A genuine, non-yelling, kind and good-natured discussion of God

Defender
Theist
Defender's picture
Posts: 8
Joined: 2012-07-20
User is offlineOffline
A genuine, non-yelling, kind and good-natured discussion of God

Hi everyone! I'm new, and have noticed a distinct lack of Christian voice here, particularly an educated voice. I'm not that educated, but I love philosophy and logic, so I'll give it a go!

I'm not attempting to preach or convert anyone - let me make that perfectly clear. Nor do I believe its possible to reason someone into a relationship with God. I hate "religion", as it cheapens what I believe into some political or social force. I do however, believe there is a rational defense for the existence of a god.

I have been reading on this site for for weeks now, and it appears very genuine in its goal for rational exploration. Let us reason then! I am open and willing to have a rational, reasonable, discussion of deep topics. I am not going to respond to unkind, close-minded rantings or unwarranted personal attacks.

The goal of this forum is to exercise minds (mine more than any) and to get people to understand better why they believe what they do. I am not trying to "win converts" like some kind of sick game.

My next post will be soon, and much longer; "Why I believe God exists."


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 693
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Ok, I'll be rational and

Ok, I'll be rational and logical!

Jesus is a myth and doesn't exist outside of bible mythology!

I win! 

 

Click on the links in my signature for more info!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 323
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Defender wrote:My next post

Defender wrote:

My next post will be soon, and much longer; "Why I believe God exists."

One request is that you define what exactly you mean by "God" when you make your case. 

Otherwise, welcome. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Alright then, sounds good to

Alright then, sounds good to me. Please do define God like another requested, however.

As for the lack of Christian voice here, imo this is because most of the Christians who come on here come with the intent to convert or shove scripture down our throats. Many also leave when it becomes 'too hard' to defend their views any longer. Basically ragequit. (I haven't been here a long time but this seems to be the pattern I've observed).

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Contrary

Contrary to what some christians on here have stated  about me (and  I used to be a very devout christian). I am all for having a civil discussion and genuinely do not have a problem with anyone's beliefs. The only time that you will see hostility from me, is when someone wishes to impose their ideals upon mine.

I am pretty much a live and let live kind of guy.

Like famous Hells Angel Sonny Barger once aptly put it : Treat me good, I'll treat you better. Treat me bad and I'll treat you twice as worse.

Welcome to the forum and I look forward to having a civil conversation with you.

 

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Good to see you, Defender.I

Good to see you, Defender.

I would welcome the debate.  The entire reason why I've ever debated people that believed in god online is for the mental exercise to find out if I was wrong for not believing in one.

So I would be very interested in having a calm, reasoned debate of the different viewpoints between us.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
 I like non yelling. I also

 I like non yelling. I also like discussing.  Welcome to the forum, I look forward to your next post.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Not to rush the opie, but

Not to rush the opie, but I must say I am looking forward to genuine discussion unlike another thread which is in AvsT which has seemed to dissolve.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 693
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:Not to

ThunderJones wrote:

Not to rush the opie, but I must say I am looking forward to genuine discussion unlike another thread which is in AvsT which has seemed to dissolve.

Genuine civil discussion is good but I'm still waiting for the OP's evidence for god!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
JesusNEVERexisted

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Not to rush the opie, but I must say I am looking forward to genuine discussion unlike another thread which is in AvsT which has seemed to dissolve.

Genuine civil discussion is good but I'm still waiting for the OP's evidence for god!

haven't we been waiting since the invention of religion and the idea of god for evidence? lol

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Defender wrote:My next post

Defender wrote:

My next post will be soon, and much longer; "Why I believe God exists."

Looking forward to it.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Welcome Defender Glad you

Welcome Defender


Glad you are in the kill them with kindness forum. This is where we keep on point and not drop into any name calling.
I do love an intelligent debate and have seen many on this website. I don't care for the cut and paste debates. I like to see each person express their thoughts in their own words.

Looking forward to you expressing your views.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 693
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote:Welcome

ex-minister wrote:
Welcome Defender

Glad you are in the kill them with kindness forum. This is where we keep on point and not drop into any name calling. I do love an intelligent debate and have seen many on this website. I don't care for the cut and paste debates. I like to see each person express their thoughts in their own words.

Looking forward to you expressing your views.

Looks like the Defender has no interesting in defending! He has disappeared like the mythical Jesus!

He only has 1 post on this site anyway so it's not like he's a frequent poster or anything.

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


peto verum
atheist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2011-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Why I don't believe in god.

This is probably misplaced seeing that the OP hasn't followed up.

I still am personally trying to reconcile why god allows everyone to experience death because is seems so redundant from the way I see religion.  Most religions promise some sort of  "afterlife", either in heaven or hell, based on the merit of our Earth bound lives.  Sort of like buying a bunch of gold fish, throwing them in the kitchen sink then watching them and judging them with a rule book found in the bottom of the "utility/junk" draw.  Then deciding which fish are good and should go into the awesome fish tank and which are bad and should be doomed to the toilet bowl.  Why not just throw them all into the awesome fish tank and only remove those that are bad?  So, in keeping with the analogy, why not just kill the "bad" people and leave the good people living on Earth indefinitely (or vice-versa allowing that Earth is hell(ish))?  He put a lot of effort into building a(n) (im)perfect Earth for us no matter if it was six thousand years ago or 4 billion , right?  It definitely reeks of inefficiency seeing how god has to maintain this testing ground; Earth and the known universe ,heaven and hell.  As if he/she hasn't already created enough work for him/herself.  Beings that need his constant attention and/or a universe that may need tweaking here or there once we humans observe an up-till-then unobserved phenomenon that needs explanation.

Even if I concede that people may be redeemed by god as worthy of heaven well into their golden years it would seem to follow that once an individual is selected after his /her Earth audition that they could feasibly revert back to their old horrible selves or violate any number of Earthly conditions once in heaven? Does god give a crap after we are sorted?  Which leads me to ask, does god perform audits on those who make it to heaven?  Does he perform audits on those doomed to hell?  After all, that is most likely the place that I'll be seeking redemption if it comes to that .   Of course this is just restating the Epicurean Tri-lemma but I've yet to hear any convincing arguments that trump the essence of the problems Epicurus posed.

KORAN, n.
A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures. ~ The Devil's Dictionary


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, I would have figured

Yeah, I would have figured the opie had some idea of what they were going to post before coming here. Maybe just pulling our collective chain, us expecting genuine discussion. Oh well.

@Defender, if you are coming back feel free to start discussion, maybe you were just delayed for some reason?

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1514
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I dunno . . .

 More than likely Sunday go to meet'en got in the way. Or maybe he saw TWD34's post and decided to come prepared  :¬ 

 

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I guess we should

 

stand by for a cosmological/anthropic/morality omelette, perhaps with a side order of empiricism's 'inability' to 'prove' itself empirically. I hear the inevitable train of motivated reasoning whistling in the distance. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 693
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:Yeah, I

ThunderJones wrote:

Yeah, I would have figured the opie had some idea of what they were going to post before coming here. Maybe just pulling our collective chain, us expecting genuine discussion. Oh well.

@Defender, if you are coming back feel free to start discussion, maybe you were just delayed for some reason?

You mean like trying to find a story to fabricate to back up his position?

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 693
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck

latincanuck wrote:

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Not to rush the opie, but I must say I am looking forward to genuine discussion unlike another thread which is in AvsT which has seemed to dissolve.

Genuine civil discussion is good but I'm still waiting for the OP's evidence for god!

haven't we been waiting since the invention of religion and the idea of god for evidence? lol

 

Yes and in over 2,000 years Christians have failed to deliver that evidence so I'm not holding my breath!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Yeah

danatemporary wrote:

 More than likely Sunday go to meet'en got in the way. Or maybe he saw TWD34's post and decided to come prepared  :¬ 

 

It's only been a couple of days, so he's allowed to do some preparation.

It can take me a week to do a paragraph.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
We would love to have more,

We would love to have more, not only Christians, but believers of all labels here. Now despite what you might think, you really do not have to even worry about us even if you do not post in this library section.

We are all the same species, all 7 billion of us. In dealing with us, even in this section, remember that there is a huge difference between a person, and what a person might claim on  any given subject. We can like a person without liking a claim they may make. All of us here have family, friends and co-workers who have a degree of some sort of belief.

You have chosen the library here to post. But if you post outside it expect it to be much rougher on your claims than here, not that this section will be a cake walk either. Treat us all as individuals, and always remember when we are responding to you, we are responding to a claim, so do not take it personally.

If you do that, you should be able to enjoy your time here. Welcome.

 

"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


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:danatemporary

x wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

 More than likely Sunday go to meet'en got in the way. Or maybe he saw TWD34's post and decided to come prepared  :¬ 

 

It's only been a couple of days, so he's allowed to do some preparation.

It can take me a week to do a paragraph.

I can understand this, but how often do you make a thread and then wait a week to give your thread it's first real content post?

It's not a big deal, I just won't be suprised if no post ever comes. Still, if it does, I will welcome it.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
It is strange

ThunderJones wrote:

I can understand this, but how often do you make a thread and then wait a week to give your thread it's first real content post?

It's not a big deal, I just won't be suprised if no post ever comes. Still, if it does, I will welcome it.

You'd think you'd have something partly prepared if you were to start a thread.

Maybe s/he's just ratcheting up the anticipation.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:ThunderJones wrote:I

x wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

I can understand this, but how often do you make a thread and then wait a week to give your thread it's first real content post?

It's not a big deal, I just won't be suprised if no post ever comes. Still, if it does, I will welcome it.

You'd think you'd have something partly prepared if you were to start a thread.

Maybe s/he's just ratcheting up the anticipation.

That is exactly what I meant. Usually when starting a thread you put something down right away, or atleast have a good idea of what you are doing.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
There is always the

There is always the possibility that the OP found the site while intoxicated, felt the need to post, recognised he/she was in no condition to write an argument, and forgot the whole thing the next day.

Not that I'm saying that's what happened, but it is a plausible explanation.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:There is always

Vastet wrote:
There is always the possibility that the OP found the site while intoxicated, felt the need to post, recognised he/she was in no condition to write an argument, and forgot the whole thing the next day. Not that I'm saying that's what happened, but it is a plausible explanation.

Possible, I myself have started many things I forgot about or lost interest in once I realized how much effort it would really take.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:There is always

Vastet wrote:
There is always the possibility that the OP found the site while intoxicated, felt the need to post, recognised he/she was in no condition to write an argument, and forgot the whole thing the next day. Not that I'm saying that's what happened, but it is a plausible explanation.

 

I'll send him/her a reminder email.  

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hey OP

Hello!

I should mention, thunderjones copied my Opie. Really now?

Here is some problems you will encounter:

When you show their stupidity through philosphy/logic, they then attack philosphy. Such as, philospher is stupid (Bob Spence) or not everything is logical (pretty much everybody).

Even though you ask for kindness, you will get ad hominems constantly (e.g my badge of honor for defeating them in every argument).

The ambiguity of theism. As a Christian, if I am simply a theist I must debate as all theist belief (Satanism, Hinduism), etc. The atheists somewhat have a circuit missing somewhere and don't understand. Specific details, define your terms, etc.

And finally, you cannot rationalize with irrational people. Atheists are hypocrites, self-righteous people. Do not answer a fool according to his folly (Proverbs 26). And stay away from all empirical Thomas Aquinas arguments, William Lane Craig and the ontological argument.

Welcome.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hello!I

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello!

I should mention, thunderjones copied my Opie. Really now?

Here is some problems you will encounter:

When you show their stupidity through philosphy/logic, they then attack philosphy. Such as, philospher is stupid (Bob Spence) or not everything is logical (pretty much everybody).

Even though you ask for kindness, you will get ad hominems constantly (e.g my badge of honor for defeating them in every argument).

The ambiguity of theism. As a Christian, if I am simply a theist I must debate as all theist belief (Satanism, Hinduism), etc. The atheists somewhat have a circuit missing somewhere and don't understand. Specific details, define your terms, etc.

And finally, you cannot rationalize with irrational people. Atheists are hypocrites, self-righteous people. Do not answer a fool according to his folly (Proverbs 26). And stay away from all empirical Thomas Aquinas arguments, William Lane Craig and the ontological argument.

Welcome.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

To the OP, be warned that Jean here started a thread blaming the Japanese Tsunami, not on the Japanese, but on America as a warning to find his God. Yep, on a planet of 7 billion, Jean here magically found a Bat phone to God and God told him hostage taking was good public PR to gain converts.

But I will give Jean credit, Thomas Aquinas and Craig are bad arguments. But I would add that anything that starts with a naked assertion is a bad argument, be it claims of Allah or Thor or Vishnu, despite the degrees of such claimants.

 

 

 

"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


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:I should

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I should mention, thunderjones copied my Opie. Really now?

Ignoring all of your usual...arguments.... Not sure what this statement (directed at me) is supposed to mean. Oh well, whatever it is, it is likely typical of Jean.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Defender
Theist
Defender's picture
Posts: 8
Joined: 2012-07-20
User is offlineOffline
Okay, kinda new at this whole deal

Sorry, everybody! I'm working pretty hard to make ends meet right now :s

Okay, so first let me define what this is:This post is why I believe in the existence of a god, not why I believe in the God of the Bible necessarily. That may come later. Its also a bit rushed, so sorry if something isnt clear yet.

So it all boils down into four main arguments, I'm sure most of you have heard them at some point, and would like input. If I can, I would like to post each separately, giving me time to hear feedback. So here we go, reason 1:

1) First Cause - origin of everything

So the basic idea behind this premise, is that for everything that exists in this universe (time, space, matter, force et.al.) is subject to the law of causality. That is, everything is caused by something prior in the chain of events that make up our universe. But of course that begs the question - what is the First Cause?

Some believe that the universe is eternal, and never began at all. This is called the steady state theory. But scientific evidence strongly points to a universal origin - a central point from which matter began suddenly. This is of course, the Big Bang theory. 

Proponents of the steady state theory also generally believe that hydrogen atoms are being produced from nothing. This, to me, is less logical than believing the universe was created by a god, which is at the very least something.

Science, however, can only go as far as our universe will allow. We cannot look beyond that first moment of creation, since nothing we can detect existed before the universe did. Philosophically, however, we can.

In philosophy, we find that it is impossible to move linearly through an infinite time continuum. Unlike a mathematical line, which is dimensionless and imaginary, time is 3 dimensional and very real, and it passes at a normal, quatifiable rate. Put simply, you can't finish or start an infinite serries of real things without a point of origin. Therefore, since time is a real, experiential, quatifiable thing, it must have an origin.

Put in a slightly different way: 1) Finite, changing things exist     2)Every finite, changing thing must be caused by something else (even if its randomly done)    3)There cannot be an infinite chain of regression      4)Therefore, there must be a first cause of every finite, changing thing that is itself, unchanging. 

Now the question becomes: What is the unchanging thing? It isnt a far step to label that unchanging thing as a god. And please dont say things like "well how do you know we werent sneezed into existence by the Great Green Arkelseizure" I will get to that later. I know the argument from necessity isnt proving that God exists, but it is putting into light that something other than this universe does.

I'm sorry, I will post more soon, but I have a job interview tomorrow! w00t!

 

 


Defender
Theist
Defender's picture
Posts: 8
Joined: 2012-07-20
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

stand by for a cosmological/anthropic/morality omelette, perhaps with a side order of empiricism's 'inability' to 'prove' itself empirically. I hear the inevitable train of motivated reasoning whistling in the distance. 

 

 

Sorry in advance, but I hear the echoing sound of a closed mind...

What other kind of reasoning is there besides motivated? Whether good, bad, or indifferent, everyones got a motive for listening (or not) to reason...

And I'll take my omlette over nothingness anyday.

 

 


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 693
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Defender, COME ON dude! That

Defender, COME ON dude! That is not even remotely evidence!

Just because everything has an origin has NOTHING to do with your mythical Jesus!  There are stories of thousands of different gods throught history so all those stories about their origins are true right?

The Judeo-Christian myth is just another another fable to explain the inexplicable! Simply because all things have an origin you are using it to MAKE UP a story of the god you want to believe in just like how so many cultures on earth have their own gods!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1514
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Re :: the Cosmological Argument ???

 To be clear you're making an argument for the existence of a First Cause of the universe, and by extension it is thee "supreme" being, usually then identified as God.  Correct ? It is traditionally know to be God. It has been used by various theologians and philosophers over the centuries, from the ancient Greeks Plato and Aristotle to the medievals (e.g., St. Thomas Aquinas) and beyond. It is also used as an argument for the existence of God.
       Cosmological Argument ?


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hey Brian

Hey Brian,

Or the naked assertion that God doesn't exist and the university assertion that there are no absolutely, all is relative.
----------------
Some content in this post was deleted for slinging ad hominems in the kill 'em with kindness forum, where such behaviour is not tolerated.
~Vastet

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Defender wrote: 1) First

Defender wrote:

1) First Cause - origin of everything

 

I am copying my response from this thread: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/32492

You might want to check out the thread in that link for other responses to the first cause argument. 

cj wrote:


We are only human and so we search for a cause.  There is thunder and lighting - Thor, Thunderbird, Zeus - take your pick of causes.  And now we have the understanding of weather, jet streams, cold and warm fronts, and we have a more scientific cause of thunderstorms.

The various philosophical arguments, that often wind up at quantum mechanics, do not appeal.  And so I think I will fall back on statistics class - CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION.  Which leads to a common logical fallacy called false correlation:


http://www.skepticsfieldguide.net/2005/01/examples-of-false-cause-correlation.html wrote:


The advocate asserts that there is a causal link between phenomena, when the link is only apparent rather than real.



And so you have people who want an ultimate cause selecting their favorite cause without any link, evidence supporting such a link, any basis for calculating a correlation, or any logic but wishful thinking.  There likely is an ultimate cause of the universe and/or the big bang, but the cause will probably be something other than imaginary superhero(s).  The cause may in fact be some facet of quantum mechanics, in which case I will have to take someone else' word for it.  I have tried, but my vision of same is limited and therefore, I believe my understanding to be limited as well.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Good luck with the job

Good luck with the job interview Smiling.  I hope you get it.

Defender wrote:

Okay, so first let me define what this is:This post is why I believe in the existence of a god, not why I believe in the God of the Bible necessarily. That may come later. Its also a bit rushed, so sorry if something isnt clear yet.

I'm guessing you're defining the post, not god, because you haven't told us what you believe in.

Defender wrote:

So it all boils down into four main arguments, I'm sure most of you have heard them at some point, and would like input. If I can, I would like to post each separately, giving me time to hear feedback. So here we go, reason 1:

1) First Cause - origin of everything

So the basic idea behind this premise, is that for everything that exists in this universe (time, space, matter, force et.al.) is subject to the law of causality. That is, everything is caused by something prior in the chain of events that make up our universe. But of course that begs the question - what is the First Cause?

Some believe that the universe is eternal, and never began at all. This is called the steady state theory. But scientific evidence strongly points to a universal origin - a central point from which matter began suddenly. This is of course, the Big Bang theory. 

Proponents of the steady state theory also generally believe that hydrogen atoms are being produced from nothing. This, to me, is less logical than believing the universe was created by a god, which is at the very least something.

 

Ironic that you should use the phrase "begs the question".  I wonder if you're familiar with the logical fallacy called question begging.  

Where to begin... You're paraphrasing the (in)famous Kalam's Cosmological Argument (KCA henceforth).  It goes a little something like this:

p1. Everything that began to exist, has a cause.

p2. The universe began to exist.

c.    The universe has a cause. (the implication is that THE CAUSE is god)

This argument has been shown to be unsound and invalid.  Here, read this link to save me a whole lot of typing:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/32492

 

 

Defender wrote:

Science, however, can only go as far as our universe will allow. We cannot look beyond that first moment of creation, since nothing we can detect existed before the universe did. Philosophically, however, we can.

No, you are wrong.  Science can use deductive reasoning regarding a system to extrapolate prior states, even if such states are not observable.  That's how science works actually.  Philosophy and Science are not so different in the sense that they are governed by logic.  If science "breaks down" logic "breaks down" and so does philosophy.  

Defender wrote:

In philosophy, we find that it is impossible to move linearly through an infinite time continuum. Unlike a mathematical line, which is dimensionless and imaginary, time is 3 dimensional and very real, and it passes at a normal, quatifiable rate. Put simply, you can't finish or start an infinite serries of real things without a point of origin. Therefore, since time is a real, experiential, quatifiable thing, it must have an origin.

I'm not sure what you mean by philosophically being unable to move linearly through an infinite time continuum... You mean that we cannot philosophically discuss infinity? Represent infinity on an axis? Then what are we doing trying to philosophically prove the existence of an infinite being?

Time is not 3 dimensional... time is a dimension, the universe gets older in the forward direction of time, and younger in the reverse direction.  Just as you move up and down, left and right, or back and forth through the other three dimension.  What you said makes no sense. 

I'm not sure if you've read up on time since the 17th century, but time is relative.  It most definitely does not pass at a "normal" rate, there is no such thing.  The last portion of that is a non sequitur.  You can't finish or start an infinite series of real things WITH or WITHOUT a point of origin.  It's sort of the definition of infinite.  And the conclusion is just... I'm going to say non sequitur.

Defender wrote:

Put in a slightly different way: 1) Finite, changing things exist     2)Every finite, changing thing must be caused by something else (even if its randomly done)    3)There cannot be an infinite chain of regression      4)Therefore, there must be a first cause of every finite, changing thing that is itself, unchanging. 

This is a fragmented collection of arguments that do not flow.  It has the smell of KCA but it's nowhere nearly as coherent.  Let's see:

1) Finite, changing things exist. - Ok, I'll give you this, so what?

2) Every finite, changing thing must be cause by something else.  - No, virtual particles appear and disappear as a property of the quantum foam.

3) There cannot be an infinite chain of regression. - hmmm, the only answer to this statement is that it is a very poorly defined concept.  

4) Therefore, there must be a first cause of every finite, changing thing that is itself unchanging.  Well, again, it is a poorly defined concept, and it is a non sequitur.  But even for the sake of the argument, Ocham's razor would lead you to hypothesise a minimal amount of assumptions.  So I say that the quantum foam is unchanging and eternal... what's your solution?

Defender wrote:
 

Now the question becomes: What is the unchanging thing? It isnt a far step to label that unchanging thing as a god. And please dont say things like "well how do you know we werent sneezed into existence by the Great Green Arkelseizure" I will get to that later. I know the argument from necessity isnt proving that God exists, but it is putting into light that something other than this universe does.

Meh, you have to first define god in order to propose it as an alternative.  If you do not define it, you may as well tell us that !@#KJLKUF#$ created the universe.  Can you be a little more specific?

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 323
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Defender wrote:Sorry,

Defender wrote:

Sorry, everybody! I'm working pretty hard to make ends meet right now :s

Okay, so first let me define what this is:This post is why I believe in the existence of a god, not why I believe in the God of the Bible necessarily. That may come later. Its also a bit rushed, so sorry if something isnt clear yet.

That will be where the REAL fun starts.

Defender wrote:

So it all boils down into four main arguments, I'm sure most of you have heard them at some point, and would like input. If I can, I would like to post each separately, giving me time to hear feedback. So here we go, reason 1:

1) First Cause - origin of everything

So the basic idea behind this premise, is that for everything that exists in this universe (time, space, matter, force et.al.) is subject to the law of causality. That is, everything is caused by something prior in the chain of events that make up our universe. But of course that begs the question - what is the First Cause?

In this Universe that's the idea, yes. Do we know precisely what that cause is, or what the nature is? No. Our species has acquired a ton of knowledge on the topic, but we don't know everything yet. At some point, people began to write things down, and we were able to gather history from written documents. Also, archaeologists began to unearth evidence for other things. Now, we are truly lucky to live in a world where we have amazingly brilliant minds who have been able to extrapolate not just the history of our Earth, not just of our solar system, but of our whole Universe!

Now, what does the Universe actually encompass? Well, it encompasses everything we've been able to observe, ever. Everything our species has observed (to the best of our knowledge, and most probably without exception) is in some way partial evidence of the Big Bang. This does not necessarily mean that our Universe is the only one that exists in the Cosmos though. We don't have any concrete evidence to my knowledge (or perhaps we do, and I'm just too ignorant to understand it) that other Universes do exist, but to me the word Universe today might be similar to the word "World" several hundred years ago, when it basically meant our planet (which people then may not have known the shape of). Just like we now know there are other planets, other solar systems, and other galaxies in our Universe, there may be countless Universes in our Cosmos. To say this is the only Universe, or to say there are CERTAINLY others might both be equally foolish statements (unless you can provide valid evidence for your position). I'll come back to this later in this post, this was just an introduction.

Defender wrote:

Some believe that the universe is eternal, and never began at all. This is called the steady state theory. But scientific evidence strongly points to a universal origin - a central point from which matter began suddenly. This is of course, the Big Bang theory. 

Proponents of the steady state theory also generally believe that hydrogen atoms are being produced from nothing. This, to me, is less logical than believing the universe was created by a god, which is at the very least something.

The steady state theory of our Universe has been disproved by this point in time, and doesn't warrant much further discussion. Interestingly though, I never read much about it for that reason. I didn't know that it involved spontaneous generation of hydrogen atoms (learn something new every day about what people learned wrong before!). At best though, a god being responsible is on equal footing with that. You're pitting spontaneous generation of atoms against a wizard conjuring up our Universe deliberately. I also don't mean to use the term wizard to insult, or even poke fun, but I use it because I have yet to hear a reasonable argument as to how a causer whipped everything into existence. In the scientific community, they will attempt to extrapolate further back as far as possible, but if today the answer is "we don't know, but we're working on discovering what happened before the oldest event we know", the theist's position is "We don't know. It must have been God that did it, but I'm just not sure how yet". This is an added and unnecessary step.

Defender wrote:

Science, however, can only go as far as our universe will allow. We cannot look beyond that first moment of creation, since nothing we can detect existed before the universe did. Philosophically, however, we can.

In philosophy, we find that it is impossible to move linearly through an infinite time continuum. Unlike a mathematical line, which is dimensionless and imaginary, time is 3 dimensional and very real, and it passes at a normal, quatifiable rate. Put simply, you can't finish or start an infinite serries of real things without a point of origin. Therefore, since time is a real, experiential, quatifiable thing, it must have an origin.

The question "What happened before that"? Can be asked of any event. It might not be easy (or possible for us even) to answer, but it can be posed, and I'm not sure the answer can ever be "nothing". As I mentioned earlier, everything we have ever observed is in some way a result of the Big Bang. I'm not extremely educated here so I'm both reminding and educating myself as I go here, but it seems that scientists have reached some agreement back to a certain point, but also generally agree that it may be impossible to know what happened anywhere before a certain point (one Planck Time after the Big Bang). Feel free to put your god in this gap, but I will tell you right away, that this is a god of the gaps argument (and as I've said on this board before, the argument isn't unique, only the gap is, because we've only described the end of the gap, not the beginning).

Defender wrote:

Put in a slightly different way: 1) Finite, changing things exist     2)Every finite, changing thing must be caused by something else (even if its randomly done)    3)There cannot be an infinite chain of regression      4)Therefore, there must be a first cause of every finite, changing thing that is itself, unchanging. 

Hmm, tough rhythm there using 4 points instead of the usual 3, but I'll try to dance here. 

1. In the realm of the natural order.

2. Still in the natural.

3. Suggestion that the natural order HAS to have had an abrupt start (the natural order of OUR Universe may very well)

4. Assertion that a Universe in constant motion, and in a constant state of change, had a static cause (although no assertion YET that the cause was deliberate)

Defender wrote:

Now the question becomes: What is the unchanging thing? It isnt a far step to label that unchanging thing as a god. And please dont say things like "well how do you know we werent sneezed into existence by the Great Green Arkelseizure" I will get to that later. I know the argument from necessity isnt proving that God exists, but it is putting into light that something other than this universe does.

I think it would be ignorant of me to say that something than our Universe doesn't exist. However, I disagree with the premise of ANY static cause in a constantly changing Universe, and I disagree even further that it must have been a god (which would imply that the Universe was caused deliberately).

Defender wrote:

I'm sorry, I will post more soon, but I have a job interview tomorrow! w00t!

Good luck!

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hey

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hey Brian,

Or the naked assertion that God doesn't exist and the university assertion that there are no absolutely, all is relative.

Self Righteous Hypocrite

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Jean, there are no absolute truths. I'll bite.  If you disagree, please start a different forum topic and I will show you why the concept of absolute truth is self contradictory and therefore non existent.  As far as we know, everything is relative.  And also, as far as we know God does not exist. 

Let's concentrate on absolute truths Smiling

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


peto verum
atheist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2011-03-09
User is offlineOffline
I agree with

I agree with Danatemporary.  You are just re-stating the First Cause/Prime Mover idea.  It seems more tenable to think that some change in energy wave form phenomenon  lead to a contingency based evolution that ultimately led to our universe than "poof" some supernatural, omniscience, omnipotent power discovered itself and said, "A universe with homo sapien thinking they are the center of it would be good."     What if this supernatural power , when it discovered itself, didn't envision us, would it have bothered to create a universe?  Would it just re-absorb itself until a later "time" when it could conceive of us?

KORAN, n.
A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures. ~ The Devil's Dictionary


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Well I am going to answer

Well I am going to answer simply with 2 problems with the unchanging cause.....if it's a unchanging how can it do anything, it doesn't change it is static. Second, we have no evidence whatsoever that an unchanging mover has to be the first cause at all. A quantum flux, or a quantum gravity loop could be the cause, as the idea in physics is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, just change states, very much all we need is a change of state for the big bang to occur which a quantum flux or a quantum gravity loop could cause, and we don't need to call this god.....and then worship or pray to it.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hey

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hey Brian,

Or the naked assertion that God doesn't exist and the university assertion that there are no absolutely, all is relative.

Self Righteous Hypocrite

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Careful, you do know what section you are in don't you? You want to go all out with me, start a thread outside this section.

I think you are merely ticked at me because I warned the newbie about your concept of a bully god. Not all Christians think humans should be treated like you claim God allowed the Tsunami. Your mistake when you started that thread is that you did not know that I was marred to a godless Japanese woman. You picked on the wrong person.

But exactly how am I a hypocrite? There is absolutely no evidence that the sun was a thinking being, but people at one time believed that. And there is no evidence of thoughts occurring without a material process outside evolution. I treat your Christian claim of a god the same as I treat Hindu claims and Jewish claims and Muslim claims or claims of Apollo. Hardly hypocritical to state the fact that humans make up gods. Just like it is not wrong to say that the earth is not flat. Not my fault you don't want to face facts.

 

Please keep telling me what and evil wretch I am so you can show other Christians what absurdity looks like. There are lots of Christians and believers in general whom I do like and some are my family and friends. You will never be my friend.

I am sure that this newbie, although they knew coming in that we would make objections to his claims, most likely does not, like you, have a bloodthirsty view of his god claim.

 

 

 

 

"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


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1514
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
:-)

 Smiling


Defender
Theist
Defender's picture
Posts: 8
Joined: 2012-07-20
User is offlineOffline
Please read what I was trying to prove...

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

Defender, COME ON dude! That is not even remotely evidence!

Just because everything has an origin has NOTHING to do with your mythical Jesus!  There are stories of thousands of different gods throught history so all those stories about their origins are true right?

The Judeo-Christian myth is just another another fable to explain the inexplicable! Simply because all things have an origin you are using it to MAKE UP a story of the god you want to believe in just like how so many cultures on earth have their own gods!

 

Hold your horses - I wasnt talking about Jesus at all!


Defender
Theist
Defender's picture
Posts: 8
Joined: 2012-07-20
User is offlineOffline
In response to Ktulu

Ktulu wrote:

 

No, you are wrong.  Science can use deductive reasoning regarding a system to extrapolate prior states, even if such states are not observable.  That's how science works actually.  Philosophy and Science are not so different in the sense that they are governed by logic.  If science "breaks down" logic "breaks down" and so does philosophy. 

I'm afraid you're wrong - you have defined theoretical science, not concrete science. Unobservable states are untestable, and therefore cannot be proven scientifically. And as for the relationship between Science and Logic, they are not equal - Logic rules over science. Scientific ideas change, logic does not. Logic is a philosophical discipline, not a scientific one.  But the fact is, that logic precedes, and supercedes science.  Logic is not tied to a physical entity like science, and will apply even when the physical is not present.

Ktulu wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by philosophically being unable to move linearly through an infinite time continuum... You mean that we cannot philosophically discuss infinity? Represent infinity on an axis? Then what are we doing trying to philosophically prove the existence of an infinite being?

Time is not 3 dimensional... time is a dimension, the universe gets older in the forward direction of time, and younger in the reverse direction.  Just as you move up and down, left and right, or back and forth through the other three dimension.  What you said makes no sense. 

I'm not sure if you've read up on time since the 17th century, but time is relative.  It most definitely does not pass at a "normal" rate, there is no such thing.  The last portion of that is a non sequitur.  You can't finish or start an infinite series of real things WITH or WITHOUT a point of origin.  It's sort of the definition of infinite.  And the conclusion is just... I'm going to say non sequitur.

I misspoke when I said 3 dimensional - time is obviously a 4th dimension. When I said unable to move through infinity, I meant that logically one cannot. One can represent infinity mathematically, but since time is quantifiably moving it logically cannot have an eternity past, or we could not have gotten to this point in time. This applies to whatever rate time is passing, whatever is "normal" for the observer. Just because you see me as 17th century doesnt mean you have to throw logic out. For example Pi is an infinite series, and it indeed does have a starting point, along with real, quantifiable points along the way.

Ktulu wrote:

This is a fragmented collection of arguments that do not flow.  It has the smell of KCA but it's nowhere nearly as coherent.  Let's see:

1) Finite, changing things exist. - Ok, I'll give you this, so what?

2) Every finite, changing thing must be cause by something else.  - No, virtual particles appear and disappear as a property of the quantum foam.

3) There cannot be an infinite chain of regression. - hmmm, the only answer to this statement is that it is a very poorly defined concept.  

4) Therefore, there must be a first cause of every finite, changing thing that is itself unchanging.  Well, again, it is a poorly defined concept, and it is a non sequitur.  But even for the sake of the argument, Ocham's razor would lead you to hypothesise a minimal amount of assumptions.  So I say that the quantum foam is unchanging and eternal... what's your solution?

I must say first, that quantum foam is just a theory, mainly because quantum gravity is still being explored. I believe what you are referring to is a "Virtual Particle." In the example of a magnetic field line, virtual particles explain force interaction between poles. And there is most definitely a cause of magnetic, and all other, virtual interactions. The why it operates as it does, however, is still unknown. But we can predictably cause and observe such interactions - meaning we can CAUSE them.

As for infinite regression, I mean an infinite regression of causes. There cannot logically exist such a causal chain.

I dont know what you mean by saying a theory like quantum foam is unchanging and eternal. Even so, as I understand it, quantum foam requires space to exist - which doesn't exist outside the universe (which i said was a collection of time, space, matter, force, etc)

And as for defining God, I havent yet. I'm just laying one brick, as it were.

 

 


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 693
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Defender

Defender wrote:

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

Defender, COME ON dude! That is not even remotely evidence!

Just because everything has an origin has NOTHING to do with your mythical Jesus!  There are stories of thousands of different gods throught history so all those stories about their origins are true right?

The Judeo-Christian myth is just another another fable to explain the inexplicable! Simply because all things have an origin you are using it to MAKE UP a story of the god you want to believe in just like how so many cultures on earth have their own gods!

 

Hold your horses - I wasnt talking about Jesus at all!

It doesn't matter dude! Just saying the origin of everything doesn't prove the existence of god in any way shape or form whichever god you choose!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Defender wrote: I'm afraid

Defender wrote:

I'm afraid you're wrong - you have defined theoretical science, not concrete science. Unobservable states are untestable, and therefore cannot be proven scientifically. And as for the relationship between Science and Logic, they are not equal - Logic rules over science. Scientific ideas change, logic does not. Logic is a philosophical discipline, not a scientific one.  But the fact is, that logic precedes, and supercedes science.  Logic is not tied to a physical entity like science, and will apply even when the physical is not present.

 

Forgive me for not responding to your entire post as you were responding to someone else.  This part I have to comment on.

Logic is not unchanging.  You may verify this by viewing some of the pages at Stanford Philosophy Encyclopedia - http://plato.stanford.edu/  There you will note that some philosophers of previous ages are no longer believed to have valid arguments.  I particularly refer to the section on the Ontological Argument for god.  Please note the numerous criticisms of this argument and the numerous attempts at revision of said argument.

The scientific method has not changed in over a century.  Science is a process, not a fact.  And the process is pretty stable as people have worked it out to provide the most accurate, testable, verifiable, and repeatable experimentation methods.  It is true that theories change as facts are discovered through experimentation.  That does NOT mean logic rules over science, it means that we learn and we grow in knowledge.  Logic did not give you the computer to type on or the internet to browse.  Logic did not give you potable drinking water or sewer systems.  I would rather have the technology that the scientific method has brought us rather than some musty philosophy.

I give you David Hume, on metaphysics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics wrote:

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. — David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Defender wrote:Hi everyone!

Defender wrote:

Hi everyone! I'm new, and have noticed a distinct lack of Christian voice here, particularly an educated voice. I'm not that educated, but I love philosophy and logic, so I'll give it a go!

I'm not attempting to preach or convert anyone - let me make that perfectly clear. Nor do I believe its possible to reason someone into a relationship with God. I hate "religion", as it cheapens what I believe into some political or social force. I do however, believe there is a rational defense for the existence of a god.

I have been reading on this site for for weeks now, and it appears very genuine in its goal for rational exploration. Let us reason then! I am open and willing to have a rational, reasonable, discussion of deep topics. I am not going to respond to unkind, close-minded rantings or unwarranted personal attacks.

The goal of this forum is to exercise minds (mine more than any) and to get people to understand better why they believe what they do. I am not trying to "win converts" like some kind of sick game.

My next post will be soon, and much longer; "Why I believe God exists."

You point to logic. It is apparent that biblical creation cannot happen in the world of physics. Material doesn't work that way. What's considered a material construction in biblical creation is illogical. If- there are only two things existing in the universe, material and spiritual then logic would dictate that if it doesn't work on a material basis, then it has to be a model of something spiritual.  Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Defender wrote:Ktulu

Defender wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

 No, you are wrong.  Science can use deductive reasoning regarding a system to extrapolate prior states, even if such states are not observable.  That's how science works actually.  Philosophy and Science are not so different in the sense that they are governed by logic.  If science "breaks down" logic "breaks down" and so does philosophy. 

I'm afraid you're wrong - you have defined theoretical science, not concrete science. Unobservable states are untestable, and therefore cannot be proven scientifically. And as for the relationship between Science and Logic, they are not equal - Logic rules over science. Scientific ideas change, logic does not. Logic is a philosophical discipline, not a scientific one.  But the fact is, that logic precedes, and supercedes science.  Logic is not tied to a physical entity like science, and will apply even when the physical is not present.

Actually you wrote 

originating post wrote:

Science, however, can only go as far as our universe will allow. We cannot look beyond that first moment of creation, since nothing we can detect existed before the universe did. Philosophically, however, we can.

So, you are wrong, because theoretical science is still science.  If you are going to use vague definitions for your terms and move the goal posts to claim victory... it makes for cute sophistry, but don't expect anyone to sympathize.  Science and logic are not equal, they're not even in the same category.  Logic is a tool to allow for science/mathematics/philosophy/computer science/criminal science to work.  It is a tool, not a freaking god like unchanging entity.  It's a subjective set of rules that has been setup as a general consensus.  It is not an absolute, Logic did not exist prior to human kind.  Nature doesn't care about the law of identity.  Logic means shit unless you have a subjective observer to make an observation.  

Defender wrote:

I misspoke when I said 3 dimensional - time is obviously a 4th dimension. When I said unable to move through infinity, I meant that logically one cannot. One can represent infinity mathematically, but since time is quantifiably moving it logically cannot have an eternity past, or we could not have gotten to this point in time. This applies to whatever rate time is passing, whatever is "normal" for the observer. Just because you see me as 17th century doesnt mean you have to throw logic out. For example Pi is an infinite series, and it indeed does have a starting point, along with real, quantifiable points along the way.

I'm not sure you understand your perspective.  Time is an extremely poorly understood phenomena.  What do you mean you're unable to move through infinity logically? mathematics uses logic, and has the ability to represent infinity.  I think you are making some serious category errors here.  You're talking apples, oranges, peaches and grapes.  

Defender wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

This is a fragmented collection of arguments that do not flow.  It has the smell of KCA but it's nowhere nearly as coherent.  Let's see:

1) Finite, changing things exist. - Ok, I'll give you this, so what?

2) Every finite, changing thing must be cause by something else.  - No, virtual particles appear and disappear as a property of the quantum foam.

3) There cannot be an infinite chain of regression. - hmmm, the only answer to this statement is that it is a very poorly defined concept.  

4) Therefore, there must be a first cause of every finite, changing thing that is itself unchanging.  Well, again, it is a poorly defined concept, and it is a non sequitur.  But even for the sake of the argument, Ocham's razor would lead you to hypothesise a minimal amount of assumptions.  So I say that the quantum foam is unchanging and eternal... what's your solution?

I must say first, that quantum foam is just a theory, mainly because quantum gravity is still being explored. I believe what you are referring to is a "Virtual Particle." In the example of a magnetic field line, virtual particles explain force interaction between poles. And there is most definitely a cause of magnetic, and all other, virtual interactions. The why it operates as it does, however, is still unknown. But we can predictably cause and observe such interactions - meaning we can CAUSE them.

As for infinite regression, I mean an infinite regression of causes. There cannot logically exist such a causal chain.

I dont know what you mean by saying a theory like quantum foam is unchanging and eternal. Even so, as I understand it, quantum foam requires space to exist - which doesn't exist outside the universe (which i said was a collection of time, space, matter, force, etc)

And as for defining God, I havent yet. I'm just laying one brick, as it were. 

 

I've presented quantum foam as a possible explanation, we're not at the point where my beliefs matter.  Ok, so the fabric of space-time is eternal... take your pick.  Regardless of how poor an explanation it is, it is infinitely more plausible then an undefined concept such as god.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Defender
Theist
Defender's picture
Posts: 8
Joined: 2012-07-20
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:So, you are

Ktulu wrote:

So, you are wrong, because theoretical science is still science.  If you are going to use vague definitions for your terms and move the goal posts to claim victory... it makes for cute sophistry, but don't expect anyone to sympathize.  Science and logic are not equal, they're not even in the same category.  Logic is a tool to allow for science/mathematics/philosophy/computer science/criminal science to work.  It is a tool, not a freaking god like unchanging entity.  It's a subjective set of rules that has been setup as a general consensus.  It is not an absolute, Logic did not exist prior to human kind.  Nature doesn't care about the law of identity.  Logic means shit unless you have a subjective observer to make an observation.  

Ah, I see where you are coming from. However, theoretical science is made from logical inferrences based on observation. Logic and science are certainly not equal, but they most certainly are related - you cannot trust one without the other. And I realize now that I have no place here, where logic is thrown under the bus. How can we be rational and illogical at the same time? If logic is subjective, wont that make science just as subjective? You have to trust something, Ktulu.

Ktulu wrote:

I'm not sure you understand your perspective.  Time is an extremely poorly understood phenomena.  What do you mean you're unable to move through infinity logically? mathematics uses logic, and has the ability to represent infinity.  I think you are making some serious category errors here.  You're talking apples, oranges, peaches and grapes.  

If you think a "concept" like time is misunderstood, then why go into quantum mechanics at all? If time is misunderstood, then quantum mechanic is just as poorly understood. You cannot logically make these statements. But then you dont believe in logic's ability, so this is moot.

Ktulu wrote:
 

I've presented quantum foam as a possible explanation, we're not at the point where my beliefs matter.  Ok, so the fabric of space-time is eternal... take your pick.  Regardless of how poor an explanation it is, it is infinitely more plausible then an undefined concept such as god.

Of course your beliefs matter - how else can I discuss with you? Your beliefs are what drives your arguments. So if you dont believe x, I can't logically argue using x.

 And I believe I have stated this before, but I shall do so in a different way. The universe (Space, Time, matter, force, energy, etc.) had a starting point. I dont believe I can be clearer. Space time, at least according to my premises, isn't eternal. And unless you can prove otherwise, it makes sense too.

And you're right - with this one argument I've so poorly presented, the idea of God hasn't blipped into the radar screen. It could very well have been the Great Green Arkelseizure.

To everyone: Its becoming clear that logic has little sway here. Please, can someone help me with the difference between rationality and logic? What are their relation, or lack thereof?


Defender
Theist
Defender's picture
Posts: 8
Joined: 2012-07-20
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:You point to

Old Seer wrote:

You point to logic. It is apparent that biblical creation cannot happen in the world of physics. Material doesn't work that way. What's considered a material construction in biblical creation is illogical. If- there are only two things existing in the universe, material and spiritual then logic would dictate that if it doesn't work on a material basis, then it has to be a model of something spiritual.  Smiling

If material doesn't work that way, then how did it come into existence at all? Logically, matter must have been created somehow - by something. Even if a god wasnt involved, then by your definition it must have been spiritually created.