Don't take the bait...

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

We good so far?

Whatever exists at all arguably requires a reason for why it exists, rather than something else, or nothing.

Time is an artefact of our perception, so 'begins' is not a fundamental criteria.

The simpler and more elementary is the nature of that which exists, the simpler and more basic need its reason for existing be.

The closer something is to nothing, the more reasonable is its a priori existence.

A field of energy at the minimum state allowed by Quantum Physics would qualify there, and is all that is necessary for spawning a Big Bang, so proposing anything more than that is not justified. 

God is unnecessary, by any criteria. The existence of a God makes the explanation of 'what is' unnecessarily complicated.

You would need to supply an argument why the primary state, or 'cause, must be an omnipotent sentient being.

Back to you. Justify your presupposition.

 

This actually just gave me an idea for a theory. Man created god so maybe man created the universe. Yes yes, we were so powerful that we got bored or something, wiped our minds and made up a god to replace ourselves so we could start over, yea! Yea I think now that I mentioned it it's all coming back to me now. . . . Now to figure out how to make this a religion ..

I believe it's Stephen Hawking that postulates that as long as there is gravity and particles/energy, nothing else is needed for the universe to have occurred.

There's no reason to assume that these things did not always exist.

 

The dialectic problem with narratives like 'begins to exist', is that it's implicitly leading in a specific direction.

In science, diamonds 'form', as a result of a chain of events (occurences).

They don't 'begin to exist'. They are not 'created'. They are not 'made'.

They 'form'.

There is no 'cause', per se. They form (in a specific subset of a larger superset) due to a chain of 'events' that are 'governed' by universal constants in a universe with forces, and particle/energy.

 

 

I like this a lot.  Would the one dimension be a  "point?"  Would this be  in line with the idea of singularity which is being replaced by the inflationary scenario (most tend toward it)? Would an all-pervading energy ( or whatever type of field ) be one dimensional and no different from a point? I may not be expressing what I am visualizing well.

I would imagine a minimal field having extension, but how much? Hmm...

When I mentioned alone at least one dimension, I was thinking of a multidimensional entity or 'thing', and the boundary along at least one dimension being the dimension we perceive as 'time', so that 'thing' could be said to "begin to exist", or alternatively, or as well, "to cease to exist", at some point along that dimension.

 

 I think that Presuppositionalist was hoping the conversation would go something like this(well minus the bridge part at the end):

 

Presup:  What is the most obvious thing?  

Atheist:  Why that I exist of course.  What could be more obvious then that.  

Presup:  And do you require empirical evidence to prove your existence?  

Atheist:  Why of course not silly.  The mere fact that I experience reality proves that I exist.  

Presup:  Then why isn't personal experiencing good enough to prove that god exist?

Atheist.  Why gosh.  I never thought of it that way before.  

Presup:  I  know.  You atheists are such hypocrites.  Ha ha ha.

Atheist:  Yea I know.  Ha ha ha.  For some weird reason I always thought different claims required different kinds of evidence.  

Persup:  Ha ha ha.  You really are a weird bunch. 

Atheist:  By the way.  I have bridge I would like to sell you for a mere 10 grand.  

Presup:  Do you have evidence that this bridge exists?  

Atheist:  I experience the bridge deep in my heart, and isn't that all the evidence I really need.  

Presup:  Why of course.  I'll buy that bridge right after I sell my house.

Atheist.  Thats great.  I'm glad we had this little talk.    

 

 

 

  This is where I keep going back to the Zeno parallels. We are dealing with our thoughts of extension and location. If a one dimensional field does have extension then is it  a Plank length? Or does a field have to have extension? Could a field's extending from nothingness be a point.  When I went with the idea of (I think) Parmenides I pondered whether a boundless state is bounded by it's own self reference as a point  and therefore could remain boundless as for as extension but limited by location. or actualized as existent. I wish I knew enough about fractual geometry replacing Euclidean as a means to deal with these types of thought. We have the same location/extension problem with "is it a particle or a wave." and determining location and momentum. Let me ask this because I do not know. Is a Plank length the shortest distance we can measure because of our formula or is the Plank length simply the shortest  length period? The same may be said of Plank time.  I never could accept Alfred Whitehead's concept of an actual entity because it was the same issue. It seemed easier to posit particles as the interaction of waves. But I never got around to taking physics.

 

That actually makes me think of an interesting thought experiment I read in a short story called 'Gods Debris' in which it posits that there isn't a deity per se but in fact there was an all powerful being that thought to unmake itself out of curiosity and we are Gods debris, slowly reconstructing the deity, we are, in essence, self aware cells putting the body back together. There are some fallacies in the book and some mistakes but the concept is pretty interesting and the way that it's shown makes for a fun read if being a bit silly.

Eh, your idea is different. If you want I think it's still free if you want to download it, oddly it was made by the same guy that draws dilbert.

 

Lol, this thread is really funny. I laughed a lot.

 Sry, was AFK.

Should we call the fact that mammal females nurse their young moral?

No, because they don't.

Shared values do exist, within the context of each society. 'Objective' is going a bit far, IMHO.

We have values based on our common empathic feelings toward other members of our society, which we largely share, but not in every detail.

These have naturally evolved as encouraging cooperation, which enhances our ability to survive and reproduce.

These basic principles, that cooperation is an advantage to the survival of a group, and that empathy promotes cooperation, are truths, which can be derived from logic and reason.

Species that went around killing each other would not survive. That's why the ones that are still around, not just humans, are those that don't do that sort of thing. Have you seen the video where a herd of buffalo come back to rescue a calf from a pack of lions? 'Morals' are an aspect of the behaviour and instincts of any social animal.

This is all that is required.

Religion is a perversion of these natural urges, it is parasitic on our native instincts and intuitions.

You label this (2). Was (1) your much earlier comment about things that "begin to exist"? Have you read what has been posted in response to that? Because that idea doesn't go anywhere for you either.

God. Lol.

 

WTF are we still waiting for an answer?  Rather than throwing in my philosophical BS I'll throw in some empirical stuff for OP.   An older English release of Ilya Prigogene' s Order out of Chaos shows how things spontaneously form from high from entropy states. Absolute morality in the classical theological sense do not exist.  Certainly not as a system. And even if AM existed  it would be counter productive of life. We can speak of contextual absolute. While mothers will nuture their babies we have seen many occasions where they don't. But that is not because of a lack of evolutionary programming in the human female. It isinterrupted by a myrid of factors; abusive husband, environmental disaster, genetic abnormalities.  The problem with deontological ethics is you wind up with casuistry having to debate about two conflicting absolutes. I live in Nazi Germany and am a respected businessman of Munich. I am also hiding a Jewish family in my attic.  The Nazi SS knocks on  my door. I answer, they recognize me and have some tea. I asked why are they here tonight. The soldier apologetically says that they are required to ask if any citizens are harboring Jews.  Because of the situation if I lie they will say good night and take me at my word. If I really follow the absolute morality of Thou Shall Not Lie then the family will meet its death. So A TO absolutes: Be the cause of a family's death or LIE. Ooops I wound up in philosophy 101 again... 

I do not ever recall an atheist "switching standards of evidence." I admit I have not met all atheists, though. To my experience, that is a Christian logical fallacy. (You must accept the Bible as evidence, but your evidence doesn't count unless it squares with my Bible.)

And when the evidence is overwhelming, toss out the Argumentum ad Satanium fallacy: You do not believe, you must be a Satanist. The sort of "standard" that ends all discussion.

NO WE ARE NOT STILL GOOD WITH THIS ONE. ENOUGH WITH UNSUBSTANTIATED PREMISES.The actual failure and feigned  success is in the definition of this premise.  If by maximally great being (g) you mean an omniscient, omnipotent and alll loving god then the premise fails empirically because :

 

1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p). 

2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over  possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).

3)x necessarily would not allow  q

4)p--> not q

5) It is possible that god is x

6)q --> not p

7) Our world=q therefore not p

8)not p

9)not p--->not x

10)not x

11)god= not x

 Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being. No sky daddy like the theistic one.

 

 

Maximally great as in Maximus Decimus Meridius? 

 

Say that three times fast. I tried but couldn't.

Here's the video...

 

 

So much fail on the part of Mr. Presup! Hey man, I can do it too!

1)I take what I currently think as being absolute without any evidence to back up said assertion.

2)I think something without any evidence since it sounds nice to me.

3)If I like the idea of something, therefore it must exist!

THEREFORE GOD!

Sorry Mr. Presup, but without any empirical evidence to back up your silly claims, we will treat you the same as anyone else who would claim that what they want to be real is real since they like the idea of it. All you've done is show us how gullible you are. But then again, none of us should be surprised, as your very name means that you proudly discount any empirical evidence that doesn't sit well with your preconceived notions of how you think the real world should be and not how it is.

Again, so much fail...

 (4) Therefore, God exists.

Logically and inescapably entailed by the premises stated and accepted thus far.

 

 

A logically proven god....