Debate Challenge

Drew_theist
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Debate Challenge

This is a re-post of a thread started in Killing them with kindness.

 

The most basic philosophical question that can be asked is why are we here? Why is there something rather than nothing? What (if anything) caused our existence?

The two most basic philosophical beliefs regarding this question are:

1. We are the result of plan and intention by a personal agents(s) who caused us to exist.

2. We are the unintended result of mindless forces that unintentionally caused our existence through blind happenstance.

I'd be happy defend proposition 1 and oppose proposition 2.

Any takers?


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Drew_theist wrote: The two

Drew_theist wrote:
The two most basic philosophical beliefs regarding this question are:

1. We are the result of plan and intention by a personal agents(s) who caused us to exist.

2. We are the unintended result of mindless forces that unintentionally caused our existence through blind happenstance.

I'd be happy defend proposition 1 and oppose proposition 2.

Any takers?

 

Sure, this is easy:   1 is a special pleading fallacy and 2 is an inaccurate and ignorant discription of evolution and the big bang.  Next!

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Drew_theist wrote: This is

Drew_theist wrote:

This is a re-post of a thread started in Killing them with kindness.

 

The most basic philosophical question that can be asked is why are we here? Why is there something rather than nothing? What (if anything) caused our existence?

The two most basic philosophical beliefs regarding this question are:

1. We are the result of plan and intention by a personal agents(s) who caused us to exist.

2. We are the unintended result of mindless forces that unintentionally caused our existence through blind happenstance.

I'd be happy defend proposition 1 and oppose proposition 2.

Any takers?

You'd be happy? Well, do it ! What are you waiting for?

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Drew_theist wrote:
The two most basic philosophical beliefs regarding this question are:

1. We are the result of plan and intention by a personal agents(s) who caused us to exist.

2. We are the unintended result of mindless forces that unintentionally caused our existence through blind happenstance.

I'd be happy defend proposition 1 and oppose proposition 2.

Any takers?

Sure, this is easy: 1 is a special pleading fallacy and 2 is an inaccurate and ignorant discription of evolution and the big bang. Next!

Rook, can I pop my one trick poney on em? PWEASE, PWUTY PWEASE? LET ME AT EM! 

"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 BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Drew_theist
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Greetings all, Are you

Greetings all,

Are you willing to defend proposition 2 and oppose proposition 1? So far the responses have been dismissive with nothing more than oft repeated atheist sound bites. Hopefully I will be pleasantly surprised with some thoughtful responses rather than regurgitated cut and pastes.

 

In defense of proposition 1 to start I offer the following.

 

1. The fact there is something rather than nothing.


First I don’t think anyone disputes there is strong evidence something exists.

From a materialist standpoint it doesn’t matter whether something exists or not. There is no good reason for anything to exist from a materialist point of view. For materialism to be true something must exist yet there is no requirement of materialism that any thing exist.

If on the other hand our existence was intended and caused, there is a good reason for there to be something rather than nothing.

Therefore the evidence there is something rather than nothing favors a theistic model. It is less surprising there is something rather than nothing if a personal agent intended something to exist. 

 

 


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Drew_theist wrote: Are you

Drew_theist wrote:
Are you willing to defend proposition 2 and oppose proposition 1? So far the responses have been dismissive with nothing more than oft repeated atheist sound bites. Hopefully I will be pleasantly surprised with some thoughtful responses rather than regurgitated cut and pastes.

You come in with what is the most overused and thoroughly discredited piece of theistic argumentation in existence and accuse others of offering oft repeated soundbites? Hopefully I will be pleasantly suprised when you show the slightest inclination of having the ability to think for yourself instead of latching on to a outdated and thoroughly refuted argument as if it is the holy grail. 

 

Quote:
In defense of proposition 1 to start I offer the following.

 

1. The fact there is something rather than nothing.


First I don’t think anyone disputes there is strong evidence something exists.

There is not only strong evidence but it is a necessity that something exists.

Quote:
From a materialist standpoint it doesn’t matter whether something exists or not. There is no good reason for anything to exist from a materialist point of view. For materialism to be true something must exist yet there is no requirement of materialism that any thing exist.

Are you a  materialist? If not then you can not offer anything from a materialist standpoint. To do so is dishonest and I would expect better of a man who believes in an imaginary all-powerful all-knowing friend who sentences people to eternal fire for such actions.

Now that the pleasantries are out of the way, from a materialist perspective, something must exist. Nothing can not exist. Therefor something must exist. It really is as simple as that. 


Quote:
If on the other hand our existence was intended and caused, there is a good reason for there to be something rather than nothing.

 There can not be nothing because nothing can not exist so to say that there is better reason for there to be something other than nothing is not true. There can be no better or worse reason for a necessary existence.

Again, nothing can not exist. Therefor something exists. 

Quote:
Therefore the evidence there is something rather than nothing favors a theistic model.

Wrong as shown above. 

Quote:
It is less surprising there is something rather than nothing if a personal agent intended something to exist.

There can not be nothing as nothing can not exist. Therefor there is something.

You see both being and existing are properties of something. Nothing can not hold these properties therefor to speak of nothing as existing or being makes no sense. It is necessary that something exists because it is impossible for nothing to.  

 


“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Drew_theist wrote: This is

Drew_theist wrote:

This is a re-post of a thread started in Killing them with kindness.

 

The most basic philosophical question that can be asked is why are we here? Why is there something rather than nothing? What (if anything) caused our existence?

The two most basic philosophical beliefs regarding this question are:

1. We are the result of plan and intention by a personal agents(s) who caused us to exist.

2. We are the unintended result of mindless forces that unintentionally caused our existence through blind happenstance.

I'd be happy defend proposition 1 and oppose proposition 2.

Any takers?

The problem with number one is that is that if an intelligent being is required to create an intelligent being then an intelligent being would be needed to create the original intelligent being and such an event would continue back on for eternity.  So your challenge would be to present us with the origins of the creator identity without diffusing the entire subject by saying creation is unnecessary.

On the other hand number two is quite simple.  Life comes from the proteins and RNA molecules that make up DNA. Both forms not being life in their basic state.

So your challenge is to say that your creator came from some mindless forces to create the materials for DNA and combine them into life.  Of course that would debunk your entire position since any argument you present would justify #2.

So I sit back and be entertained by your attempts to abuse logic. 


Drew_theist
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Vessel, Are you actually

Vessel,

Are you actually prepared to debate this issue or just regurgitate pathetic atheist sound bites? I'm not interested in your editorials about how this and that argument has been refuted. In the case of zealots like you the mere fact the sky is blue offers refutation in your mind. I'm not attempting to convince you of anything I could care less in what you believe or don't believe. I am interested in an actual debate. Are you willing to defend the notion we are the result of mindless mechanistic forces as well as attack the notion we are the result of a personal agent?

(q) but it is a necessity that something exists. (/q)

What is your evidence that something has to exist?

Because you believe in it really hard with a lot of faith?

Thats just a goofy mental construct you believe in (minus any evidence) because it supports your worldview.

Expressing your quaint belief something has to exist is not a substitute for evidence something has to exist. Please offer some...

If not then you can not offer anything from a materialist standpoint

I don't have to be a materialist to know what a point of view is from their philosophical beliefs.

 

I need some help, how do you go about quoting or bolding text? Thanks...

 

 

 

 


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Drew_theist wrote: Are you

Drew_theist wrote:
Are you willing to defend the notion we are the result of mindless mechanistic forces as well as attack the notion we are the result of a personal agent?

If you are interested in an actual debate you need to put forth points that can be debated. Why something exists as opposed to nothing is not such a point. There is no debate possible on that topic as there is no way in which we could consider nothing existing to be a possibility. You will have to start somewhere else other than with nothing in order for a debate to be possible.

 

Quote:
What is your evidence that something has to exist?
 

The problem is not that something has to exist, that is merely the conclusion we must come to. Your assertion that your god makes something existing more likely than the lack of your god does is based on a faulty premise that nothing can exist. The problem is that nothing can not exist. Unless you can explain to me in what way nothing could exist I have no reason to ever consider any part of any argument that follows from the flawed starting premise. 

Quote:
Because you believe in it really hard with a lot of faith?

It requires no faith, only reason. 

Quote:
Thats just a goofy mental construct you believe in (minus any evidence) because it supports your worldview.

Are you going to demonstrate as much or just make baseless statements? 

Quote:
Expressing your quaint belief something has to exist is not a substitute for evidence something has to exist. Please offer some...

You are more than welcome to show the fault in the argument as I put it forth. 

Quote:
If not then you can not offer anything from a materialist standpoint

I already did, that you do not understand it or refuse to acknowledge it is not within my control. You are welcome to prove the argument I put forth faulty at any time.

Quote:
I don't have to be a materialist to know what a point of view is from their philosophical beliefs.

Sure you do. If you are not a materialist you are simply stating what you believe their point of view to be. In order to know what a materialists point of view is you would necessarily have to be a materialist. 

 

Quote:
I need some help, how do you go about quoting or bolding text? Thanks...

To quote use the quote function below the post you wish to quote from or; to open [ quote ], and to close [ /quote ]. There should be a button labeled B at the beginning of the toolbar above the replying or quoting window that allows you to bold text. 

 

 

 

 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Drew_theist  I think the

Drew_theist

 I think the problem with a formal debate is that it makes your side look more credible than it actually is. 

Like if you went up to a serious person and asked them to debate you on whether there are invisible leprechauns on the moon. They would say 'I'll explain to you why there are no invisible leprechauns on the moon, but I'm not going to debate you about it'.

This is the same kind of situation you find here. Anybody is willing address it but a formal debate really isn't necessary. 

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


Drew_theist
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Greetings all,   I’m

Greetings all,

 

I’m going to primarily respond to Vessel since he/she seems to want to actually debate at least to some extent.

 

Quote:
The problem is that nothing can not exist. Unless you can explain to me in what way nothing could exist I have no reason to ever consider any part of any argument that follows from the flawed starting premise.

 

If nothing existed not even nothing would exist, its like a seeing person thinking that a blind person would ‘see’ darkness. A truly blind person wouldn’t see anything not even total darkness. The way in which nothing could exist would be the same way in which at some point time and the universe didn’t exist. The same was as there was a point in time in which you didn’t exist.

 

Your belief something always existed is just that, a dogmatic metaphysical belief lacking any evidence it must be true. It interesting to note that most theists believe God always existed, but you reject that notion right?

 

Quote:
If you are not a materialist you are simply stating what you believe their point of view to be.

 

And you often state what you believe to be the theist’s point of view right?

 

Try to apply a modicum of critical thinking to whatever sound bites you plan to paste next it will save you and me a lot of time.

 

The reason you insist something must exist is because philosophically speaking materialism starts from the second floor. Materialism can’t be the cause of its own existence; you recognize this so you assume something always existed.

 

Secondly you demand evidence of things you don’t believe in, like theism, but you don’t demand evidence of things you do believe in like the belief something always existed. Anyone can be skeptical of what they don’t believe, if you really want to be a freethinker, try being skeptical of what you do believe.

 

The fact something exists agrees with both theism and materialism. However materialism offers no possible explanation or cause of why something exists. Theism, the belief in a transcendent personal Creator offers a possible cause of why something exists.

 

The fact something exists rather than nothing favors the theistic model. Unless there is a legitimate objection, I’ll move on to next the line of evidence.


Drew_theist
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Like if you went

Quote:
Like if you went up to a serious person and asked them to debate you on whether there are invisible leprechauns on the moon. They would say 'I'll explain to you why there are no invisible leprechauns on the moon, but I'm not going to debate you about it'.

 

If theism/atheism wasn’t worthy of debate, why create a website and forums specifically for such a reason? Try to do something most atheists don’t, think before you speak.

BTW belief in theism is nothing like a belief in invisible leprechauns on the moon, that just another asinine atheist soundbite you guys subscribe to without applying a shred of critical thinking...

 

 

 

 


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

Drew_theist wrote:

Quote:
Like if you went up to a serious person and asked them to debate you on whether there are invisible leprechauns on the moon. They would say 'I'll explain to you why there are no invisible leprechauns on the moon, but I'm not going to debate you about it'.

 

If theism/atheism wasn’t worthy of debate, why create a website and forums specifically for such a reason? Try to do something most atheists don’t, think before you speak.

BTW belief in theism is nothing like a belief in invisible leprechauns on the moon, that just another asinine atheist soundbite you guys subscribe to without applying a shred of critical thinking...

 

 

 

 

That's why I said a formal debate genius. A formal debate would imply that your side is credible when you are basically arguing for the existence of magic against all known fact. A lot more people would probably respond to you if you didn't come in here with a chip on your shoulder and start insulting people.

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


Drew_theist
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Quote: respond to you if

Quote:
respond to you if you didn't come in here with a chip on your shoulder and start insulting people.

 

I’m a well balanced person; I have a chip on both shoulders.

 

Quote:
A formal debate would imply that your side is credible when you are basically arguing for the existence of magic against all known fact.

 

I think the notion mindless forces popped into existence for no known reason and then proceeded without plan, design or intention to create sentient beings is far more magical and enchanted then the notion a Creator caused and planned our existence.

 

You believe in magic, I believe in intelligence.

 


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I think the notion

Quote:
I think the notion mindless forces popped into existence for no known reason and then proceeded without plan, design or intention to create sentient beings is far more magical and enchanted then the notion a Creator caused and planned our existence.

That's because you've yet to comprehend that order is emergent. Order can arise from the free causal interaction of parts it doesn't require intelligence. D-cubed explained above the problem with that argument.

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


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Drew_theist, For starters,

Drew_theist,

For starters, you should probably state your position so that we (Vessel) know(s) what to refute. It prevents strawmen from popping up.

Drew_theist wrote:

Quote:
The problem is that nothing can not exist. Unless you can explain to me in what way nothing could exist I have no reason to ever consider any part of any argument that follows from the flawed starting premise.

 

If nothing existed not even nothing would exist, its like a seeing person thinking that a blind person would ‘see’ darkness. A truly blind person wouldn’t see anything not even total darkness. The way in which nothing could exist would be the same way in which at some point time and the universe didn’t exist. The same was as there was a point in time in which you didn’t exist.

 

Your belief something always existed is just that, a dogmatic metaphysical belief lacking any evidence it must be true. It interesting to note that most theists believe God always existed, but you reject that notion right?

If one can assert that god is eternal, then asserting the universe is eternal is just as valid. That's why that notion gets rejected. It doesn't "solve" anything.

-Triften


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Drew_theist wrote: You

Drew_theist wrote:

You believe in magic, I believe in intelligence.

Holy projection, Batman!


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Drew_theist wrote: I’m

Drew_theist wrote:
I’m going to primarily respond to Vessel since he/she seems to want to actually debate at least to some extent.

You are completely wrong, which seems appropriate, considering. I have no desire to debate the existence of teapot satellites. I may discuss, with you, the fallacious nature of your thinking, but your position does not merit debate. 

 

Quote:
If nothing existed not even nothing would exist, its like a seeing person thinking that a blind person would ‘see’ darkness. A truly blind person wouldn’t see anything not even total darkness.

I did not ask for you to imagine and describe what it would be like if there was nothing. I asked for you to explain some way in which nothing could exist. 

Quote:
The way in which nothing could exist would be the same way in which at some point time and the universe didn’t exist.

Why do you assume the universe didn't exist at some point?  

Quote:
The same was as there was a point in time in which you didn’t exist.

The matter I am made of has existed for all of time.  

 

Quote:
Your belief something always existed is just that, a dogmatic metaphysical belief lacking any evidence it must be true.

Do you know the definition of dogma and metaphysical? Who has claimed that what I believe about the beginning of the universe must be true? Do you even know what I believe about the beginning of the universe?

Well, since you didn't ask (typical), I will tell you what I think about the beginning of the universe. Are you ready?....

I don't know. I don't know where the universe came from, if it is has always existed, or what. I seriously doubt man will know anytime within the next several hundred years if ever. 

You see, that is why your worldview is dogmatic and mine isn't. Your worldview requires you to say you know what you have no evidence to believe is true. My worldview is completewly okay with saying, "Hey, were only tiny humans in a great big universe. Why should we expect to know everything?"

Now as far as my belief something has always existed goes, that is a non-debateable point. Since 'always' is time referential, and time is, according to what science now thinks to be true, a property of the universe, then something has necessarily always existed.    

Quote:
It interesting to note that most theists believe God always existed, but you reject that notion right?

No, I'm an atheist who believes god always existed. You see why I doubt the critical thinking abilities of theists? It is not because of bigotry or assumption, it is because of evidence like that quote.  


Quote:
And you often state what you believe to be the theist’s point of view right?

No. I ask them and then work from that. 

 

Quote:
Try to apply a modicum of critical thinking to whatever sound bites you plan to paste next it will save you and me a lot of time.

I will do as I please. If you don't like it, don't converse with me, but at least have the decency to quit whining. If you think I'm not applying critical thinking point out my flaws. So far you have done nothing but make assertions. Typical.

 

Quote:
The reason you insist something must exist is because philosophically speaking materialism starts from the second floor. Materialism can’t be the cause of its own existence; you recognize this so you assume something always existed.

I don't assume anything. I know something always existed because 'always' is time referential and time is a property of the universe.   

 

Quote:
Secondly you demand evidence of things you don’t believe in, like theism, but you don’t demand evidence of things you do believe in like the belief something always existed.

there is plenty of evidence something lalways existed. First, there is the fact that nothing can not exist. Second, there is the evidence that time is a property of the universe and therefor something necessarily existed for all of time. 

Quote:
Anyone can be skeptical of what they don’t believe, if you really want to be a freethinker, try being skeptical of what you do believe.

I have thoroughly examined all of the personal beliefs I have which warrant examination. If you can prove differently then do so, otherwise you are making baseless assertions that are of an ad hominem nature. Typical.

 

Quote:
The fact something exists agrees with both theism and materialism. However materialism offers no possible explanation or cause of why something exists. Theism, the belief in a transcendent personal Creator offers a possible cause of why something exists.

Theism offers nothing. It simply moves the position where we must say, "I don't know" one step further away, and what it then concludes is something there is no evidence to conclude. Explain why it is more reasonable to postulate this god concept (and you might want to explain what you mean by god as there are different defintions for nearly everyone who blindly holds to this dogmatic belief) than to say "I don't know".

 

Quote:
The fact something exists rather than nothing favors the theistic model. Unless there is a legitimate objection, I’ll move on to next the line of evidence.

So far you've done nothing but assert without offering anything of value. I can't wait to see the rest. 

Continue, Skippy. (You don't mind if I call you Skippy, do you?) 

 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Drew_theist wrote: This is

Drew_theist wrote:

This is a re-post of a thread started in Killing them with kindness.

 

The most basic philosophical question that can be asked is why are we here?

And the reason that this question is 'most basic' is because it is most basic to humanity for humans to presume intention.

But this presumption is merely a projection of what we are: intentional beings. There is no actual good reason to presume that the universe has an intent. 

Once you recognize that the origin for this question is based on a presumption that 'everything else in the universe works and thinks  just like humans' you'll see the problem in your question.

 

 

Quote:

Why is there something rather than nothing?

I've always felt that the assumption in this question was one of the most irrational assumptions in philosophy   - so it's probably from Liebnitz.

My question to you is: how can there be nothing? Why nothing instead of something?  

 

Quote:
 

What (if anything) caused our existence?

This goes right along with the assumption of intent.

 

Quote:
 

 The two most basic philosophical beliefs regarding this question are:

1. We are the result of plan and intention by a personal agents(s) who caused us to exist.

See? Thanks for affirming my intitial points above.  

 

Quote:

2. We are the unintended result of mindless forces that unintentionally caused our existence through blind happenstance.

This is a pretty pathetic strawman of how science views the universe.

First, note how every term is written negatively, based on the assumption that intentionality should take precedence.

Next, no one holds that evolutionary processes work randomly. If this is all you know about science, you are not capable of having this conversation.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote: Drew_theist

KSMB wrote:
Drew_theist wrote:

You believe in magic, I believe in intelligence.

Holy projection, Batman!

 

Indeed.

 

Attempting to solve the problem of the existence of intelligence by appealing to something intelligent (as the creator of intelligence) is a non solution, as already pointed out by several others here.  You can't appeal to the very process itself as the solution for the existence of the process. Either you concede it always existed (as the argument for a creator actually does, without theists realizing it) or you find a way to 'solve the problem' by appealing to non-intelligent forces.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Drew_theist
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Vessel,   Quote: I may

Vessel,

 

Quote:
I may discuss, with you, the fallacious nature of your thinking, but your position does not merit debate.

 

Very well buttwipe, this will be my last response to you. You don’t mind if I call you buttwipe do you?

 

Quote:
I asked for you to explain some way in which nothing could exist.

 

Easy, nothing, not even nothing would exist.

 

Quote:
Why do you assume the universe didn't exist at some point?

 

The current scientific model suggests the universe as it exists today began to exist and the evidence strongly supports that contention. Whether the universe previously existed (outside of time) as a singularity who knows?

 

Quote:
The matter I am made of has existed for all of time.

 

Do you ever plan to offer evidence of your assertions? I guess you are right it is a waste of time to debate a fundamentalist with dogmatic views of reality.

 

Quote:
I don't know. I don't know where the universe came from, if it is has always existed, or what. I seriously doubt man will know anytime within the next several hundred years if ever.

 

Then why make assertions like something always existed and time always existed?

 

Quote:
Your worldview requires you to say you know what you have no evidence to believe is true.

 

I’ve made no knowledge claims at all. At best theism is a philosophical belief just as materialism is.

 

Quote:
Now as far as my belief something has always existed goes, that is a non-debateable point. Since 'always' is time referential, and time is, according to what science now thinks to be true, a property of the universe, then something has necessarily always existed.

 

It maybe non-negotiable because it is a dogmatic fundamental truth of your personal worldview, that hardly qualifies it as non-debateble. If time didn’t begin to exist, we would never reach this point in time. It is a near certainty that the universe and time began to exist.

 

Quote:
If you think I'm not applying critical thinking point out my flaws.

 

I have done so repeatedly.

 

Quote:
there is plenty of evidence something lalways existed. First, there is the fact that nothing can not exist.

 

You can’t shore up one assertion by making another. Of course there could be nothing instead of something. Nothing is the absence of something just as absolute zero is the absence of heat.

 

How would it be if I were to assert there is a God and that point is non-negotiable and then support that assertion with another assertion that God cannot not exist?

 

See if you took my advice and applied some critical thinking to your worldview I wouldn’t have to show case the flaws in your thinking in front of all your buddies.

 

Quote:
Explain why it is more reasonable to postulate this god concept (and you might want to explain what you mean by god as there are different defintions for nearly everyone who blindly holds to this dogmatic belief) than to say "I don't know".

 

I am in the process of making such an explanation; this is only line of evidence number 1. What I mean by theism is exactly how it is defined. It is the belief the universe was intentionally created by a transcendent personal agent as opposed to inexplicably coming into existence through happenstance and serendipity.

 

Quote:
So far you've done nothing but assert without offering anything of value. I can't wait to see the rest.

 

You may see the rest but since you don’t think it is worthy of debate you’ll have to sit in the peanut gallery.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Drew_theist

Drew_theist wrote:

Vessel,

 

Quote:
I may discuss, with you, the fallacious nature of your thinking, but your position does not merit debate.

 

Very well buttwipe, this will be my last response to you. You don’t mind if I call you buttwipe do you?

 

As long as you don't mind me banning you for it.

So far, all you've done is waste our time with a lot of bad arguments that do little more than express your ignorance of the topics you think you are 'debating'. Let's not let things get any more ugly.... 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Drew_theist

Drew_theist wrote:

 

Quote:
I asked for you to explain some way in which nothing could exist.

 

Easy, nothing, not even nothing would exist.

That's not an answer, you're merely re-asserting.

And your re-assertion is semantically clumsy.. if 'not even nothing existed' then something would exist.....

The best way to frame 'nothing' would be to hold that there were no dimensions....  

 

Quote:

The current scientific model suggests the universe as it exists today began to exist and the evidence strongly supports that contention.

Which current model? You didn't say.

If you are referring to big bang theory, big bang theory is not a creation theory, it is an account of the universe from planck time.

Cosmology has several different competing theories for universe building... very few of them work ex nihilo, but I can present an overview of the few that do.

On the other hand, many of them are expressly non-ex nihilo 

 So in the future, it might help if you cite someone.

Quote:
The matter I am made of has existed for all of time.

Quote:

Do you ever plan to offer evidence of your assertions?

This coming from a guy who just assumes nothing 'existed'.... 

 

Quote:
I don't know. I don't know where the universe came from, if it is has always existed, or what. I seriously doubt man will know anytime within the next several hundred years if ever.

Quote:

Then why make assertions like something always existed and time always existed?

Then why make assertions that nothing 'existed'?

 The problem, if it exists, is necessarily symmetrical.

 

Quote:
Your worldview requires you to say you know what you have no evidence to believe is true.

 

Quote:

I’ve made no knowledge claims at all. At best theism is a philosophical belief just as materialism is.

Theism claims to be able to account for 'creation' - through a creator. This means that theism requires you to say you know that you have no evidence to believe is true!

 

Quote:
Now as far as my belief something has always existed goes, that is a non-debateable point. Since 'always' is time referential, and time is, according to what science now thinks to be true, a property of the universe, then something has necessarily always existed.

 

Quote:

It maybe non-negotiable because it is a dogmatic fundamental truth of your personal worldview,

How quaint, a theist complaining that someone is being dogmatic. Odd that that's the biggest complaint you could muster, isn't it? And doesn't it tell us what you really think of dogma?

 

 

Quote:
there is plenty of evidence something lalways existed. First, there is the fact that nothing can not exist.

 

Quote:

You can’t shore up one assertion by making another.

Please follow your own advice.

Quote:

Of course there could be nothing instead of something.

Assertion number 1. You've not demonstrated this.

Quote:

Nothing is the absence of something just as absolute zero is the absence of heat.

Ah, now take a look at what you just said.

"Nothing" is defined in contradistinction to something.

So 'nothing' has no ontological status on it's own.

So you've not given an argument for 'nothingness".  

 

Quote:
Explain why it is more reasonable to postulate this god concept (and you might want to explain what you mean by god as there are different defintions for nearly everyone who blindly holds to this dogmatic belief) than to say "I don't know".

 

Quote:

I am in the process of making such an explanation; this is only line of evidence number 1. What I mean by theism is exactly how it is defined. It is the belief the universe was intentionally created by a transcendent personal agent as opposed to inexplicably coming into existence through happenstance and serendipity.

How can a personal agent be transcendent? What do you even think you mean by that?

And can you please stop repeating the same strawman of cosmology? 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Drew_theist
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Hello todangst,   The

Hello todangst,

 

The most basic philosophical question that can be asked is why are we here?

 

Quote:
And the reason that this question is 'most basic' is because it is most basic to humanity for humans to presume intention.

 

Not necessarily, we ask why are the comets, mountains and eclipses without impugning it was intended. Should we not ask why we exist simply because such a question implies there might be a reason?

 

Quote:
But this presumption is merely a projection of what we are: intentional beings. There is no actual good reason to presume that the universe has an intent.

 

I think there are good reasons and I intend to present them if I can find anyone who isn’t too chicken to debate me.

 

Quote:
Once you recognize that the origin for this question is based on a presumption that 'everything else in the universe works and thinks just like humans' you'll see the problem in your question.

 

Indeed, I don’t think humans are anything like the universe which is why among many reasons I don’t believe human are the accidental by product of the universe. If humans were the accidental by product of mindless forces then humans should be just like the substance and mechanism they were alleged to have come from.

 

Why is there something rather than nothing?

 

Quote:
I've always felt that the assumption in this question was one of the most irrational assumptions in philosophy - so it's probably from Liebnitz.

 

It is not an assumption; it is in fact a non-assumption that something had to exist. You reject the question on the basis of your assumption that something has to exist. It is a philosophical pre-supposition on your part because you offer no evidence something has to exist.

 

Quote:
Why nothing instead of something?

 

Indeed.

 

Quote:
Next, no one holds that evolutionary processes work randomly. If this is all you know about science, you are not capable of having this conversation.

 

I’ve said nothing about evolution at this point.

 

It is a legitimate line of inquiry to ask why there exists something rather than nothing and to ask why humans exist. We have no basis to stifle such lines of inquiry simply because such questions might provide a basis for answers you don’t care for. It’s entirely possible there is no reason for our existence or reason for there to be anything instead of nothing.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Drew_theist

Drew_theist wrote:

 

Quote:
And the reason that this question is 'most basic' is because it is most basic to humanity for humans to presume intention.

Not necessarily,

I'm not sure what you're attempting to argue here. Are you trying to deny that humans presume intentionality? If so, you need to give me an argument.

 Are you trying to say that we can overcome the assumption?

Ok, we can overcome our presumption, but psychological research (see Piaget) does demonstrate that people do in fact take on an 'intentional stance'. So we have to actively work against it.

 

Quote:

we ask why are the comets, mountains and eclipses without impugning it was intended.

Yes, we do. But the fact that we do doesn't mean that we humans don't start out trying to understand the world by projecting out intention onto the world.

Quote:

Should we not ask why we exist simply because such a question implies there might be a reason?

I've already explained the problem in the question: it's based on the presumption of the intentional stance. It assumes that the universal is the result of an intention, and this assumption is unfounded.

 Here is what I said above:


Once you recognize that the origin for this question is based on a presumption that 'everything else in the universe works and thinks  just like humans' you'll see the problem in your question.

Quote:
But this presumption is merely a projection of what we are: intentional beings. There is no actual good reason to presume that the universe has an intent.

Quote:

I think there are good reasons and I intend to present them if I can find anyone who isn’t too chicken to debate me.

Present them.  

 

Quote:
Once you recognize that the origin for this question is based on a presumption that 'everything else in the universe works and thinks just like humans' you'll see the problem in your question.

Quote:

Indeed, I don’t think humans are anything like the universe which is why among many reasons I don’t believe human are the accidental by product of the universe.

I didn't say that humans are unlike the universe, so you can't act as if we are agreeing.  Humans are a part of the universe. In fact, people are literally made up of 'star stuff', i.e. matter that comes from supernovae.

Quote:

If humans were the accidental by product of mindless forces then humans should be just like the substance and mechanism they were alleged to have come from.

This is a non sequitur. By your logic, water should be a gas, since water is made up of 2 gases. Your error is therefore clear:You are leaving out the concept of emergent properites. Water becomes a liquid even as all of its components are non liquid.

Humans can have intentionality, even though their physical substratum is non-intentional.

See? 

Again, I'd like to caution you against the error of employing the very process itself as the cause for the existence of the process! You can't appeal to intelligence as the origin of intelligence!

  
 

Quote:
I've always felt that the assumption in this question was one of the most irrational assumptions in philosophy - so it's probably from Liebnitz.

 

Quote:

It is not an assumption;

Yes. It. Is. Unless you can demonstrate just how nothing can 'exist' (leaving aside the ontological dilemma)

Quote:

it is in fact a non-assumption that something had to exist.

We are talking about the assumption that there could be 'nothing', not the assumption that something exists. Existence is axiomatic.

Quote:

You reject the question on the basis of your assumption that something has to exist.

No, I am merely stating that it's quite an assumption to assume that nothing can exist. Can you demonstrate why this assumption makes sense?

Quote:
 

It is a philosophical pre-supposition on your part because you offer no evidence something has to exist.

 I'm not presupposing anything, I'm trying to get you to see that you haven't demonstrated your claim.

 

Quote:
Why nothing instead of something?

Quote:

Indeed.

You're agreeing with your own quote, not mine!

 

Quote:
Next, no one holds that evolutionary processes work randomly. If this is all you know about science, you are not capable of having this conversation.

Quote:

I’ve said nothing about evolution at this point.

Neither have I. Please read my comments again. I am speaking about evolutionary processes in a more abstract sense - i.e. simple rules or laws that build up entities through an additive process.

You continually claim that these processes are 'random' when in fact no cosmologist holds that cosmology is random.

Quote:
2. We are the unintended result of mindless forces that unintentionally caused our existence through blind happenstance.

"Blind hapenstance' assumes that cosmology is the study of randomness. It is not. No cosmologist holds that cosmology is random. If you disagree, cite a cosmologist who holds that cosmological processess are 'random'

 

Go on, or withdraw your claim.  

 

Quote:

It is a legitimate line of inquiry to ask why there exists something rather than nothing

Only if you can first demonstrate that there could be 'nothing'. So far, you've only assumed it. 

 

Quote:

We have no basis to stifle such lines of inquiry simply because such questions might provide a basis for answers you don’t care for.

LOL> It's not that I don't 'care for' the answers, so I'll ask you to stop lying about my intentions. My intention is to get you to give me a reason why it is rational to assume that there could be nothing.

 

So far, you've avoided the challenge.  

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Nobody is afraid to debate

Nobody is afraid to debate you but your debate appears to be the usualy theistic excuses, strawmen and whining.  If you have something creative and new to bring to the table then go for it, or else find someone else who can do a competent job because you aren't impressing anyone.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed wrote: Nobody is

D-cubed wrote:
Nobody is afraid to debate you but your debate appears to be the usualy theistic excuses, strawmen and whining. If you have something creative and new to bring to the table then go for it, or else find someone else who can do a competent job because you aren't impressing anyone.

 

Thanks for summing things up. I can't fathom why an atheist would be afraid to find out that he will go to paradise and live in eternal bliss....  but I can easily understand why a theist would be afraid to find out that that isn't so....

 

I have a brief examination of what cosmologists actually say about cosmology, here:

 http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Drew_theist

Drew_theist wrote:
 

 

Quote:
The matter I am made of has existed for all of time.

 

Do you ever plan to offer evidence of your assertions? I guess you are right it is a waste of time to debate a fundamentalist with dogmatic views of reality.

Why are you here debating if you don't already know what the answer is?!? Anyone who debates an issue ought to already know the other side's position.  

 

"While there would be no matter prior to the big bang, the big bang would release an enormous amount of energy in the form of light, which comes in discrete packets called photons. When photons have enough energy, they can spontaneously decay into a particle and an antiparticle. This is easily observed today, as gamma rays have enough energy to create measurable electron-antielectron pairs (the antielectron is usually called a positron). This would explain the existence of matter."

 

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=631

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Drew_theist

Drew_theist wrote:
Vessel,

Drew_theist,


Quote:
Very well buttwipe, this will be my last response to you. You don’t mind if I call you buttwipe do you?

Not at all, I couldn't care less what some random person on the internet calls me. And you are right it is probably best not to respond when you can't respond any better than what you have, but somehow, I think you were being dishonest and you will respond again.


Quote:
Easy, nothing, not even nothing would exist.

That is non-sensical. Do try to maintain some sort of intelligence in your replies. 


Quote:
The current scientific model suggests the universe as it exists today began to exist and the evidence strongly supports that contention. Whether the universe previously existed (outside of time) as a singularity who knows?

As it exists today is not the question though, is it? I asked why you assume the universe didn't exist at some point, not why the universe as it exists today didn't exist at some point. Try to stay on point and not duck the questions.

 

Quote:
Do you ever plan to offer evidence of your assertions? I guess you are right it is a waste of time to debate a fundamentalist with dogmatic views of reality.

I figured you were knowledgable enough to realize that humans are made of matter, matter can not be created nor destroyed, matter is contained in the universe, time is a property of the universe, and therefor the matter of which I am made has existed for all of time. My bad on assuming you to be knowledgable.

Quote:
Then why make assertions like something always existed and time always existed?

Because always is time referential (for all of time), and if time existed, then necessarily something existed. If time did not exist then the term 'always' makes no sense. This paired with the fact that the fact that 'Nothing can not exist' requires that something exists leads any rational person to the conclusion that something has always existed.

 

Quote:
I’ve made no knowledge claims at all. At best theism is a philosophical belief just as materialism is.

Not really. I am not required to hold to my belief in order to be spared eternal torment. 

 

Quote:
It maybe non-negotiable because it is a dogmatic fundamental truth of your personal worldview, that hardly qualifies it as non-debateble. If time didn’t begin to exist, we would never reach this point in time. It is a near certainty that the universe and time began to exist.

 I simply said that they both always existed as always is time referential. However, let's look at them beginning to exist. Now, there could be no before they existed as before also deals with time, so anything else we could say on the matter seems to be non-sensical.To speak of before time or before the universe makes no sense so to consider whether or not they began we would have to have some reference by which to judge their beginning. What shall we use for that? 

 

Quote:
I have done so repeatedly.

I shake my head and sigh at you as I always do with wayward children. Try to be honest. 


Quote:
You can’t shore up one assertion by making another. Of course there could be nothing instead of something. Nothing is the absence of something just as absolute zero is the absence of heat.

Prove to me nothing can exist and I will stop claiming it. The fact that it is axiomatic that 'nothing can not exist' means that it by definition is not an assertion. It is simply ridiculous to think that nothing can exist and there is absilutely no basis for anyone to ever propose that the default existence is nothing(which is, by any definition with which I am familiar, impossible) as opposed to something (which makes perfect sense).

 

Quote:
How would it be if I were to assert there is a God and that point is non-negotiable and then support that assertion with another assertion that God cannot not exist?

I would ask you to support it with reasoned argumentation as I have done. Go ahead.

 

Quote:
See if you took my advice and applied some critical thinking to your worldview I wouldn’t have to show case the flaws in your thinking in front of all your buddies.

Feel free to point out the flaws. I'm waiting.

 

Quote:
I am in the process of making such an explanation; this is only line of evidence number 1. What I mean by theism is exactly how it is defined. It is the belief the universe was intentionally created by a transcendent personal agent as opposed to inexplicably coming into existence through happenstance and serendipity.

Wow, are there people who believe that the universe came into being through happenstance and serendipity? I would like to meet one of those people. Oh, and anytime you care to start making actual points to support your claim, feel free.

Quote:
You may see the rest but since you don’t think it is worthy of debate you’ll have to sit in the peanut gallery.

Actually, I won't have to do anything, but I may view the thread from time to time.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Drew_theist
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Vessel,   Quote: Prove

Vessel,

 

Quote:
Prove to me nothing can exist and I will stop claiming it.

 

You are making the claim that something must exist and has always existed; the burden of proof is yours not mine to disprove your claim.

 

Even if something did always exist it would be just as legitimate to ask why something always existed instead of no existence of anything.

 

Quote:
The fact that it is axiomatic that 'nothing can not exist' means that it by definition is not an assertion.

 

Making yet another claim that your belief is axiomatic doesn’t make it so. You haven’t provided any reasoning or evidence it is a requirement that something exists beyond your own incredulity and aversion to any thought out side of your worldview.

 

Secondly you’re attempting to conflate the term nothing as if it were something that if nothing existed then nothing it self would be something that existed.

 

Quote:
Feel free to point out the flaws. I'm waiting.

 

No waiting necessary you have been served…

 

Quote:
It is simply ridiculous to think that nothing can exist

 

Your personal incredulity at such a state of affairs is not evidence. Einstein initially thought the big bang was ridiculous even though his math suggested its existence.

 

On what ontological basis do you demand the universe not be absurd or completely irrational? Since (according to you) it was created without plan or design by irrational mindless forces the universe should be utterly absurd, why should we think other wise?

 

Quote:
Wow, are there people who believe that the universe came into being through happenstance and serendipity? I would like to meet one of those people. Oh, and anytime you care to start making actual points to support your claim, feel free.

 

Most atheists and materialists I’ve chatted with believe the universe came about by happenstance. What are you counter proposing?

 


Drew_theist
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Vessel,

Duplicate post deleted


Drew_theist
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-01-29
User is offlineOffline
"While there would be no

"While there would be no matter prior to the big bang, the big bang would release an enormous amount of energy in the form of light, which comes in discrete packets called photons. When photons have enough energy, they can spontaneously decay into a particle and an antiparticle. This is easily observed today, as gamma rays have enough energy to create measurable electron-antielectron pairs (the antielectron is usually called a positron). This would explain the existence of matter."

 

Explain that to Vessel, he thinks his matter always existed…

 

 


Drew_theist
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-01-29
User is offlineOffline
"While there would be no

"While there would be no matter prior to the big bang, the big bang would release an enormous amount of energy in the form of light, which comes in discrete packets called photons. When photons have enough energy, they can spontaneously decay into a particle and an antiparticle. This is easily observed today, as gamma rays have enough energy to create measurable electron-antielectron pairs (the antielectron is usually called a positron). This would explain the existence of matter."

 

Explain that to Vessel, he thinks his matter always existed…


Drew_theist
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-01-29
User is offlineOffline
"While there would be no

"While there would be no matter prior to the big bang, the big bang would release an enormous amount of energy in the form of light, which comes in discrete packets called photons. When photons have enough energy, they can spontaneously decay into a particle and an antiparticle. This is easily observed today, as gamma rays have enough energy to create measurable electron-antielectron pairs (the antielectron is usually called a positron). This would explain the existence of matter."

 

Explain that to Vessel, he thinks his matter always existed…


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Drew_theist wrote: This is

Drew_theist wrote:


This is a re-post of a thread started in Killing them with kindness.

 

The most basic philosophical question that can be asked is why are we here? Why is there something rather than nothing? What (if anything) caused our existence?

The two most basic philosophical beliefs regarding this question are:

1. We are the result of plan and intention by a personal agents(s) who caused us to exist.

2. We are the unintended result of mindless forces that unintentionally caused our existence through blind happenstance.

I'd be happy defend proposition 1 and oppose proposition 2.

Any takers?


Here's my take on this.

Question: Why are we here?

A: Because we are. The existence of life does not require reason. If it did, then I could just as easily turn this question on it's head and ask.. Why God there? Granted.  You may contend that he is there to create.  But your reason is no more self-evident then if I were to say "We are here to live." Both only seek to give a possible explanation as to the nature of a given entity.  God's nature is create.  Our nature is to live.

Question: Why is there something rather than nothing?

A: Because there is.  If there was not, then we would not be asking the question in the first place for we would not exist.  See above.  If I agree that something exists, it does not need anymore evidence then itself.  Once again.  If you would disagree.. consider your answer to the question turned on its head.  Why is there God instead of not God? If there is a God, then he is.  And if he is not, then he is not.  His existence does not need reason.

Question: What (if anything) caused our existence?

A: This might be the better of the questions.  And to it I would answer: God.  For I am a theist.  But an atheist could just as easily contend that nothing caused our existence.. it is has been, and always will be, in some form or another-- according to one of Steven Hawkings theories of time and universal beginnings.  He uses reason to state this theory is possible (with whatever rules he used.. I don't proclaim to understand all of Hawkings proofs.

1.  We are the result of plan and intention by a personal agents(s) who caused us to exist.

2. We are the unintended result of mindless forces that unintentionally caused our existence through blind happenstance.

In essence a dichotomy of creationism and non-creationism.

Fine.  And each one, I would contest, is equally plausible.  Although some might contest that your description of scientific processes are misleading in your statement 2.. even so.  Mathematically speaking.. infinite time and infinite space allows for all possibilites.  Granted, I'm only right if I understand the concept of mathematical usage of the word infinity.  Even blind happenstance given infinite time and infinite space will get it right somewhere.

So where's the debate?


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Drew_theist

Drew_theist wrote:

Vessel,

 

Drew_theist,


Quote:
You are making the claim that something must exist and has always existed; the burden of proof is yours not mine to disprove your claim.

I have explained why something must exist. It is because nothing can not exist. Unless you can explain how nothing could exist it is a ridiculous proposition to hold that nothing can exist. To prove me wrong that something must exist all you have to do is show how nothing can exist and then my claim will be shown to be false. Even the theist I have spoken with hold that nothing can not exist as they believe their god to exist before the universe (how something can be prior to time no body ever seems to feel the need to explain) which would be something.

Quote:
Even if something did always exist it would be just as legitimate to ask why something always existed instead of no existence of anything.

Because it is necessary that either something exists or nothing exists. Being as that nothing can not exist (A can not = ~A) then something must exist. Something existing is the only possible type of existence.


Quote:
Making yet another claim that your belief is axiomatic doesn’t make it so. You haven’t provided any reasoning or evidence it is a requirement that something exists beyond your own incredulity and aversion to any thought out side of your worldview.

You keep saying that but as of yet have not been able to point out any fault in the premises I present.

 

Quote:
Secondly you’re attempting to conflate the term nothing as if it were something that if nothing existed then nothing it self would be something that existed.

It is unnecessary to conflate the term nothing. If nothing were to exist it would have to be something existing and therefor it can not exist. Nothing is a non-sensical concept. There is absolutely no reason to view nothing as a possibility. No one can even define or comprehend of it. It is absurd. If I am wrong prove me so instead of simply saying I am wrong. At least present some form of argument aside from simply repeating your assertion that there being nothing is just as probable, if not more probable or even as much as necesssary, than there being something. This is the claim you are making and it is counter to reason.

Quote:
No waiting necessary you have been served…

........

Quote:
Your personal incredulity at such a state of affairs is not evidence. Einstein initially thought the big bang was ridiculous even though his math suggested its existence.

Well, that was apparently a mistake of his. That Einstein can make mistakes in no way suprises me. Now if you would be so kind as to show the fault with what I have said, which is far from simply personal incredulity, or to concede that there is something because there can not be nothing we could move past this.

Quote:
On what ontological basis do you demand the universe not be absurd or completely irrational?

Our concept of what is absurd or what is irrational is based on existence within the universe. The universe need not necessarily be anything particular. In other words, it is 'the nature of the universe dictates what we see as irrational or absurd', not 'our definition of what is rational or absurd happens to apply to the universe'.

Quote:
Since (according to you) it was created without plan or design by irrational mindless forces the universe should be utterly absurd, why should we think other wise?

Who said the universe was created?

Anyway, we are products of the universe. We view the universe as it is and base concepts such as absurdities on this nature. The universe therefor cannot be absurd as it is the measure of non-absurdity.

Quote:
Most atheists and materialists I’ve chatted with believe the universe came about by happenstance. What are you counter proposing?

That the big bang was an expansion and that everything within the universwe has existed for all of time. I see no need to assume anything further than that especially not things that are contrary to reason or uncomprehendable non-concepts. I see no good reason to think anything else is necessary. There is no reason to propose that the universe came about, as to say it came about requires that there was some occurence before there was the universe and this would require something occuring in a non-time related way which is absurd.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Drew_theist wrote: "While

Drew_theist wrote:

"While there would be no matter prior to the big bang, the big bang would release an enormous amount of energy in the form of light, which comes in discrete packets called photons. When photons have enough energy, they can spontaneously decay into a particle and an antiparticle. This is easily observed today, as gamma rays have enough energy to create measurable electron-antielectron pairs (the antielectron is usually called a positron). This would explain the existence of matter."

 

Explain that to Vessel, he thinks his matter always existed…

The matter I am made of has always existed. It has existed for all of time. Time is a property of the universe. Energy/matter can be neither created nor destroyed. How is it that you presume the matter that I consist of came to be if it hasn't always been a part of the universe? I welcome your explanation.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Drew_theist wrote: "While

Drew_theist wrote:

"While there would be no matter prior to the big bang, the big bang would release an enormous amount of energy in the form of light, which comes in discrete packets called photons. When photons have enough energy, they can spontaneously decay into a particle and an antiparticle. This is easily observed today, as gamma rays have enough energy to create measurable electron-antielectron pairs (the antielectron is usually called a positron). This would explain the existence of matter."

 

Explain that to Vessel, he thinks his matter always existed…

Not a fan of the laws of thermodynamics are you?  Are you arguing the entire scientific community for the past 100 years have been wrong and you are going to prove them all wrong today?  I'll shine up your Nobel Prize if you manage to do that.  Something tells me if you were such a great, groundbreaking scientist you wouldn't be debating the issue on a discussion forum. 


Drew_theist
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-01-29
User is offlineOffline
To all,   Quote: I have

To all,

 

Quote:
I have explained why something must exist. It is because nothing can not exist.

 

There is no getting off this merry-go-round regarding whether something has to exist or not. The above is not an explanation or evidence of anything, it is merely one assertion being supported by another assertion minus any evidence such is true. In short it is simply a mental construct you have erected which would be no more superior to if I said God exists because God can’t not exist and then have the gall to demand you prove God can not exist. It would be just as stupid an erroneous but evidently this is a fundamental belief impervious to any evidence to the contrary.

 

It doesn’t really matter what you think or what you’re fundamental beliefs are. No one else is beholden to them and the average person would have no problem recognizing that at the very least there is no requirement a universe or people exist.

 

So moving on…

 

  1. The fact something exists rather than nothing.
  2. The fact the universe began to exist about 15 to 20 billion years ago.

    Although no one here will agree, the truth is if it were scientifically established that the universe existed eternally that would be lights out smoking gun evidence that materialism (and consequently atheism) is true. There would really be no need to invoke a Creator (causer) of the universe if it always existed. Further more, no matter how rare or difficult getting life started might be it would have infinite chances to do so therefore again no need of a Creator.

    Therefore the fact the universe began to exist (along with time and the laws of nature) is a fact that favors the theistic model of our origin and existence and is disconfirmatory to the materialistic model.

 

 


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Drew_theist wrote: The

Drew_theist wrote:

The fact the universe began to exist about 15 to 20 billion years ago.Although no one here will agree, the truth is if it were scientifically established that the universe existed eternally that would be lights out smoking gun evidence that materialism (and consequently atheism) is true. There would really be no need to invoke a Creator (causer) of the universe if it always existed. Further more, no matter how rare or difficult getting life started might be it would have infinite chances to do so therefore again no need of a Creator.

Therefore the fact the universe began to exist (along with time and the laws of nature) is a fact that favors the theistic model of our origin and existence and is disconfirmatory to the materialistic model.

Your argument: "If P (eternal universe), then Q (no creator). Not P, therefore not Q." is fallacious. It requires the assumption that "There is no creator if and only if the universe is eternal."

Example: "If P (Ginger is a dog), then Q (Ginger has a tail). Not P, therefore not Q." See, it doesn't work unless "Ginger has a tail if and only if Ginger is a dog."

Furthermore, current theories suggest that the universe as we know it began 15 or so billion years ago. This does not rule out a cyclic universe which would need no "causer". Also, that doesn't mean a new theory won't come along and supplant the old one since it more accurately explains observations. http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Endless_Universe_Made_Possible_By_New_Model_999.html


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Drew_theist wrote:   The

Drew_theist wrote:
 
  1. The fact something exists rather than nothing.
  2. The fact the universe began to exist about 15 to 20 billion years ago.

    Although no one here will agree, the truth is if it were scientifically established that the universe existed eternally that would be lights out smoking gun evidence that materialism (and consequently atheism) is true. There would really be no need to invoke a Creator (causer) of the universe if it always existed. Further more, no matter how rare or difficult getting life started might be it would have infinite chances to do so therefore again no need of a Creator.

    Therefore the fact the universe began to exist (along with time and the laws of nature) is a fact that favors the theistic model of our origin and existence and is disconfirmatory to the materialistic model.

    Again, which has been stated before nobody here actually believes all of matter spontaneously came into being as described in Genesis (apart from perhaps you).  So why you tend to berate that point in some pathetic strawman fallacy is beyond me.

As for number two, yes, godless science has calculated the universe is about 15 billion years old.   Your position is that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong therefore you are right.  Of course you haven't presented any arguments that matter and energy have always existed you just constantly repeat "It just has to".  Wishful thinking isn't getting you anywhere.

The current universe coming into being as a result of the Big Bang isn't terribly supernatural.  There is gravity brought about by intense density as is found in black holes.  Therefore it's no big surprise that is matter becomes dense enough it will result in a fusion explosion releasing that matter and energy into the cosmos.  How does a naturalistic explanation benefit your argument for a creator?  It doesn't, quite the contrary actually.

So if you care to present any actual arguement other than wishful thinking I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.  Until then the debate has yet to get started. 


Drew_theist
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Your argument: "If

Quote:
Your argument: "If P (eternal universe), then Q (no creator). Not P, therefore not Q." is fallacious. It requires the assumption that "There is no creator if and only if the universe is eternal."

 

Not exactly, if the universe existed eternally it would obviate the need of a first cause or creator but it wouldn’t rule out the possibility such might exist anyway. The fact we know the universe did begin to exist is a huge line of evidence in favor of the theistic model which has always suggested that the universe was created and started to exist.

 

You can’t have it both ways, when it looked like the universe existed eternally, that was deemed solid evidence in favor of the materialistic model for reasons I mentioned in the last post. The fact it turned out to be false and what theists thought was true is a huge feather in theists cap…deal with it.

 

Quote:
This does not rule out a cyclic universe which would need no "causer". Also, that doesn't mean a new theory won't come along and supplant the old one since it more accurately explains observations.

 

A cyclic universe would only push the envelope back one step and not obviate the need of a causer.

 

Of course some new theory might emerge that would supplant the old, for that matter a new theory or evidence in favor of theism might emerge as well. So what?

 

Quote:
Again, which has been stated before nobody here actually believes all of matter spontaneously came into being as described in Genesis (apart from perhaps you). So why you tend to berate that point in some pathetic strawman fallacy is beyond me.

 

I’m not referring to genesis I am referring to Big bang cosmology which still appears to be backed by solid evidence. And BB theory does describe the universe as spontaneously coming into existence

 

Quote:
As for number two, yes, godless science has calculated the universe is about 15 billion years old. Your position is that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong therefore you are right. Of course you haven't presented any arguments that matter and energy have always existed you just constantly repeat "It just has to". Wishful thinking isn't getting you anywhere.

 

You better re-read some of these posts because I am not the one suggesting that matter and energy always existed. I have been arguing with Vessel against the notion that anything has to exist.

 

Quote:
The current universe coming into being as a result of the Big Bang isn't terribly supernatural.

 

I think the term supernatural is a moving target. For example 200 years ago, the notion of traveling forward in time would be deemed a supernatural act. Now we know time is relative and if we could travel fast enough, we would move forward in time relative to people not moving fast.

 

That said the cause of the universe is supernatural, it was an agent apart from the universe, the laws of nature or time. What we call natural are agents that operate in time within the universe and are bound to the laws of nature.

 

Right on cue someone will suggest (minus any evidence such a thing is possible) that maybe the universe came into existence uncaused out of nothing. If so then existence of the universe is itself is a supernatural inexplicable miracle.

 

I hope someone offers such a possibility because I love to point out that even though atheists routinely claim they don’t believe in theism because of lack of evidence, lack of evidence never stops them from believing what they want to believe…

 

Quote:
Therefore it's no big surprise that is matter becomes dense enough it will result in a fusion explosion releasing that matter and energy into the cosmos.

 

Are you suggesting the universe sprung into existence from a pre-existing black hole?

 

Quote:
So if you care to present any actual arguement other than wishful thinking I'm sure we'd all love to hear it. Until then the debate has yet to get started.

 

The debate isn’t between you and me or the other atheist zealots on this board, its between me and other people who are coming to this board who are not born again atheists and Godaphobes.


Drew_theist
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Your argument: "If

Quote:
Your argument: "If P (eternal universe), then Q (no creator). Not P, therefore not Q." is fallacious. It requires the assumption that "There is no creator if and only if the universe is eternal."

 

Not exactly, if the universe existed eternally it would obviate the need of a first cause or creator but it wouldn’t rule out the possibility such might exist anyway. The fact we know the universe did begin to exist is a huge line of evidence in favor of the theistic model which has always suggested that the universe was created and started to exist.

 

You can’t have it both ways, when it looked like the universe existed eternally, that was deemed solid evidence in favor of the materialistic model for reasons I mentioned in the last post. The fact it turned out to be false and what theists thought was true is a huge feather in theists cap…deal with it.

 

Quote:
This does not rule out a cyclic universe which would need no "causer". Also, that doesn't mean a new theory won't come along and supplant the old one since it more accurately explains observations.

 

A cyclic universe would only push the envelope back one step and not obviate the need of a causer.

 

Of course some new theory might emerge that would supplant the old, for that matter a new theory or evidence in favor of theism might emerge as well. So what?

 

Quote:
Again, which has been stated before nobody here actually believes all of matter spontaneously came into being as described in Genesis (apart from perhaps you). So why you tend to berate that point in some pathetic strawman fallacy is beyond me.

 

I’m not referring to genesis I am referring to Big bang cosmology which still appears to be backed by solid evidence. And BB theory does describe the universe as spontaneously coming into existence

 

Quote:
As for number two, yes, godless science has calculated the universe is about 15 billion years old. Your position is that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong therefore you are right. Of course you haven't presented any arguments that matter and energy have always existed you just constantly repeat "It just has to". Wishful thinking isn't getting you anywhere.

 

You better re-read some of these posts because I am not the one suggesting that matter and energy always existed. I have been arguing with Vessel against the notion that anything has to exist.

 

Quote:
The current universe coming into being as a result of the Big Bang isn't terribly supernatural.

 

I think the term supernatural is a moving target. For example 200 years ago, the notion of traveling forward in time would be deemed a supernatural act. Now we know time is relative and if we could travel fast enough, we would move forward in time relative to people not moving fast.

 

That said the cause of the universe is supernatural, it was an agent apart from the universe, the laws of nature or time. What we call natural are agents that operate in time within the universe and are bound to the laws of nature.

 

Right on cue someone will suggest (minus any evidence such a thing is possible) that maybe the universe came into existence uncaused out of nothing. If so then existence of the universe is itself is a supernatural inexplicable miracle.

 

I hope someone offers such a possibility because I love to point out that even though atheists routinely claim they don’t believe in theism because of lack of evidence, lack of evidence never stops them from believing what they want to believe…

 

Quote:
Therefore it's no big surprise that is matter becomes dense enough it will result in a fusion explosion releasing that matter and energy into the cosmos.

 

Are you suggesting the universe sprung into existence from a pre-existing black hole?

 

Quote:
So if you care to present any actual arguement other than wishful thinking I'm sure we'd all love to hear it. Until then the debate has yet to get started.

 

The debate isn’t between you and me or the other atheist zealots on this board, its between me and other people who are coming to this board who are not born again atheists and Godaphobes.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Drew_theist wrote: "While

Drew_theist wrote:

"While there would be no matter prior to the big bang, the big bang would release an enormous amount of energy in the form of light, which comes in discrete packets called photons. When photons have enough energy, they can spontaneously decay into a particle and an antiparticle. This is easily observed today, as gamma rays have enough energy to create measurable electron-antielectron pairs (the antielectron is usually called a positron). This would explain the existence of matter."

 

Explain that to Vessel, he thinks his matter always existed…

 

Actually, that's not a proof that matter has not in fact always existed, instead, it's an argument for how matter can be created from energy.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed wrote: Drew_theist

D-cubed wrote:
Drew_theist wrote:
  1. The fact something exists rather than nothing.
  2. The fact the universe began to exist about 15 to 20 billion years ago.

    Although no one here will agree, the truth is if it were scientifically established that the universe existed eternally that would be lights out smoking gun evidence that materialism (and consequently atheism) is true. There would really be no need to invoke a Creator (causer) of the universe if it always existed. Further more, no matter how rare or difficult getting life started might be it would have infinite chances to do so therefore again no need of a Creator.

    Therefore the fact the universe began to exist (along with time and the laws of nature) is a fact that favors the theistic model of our origin and existence and is disconfirmatory to the materialistic model.

Again, which has been stated before nobody here actually believes all of matter spontaneously came into being as described in Genesis (apart from perhaps you). So why you tend to berate that point in some pathetic strawman fallacy is beyond me.

Actually, there are at least 2 ex nihilo cosmological models, stemming back from Edward Tryone's initial 'vacuum fluctuaton' speculation in 1973. However, it is still a strawman to refer to such cosmological models as 'magic' or to imply that it takes faith to believe in them, as nothing about these models violates physics!

I  hope to present an overview of these models shortly, from a reading of Alan Guth's review of their works.

I've never met a theist arguing cosmology, who has even the faintest idea of how wrong they are concering their claims about cosmology and ex nihilo models.

1) Big band theory is not a creation account in the first place.

2) Many cosmological models are NOT ex nihilo

3) Those that are, do not violate physics.

 

Quote:

 As for number two, yes, godless science has calculated the universe is about 15 billion years old. Your position is that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong therefore you are right. Of course you haven't presented any arguments that matter and energy have always existed you just constantly repeat "It just has to". Wishful thinking isn't getting you anywhere.

The argument is based on a false dichotomy anyway... i.e. either matter always existed (which the theist insists violates the second law of thermodynamics) or god exists (let's be honest and cut to the chase, this is their real argument.)

 The reality is far more complex, but learning this would not avail the theist, so ... why bother?

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Drew_theist wrote:   So

Drew_theist wrote:

 

So moving on…

 

  1. The fact something exists rather than nothing.
  2. The fact the universe began to exist about 15 to 20 billion years ago.

    Although no one here will agree, the truth is if it were scientifically established that the universe existed eternally that would be lights out smoking gun evidence that materialism (and consequently atheism) is true. There would really be no need to invoke a Creator (causer) of the universe if it always existed. Further more, no matter how rare or difficult getting life started might be it would have infinite chances to do so therefore again no need of a Creator.

    Therefore the fact the universe began to exist (along with time and the laws of nature) is a fact that favors the theistic model of our origin and existence and is disconfirmatory to the materialistic model.

Leaving aside whether the universe 'began to exist', your claim is false.  Please read my comments on common cosmological misperceptions:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions

 

Which refute your false dichtomy. 

 Please also read Tim Ferris' examination and refutation of theological cosmological arguments.

Please also consider the ontological dilemma in making a causal argument for the supernatural.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Drew_theist wrote: To

Drew_theist wrote:

To all,

To Drew_Theist, 

 

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
I have explained why something must exist. It is because nothing can not exist.

 

There is no getting off this merry-go-round regarding whether something has to exist or not. The above is not an explanation or evidence of anything, it is merely one assertion being supported by another assertion minus any evidence such is true. In short it is simply a mental construct you have erected which would be no more superior to if I said God exists because God can’t not exist and then have the gall to demand you prove God can not exist. It would be just as stupid an erroneous but evidently this is a fundamental belief impervious to any evidence to the contrary.

 

It doesn’t really matter what you think or what you’re fundamental beliefs are. No one else is beholden to them and the average person would have no problem recognizing that at the very least there is no requirement a universe or people exist.

I don't have much time today but thought I'd make a comment on your silliness here. 

So it is your belief that there is no requirement the universe exists, and yet it does. you seem to think this requires explanation. So since you will not allow the perfectly obvious statement that something must exist because nothing can not exist its merit, even though you can offer no reason why this statement is untrue, let's see where that puts you.

Apparently it is neither unreasonable nor absurd for nothing to exist by your reasoning, or lack there of. So before your big ghosty friend there created the universe, during that eternity of non-time where he did whatever it is gods do in their absence of space, why did he exist as opposed to nothing existing? You seem to think that nothing existing would be perfectly acceptable so it seems you need a reason for your god existsence as opposed to nothing existing. Why does there just happen to be a god who created the universe and people as opposed to nothingwhich would have in turn created nothing?  

 

Quote:
So moving on…

 

  1. The fact something exists rather than nothing.

Yeah, your ghosty friend there is something as opposed to nothing. Lets see what kind of explanation we have for his existence.

It is clearly speacial pleading to ask why something exists and not something else. This is the problem you have now that you have repeatedly neglected my reasoning.

What you try to answer (unsuccessfully I might add) with the rest of your crap is how the universe can exist. Here you will claim that there necessatrily needs to be a necessarilly existing something which created the universe. Everyone here has heard this arguiment and heard it from every angle. The fact is that even that argument has serious flaws. But it is not near as seriously flawed as the argument you created against yourself when you insisted repeatedly that there needs to be a reason why something exists as opposed to nothing. Now I hope you don't fail to answer your own insistent question. Why does god exist as opposed to nothing?

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Drew_theist
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Vessel,   Quote:

Vessel,

 

Quote:
Apparently it is neither unreasonable nor absurd for nothing to exist by your reasoning, or lack there of. So before your big ghosty friend there created the universe, during that eternity of non-time where he did whatever it is gods do in their absence of space, why did he exist as opposed to nothing existing?

 

That’s a good question and I am encouraged that you’re actually thinking this through rather than responding with the next available sound bite you have memorized.

 

I have no idea why God exists rather than no God exists nor do I invoke some dubious mental construct that God must exist. I never claimed to know why God exists. I do however have an opinion about why something exists (such as this universe and us) exists just as many atheists and materialists do.

 

Quote:
You seem to think that nothing existing would be perfectly acceptable so it seems you need a reason for your god existsence as opposed to nothing existing. Why does there just happen to be a god who created the universe and people as opposed to nothingwhich would have in turn created nothing?

 

I can’t think of any good reason why something has to exist and I don’t subscribe to your dogmas. I don’t know why there is a God who created everything but unlike you I don’t insist God must have existed or anything else must have existed.

 

I do believe that God is a valid reason as any reason why something exists rather than nothing and I think such is a better reason than the belief that something had to exist for no known reason.

 


Drew_theist
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-01-29
User is offlineOffline
todangst,   If you want to

todangst,

 

If you want to argue a point from a weblink please quote some relevant text so I don't have to wade through a long essay and attempt to figure out what you think is pertinent.

Quote:
In Hawkings "Universe in a Nutshell" he furthers this argument, by hold that a universe that his finite but boundless has no beginning or end point, and no need for a creator. Hawkings himself declared that this point would not possess any 'special' status. It would be akin to any other point in a circle - or more accurately, a globe. Hawkings states rather plainly that his model proposes a boundless, yet finite universe - without any special points in space or time. He covers this in Universe in a Nutshell.

 

You know that Hawkings used 'imaginary' time to come up with this construct and even he admits it doesn't avoid a beginining.

 


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Drew_theist

Drew_theist wrote:

Quote:
Your argument: "If P (eternal universe), then Q (no creator). Not P, therefore not Q." is fallacious. It requires the assumption that "There is no creator if and only if the universe is eternal."

Not exactly, if the universe existed eternally it would obviate the need of a first cause or creator but it wouldn’t rule out the possibility such might exist anyway. The fact we know the universe did begin to exist is a huge line of evidence in favor of the theistic model which has always suggested that the universe was created and started to exist.

Yes, exactly. That's the argument you made: That an eternal universe gives evidence of a lack of a creator, therefore if the universe is not eternal, that gives evidence of a creator.

You seem to be restating the watchmaker argument. We haven't seen other universes, therefore, making assumptions about how they start (i.e. feeling a creator is necessary) is fallacious.

"Started to exist" != "created"

Drew_theist wrote:

You can’t have it both ways, when it looked like the universe existed eternally, that was deemed solid evidence in favor of the materialistic model for reasons I mentioned in the last post. The fact it turned out to be false and what theists thought was true is a huge feather in theists cap…deal with it.

You are still misunderstanding the very concept of time. If the universe was compressed into a singularity, there is no change as long as it stays that way, therefore there is no "time". Time does not exist in such conditions.

Drew_theist wrote:

Quote:
This does not rule out a cyclic universe which would need no "causer". Also, that doesn't mean a new theory won't come along and supplant the old one since it more accurately explains observations.

A cyclic universe would only push the envelope back one step and not obviate the need of a causer.

An infinite chain requires no start.

Heck, even a finite chain in a loop has no start.

-Triften


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Drew_theist wrote: That’s

Drew_theist wrote:
That’s a good question and I am encouraged that you’re actually thinking this through rather than responding with the next available sound bite you have memorized.

says the guy using the thousand year old argument.

In truth the reason that something exists can be explained simply as I have already shown. To assume that nothing would be, could be, or has ever been is nothing but a ridiculous assumption that has no basis in anything aside from an inability to understand. There is no reason to think nothingness is anything aside from a useless non-concept. There is really no good reason to even consider it to be possible. To a person incapable of  thinking their way out of a Papal bag it may seem as if the assumption that the idea that nothingness always proceeds existence is obvious. They may look around and say,"Hey, when there is not a car in that parking space there is nothing in that parking space," and from this assume that this means that nothingness is a natural state and existence requires a reason. However, they are basing this on a faulty understanding of nothingness. I have never seen any good reason given why anyone should consider there to be any possibility of true nothingness. Nothingness is contrary to reason and should not be considered a possibility without good reason. 

Now to handle the rest of your silliness.

I have had no need to think it through. I've heard this argument so many times I can sleep through replying to you. Besides, what you've contributed so far doesn't even qualify as thought. 

  It seems that you have been forced to admit that you can't even answer your own question as to why there is something instead of nothing: 

 

Quote:
I have no idea why God exists rather than no God exists nor do I invoke some dubious mental construct that God must exist. I never claimed to know why God exists. I do however have an opinion about why something exists (such as this universe and us) exists just as many atheists and materialists do.

So sad. 

So now that you admit that you have no good reason for why a god would exist as opposed to nothing existing let's try another question.

How did this god, that you imagine, supposedly create the universe? By what means? Did he have to create a top hat first to pull it out of, or did he just wave his supernatural hand and go abra cadabra? Did he make it of pure nothing or did he have to use glue to stick the nothing together? All I need is for you to explain how exactly god turned nothing into the universe, or whatever it was he turned into the universe, and then we will have a good start.

If you can't explain this then so far we will have figured out that you can neither say why there is something instead of nothing, or how the universe came to be.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins