of CREATION (emphasis added)." What "creation?" Isn't your argument "sustained" (I've implemented your semantic admonition) by the belief that the universe is eternal? If it is eternal, how can you affirm that it was "created?" Don't you know that to be "created," means "to begin to exist?" READ ON
Chess15 2 weeks ago
@Chess15
Why such vitriol?
Regardless, your point in this post is null and your semantic argument falls flat.
Here's why:
My point on the eternal nature of the universe was, principally, composed in such a way as to alleviate any unneccesary responces- like this one. I made sure to post that the univese could oscillate by nature, collapsing and renewing itself forever.
"I'm convinced that you have either not read my posts, or have profound misunderstandings concerning them."
YetAnotherInfidel 2 weeks ago
@YetAnotherInfidel Also, we do have a pretty clear picture of what took place during the universe's inceptive moments. In fact, in yet another case of striking irony, a fellow "infidel" of yours, named Dr. Steven Weinberg, who earned his doctorate from Harvard, published a work on the subject entitled, "The First Three Minutes: A Modern View Of The Origin Of The Universe." Also, there's a specific academic discipline named COSMOGONY dedicated to the issue of beginnigs READ ON
Chess15 2 weeks ago
@Chess15
Try to find a synonym for "buttress".
Anyway, the point is that without the knowledge of what heppened at the time of the big bang, to the exact moment of first expansion, is one reason why the first premise ought to be discarded. Another two are eternal oscillation and the possibility of creatio ex nihilo, which you dropped and thus flow to me for the time being.
YetAnotherInfidel 2 weeks ago
@YetAnotherInfidel I'm convinced that you have either not read my posts, or have profound misunderstandings concerning them. All along, I have affirmed "creatio ex nihilo," a Latin phrase that means "creation out of nothing," that depicts what just so happens to be the orthodox Christian belief that God created the universe without the use of any pre-existing materials. So, in appealing to creatio ex nihilo, you're strengthening my point, thereby working against yourself. READ ON
Chess15 2 weeks ago
@Chess15
This is an issue I knew would come up, having ignored my own mistake from the get go; my point, if I may, is only partially on the violation of Occham's razor, but mainly on the fact that your whole argument rests on the premises that things that begin to exist need a cause. But, if the universe began to exist ex nihilo, it would be silly to posit the neccesity of a cause.
You are positing a God to solve for a problem that may not even exist.
YetAnotherInfidel 2 weeks ago
@YetAnotherInfidel That would be that case for all ideas ever since, everything is founded on belief in some way or another. Any premise you may posit is, in some way or another, a solution to a different problem that may not exist.
BoxOfAdam 1 week ago
@BoxOfAdam
Not even sure what you are trying to address, leaving your refutation hollow and meaningless...
I think you might have meant that... I won't even try to decode the meaning, but I can explain what is going on to you so you could make a comprhensible responce.
This guy presented the cosmological argument, and I said that the first premise isn't grounded in fact as there are possibilities that are still possible that solve for the first premises problems.
What you are addressing?
YetAnotherInfidel 1 week ago
@YetAnotherInfidel But enough with the accolades, let's now move on to your area of expertise: logical discourse. Again, you've committed the same logical error. You typed, "...if the universe began to exist ex nihilo, it would be silly to posit the necessity of a cause." What?! Are you actually claiming that although the universe BEGAN TO EXIST, it is unreasonable to conclude that it was "probably" brought into existence? READ ON
Chess15 1 week ago
@Chess15
I never claimed to have an area of expertise, but I can extend only the best gestures in responce to your oozing cordiality throughout this exchange.
I notice you put "probably" in quotations. Is this because you are intentionally try to avoid the implication of what I said?
I said it is unreasonable to assume the NECESSITY of a cause given the distinct possibility of creatio ex nihilo.
I framed against the possibility of the Chrsitain God with Occham's razor.
YetAnotherInfidel 1 week ago