Five proofs for God

Salamando
Theist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2009-03-28
User is offlineOffline
Five proofs for God

(1)  It is impossible for a finite being to be the net effect of an infinite regress of prior causes and effects, as that would be the equivalent of saying that I could possibly give you a dollar after I flick the light switch an infinite amount of times, where in fact you would never get to the dollar if that were the case.  Therefore, it is necessary that there be one being that is infinite and uncreated.  That being we call "God".  

(2) Logical absolutes are concepts which require a mind to account for them.  These are the law of identity, the law of excluded middle, and the law of non-contradiction.  These concepts are transcendent, in that they are a priori and cannot be falsified empirically insofar that if you were to travel a million miles one way and a million miles the other way, they would still hold true.  These laws are the grounds for understanding, language, and any other forms of logic in the fields of philosophy or quantum physics (including trivalent logic, which falsely proposes that the law of excluded middle is disproved).   Logical absolutes cannot be dependent on human minds, because human minds are different and what one person believes is logical may not be what someone else believes is logical and it is quite clear that you could conceive of possible worlds where no human beings exist and the laws of logic would still apply.  Yet you would not be able to escape the fact that the laws of logic require a mind (because truth and concepts exist in a mind) and could not avoid the presupposition that there is a mind. And if you have only two possibilities to account for something and the other is falsified, then the other is validated by default.  Therefore, since logical absolutes cannot be accounted for if God does not exist, then clearly God does exist as the logical absolutes are concepts grounded on a divine intellect.

(3) Moral absolutes are also transcendent and require a mind to account for them.  Natural scientists cannot look under rocks and find moral absolutes.  And yet we assume that there is a framework of right and wrong in humanity.  Moral absolutes cannot be dependent on human minds for the same reason that logical absolutes cannot be dependent on human minds:  Human minds are different and what I think is moral may not be what you believe is moral.  And you would have no basis for falsifying my morality.  Morals are ends in themselves and if they are for any utilitarian reasons, then they have no moral worth and true morality does not exist.  For if morality is dictated by utility, then something which is immoral at one time period could be immoral at another time period.  Moreover, morality would be contingent rather than necessary and transcendent.  Therefore, if God does not exist, then everything would be permitted.  Yet I would grant that no sane person could possibly believe that everything is permitted.  Therefore, the existence of morality proves that there must be an infinite mind through which the moral concepts are.

(4) It is well documented by historians that Jesus Christ was a real human being.  His existence is confirmed in the writings of Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Julius Africanus, Talmud, Lucian of Samosota, Mera Bar-Serapion.. and most importantly, Matthew, John, and Luke.  Moreover, it is well documented that there were MANY eye witnesses who claim to have seen Jesus alive after the crucifixion, and all of these people were willing to suffer prolonged torture and death for what they knew they had witnessed.  People will not die for what they know is not true, but they will die for what they believe to be true.  These people knew what they saw.  That is enough to convince me that the resurrection really happened.  The Christian martyrs either saw Christ after his death or they did not.  If they did not, then why would they be willing to die for a lie?  Could they all have been mentally ill?  We are talking about THOUSANDS of people here.  This was enough to convince PAUL, who was a violent persecutor of the Church.

(5) In "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking points out that the universe has to be EXACTLY how it is and if it is even an infinitesimal amount different, then we would have no universe.  The mass of the proton, the mass of the electron, gravitation force, etc. has to maintain the EXACT values that it does in order for the universe to be what it is.  The universe is clearly finely tuned.  If there is no divine intellect, then the universe would be the result of natural devices which are completely void of any intent, since intent only exists in minds.  To believe this is absurd.  That would be like assuming that winds could write "Hello, how are you?" in the sand on the beach.

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Salamando

butterbattle wrote:

Salamando wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Which god?

God.

He's talking about the real one.

 

 

...that narrows it down a lot.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Salamando
Theist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2009-03-28
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:So God

butterbattle wrote:

So God decides.

No he does not.  


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Salamando

Salamando wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

1)There is a infinite regress of prior causes and effects - Who says this is the case and why? 

2)An infinite being exists. Where was there a need? How do you know?

3)Why is the asserted infinite being in 2) need to be a god?

1) I'm arguing that this CANNOT be the case.

2) I explain that in the argument.  An infinite regress of causality is impossible and therefore there must be an uncaused cause.

3) At the end of the argument, I conclude that an INFINITE being must exist.  Are you saying that "God" is something other than an infinite being?

1) OK. If you are referring to our existence and the Universe we know, it may not be infinite at all as it may progress to an end. Or it may recycle. We won't be here to know. Again. how can you know either way? 

2)As one can't know what there was prior to our Universe, at least yet, one can't assume anything including there must be an uncaused cause. You don't know this and its conjecture.

3)You don't conclude, you assert it must exist because of your assumptions that are baseless. You suggest in later posts that you don't deny the Universe likely was created as science suggests, yet you assert that there had to be a cause prior to it you call God. No evidence other than conjecture on your part.

Salamando wrote:

Quote:
If there are only 2 possibilities to account for something and one is falsified the other may be as well as insufficient information may be available.

Then there are not two possibilities.  But if there ARE two possibilities and one is falsified, then the other is validated.  In this case, there are TWO possibilities.  There is either God or there is not God.  

You missed the point. Your god could have exploded himself into making the Universe and now no longer exists so there are at least THREE possibilities if not more. 

Salamando wrote:

Quote:
Morals are relevant not absolute.

It was considered moral to sacrifice your child in ancient societies for the good of the tribe as an example.

It is considered moral in some Islamic countries to kill a woman who has been raped.

It is considered moral to cut off the hands of a thief in some societies.

So you believe that it is okay for Muslims to kill women but not okay for you to do it?  If you do not, then you must believe that morals are absolute.

Not only do I think it's immoral for Muslims to kill innocent (in my view) women I also think it's immoral for Christians to destroy minds with beliefs in fantasy such as you promote. I think its immoral to warp a child's mind with beliefs in Satan, Hell, and damnation, if you don't then you must think morals are relevant.

 

Salamando wrote:

Quote:
In the surviving copies of Josephus there is a mention of Christ but it is marginal and not understandable for a Jew such as Josephus to have such a view. Please explain why you consider it to be historically the original writing of Josephus and not a later addition by copyists or by even Eusebius as he was the 1st to mention it in 324 CE?

You are not offering me anything objective.  Because Josephus was Jewish, he could not have written about Jesus so favorably?  Are you aware that the first Christians WERE Jewish?  Clearly, ALL Jews did not hate Jesus.  Furthermore, Antiquities has numerous translations and some translations have it as "he was believed to be the Christ," so whether or not he was speaking favorable is subject to debate.  I need to point out that the authenticity of the Antiquities went UNQUESTIONED for thousands of years before some scholars in the High Middle Ages decided that it did not make sense for a Jew to say those things about Christ and give validity to him.  Perhaps that explains why the historical records are relatively scarce, although that could also be explained by the fact that in 70 AD, the Romans destroyed most of Israel and many historical documents were lost as well as many of Christ's eye-witnesses.

Josephus was writing to an audience primarily not of Jewish origin and did so creatively in many places. Do you suggest that his history is accurate throughout all of his works?

I know the first Jesus believers were Jews and supposedly so was he. The 1st believers such as James in Acts seemed to view things differently than the Paulinity that later developed. James promoted the continued observance of the Law for Jews and allowed Paul to do what always was allowed for God-fearing Gentiles per the Noahide rules for God fearers, Genesis 9. See Acts 15:13-20 and Acts 21:20-21 when Paul gets reprimanded. So, yes I'm aware the the 1st Jesus believers were Jews are you sure that you shouldn't be one that accepts Jesus as the Jewish messiah and not the Pauline myths instead? As you point out the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 and even more so under the bar Kosiba rebellion in 132. Many Jews die including Jesus believers taking pretty much all of the original Jerusalem Church and records with them into oblivion. Instead what survives are churches Paul the myth maker started in Gentile areas. Whether he was the myth maker or just well meaning unknowing followers were is not clear, but a clear difference occurs. Jew dislike develops in the later Gospels in a more pronounced way than for example in Mark. 

Salamando wrote:

Quote:
Pliny the Younger's letters only prove he was aware of Christians and are not proof a Jesus Christ existed.

So the Christians that were tortured for their beliefs just made the guy up?  

Someone misconstrued reality and started oral legends that people believed.

Did Mohamed just make up his recital as well? Did someone make up the Heaven's Gate crap? 

 

Salamando wrote:

Quote:
Tacitus' wrote of Christus and Chrestians in regards to Nero and the burning of Rome. Or did he? Could this be more copyist insertion? Who can tell? No early Christian writer mentions Tacitus in regards to Christian persecution or Nero. Nary a word from the like of Eusebius, Augustine, or Tertullian.

Everything is an "insertion", right?

Everything is real right, Godsperm, pregnant virgins, Herod killing babies, 2000 swine jumping into the sea with devils,  world-wide floods, 900 year old humans, millions wandering the Sinai for 40 years etc.......

Salamando wrote:

Quote:

We would have no Universe in the way we understand it, what there would be is something else we don't understand because we are unable to imagine it. This is not support for your position a god fine tuned the Universe, it only establishes it is what it is and it's not what it may have been that we don't understand.

In other words, you cannot give me an answer but you know that the answer cannot be God.

The point is, we have what we have and there was a much HIGHER probability that it could not have happened.  Yet it did.  I do not believe there is anyway that what we have was random.  It required an intellect.  

The point being if things weren't the way they are instead a Universe of green slime monsters that breathe hydrogen sulfide might be having this conversation with completely different laws of physics.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Salamando wrote:ClockCat

Salamando wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Neither true or false.

Violates the law of excluded middle.  Cannot be neither true nor false.

Quote:
Things in the world don't have "good" and "bad" attatched to them. Do you think a lion believes killing a gazelle is bad?

I don't believe that the lion has a "belief" at all.  The lion is a wild animal who has nothing but instinct, whereas humanity is defined pragmatically by the capacity to act contrary to natural instinct.  But if you want to split hairs, I'll revise the statement:

"It is wrong for a rational free human being to rape a child."

True or false?

Quote:
If raping a small child was the only way to ensure the survival of the species, would the person doing it believe it was bad? Probably not.

"It is wrong for a rational free human being to rape a child in the case where the rape would not be to any evolutionary advantage."

True or false?

 

 

Neither would be wrong. If I had a child, through enlightened self interest I may claim it is wrong for my own benefit. But nothing, I repeat, nothing is wrong, because wrong and right are entirely subjective judgements and have no bearing on reality.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Salamando wrote:butterbattle

Salamando wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

So God decides.

No he does not.  

 

So you decide and claim a divinity told you?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Salamando
Theist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2009-03-28
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: Neither

ClockCat wrote:

 

Neither would be wrong.

Okay, then you are saying that it would be okay to rape a child.  You have two options:  right or wrong.  If it is not wrong, then it is right.

Quote:
If I had a child, through enlightened self interest I may claim it is wrong for my own benefit. But nothing, I repeat, nothing is wrong, because wrong and right are entirely subjective judgements and have no bearing on reality.

Do you not see how absurd this is?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Salamando wrote:butterbattle

Salamando wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

So God decides.

No he does not.  

Then who decides?

Does he possess the option to decide?

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Salamando wrote:ClockCat

Salamando wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 

Neither would be wrong.

Okay, then you are saying that it would be okay to rape a child.  You have two options:  right or wrong.  If it is not wrong, then it is right.

Quote:
If I had a child, through enlightened self interest I may claim it is wrong for my own benefit. But nothing, I repeat, nothing is wrong, because wrong and right are entirely subjective judgements and have no bearing on reality.

Do you not see how absurd this is?

 

Not absurd in the least. The only absurdity is you claiming that the entire world has to fit into two categories. It's like saying, "You are either a good guy or a bad guy." It is such simplistic thinking that it would probably give anyone a headache trying to have a lasting conversation with you.

 

Just because nothing is "wrong" doesn't make everything "right". Everything on this planet does NOT have morals attached to it, despite what you may think. You may make personal judgements, but that is only how you are looking at things.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Salamando wrote:Quote:In the

Salamando wrote:

Quote:
In the surviving copies of Josephus there is a mention of Christ but it is marginal and not understandable for a Jew such as Josephus to have such a view. Please explain why you consider it to be historically the original writing of Josephus and not a later addition by copyists or by even Eusebius as he was the 1st to mention it in 324 CE?

You are not offering me anything objective.  Because Josephus was Jewish, he could not have written about Jesus so favorably?  Are you aware that the first Christians WERE Jewish?

Some were; some, not all. There also were the Gnostic Christians and Paulines. They got smashed together sometime around 100-ish.

Unless you believe the patently false religious fiction of the book of Acts or in the doctrine of apostlic descent.

Quote:
Clearly, ALL Jews did not hate Jesus.

Well, yeah, but who's someone who *everyone* hates anyway?

Quote:
Furthermore, Antiquities has numerous translations and some translations have it as "he was believed to be the Christ," so whether or not he was speaking favorable is subject to debate.

I assume you're talking about the Arabic translations? The same Arabic translations which were done by a Christian who had good reason to fudge the pre-existing text a little and make it more palatable to the new religion in his area. Or do you mean the Baltic region Josephus, which has even MORE additions?

Quote:
I need to point out that the authenticity of the Antiquities went UNQUESTIONED for thousands of years before some scholars in the High Middle Ages decided that it did not make sense for a Jew to say those things about Christ and give validity to him.

But does this make your case for you? Think about what other unquestioned doctrines have since been dropped by the Church, and consider: Does the fact that a bunch of people believed or were forced to believe something unquestioningly for centuries make my case?

Quote:
Perhaps that explains why the historical records are relatively scarce, although that could also be explained by the fact that in 70 AD, the Romans destroyed most of Israel and many historical documents were lost as well as many of Christ's eye-witnesses.

Fallacy. If the Church had indisputable evidence of Jesus' existence, they would have kept it safe and made copies upon copies upon copies. Another problem: when we look at who else used Josephus as proof of Jesus' existence, we come across Origen, who didn't mention the Testimonium, but instead looked at a passage where Josephus talks about an uprising by a certain Timothy, and extrapolated that to mean Josephus was in error and really meant Jesus when he said Timothy. So sure, you could say the early Christians were unaware of some evidence that went up in flames along with the Temple, but you'll also have to avoid the fact that pre-4th century Christian apologists didn't mention the most obvious evidentiary claim: Josephus.

Quote:

Quote:
Pliny the Younger's letters only prove he was aware of Christians and are not proof a Jesus Christ existed.

So the Christians that were tortured for their beliefs just made the guy up?

 

 The only evidence for getting tortured or killed for beliefs is evidence of belief itself. However, it's possible that nobody made stuff up; Mark (extrapolated to Matthew and Luke later) may have been historical fiction about the missed Messiah, Paul had his own ideas about 'Christ', and when these two met, and got some legitimacy by tacking on these WAY out of context and horrendously translated (from the Septaugint) Tanakh prophesies, many started believing it was all one. Dying for beliefs, any belief, whether false or real, is an ancient human tradition.

Quote:

 

Quote:
Tacitus' wrote of Christus and Chrestians in regards to Nero and the burning of Rome. Or did he? Could this be more copyist insertion? Who can tell? No early Christian writer mentions Tacitus in regards to Christian persecution or Nero. Nary a word from the like of Eusebius, Augustine, or Tertullian.

Everything is an "insertion", right?

When it comes to these unclear and misleading SAME FOUR 'proofs' that have been around since before the western Roman Empire officially fell, yes.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Salamando wrote:Okay, then

Salamando wrote:

Okay, then you are saying that it would be okay to rape a child.  You have two options:  right or wrong.  If it is not wrong, then it is right.

No, he's saying that right and wrong are concepts invented by humans. He's saying that without our subjectivity, nothing is inherently right or wrong.

Edit: I would say that it is wrong to rape a child unless it is required to prevent something of greater immorality or allow something of greater morality. It is, of course, impossible to quantity such things, it's only qualitative, which is why hypothetical moral decisions are often extremely difficult.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Salamando
Theist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2009-03-28
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:1)

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

1) OK. If you are referring to our existence and the Universe we know, it may not be infinite at all as it may progress to an end. Or it may recycle. We won't be here to know. Again. how can you know either way?

I agree, maybe it could have an ending.  But I was talking about an infinite REGRESSION.  In which case, if you believe that the universe can come to an end, then you cannot possibly believe in an infinite regress because you would never GET TO the ending if that were the case. 

Quote:
2)As one can't know what there was prior to our Universe, at least yet, one can't assume anything including there must be an uncaused cause. You don't know this and its conjecture.

It is not conjecture.  It is a LOGICAL NECESSITY.  

Quote:
3)You don't conclude, you assert it must exist because of your assumptions that are baseless. You suggest in later posts that you don't deny the Universe likely was created as science suggests, yet you assert that there had to be a cause prior to it you call God. No evidence other than conjecture on your part.

What posts are you referring to?

Quote:
You missed the point. Your god could have exploded himself into making the Universe and now no longer exists so there are at least THREE possibilities if not more.
 

No, there are TWO possibilities.  The example you just gave was the option of "No god."

Quote:
Not only do I think it's immoral for Muslims to kill innocent (in my view) women I also think it's immoral for Christians to destroy minds with beliefs in fantasy such as you promote. I think its immoral to warp a child's mind with beliefs in Satan, Hell, and damnation, if you don't then you must think morals are relevant.

Now you are just throwing all this emotion into it.  Isn't that what you accuse Christians of doing?

Quote:
Someone misconstrued reality and started oral legends that people believed.

You believe that one person had some hallucination and managed to convince thousands of people of something, which evolved into a way of life for millions of people around the world?  Or do you believe that thousands of guys took drugs and all had the same hallucination?

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Salamando wrote:You believe

Salamando wrote:

You believe that one person had some hallucination and managed to convince thousands of people of something, which evolved into a way of life for millions of people around the world?  Or do you believe that thousands of guys took drugs and all had the same hallucination?

 

 

Hi. Are you aware of Scientology?

 

Look at the tens of thousands that already believe in Xenu existing. It doesn't take long for a religion to sprout up.

 

 

Edit: Sorry, it seems it is hundreds of thousands now.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Salamando
Theist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2009-03-28
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Not absurd in

ClockCat wrote:

Not absurd in the least. The only absurdity is you claiming that the entire world has to fit into two categories. It's like saying, "You are either a good guy or a bad guy." It is such simplistic thinking that it would probably give anyone a headache trying to have a lasting conversation with you.

Actually, there are many situations in which there are several options.  A Coca Cola can doesn't have to be either red or blue.  It can also be green, yellow, magenta, or black.  No problem.

But there is no intermediary between right and wrong.  Something is either right or it is not right.  

Quote:
Just because nothing is "wrong" doesn't make everything "right". Everything on this planet does NOT have morals attached to it, despite what you may think. You may make personal judgements, but that is only how you are looking at things.

If an action is not wrong, and it is not right, then what is it?  What is the 3rd option?  

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Salamando wrote:ClockCat

Salamando wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Not absurd in the least. The only absurdity is you claiming that the entire world has to fit into two categories. It's like saying, "You are either a good guy or a bad guy." It is such simplistic thinking that it would probably give anyone a headache trying to have a lasting conversation with you.

Actually, there are many situations in which there are several options.  A Coca Cola can doesn't have to be either red or blue.  It can also be green, yellow, magenta, or black.  No problem.

But there is no intermediary between right and wrong.  Something is either right or it is not right.  

Quote:
Just because nothing is "wrong" doesn't make everything "right". Everything on this planet does NOT have morals attached to it, despite what you may think. You may make personal judgements, but that is only how you are looking at things.

If an action is not wrong, and it is not right, then what is it?  What is the 3rd option?  

 

 

It simply exists. If a lion eats a gazelle do you think it is wrong or right?

 

The world is nature. Things that happen, happen. Nothing is right or wrong. Those moral judgements? They are only how you decide to look at things. As an individual.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Let me ask you this: If a

Let me ask you this: If a meteor destroys half the planet, killing all kinds of people...is it right or wrong?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
What about things that are

What about things that are arbitrary?Like some people cremate a body when a person dies and other people bury it. Neither is better or worse. They're both arbitrary customs.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Salamando
Theist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2009-03-28
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:It simply

ClockCat wrote:

It simply exists. If a lion eats a gazelle do you think it is wrong or right?

I should amend what I said about actions being right or wrong.  So you can give yourself some points and do the happy dance, because you did beat me there.  But that doesn't change the fact that you are biting the bullet right now.  But I'll amend my statement anyway:  FREE ACTS are either right or wrong.  Only free actions can be evaluated in moral terms.  Lions do not act on choice, they act on instinct.

But you are evaluating free human actions in the same way that you evaluate action in nature or in the jungle.  This, in my opinion, is disgusting. 


Salamando
Theist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2009-03-28
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Hi. Are you

ClockCat wrote:

Hi. Are you aware of Scientology?

Look at the tens of thousands that already believe in Xenu existing. It doesn't take long for a religion to sprout up.

Edit: Sorry, it seems it is hundreds of thousands now.

 

You are NOT going to try and argue that scientology is a force to be reckoned with in the world.  Please tell me that you aren't going there.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Burying and cremating people

Burying and cremating people are free acts.


Salamando
Theist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2009-03-28
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Burying and

Gauche wrote:

Burying and cremating people are free acts.

It is not morally wrong to bury or cremate a corpse.  So?


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Salamando wrote:ClockCat

Salamando wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

It simply exists. If a lion eats a gazelle do you think it is wrong or right?

I should amend what I said about actions being right or wrong.  So you can give yourself some points and do the happy dance, because you did beat me there.  But that doesn't change the fact that you are biting the bullet right now.  But I'll amend my statement anyway:  FREE ACTS are either right or wrong.  Only free actions can be evaluated in moral terms.  Lions do not act on choice, they act on instinct.

But you are evaluating free human actions in the same way that you evaluate action in nature or in the jungle.  This, in my opinion, is disgusting. 

 

I uploaded a smiley face in celebration for my avatar. See? I'm new here. Laughing out loud

 

You think that looking at human beings...as a part of nature...is disgusting? Why?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Salamando wrote:Quote:2)As

Salamando wrote:

Quote:
2)As one can't know what there was prior to our Universe, at least yet, one can't assume anything including there must be an uncaused cause. You don't know this and its conjecture.

It is not conjecture.  It is a LOGICAL NECESSITY.  

Since you are so convinced of what there was prior to this Universe please enlighten all of us. Since science can't tell what occurred prior to the Big Bang how can you?

Salamando wrote:

Quote:
3)You don't conclude, you assert it must exist because of your assumptions that are baseless. You suggest in later posts that you don't deny the Universe likely was created as science suggests, yet you assert that there had to be a cause prior to it you call God. No evidence other than conjecture on your part.

What posts are you referring to?

This from Post #25:

Salamando wrote:
And I did not specifically say that the universe couldn't have come into existence by itself.

Salamando wrote:

Quote:
You missed the point. Your god could have exploded himself into making the Universe and now no longer exists so there are at least THREE possibilities if not more.
 

No, there are TWO possibilities.  The example you just gave was the option of "No god."

No, it was a god that exploded. There are also multiple gods as suggested in Genesis, Psalms and a few more places. Perhaps your god was male and female as we were made in their image male and female, Genesis 1.

Salamando wrote:

Quote:
Not only do I think it's immoral for Muslims to kill innocent (in my view) women I also think it's immoral for Christians to destroy minds with beliefs in fantasy such as you promote. I think its immoral to warp a child's mind with beliefs in Satan, Hell, and damnation, if you don't then you must think morals are relevant.

Now you are just throwing all this emotion into it.  Isn't that what you accuse Christians of doing?

To quote Roxy the reaper, you don't know me. 

OK, I see little difference in your rape a little child example not containing emotion.

Salamando wrote:

Quote:
Someone misconstrued reality and started oral legends that people believed.

You believe that one person had some hallucination and managed to convince thousands of people of something, which evolved into a way of life for millions of people around the world?  Or do you believe that thousands of guys took drugs and all had the same hallucination? 

Perhaps Paul is a good starting point for hallucination being spread as real. He wrote his tripe first before the Gospels and no one has a clue who authored the Gospels just conjecture and tradition by the Church.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Salamando wrote:Gauche

Salamando wrote:

Gauche wrote:

Burying and cremating people are free acts.

