Re: The Kalam Argument for the Existence of God

[machinedean100]

They never said anything about an infinitesimal amount of time is pretty much no time. Also an infinite amount of time would also be like no time. That is there whole point there is no infinite amount of time. Only an amount of time. If time were infinite there would be no points a and b.

[mon2nika]

Life begun when man decided it begun. Infinity is a useless word that serves no one.

[Thistlesifter220]

Amazingly, even Albert Einstein (the most brilliant scientist of our time) laid the foundation of understanding that matter has not always existed, with his most famous "general theory of relativity." This well-accepted principle of physics was used to demonstrate mathematically that the universe had a beginning, and that all matter came into existence from outside the physical realm, outside the laws of physics.

From, Origins of the Universe by Dr. Jeff Fall

[Thistlesifter220]

"Radioactive materials have a known "half-life"—which means that within a known period of time, half of the radioactive element decays and disappears. If the universe has always existed, the radioactive elements would have decayed themselves totally out of existence."

From, Origins of the Universe by Dr. Jeff Fall

[drunkagnostic]

@rkyeun Infinitely long ago never happened as a starting point you can put your pencil on, I agree. But this is no argument against an infinite regress of points before now, right?

[SycorTheosPhilos]

1:49 This reception of chocolate within an infinite 'amount' of time goes both ways, either you never receive the chocolate, or you receive an infinite amount of chocolate that would instantly fill every particle, every vessel of manifestation within that infinite universe. It's a bilateral consideration of infinite repercussion.

[drunkagnostic]

@SycorTheosPhilos How could getting one Snickers after an infinity of time mean chocolate instantly appearing in an infinite # of places? I see no argument for this outrageous claim in your comment.

The chocolate argument's CORRECT on the 'I'll give you a Snickers after infinity' scenario; we can't say 'there's infinite minutes between point A (now) and Point B.'

But an infinite # of minutes before now can't be a fixed point A, so the argument fails on the history of the universe.

[SycorTheosPhilos]

@drunkagnostic It's not at all outrageous when considering the all or nothing results of infinity in function. There are no "in-betweens" of infinity. To even specify a certain # of anything "within" a period of infinity is a completely fallacious as a premise to the idea presented, unless we are somehow discussing multiple aspects of infinity. But even that in itself is ridiculous because then we would have to assume an infinite different forms of the infinite concept alone..let's not do that.

[drunkagnostic]

@SycorTheosPhilos I can't remotely make out what you're trying to say. I didn't 'specify a certain # of anything "within" a period of infinity.' And you certainly can do so anyway; there's exactly one even prime 'within' the infinity of integers.

[SycorTheosPhilos]

@drunkagnostic There's one even prime within infinity? Hmm, well I'll be damned. :/ I stand corrected.

*I bow to you fine sir>* :)

[janover73]

Admirable of you to be so chevalier and decent with people who believe and/or understand things differently. Thank you for a clear and sustained refutation

[StarringEverett]

This is nonsense.. Essentially you said if we place ourselves 'in' time there is an infinite amount of time before and after and thats ridiculous.

For instance. There will not be an infinite amount of time before you respond to this post 'if you do' from the time of it being posted.

Your saying there is an infinite amount of time between 3'oclock and 4'oclock and THERE IS NOT!

[NoTrueScotsman]

@StarringEverett - To the contrary, there could very well be an infinite amount of time between 3:00 and 4:00, depending on how you divided it. If you divided only by minutes, then you would obviously end at 60. But if you divided by sub-nano-seconds, you could theoretically keep breaking each unit down until the measure between 3:00 and 4:00 is uncountable. This is what Veritas does when he says that infinite time could not have arrived at the present moment.

[StarringEverett]

@NoTrueScotsman So this is were your saying whomever gets the last word in has the correct time lol. Excuse me but this is bullshit:)

Actually your leaning on philosophy here and not speaking time. If we can use words etc to speak of time.Which is the next place you'll be going perhaps.

Thanks for responding but I'm calling BS here.

[NoTrueScotsman]

@StarringEverett - No BS. The key word in your original message is "amount" of time. The passage from 3:00 to 4:00 is of finite duration. But you could divide that finite time into an infinite "amount" of time — which is what Veritas does in his video. Do you know "Zeno's Paradox"?

[StarringEverett]

@NoTrueScotsman Allow me to state succinctly my understanding of God’s relationship to time. I argue that God, existing changelessly alone without the universe, is timeless. Time comes into existence at creation and so has a beginning and is finite in the past. God, in virtue of His real relation to the temporal world, becomes temporal at the moment of creation. So God exists timelessly without creation and temporally since the moment of creation.

[NoTrueScotsman]

@StarringEverett - There is scientific consensus that time AS IT IS NOW MEASURED started at the Big Bang. What happened before the Big Bang is conjecture with no consensus. As I understand it, most cosmologists believe that some kind of "time" — the passage of one moment into the next — existed well before the Big Bang. If this model is true, time as such is not finite.

[StarringEverett]

@NoTrueScotsman I have no need to seek out "as you said" (conjecture) no (consensus).

Time is that dimension of reality whose constituent elements are ordered by relations of earlier than, simultaneous with, and later than and are experienced by us as past, present, and future. This much, at least, is common property among almost all disputants in debates about the nature of time.

[StarringEverett]

@StarringEverett My position is “God exists outside of time when there is no universe and inside of time when there is a universe,” your use of the word “when” could lead to misunderstanding. If taken literally, it would imply that there was time prior to the creation of the universe. I think that time began with the first event, which I take to be God’s first creative act. So I prefer to state my view in the following way: God is timeless without the universe and temporal with the universe.

[StarringEverett]

@StarringEverett The reason I hold God to be timeless without the universe is that I think that an infinite regress of events is impossible, and, according to a relational theory of time, in the absence of any events time would not exist.

[StarringEverett]

@StarringEverett The reason I hold God to be temporal since the beginning of the universe is that the creation of the universe brings God into a new relation, namely, co-existing with the universe, and such an extrinsic change alone (not to mention God’s exercise of causal power) is sufficient for a temporal relation

[NoTrueScotsman]

@StarringEverett - Many theologians assert that "an infinite regress of events is impossible," but they haven't proven this proposition. If they had, cosmologists would accept it. The Big Bang was an EXPANSION of mass-energy, which was not necessarily mass-energy's creation. Possible "events" before the Big Bang would be however mass-energy behaved before this expansion — so, theoretically, time could exist IN SOME FORM before the Big Bang. God may exist, but God isn't necessary.

[StarringEverett]

@NoTrueScotsmanThe univocal concept of "cause" employed is the concept of efficient causality, that is to say, something which produces or brings into being its effects. Whether such production involves transformation of previously existing materials or creation ex nihilo is completely incidental. (so you rightly say God can exist)

[StarringEverett]

@StarringEverett That this is so is evident from the fact that the proponent of the argument must confront the objection that first cause may not have created ex nihilo, but transformed an eternal, quiescent universe into a universe in change.apart from agent causation its extremely difficult to explain a temporal universe could have arisen from a state of changeless eternity. A mechanically operating set of necessary sufficient conditions would have produced the effect from eternity or not

[StarringEverett]

@StarringEverett I believe my position is more widely held among scientists as far as space and time coming into existence.

[NoTrueScotsman]

@StarringEverett - Most cosmologists that I'm aware of aren't advocating that the universe was static for all of eternity until the Big Bang. What brought about the Big Bang? Maybe this is just the way mass-energy behaves.

Speaking to lay audiences, scientists sometimes use phrases like "space and time coming into being," but they mean space and time as we now experience them, not space and time as such. Theologians hijack this language to make the case for God.

[StarringEverett]

@NoTrueScotsman Absolutely incorrect! We know of no other time period! We cannot penetrate a real beyond experience here and thats what atheism needs here.

Also how could it be plausible for God to exist and not be necessary? I understand how you've arrived their. But there's a real problem with that logically.

[NoTrueScotsman]

@StarringEverett - Yes, "We know of no other time period!" But that just means that any other potential time periods aren't known to us, not necessarily that they never existed.

My use of "necessary" refers to how theologians use universe models requiring supernatural intervention, e.g.: "Matter had a beginning at the Big Bang, so Something must have created it." But if matter always existed in some form, a creative Something wouldn't be necessary.

[StarringEverett]

@NoTrueScotsman I don't look to theologians for questions of the cosmos.And I don't know of any evidence of matter existing before the big bang.

But I actually agree with you in a sense. The supernatural is 'somewhat' hidden or for my point 'unknown'. Of course I would say God can be known and experienced.

But there are realms of understanding that evolution cannot account for and go against self preservation. I call that the spriritual.

And I don't see naturalism explaining everything.

[NoTrueScotsman]

@StarringEverett - There isn't evidence of very much at all before the Big Bang. As I said, it's mostly educated conjecture.

Most scientists do see naturalism explaining everything, but since I'm not a scientist, I won't argue with you.

For the record, my video was just contesting Veritas' concept of infinity. I wasn't trying to argue against God (however you want to define it) or spirituality. Some things now thought of as supernatural may one day become natural.

[StarringEverett]

@NoTrueScotsman I"ll have to disagree here. Most scientists see only natural explained by the natural. And I'm in agreement. But the BB explains the naturals origins. We know for a fact for some reason all natural is hidden from us before the singularity or it is non-existent then. Its odd to me how the natural can hide from you guys but for God to be hidden is strange?? (how could natural hide?)

Natural cannot go unquestioned. We cannot avoid infinite regress whatever is explained naturally.

[NoTrueScotsman]

@StarringEverett - I don't understand what you've just said.

"Most scientists see only natural explained by the natural." I don't know what that sentence means. Did you mean "Most scientists see nature explained only by the natural"?

[StarringEverett]

@NoTrueScotsman My sentence is to the definition of science and scientists. In other words there are questions that science cannot adjudicate. If every scientific question was answered today that would not help us with the most important things in life,love,etc.

Take the apple.. Its mass and shape are part of the apple but the redness,its aroma,and its taste are not IN the apple. Our knowledge of external reality comes from two sources. The external object and internal apparatus of perception.

[StarringEverett]

@NoTrueScotsman Science is the search for (natural) explanations...Period... As it should be...

But science is incapable of answering questions about the nature or purpose of reality.Science only tries to answer the question "how does it behave."

Science doesn't claim to be a full description of reality,only of one aspect of reality.

If that makes sense regarding my comment of scientists seeing only the natural explained (naturally).

[StarringEverett]

@NoTrueScotsman For the record, my video was just contesting Veritas' concept of infinity.

I appreciate the well thought through responses and your professionalism.

Best wishes, Everett

[NoTrueScotsman]

@StarringEverett - Thanks!

[drunkagnostic]

@NoTrueScotsman Is the 'chocolate bar' gang's main problem really Zeno's flub of confusing divisibility w' duration? I think they'd gladly amend their argument thus:

It's incoherent to say you'll get a Snickers an infinite # of MINUTES from now. The universe having always existed means it existed for an infinite # of MINUTES before now, so it can't always have existed.

That doesn't confuse divisibility & duration. But it errs by thinking of infinite regress as a fixed point.

[cjunk351]

the problem is, no matter what.........something is eternal. something doesnt come from nothing. so either the Cosmos or something greater than it is eternal......or something else is (God maybe). Problem is there is no reason to believe in a God.

[CaptainDunamis]

Although I do not agree with all your views, I do appreciate you putting your view on here to make them available. Thanks.

[ManicEightBall]

My problem with this "universe can't be infinitely old" thing is that it rather seems like a circular argument. Listen carefully to what he says. It's basically that there would have to be an infinite amount of time in the past (in order to get to this point in time) if there were an infinite amount of time in the past.

[CronoPhage]

Actually your understanding of infinity is flawed, you are assuming that the variable of infinity does not also include an infinite number of variables. I will coincide that your understanding of infinity works quite well for a linear understanding of infinity, but nothing says infinity has to be linear, it can be, but that is only one possibility out of an infinite amount of possibilities.

[NoTrueScotsman]

@CronoPhage - I'm just using this conception of infinity to argue against the position that it is impossible for the universe to last an infinite amount of time. I don't intend it to be the last word on the never-ending.

[CronoPhage]

@NoTrueScotsman then you were self refuting. The point the Kalam argument is making is that the universe is not infinate, the point you were making was that is can be infinate and then applies a linier understanding of infinity and called it infinity. Then you say it isn't infinate and trying to prove the infinity portion of the Kalam argument.

[NoTrueScotsman]

@CronoPhage - I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Whether infinity is linear or not, it is conceptually possible for the universe to be infinite. Is the universe indeed infinite? No one knows.

If you think that I haven't addressed your comment, please rephrase it more clearly.

[CronoPhage]

@NoTrueScotsman Ok, lets try this. The universe can only be infinite if it is a linier infinity, meaning only 1 variable. At this point you can go through infinity sequentially as you stated in your video, but the universe contains at least 3 other variables that also cross infinity assuming an infinite universe. On the initial variable to move forward sequentially through infinity you must also reach a stopping point of infinity for the other 3 variables, which is not possible due to infinity

[NoTrueScotsman]

@CronoPhage - So, you're saying that the universe can't be infinite due to infinity's inherent properties. Would this then necessitate a deity to bring the universe into existence?

[CronoPhage]

@NoTrueScotsman deity? eh, I never quite liked that word, but more or less yes. There needs to be an uncaused cause to lend energy to the initial cause otherwise there is no initial effect, if there is no initial effect then we are all still in the singularity. I see things existing so I know we are not in the singularity, so there has to be an uncaused cause.

[NoTrueScotsman]

@CronoPhage - I'm not the best-read person on the subject of the universe's age, but I have read a bit.  If the universe couldn't be infinitely old because of infinity's inherent properties, I think I would have read something about that before now. Until infinity's impossibility is a scientific consensus, the existence of mass-energy can be the "uncaused cause."

[CronoPhage]

@NoTrueScotsman Not quite. Then you would have a steady state universe, and that was disprooven with the big bang. So until a field of study that says it never reaches certinty holds a certinty of the impossibility of infinity you are saying mass-energy always existed? You sir, sound like a young earth creationist.

[NoTrueScotsman]

@CronoPhage ~ Are you saying that an infinite duration of mass-energy would necessitate a "steady state universe"? If so, scientists don't agree. Mass-energy could be in a constant state of intense fluctuation, and the Big Bang could have been one of these fluctuations. (Can't find a definition of the word "certinty.")

[CronoPhage]

@NoTrueScotsman Yes I am saying that, because it does. It also has to exist in all states at all times, otherwise, it is not infinate.

[NoTrueScotsman]

@CronoPhage ~ Please discuss this some more. I'm not sure if you're saying that mass-energy must manifest itself in all possible states AT THE SAME TIME or something else. If this is what you mean, it sounds logically impossible. But infinity is not logically impossible because infinity is only a matter of duration, not configuration.

[Feredir28]

Great video mate.

I like the pencil analogy. If I dropped a pencil and it fell to the ground, it would have to pass through an infinite amount of midpoints before it hits the ground. Mathematically, it looks like the pencil will never reach the ground, but as we see in reality and in nature, the pencil hits the ground.

[CapnnOrdinary]

since the Universe isn't infinite, we are able to recognize "time". Veritas is correct. if the Universe is infinite, we would have no "time line".

"time" began at the Big Bang.

[NoTrueScotsman]

@CapnnOrdinary - The universe is finite because it is composed of a finite amount of matter/mass-energy. So, you would need to consider if what surrounds/contains the universe is infinite or not. As I say in my video, time *as we measure it* did indeed begin (more or less) with the Big Bang, but something akin to the passage of time, going from one moment to the next, may very well have existed previously, scientists say.

[CapnnOrdinary]

@NoTrueScotsman

and what evidence do we have that there was a "container" for our Universe?

can't you see, you guys implement your own faith.

[NoTrueScotsman]

@CapnnOrdinary - When you get to cosmological questions like these, a large part of scientific inquiry is speculation and hypothesis because we don't know everything for certain. I don't have deep knowledge of these matters, but if you have a finite universe, then there must be something beyond it, whether a "multiverse" or something else. But scientists base their hypotheses on their interpretation of scientific data, so it isn't faith.

[CapnnOrdinary]

@NoTrueScotsman

well, no. you are just replacing "God" with the "multiverse".

everyone exercises faith bro. -everyone-.

[NoTrueScotsman]

@CapnnOrdinary - I disagree. The idea of a "multiverse" is just a hypothesis at the moment, and it may be discarded if cosmologists get convincing evidence disproving it. By contrast, theists of faith will believe in their chosen deity — and their chosen cosmology — despite any evidence to the contrary. I see a difference.

[CapnnOrdinary]

@NoTrueScotsman

wait, what "evidence" is there to support that there is no God? you are kidding right?

you exercise faith man.

[Psittacosaurus]

@CapnnOrdinary

what evidence is there to support there are no fairies, leprechauns, unicorns and dragons? does it take faith to disbelieve in these things because it has never been proven that they don't exist ?

[CapnnOrdinary]

@Psittacosaurus

that's a straw man argument... fairies, leprechauns, unicorns and dragons don't claim authorship of the Universe. God does. and we can all see that the Universe needs an "Author".

[Psittacosaurus]

@CapnnOrdinary

I made no strawman, my friend, but it is you who are making the fallacy, you are doing what's called shifting the burden of proof, instead of providing evidence that your claim is correct you challange your opponent to provide evidence that your claim is incorrect, the burden of proof is on he who makes the claim and until that burden is met then disbelief is the justified position.

[CapnnOrdinary]

@Psittacosaurus

actually, you guys are the ones making the claim that the Universe is infinite. that has been my point. you guys are exercising faith just as much as Christians.

and once you have a "best" explanation for something, you don't need an explanation for the best explanation. God is logical. unicorns and infinite Universes are not.

[Psittacosaurus]

@CapnnOrdinary

members of both sides of the debate claim that something is infinite, God or the universe, the only difference between the two is that we have evidence for the existance of the universe, and who says we don't need an explanation for our explanations, just because all the explanations haven't been found yet doesn't mean that people aren't still looking.

[CapnnOrdinary]

@Psittacosaurus

from what we believe about God, He is spiritual. and having the property of spirituality automatically qualifies God to live outside our sense of time. the Universe doesn't have that same spiritual property. unless of course you believe your Universe is in fact God.... which would be ironic.

[Psittacosaurus]

@CapnnOrdinary

Once again you make a claim that you neglect to support with evidence, you can make these claims all day long and it won't make them true, in order for anyone to take you seriously you need to justify your claims with evidence and this is something you continuously refuse to do.

[CapnnOrdinary]

@Psittacosaurus

right back at you bro'. my point this entire time is that Atheists believe in something that has NO EVIDENCE either.

we both practice faith :^)

[Psittacosaurus]

@CapnnOrdinary

atheism is not necessarily a belief that there is no god although some atheists will take that position, but generally it is a lack in belief of a god, it requires no faith to disbelieve something, do you need faith to disbelieve in the gods of opposing religions ?

[CapnnOrdinary]

@Psittacosaurus

who's talking about "Atheism"? i'm talking about how Atheists believe that the Universe is infinite.

[Psittacosaurus]

@CapnnOrdinary

I think it's quite likely that the universe is infinite, not the universe as we know it now, it's possible that it has existed in another form prior to this one and another prior to that, we can only go by observable facts and no one has ever observed or seen evidence of matter or energy arising from nothing or decaying into nothing, so there is no reason to believe that such has ever happened.

[CapnnOrdinary]

@Psittacosaurus

so you are basing your belief on something you haven't seen? by golly, you sound like a Christian :^)

[Psittacosaurus]

@CapnnOrdinary

I never said I believe that the universe is necessarily infinite, I said it is likely to be so, I don't claim to know this for a fact and if sufficient evidence were to be presented to show that it is not I will gladly adjust my views unlike most christians and other theists who don't care about evidence and simply believe stories that conflict with reality because they are emotionally invested in the ideals of their particular religion.

[LessonsAtTheLake]

@Psittacosaurus

good. then we both admit that it takes faith to hold our world views.

[CapnnOrdinary]

@Psittacosaurus

sorry, that was from another account. it's still the Capn' here.

[Psittacosaurus]

@CapnnOrdinary

I'm getting tired of your constant projecting, claiming that atheists require faith is simply a method used to avoid having to shoulder the burden of proof, so if you have the evidence required to show that the universe is not infinite then please present it and I shall assess it and if it is coherent and sufficient then I shall accept it.

[CapnnOrdinary]

@Psittacosaurus

this has nothing to do with God's existence... it has to do with your belief that the Universe could be infinite. you need to supply verifiable evidence of that before you try and distance yourself from "crazies" like us. you do have faith bro.

[Psittacosaurus]

@CapnnOrdinary

well, it seems as though nothing productive will result from this discourse, you either don't know the difference between positive claims and suppositions or you're pretending not to and frankly your word games are taxing my nerves, so this will be my last responce, good day sir.

[CapnnOrdinary]

@Psittacosaurus

not trying to get on your nerves bro, just holding up a mirror. you have made the claim that you believe the Universe is infinite. i just asked you what verifiable evidence we have of that. look, either there is an infinite God, or an infinite Universe. and neither can be backed up. so we are in kinda the same pickle.

[NoTrueScotsman]

@CapnnOrdinary - It's not my position that there is no God. This video merely disputes Veritas48's premise for the Kalam argument. The existence of a deity can be neither proven nor disproven scientifically because the concept can't be defined adequately enough to investigate. But many scientists would say that all phenomena on earth can be explained naturally with no need to invoke anything supernatural.

[CapnnOrdinary]

@NoTrueScotsman agree with you. God can't be proven or disproved. but there is more in favor of this Universe needing a God than the Universe being infinite. do you realize that the Universe is sort of your "god"? it just doesn't hold you accountable.

[NoTrueScotsman]

@CapnnOrdinary - Whether God exists or not, we're all accountable to each other.

[CapnnOrdinary]

@NoTrueScotsman

who says?

[NoTrueScotsman]

@CapnnOrdinary - I think it's self-evident that societies with mutually respectful citizens flourish the most, both materially and intangibly. Tyrannized societies tend to be dysfunctional in one way or another, sometimes malignantly. So, the more we treat each other as ourselves, the better our society functions. That's something observable.

[CapnnOrdinary]

@NoTrueScotsman

so when Rome was performing pedophilia on their children, was it wrong? (even though it was accepted culturally)

and how can you tell what society is wrong or right? in Hitler's view, he felt that the Jews were holding his race off. please tell me how our society knows what is wrong or right.

[NoTrueScotsman]

@CapnnOrdinary - I think that our views of morality are constantly evolving. For instance, the Bible was written during a time when slavery was tolerated, so the Bible doesn't take a stand against slavery, and can even be seen to condone it.  And I know the "biblical slavery wasn't chattel slavery" argument. But one human owning another is immoral, period. Where did we get the idea that slavery is wrong? Not from the Bible.

[CapnnOrdinary]

@NoTrueScotsman

1. we don't get our sense of Morality from the Bible, we get it from God. you know, that thing inside our head that says, "it's prolly not right to cut that guys head off for no reason".

2. so if morality is "evolving", then who was right about abortion being deemed "murder" 40 years ago? is abortion not "wrong" because it is the newest "law"?

3. slavery was not wrong when a group of people are tryin to kill you off. i.e. the Israelites.

4. so how does society know wut's wrong?

[NoTrueScotsman]

@CapnnOrdinary - How would you demonstrate that we get our morality from God?

[CapnnOrdinary]

@NoTrueScotsman

how would you demonstrate that we get morality from a rock? (meaning, if we evolved from star dust, then how did the potential of morality get in us?

[NoTrueScotsman]

@CapnnOrdinary - (1) You didn't answer my question; you just posed your own rhetorical (answerless) question in response. (2) I never claimed that "we get our morality from a rock." (3) You are the one who asserted that "we get [our sense of Morality] from God." I'll ask again: How would you demonstrate this assertion?

[CapnnOrdinary]

@NoTrueScotsman

and you didn't answer questions #2 and #4. i asked you first bud. you answer my questions and i'll address yours.

[NoTrueScotsman]

@CapnnOrdinary - I'm not sure I agree with the way you phrased #2. You seem to be saying that it was indeed "right" to "deem" abortion "murder" 40 years ago — the implication being that it is wrong not to deem abortion murder today. Please rephrase.

We don't really "know wut's wrong," but get a grasp of it as we live (laws evolve). Murder, theft, and lying are wrong — with exceptions — because they interfere with the over-all well-being of society.

[CapnnOrdinary]

@NoTrueScotsman

first off, there is no proof for God's existence... so if you are looking for me to give you absolute proof that are morality came from God, it ain't going to happen, just like how you can't prove the opposite.

-that said-, the reason we can deduce that morality came from God is because morality can't originate from space dust. it's as simple and as deducting that a rock can't show love.... deduce my dear Watson, deduce.

[NoTrueScotsman]

@CapnnOrdinary - Okay, how would you demonstrate that morality can't originate from "space dust"?

[CapnnOrdinary]

@NoTrueScotsman

what do you mean? aren't you the one that believes that our morality originates from a Natural origin? aren't you the one who has to show how morality originates from space dust?

[NoTrueScotsman]

@CapnnOrdinary - I'm open to the idea that our existence owes something to an intelligent creator being. We also need to define "space dust." But if the matter here on Earth is basically the same matter in the farthest reaches of the cosmos, and if our morality evolved from the matter in our brains, then you could say that we do indeed get our morality from space dust.

[CapnnOrdinary]

@NoTrueScotsman

so would you say that a rock has the potential to hold the make up of morality?

c'mon doode, doesn't it seem crazy to think that morality, love, creativity, ect, ect. came from a rock?

[AtomicKinetic12]

@CapnnOrdinary Those are all abstract concepts you just brought up and I am pretty certain that no rational person says those concepts came from a 'rock'. All concepts require someone with a brain to conceptualize them. Evolutionary processes and anthropological studies can explain how those concepts were developed in the human brain. You need to do more if you want to argue for objective morality.

[CapnnOrdinary]

@AtomicKinetic12

of course no rational person says "those things came from a rock", because they didn't.

[CapnnOrdinary]

@AtomicKinetic12

remember, this is all about "origins"... you can't just skip to the middle and go "wah-la! here's morality!"

[AtomicKinetic12]

@CapnnOrdinary I'm not sure I get what you mean. I was talking about 'origins' within the human brain. The psychological development and the anthropological evolution of it. Morality is a concept. It isn't a thing which existed in itself beyond human perception. Human beings are required to develop it and give it value. Morality only pertains to behavior modification. And its application within societies existed well before any Abrahamic religions arose.

[Kreadus005]

@CapnnOrdinary

#1 - Psycopaths don't. They get mirror neurons that make them feel happy when they hurt others. We get instincts from our physical makeup. Genetics. Our bodies. Thats evolution. But is that what you would like to call morality? Probably not. But that said, you cannot use internal feelings to compass morality, it has to be something completely external/reasoned/enforced by outside forces.

[Kreadus005]

@CapnnOrdinary

#2. Ectopic pregnancy. If brought to term kills both mother and child. Only solution is to terminate pregnancy. Seems pretty straight forward to me. How does this evolve? Say one day we find a way to take the embryo and put it in a safe place? Don't have to kill it anymore. Morality thus evolves.

#3 & #4, not sure what you're asking. Can you clarify?

[Akatam0t0ma]

@Scorner99:

He was a Jewish philosopher, not Islamic. But upon a brief look in Wikipedia, I see that Kalam is indeed an Islamic concept. Wikipedia knows best! ;-)

[Paxmax]

I have to agree whole-heartedly, why is this(our) concept of time so hard to understand for theists... why do they over complicate things just so they can inject "god" instead... if not other arguments persuade them, occams good 'ol razer will slice their arguments at their heels.