It is not morally wrong to bury or cremate a corpse.  So?

 

 

How do you know?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Salamando wrote:Gauche

Salamando wrote:

Gauche wrote:

Burying and cremating people are free acts.

It is not morally wrong to bury or cremate a corpse.  So?

It isn't morally right either.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Salamando
Theist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2009-03-28
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:You think

ClockCat wrote:

You think that looking at human beings...as a part of nature...is disgusting? Why?

I think we've digressed quite a bit.

And I'm getting tired, so I'll just end it with this:

If you were walking the streets and witnessed some man from another culture violently raping a little girl, and in this man's culture, this behavior was permissible because the screams of the little girl are believed to chase away evil spirits..... would you do anything to rescue this little girl, or would you walk on by because you do not believe that moral commands of behavior are true across the board and that you have no right to infringe upon his man's ethical system (which brings me to another point... moral relativism is contradictory:  It proposes that moral absolutes do not exist and it is thereby proposing an absolute and on that basis, also proposes that we have no right to interfere in the morals of other cultures, which seems to be a moral absolute in itself).  

I think that you know very well that there is a moral framework in humanity.  Do not just deny simply so you can win an argument.  


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Salamando wrote:ClockCat

Salamando wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

You think that looking at human beings...as a part of nature...is disgusting? Why?

I think we've digressed quite a bit.

And I'm getting tired, so I'll just end it with this:

If you were walking the streets and witnessed some man from another culture violently raping a little girl, and in this man's culture, this behavior was permissible because the screams of the little girl are believed to chase away evil spirits..... would you do anything to rescue this little girl, or would you walk on by because you do not believe that moral commands of behavior are true across the board and that you have no right to infringe upon his man's ethical system (which brings me to another point... moral relativism is contradictory:  It proposes that moral absolutes do not exist and it is thereby proposing an absolute and on that basis, also proposes that we have no right to interfere in the morals of other cultures, which seems to be a moral absolute in itself).  

I think that you know very well that there is a moral framework in humanity.  Do not just deny simply so you can win an argument.  

 

If I was in the culture where it was socially accepted, I would walk by. Should I be hoping to accomplish something?

 

You act like it would be a "bad" thing or something to do that. I'm pretty sure if you stopped the holy man scaring away evil spirits you would be the "wrong" and "evil" one in that society.

 

Why would you be trying to help the evil spirits after all?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Salamando
Theist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2009-03-28
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Since you are so convinced of what there was prior to this Universe please enlighten all of us. Since science can't tell what occurred prior to the Big Bang how can you?

I do not even believe in the Big Bang.  But to answer your question, I don't know what was prior to this universe.  God may have created a different universe before ours.  That is not the question that the cosmological argument answers.  In fact, this is all consistent with Genesis.  Yes, God created what we perceive as THIS universe and Genesis begins at that point, but it is possible that there were other universes before that, not addressed in Genesis.  Christians typically do not think about that.  

The cosmological argument is about going back to the FIRST CAUSE.... past all of the other possible universes, past everything... to the very "beginning" (and I put that in quotes for a specific reason).


Salamando
Theist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2009-03-28
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:It isn't

Gauche wrote:

It isn't morally right either.

Well you aren't really being descriptive enough.

Did I have permission to cremate the corpse?  Was it a corpse or a living person?  Did I do it for the right reasons?


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Salamando wrote:Gauche

Salamando wrote:

Gauche wrote:

It isn't morally right either.

Well you aren't really being descriptive enough.

Did I have permission to cremate the corpse?  Was it a corpse or a living person?  Did I do it for the right reasons?

 

You aren't being descriptive enough either then. What is a "right" reason?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Salamando wrote:BobSpence1

Salamando wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Infinite sequences are handled all the time in Mathematics, it is not incoherent.

I never made that claim.  It is perfectly coherent to assume that a progression of events begins and continues without ever stopping.  We have no problem conceiving of that.  What is incoherent is the belief that an event can occur AFTER an infinite sequence of events, which presupposes that an infinite sequence has an ending thus contradicting it being an infinite sequence.

Infinite sequences can have a finite beginning or a finite end. That does not stop it being infinite in time. Depending how the 'events' which make up the sequence are defined, an infinite sequence of events can occur in a finite time. You may be confusing 'infinite' here with 'eternal'.

Quote:

Quote:
As long as each successive element in a progression of elements, events, cause/effect steps, whatever, is lesser in some respect, whether time, space , or other measure, by some finite amount, even just, say, 0.1%, than its predecessor in the sequence, whether working forward or back from the reference point, then the totality of that measure will be finite.

And how do you quantify sentient things in percentages?  

Don't have to be able to precisely quantify intelligence, just be able to recognise that there are clearly greater and lesser degrees of sentience,  the argument still holds.

I note you avoided commenting on the main point I made in that paragraph, that an infinite cause/effect chain does not necessarily require an infinite stretch of time, therefore involves no paradox.

EDIT: The way we analyse the whole process of interactions and conditions and changing environments leading from the Big Bang to the emergence of Homo Sapiens is not really a clear sequence of cause/effect, so any talk about infinite chains of cause/effect is really beside the point. It really only arises in principle if you require each 'being' to be 'caused' to come into existence by some equivalent or more powerful being - this is what leads to an infinite regress.

Quote:

Quote:

It is the assumption of a God creator which leads to the truly incoherent infinite regress, ie what created God?

Did I ever claim that everything needs a creator?

You are probably right, it's just that your first argument was so confused and illogical that I may have assumed that was part of your 'thinking'. You did assume that the only alternative to an infinite regress of cause/effect culminating in a 'finite being' was an uncreated being, and also assumed that such an uncreated being would be infinite, which is not logically justified.

As I have demonstrated, even an infinite causal sequence does not necessarily have be infinite in time, and does not have to start with anything more that the smallest possible 'cause', the very opposite of something infinite. So your first argument is without merit. EDIT: and of course, without the assumption of causes being equal to or greater in any sense from their effect, the chain does not need to start with anything more than the quantum scale twitchiness that appears to be pervasive at the minimum scale of existence.

The comments about the 'fine-tuning' of the universe are massively over-stated.

In "A Brief History of Time" Hawking does acknowledge that "the values of these numbers appear to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of intelligent life. For example if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars either would either be unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else would have been unable to explode."

Note he does not say EXACT or an 'infinitesimal' amount different.

Elsewhere he says

"The strong anthropic principle...runs against the tide of the whole history of science. We have developed from the geocentric cosmologies of Ptolemy and his forebears, through the heliocentric cosmology of Copernicus and Galileo, to the modern picture in which the earth is a medium-sized planet orbiting around an average star in the outer suburbs of an ordinary spiral galaxy, which is itself one of about a million million galaxies in the observable universe. Yet the strong anthropic principle would claim that this whole vast construction exists simply for our sake. This is very hard to believe. Our Solar System is certainly a prerequisite for our existence, and one might extend this the whole of our galaxy to allow for an earlier generation of stars that created the heavier elements. But there does not seem to be any need for all those other galaxies, nor for the universe to be so uniform and similar in every direction on the large scale."

There is also more recent studies that suggest if we allow the 'critical' numbers to vary in combination, there is reason to believe that there other combinations of values which mught also support life of some form.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Salamando wrote:Gauche

Salamando wrote:

Gauche wrote:

It isn't morally right either.

Well you aren't really being descriptive enough.

Did I have permission to cremate the corpse?  Was it a corpse or a living person?  Did I do it for the right reasons?

 

Moral judgments like other value judgments need to be based on reasons. There's no reason to think it's morally wrong, but that doesn't make it morally right by default. There's also no reason to think it's morally right. That means the opposite argument would be equally valid (it's wrong because there's no reason to think it's right).

 

EDIT: I wasn't referring to any individual instance. I was talking about the practices of burial and cremation.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Salamando

Salamando wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Since you are so convinced of what there was prior to this Universe please enlighten all of us. Since science can't tell what occurred prior to the Big Bang how can you?

I do not even believe in the Big Bang.  But to answer your question, I don't know what was prior to this universe.  God may have created a different universe before ours.  That is not the question that the cosmological argument answers.  In fact, this is all consistent with Genesis.  Yes, God created what we perceive as THIS universe and Genesis begins at that point, but it is possible that there were other universes before that, not addressed in Genesis.  Christians typically do not think about that.  

The cosmological argument is about going back to the FIRST CAUSE.... past all of the other possible universes, past everything... to the very "beginning" (and I put that in quotes for a specific reason).

I consider Genesis to be a myth, parable, or legend with no basis in reality not addressing anything or relevance in the real world. I know Christians don't contemplate what there was before as I was one once. 

Since science has established sufficient evidence that there was a Big Bang including measurements of it's occurance we will argue in circles, no point in that and a waste of time.

Even the Catholic Church allows that evolution and perhaps the Big Bang could have been the way God did it. Though they keep the god in it unneeded and never answer the question who made god.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Salamando wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Since you are so convinced of what there was prior to this Universe please enlighten all of us. Since science can't tell what occurred prior to the Big Bang how can you?

I do not even believe in the Big Bang.  But to answer your question, I don't know what was prior to this universe.  God may have created a different universe before ours.  That is not the question that the cosmological argument answers.  In fact, this is all consistent with Genesis.  Yes, God created what we perceive as THIS universe and Genesis begins at that point, but it is possible that there were other universes before that, not addressed in Genesis.  Christians typically do not think about that.  

The cosmological argument is about going back to the FIRST CAUSE.... past all of the other possible universes, past everything... to the very "beginning" (and I put that in quotes for a specific reason).

I consider Genesis to be a myth, parable, or legend with no basis in reality not addressing anything or relevance in the real world. I know Christians don't contemplate what there was before as I was one once. 

Since science has established sufficient evidence that there was a Big Bang including measurements of it's occurance we will argue in circles, no point in that and a waste of time.

Even the Catholic Church allows that evolution and perhaps the Big Bang could have been the way God did it. Though they keep the god in it unneeded and never answer the question who made god.

 

 

 

Didn't you know? I accidentally the whole god.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Salamando wrote:I think

Salamando wrote:

I think we've digressed quite a bit.

And I'm getting tired, so I'll just end it with this:

If you were walking the streets and witnessed some man from another culture violently raping a little girl, and in this man's culture, this behavior was permissible because the screams of the little girl are believed to chase away evil spirits..... would you do anything to rescue this little girl, or would you walk on by because you do not believe that moral commands of behavior are true across the board and that you have no right to infringe upon his man's ethical system (which brings me to another point... moral relativism is contradictory:  It proposes that moral absolutes do not exist and it is thereby proposing an absolute and on that basis, also proposes that we have no right to interfere in the morals of other cultures, which seems to be a moral absolute in itself).  

I think that you know very well that there is a moral framework in humanity.  Do not just deny simply so you can win an argument.  

With any argument like this, we have to agree on what the terms mean. So, if absolute morality is referring to some inherent morality that transcends humanity, then no, absolute morality does not exist. However, within the context that we decide what is ethical, if absolute morality simply stipulates that some actions/intentions are always right or wrong, then yes, with the necessary qualifiers, absolute morality does exist. Wow, I didn't explain that very well.

For example, raping five year girls for fun against their will is always wrong. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Salamando wrote:5 Proofs for

Salamando wrote:
5 Proofs for God


 

 

Weren't you an athiest before?


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:Salamando

Ciarin wrote:

Salamando wrote:
5 Proofs for God

 

 

 

Weren't you an athiest before?

I think he just came to play and screw with our heads.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Salamando wrote:(2) Logical

Salamando wrote:

(2) Logical absolutes are concepts which require a mind to account for them.  These are the law of identity, the law of excluded middle, and the law of non-contradiction.  These concepts are transcendent, in that they are a priori and cannot be falsified empirically insofar that if you were to travel a million miles

 

I have a challenge for you prove logically that logic is valid !  You can not use circular logic or assume shit like logic is valid just because it is assumed , bring it on ! Prove logically that logic is valid. Do you even know how people arrived at logic ? I bet you just red some shit in a book that told you that logic is proven ! I on the other hand invented/discovered logic on my own without reading it somewhere !I bet you don’t know how logic got discovered because of the border line retarded culture that we live in , tell this , tell that , believe this , believe that. If you answer to my challenge you will comprehend why your argument is completely wrong.

 

Salamando wrote:

 The Christian martyrs either saw Christ after his death or they did not.  If they did not, then why would they be willing to die for a lie?  Could they all have been mentally ill?  We are talking about THOUSANDS of people here.  This was enough to convince PAUL, who was a violent persecutor of the Church.

HAHA How logical of you do you know what a ad populum is ? Talking about logic and making such a silly argument like this. Learn logic before invoking logic.

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
carx wrote:Salamando

 

Salamando wrote:

(2) Logical absolutes are concepts which require a mind to account for them.  These are the law of identity, the law of excluded middle, and the law of non-contradiction.  These concepts are transcendent, in that they are a priori and cannot be falsified empirically insofar that if you were to travel a million miles

 

I have a challenge for you prove logically that logic is valid !  You can not use circular logic or assume shit like logic is valid just because it is assumed , bring it on ! Prove logically that logic is valid. Do you even know how people arrived at logic ? I bet you just red some shit in a book that told you that logic is proven ! I on the other hand invented/discovered logic on my own without reading it somewhere !I bet you don’t know how logic got discovered because of the border line retarded culture that we live in , tell this , tell that , believe this , believe that. If you answer to my challenge you will comprehend why your argument is completely wrong.

 

Salamando wrote:

 The Christian martyrs either saw Christ after his death or they did not.  If they did not, then why would they be willing to die for a lie?  Could they all have been mentally ill?  We are talking about THOUSANDS of people here.  This was enough to convince PAUL, who was a violent persecutor of the Church.

HAHA How logical of you do you know what a ad populum is ? Talking about logic and making such a silly argument like this. Learn logic before invoking logic.

Salamando wrote:

(1)  It is impossible for a finite being to be the net effect of an infinite regress of prior causes and effects, as that would be the equivalent of saying that I could possibly give you a dollar after I flick the light switch an infinite amount of times, where in fact you would never get to the dollar if that were the case.  Therefore, it is necessary that there be one being that is infinite and uncreated.  That being we call "God". 

This is amusing because this proves that god is impossible , think about it what did god do before the universe existed ? And before that ? And a century before that ? And a century before that ? And a century before that ? And a century before that ? And a century before that ?
You can see if god existed for ever then god actually switched a light switch a infinite time (existed for a infinite  time before he created the universe ) before giving you the dollar (creating the universe) and he did it according to you! Ether your argument is wrong or god is nonexistent.
 

 //Edit  WTF how did this happen ? I quoted my self ? Must … pay … attention … to buttons … that I press. Sticking out tongue

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

Salamando wrote:
5 Proofs for God

 

 

 

Weren't you an athiest before?

I think he just came to play and screw with our heads.

 

Is he allowed to come back after being banned?


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Being banned isn't a

Being banned isn't a significant obstruction to causing trouble if one is determined and properly educated in some of the tricks of the internet.

Frankly, this is mild compared to some other drama events after the unhappy divorce between a member and a group. I remember spending days cleaning up the mess on previous boards where I was a moderator.

Still, I've never understood this phenomenae of returning to the scene of drama to cause more myself. At most, you're causing annoyance to two or three individuals that end up cleaning it up. You aren't having a visible effect on the site itself, nor the management thereof, nor the membership thereof. And unless the mod tools at this site are pathetically outdated (the chances of which I would consider one step up from impossible), it takes about 1/10th of the time to clean up a drama mess as it does to make the mess in the first place. No matter how many people you've recruited to make the mess.

Hence, the person(s) causing the drama is/are losing more by continuing to participate than anyone else possibly could.

Irony.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Salamando

Salamando wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Since you are so convinced of what there was prior to this Universe please enlighten all of us. Since science can't tell what occurred prior to the Big Bang how can you?

I do not even believe in the Big Bang.  But to answer your question, I don't know what was prior to this universe.  God may have created a different universe before ours.  That is not the question that the cosmological argument answers.  In fact, this is all consistent with Genesis.  Yes, God created what we perceive as THIS universe and Genesis begins at that point, but it is possible that there were other universes before that, not addressed in Genesis.  Christians typically do not think about that.  

The cosmological argument is about going back to the FIRST CAUSE.... past all of the other possible universes, past everything... to the very "beginning" (and I put that in quotes for a specific reason).

Quote:
I do not even believe in the Big Bang.

You don't have to believe in it anymore than you have to believe in gravity, but in any case your denial of reality doesn't make ghost sperm the default position anymore than if  Muslim denied the Big Bang to justify magic harems in the sky.

You don't have to believe that the earth is a globe circiling the sun. You could believe that the earth flat and is made of carpet lint, that doesn't mean you have a way to demonstrate such a naked assertion.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
1. I assume god would be the

1. I assume god would be the result of infinite progression? The typical theist response to the view that the universe is too complex to have come from nothing begs the question of where god came from? It's silly to state that all complex things require a creator and then say that god is exempt from this. It's ok to say "I don't know" because I don't know either.

3. Moral absolutes do not exist. They do not exist in the bible and they do not work in real life. Morality is based upon what society dictates. If murder is immoral then under what justification do we have to put criminals on death row? Murder and rape are found throughout the bible and in many instances god advocated said atrocities. Slavery was once moral and practiced by "god's chosen people" and yet it is immoral to now own people. Human morality must then transcend the views of your god otherwise it is still permissible.

4. What evidence do you have to support the view that the gospels were eye witness accounts? Luke: 1-3 seems to indicate otherwise. The writer of Luke was not an eyewitness but rather wrote his gospel decades later.

5. I personally have no problem with the thoughts of some creator of some type. The truth is that we will never truly know how the universe came to be. Does this mean that we should fill in the gap of knkowledge with "god did it"? Of course not and asking the question does not disallow the need for a creator. Science doesn't attempt to disprove the existence of god. The BB could be how god created the universe and I don't see why christians get  their panties in a bunch over this. All the BBT does is disprove the literal interpretation that the earth and everything we see throughout the universe came to existence less that 10,000 years ago.

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Oooh, oooh, let me

Oooh, oooh, let me try!

Salamando wrote:

(1)  It is impossible for a finite being to be the net effect of an infinite regress of prior causes and effects, as that would be the equivalent of saying that I could possibly give you a dollar after I flick the light switch an infinite amount of times, where in fact you would never get to the dollar if that were the case.  Therefore, it is necessary that there be one being that is infinite and uncreated.  That being we call "God".  

False dichotomy.  Even if 1 is true, the conclusion could be that a finite being is the net effect of a finite regress of prior causes and effects.

Salamando wrote:

(2) Logical absolutes are concepts which require a mind to account for them.  These are the law of identity, the law of excluded middle, and the law of non-contradiction.  These concepts are transcendent, in that they are a priori and cannot be falsified empirically insofar that if you were to travel a million miles one way and a million miles the other way, they would still hold true.  These laws are the grounds for understanding, language, and any other forms of logic in the fields of philosophy or quantum physics (including trivalent logic, which falsely proposes that the law of excluded middle is disproved).   Logical absolutes cannot be dependent on human minds, because human minds are different and what one person believes is logical may not be what someone else believes is logical and it is quite clear that you could conceive of possible worlds where no human beings exist and the laws of logic would still apply.  Yet you would not be able to escape the fact that the laws of logic require a mind (because truth and concepts exist in a mind) and could not avoid the presupposition that there is a mind. And if you have only two possibilities to account for something and the other is falsified, then the other is validated by default.  Therefore, since logical absolutes cannot be accounted for if God does not exist, then clearly God does exist as the logical absolutes are concepts grounded on a divine intellect.

False premise.  Truth (specifically the laws of logic) are intrinsic to the universe, not to minds.

Salamando wrote:

(3) Moral absolutes are also transcendent and require a mind to account for them.  Natural scientists cannot look under rocks and find moral absolutes.  And yet we assume that there is a framework of right and wrong in humanity.  Moral absolutes cannot be dependent on human minds for the same reason that logical absolutes cannot be dependent on human minds:  Human minds are different and what I think is moral may not be what you believe is moral.  And you would have no basis for falsifying my morality.  Morals are ends in themselves and if they are for any utilitarian reasons, then they have no moral worth and true morality does not exist.  For if morality is dictated by utility, then something which is immoral at one time period could be immoral at another time period.  Moreover, morality would be contingent rather than necessary and transcendent.  Therefore, if God does not exist, then everything would be permitted.  Yet I would grant that no sane person could possibly believe that everything is permitted.  Therefore, the existence of morality proves that there must be an infinite mind through which the moral concepts are.

See above.  Moral absolutes are intrinsit to events, not to minds, or moral absolutes are created by minds, and did not exist before minds.

Salamando wrote:

(4) It is well documented by historians that Jesus Christ was a real human being.  His existence is confirmed in the writings of Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Julius Africanus, Talmud, Lucian of Samosota, Mera Bar-Serapion.. and most importantly, Matthew, John, and Luke.  Moreover, it is well documented that there were MANY eye witnesses who claim to have seen Jesus alive after the crucifixion, and all of these people were willing to suffer prolonged torture and death for what they knew they had witnessed.  People will not die for what they know is not true, but they will die for what they believe to be true.  These people knew what they saw.  That is enough to convince me that the resurrection really happened.  The Christian martyrs either saw Christ after his death or they did not.  If they did not, then why would they be willing to die for a lie?  Could they all have been mentally ill?  We are talking about THOUSANDS of people here.  This was enough to convince PAUL, who was a violent persecutor of the Church.

Not enough of a historian to refute this on the basis of the "well documented" stuff.  How about this:

People believed they saw Jesus after his death.  You are confusing belief and knowledge.  There are well-documented cases of people interacting with Greek gods (it's in their legends).  Does that make them true?

Salamando wrote:

(5) In "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking points out that the universe has to be EXACTLY how it is and if it is even an infinitesimal amount different, then we would have no universe.  The mass of the proton, the mass of the electron, gravitation force, etc. has to maintain the EXACT values that it does in order for the universe to be what it is.  The universe is clearly finely tuned.  If there is no divine intellect, then the universe would be the result of natural devices which are completely void of any intent, since intent only exists in minds.  To believe this is absurd.  That would be like assuming that winds could write "Hello, how are you?" in the sand on the beach.

 

There are many universes.  One of them works the way we observe, but many others don't.  We're in the one we observe because we couldn't be in any others.

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Salamando wrote:neptewn

Salamando wrote:

neptewn wrote:

So you are stating that nothing can come after an infinite sequence of events. If you assume a regressive perspective the rule would still apply, correct? Nothing could come at the beginning of these events. However you are asserting that there is hypotheticaly a starting point that does not follow your first rule? and that this starting point is God?

I would argue that there is no infinite regress, as the idea is incoherent.  God is the first cause.

Do you have a way of backing up that bald assertion?

Aw, fuck!  This is Matt?  God damnit!

 

 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Do you have a

Thomathy wrote:

Do you have a way of backing up that bald assertion?

Aw, fuck!  This is Matt?  God damnit!

 

 

 

bald?


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Bald.Head to dictionary.com?

Bald.

Head to dictionary.com?


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Bald.Head to

Thomathy wrote:

Bald.

Head to dictionary.com?

 

I googled. It just sounds weird to me. It makes me think of a bald guy.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
ClockCat wrote:butterbattle

ClockCat wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Salamando wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Which god?

God.

He's talking about the real one.

 

 

...that narrows it down a lot.

I am so sick of Jake claiming that he is a God. It's not like he can cross out the lines in this post. We all know that my invisable purple snarfwidget is the one true God.

Who does he think he is?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:Thomathy

Ciarin wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

Bald.

Head to dictionary.com?

 

I googled. It just sounds weird to me. It makes me think of a bald guy.

Keep it that way, it's funnier. Smiling


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Salamando wrote:Come on, you

Salamando wrote:

Come on, you can do better than that.

And all you can do is delude yourself into believing that a being with no penis or DNA or body for that matter can knock  up girls.

Did I mention that I can fart an invisable full sized Lamborghini out of my ass? It is true because you can't prove I can't.

No worries though, the twisted logic you use to maintain such absurdities in your head is the same delusion Muslims use to justify their absurdities as well.

Go find us some godsperm and get back to us when you find it.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog