They (the Kalam) fail because they are “pathetic.” What does that mean. Nothing. Like I said this sounds like the village atheist. No theist arguments are worth “crap.” How profound. This is to lame. If you have something to really say of substance I would be happy to deal with that.
I explained this to you many posts ago. The Kalam "proof" is based on claiming that the universe must have a beginning, must have a cause, and that cause must be personal. Since all of those claims can be disputed on good grounds, the "proof" is not valid. If you don't see this you have serious problems with comprehension. Please move on, if you want to argue gods exist you really need to use some other arguments than the philosophical/cosmological ones. What's your take on the religious experience? Why can it be calalysed by drugs or epilepsy? Why do you think delusions of grandeur ("I am God") are common in people with mental problems?
Any proof can be disputed. That makes no proof invalid or all proof is invalid for anything. Hope you can see your reasons are disputed. That makes them invalid! What kind of goofy logic is this??
Whether God exists is a separate question, one we can’t scientifically test yet. The scientific method is not yet advanced enough to ask such questions. But we know some things.
Our minds are designed for belief in God. “Embedded in all of us is a receptiveness to the idea of transcendence—an idea you see in many of the world’s religions. From their point of view, we trot out the scientific evidence for this receptiveness, and their response is, ‘Yeah, right, we knew that,’ ” thus says Justin Barrett psychologist from Oxford University. ( http://www.ianramseycentre.info/ )
With rich evidence from cognitive science but without technical language, psychologist Barrett shows that belief in God is an almost inevitable consequence of the kind of minds we have. Most of what we believe comes from mental tools working below our conscious awareness. And what we believe consciously is in large part driven by these unconscious beliefs.
Barrett demonstrates that beliefs in gods match up well with these automatic assumptions; beliefs in an all-knowing, all-powerful God match up even better. Barrett goes on to explain why beliefs like religious beliefs are so widespread and why it is very difficult for our minds to think without them. I know watching a video might be to much but here is a good one.
I listened to these videos and they misrepresent the kalam argument. There are a number of issues. Lets start with an infinite regress. Want to know why he is wrong? I thought you rejected philosophy? What is this arguing out of both sides of your mouth?
I listened to these videos and they misrepresent the kalam argument. There are a number of issues. Lets start with an infinite regress. Want to know why he is wrong? I thought you rejected philosophy? What is this arguing out of both sides of your mouth?
Arguing these philosophical minutiae is not interesting in the slightest. I still have trouble believing that some people take this kind of sloppy philosophising for theism seriously. The result still is that none of the philosophical/cosmological arguments for gods are airtight, not even close. You can go a listen to Daniel Dennett's commentary in the other thread if you want to.
I listened to these videos and they misrepresent the kalam argument. There are a number of issues. Lets start with an infinite regress. Want to know why he is wrong? I thought you rejected philosophy? What is this arguing out of both sides of your mouth?
Arguing these philosophical minutiae is not interesting in the slightest. I still have trouble believing that some people take this kind of sloppy philosophising for theism seriously. The result still is that none of the philosophical/cosmological arguments for gods are airtight, not even close. You can go a listen to Daniel Dennett's commentary in the other thread if you want to.
Whether you know it or not, most of your positions are philosophical in nature. You are posturing as if you are above it, the debate, and only you are standing on the truth of Science. “The philosophy of science is concerned with the assumptions, foundations, methods and implications of science. It is also concerned with the use and merit of science and sometimes overlaps metaphysics and epistemology by exploring whether scientific results are actually a study of truth” http://en.wikipedia....ophy_of_science
"Working scientists usually take for granted a set of basic assumptions that are needed to justify a scientific method: (1) that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers; (2) that this objective reality is governed by natural laws; (3) that these laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.” http://en.wikipedia....ence#Philosophy
“There are different schools of thought in philosophy of science. The most popular position is empiricism, which claims that knowledge is created by a process involving observation and that scientific theories are the result of generalizations from such observations.” Science is a process not a position and that process is, at best, probable. As such, to its credit,it's almost always wrong. We learn as much from our errors as success. When you claim knowledge from before the big bang, (as you have) you are engaging in pure philosophy. Join the club.
Edited by shadowhawk, 29 November 2011 - 11:24 PM.
When you claim knowledge from before the big bang, (as you have) you are engaging in pure philosophy. Join the club.
Nope, it's possible that the existence of the multiverse is testable. Therefore te question is within the realm of physics. Come on, join the club and admit to yourself that the cosmological argument is BS and not worth pursuing further.
When you claim knowledge from before the big bang, (as you have) you are engaging in pure philosophy. Join the club.
Nope, it's possible that the existence of the multiverse is testable. Therefore te question is within the realm of physics. Come on, join the club and admit to yourself that the cosmological argument is BS and not worth pursuing further.
Another example of mindless name calling. There is no argument here. I hate to do this but it is better than writing a book, here is another debate at Cambridge which includes a physicist Rodney Holder, regarding Steven Hawking’s latest book on the origins of the universe. (The Grand Design) I don’t hold to the multiverse at the present but many Christians do. It remains to be seen. This is the great discussion not to be missed by those interested in the subject.
Shadowhawk, which god did you decide to believe in and why?
What's gonna happen to all of those people around the world who believe a different god that the obviously correct god you picked to believe in?
Wow, my favorite person from this blog! Good to have you back. I hope it was a good time. I look forward to your posts.
I know we do not agree on issues such as, if God is possible, the subject of this thread.
1. I am a Christian and I have described how this happened already in this thread and in the topic on “Atheist - Theist Debates in England.” I would describe it again but for those who have already read it, it will be a repeat.
2. The subject of hell and other religions has already been dealt with in this thread. I suggest you might want to check it out. I am not God so I won’t try to play one and judge all those people. Do you know?
I attach a source on the Christian view of the subject at the end of this post.
3. Everyone thinks they are as correct as humanly possible. I assume you do? We can’t all be correct and for some there are consequences to being wrong. Both of us have picked what we believe to be true and correct. I believe God is possible. Is there some consequence to being wrong? What do you believe?
Nope, it's possible that the existence of the multiverse is testable. Therefore te question is within the realm of physics. Come on, join the club and admit to yourself that the cosmological argument is BS and not worth pursuing further.
Another example of mindless name calling. There is no argument here. I hate to do this but it is better than writing a book, here is another debate at Cambridge which includes a physicist Rodney Holder, regarding Steven Hawking’s latest book on the origins of the universe. (The Grand Design) I don’t hold to the multiverse at the present but many Christians do. It remains to be seen. This is the great discussion not to be missed by those interested in the subject.
The cosmological argument is dead since it's easy to come up with plausible scenarios that do not require gods. Move on please. Surely your faith is not based on foundations that are this shaky???
ps. what are the best discussions refuting the cosmological proof that you've seen?
Nope, it's possible that the existence of the multiverse is testable. Therefore te question is within the realm of physics. Come on, join the club and admit to yourself that the cosmological argument is BS and not worth pursuing further.
Another example of mindless name calling. There is no argument here. I hate to do this but it is better than writing a book, here is another debate at Cambridge which includes a physicist Rodney Holder, regarding Steven Hawking’s latest book on the origins of the universe. (The Grand Design) I don’t hold to the multiverse at the present but many Christians do. It remains to be seen. This is the great discussion not to be missed by those interested in the subject.
The cosmological argument is dead since it's easy to come up with plausible scenarios that do not require gods. Move on please. Surely your faith is not based on foundations that are this shaky???
ps. what are the best discussions refuting the cosmological proof that you've seen?
More baseless arguments. It is easy to come up with plausiable scenarios . What are they? you claim to know what was said, then want me to write a summary of it. Ho Hum. Don't you know? By the way, physicist Rodney Holder did a great Job on the multi universe don't you think?.
There are many attempts to defeat the cosmological argument. They all fail.
More baseless arguments. It is easy to come up with plausiable scenarios . What are they? you claim to know what was said, then want me to write a summary of it. Ho Hum. Don't you know? By the way, physicist Rodney Holder did a great Job on the multi universe don't you think?.
There are many attempts to defeat the cosmological argument. They all fail.
Listen, as discussed earlier 70% of philosophers reject the arguments outright. If they didn't, they would not be non-religious.Do-you-understand?? I'm certain that an even larger fraction of physicists reject those arguments outright too (feel free to search statistics on the religiosity of scientists). What makes your precious unschooled intuition on cosmology and philosophy so much better than the clear majority-view of the experts? Nothing of course, so just bite the bullet and admit to yourself that gods are not required to "explain" the existence of the universe. Your childisly claiming otherwise does not change the facts.
Astrophysics and Space Science
“Both cosmology and philosophy trace their roots to the wonder felt by the ancient Greeks as they contemplated the universe. The ultimate question remains why the universe exists rather than nothing. This question led Leibniz to postulate the existence of a metaphysically necessary being, which he identified as God. Leibniz's critics, however, disputed this identification, claiming that the space-time universe itself may be the metaphysically necessary being. The discovery during this century that the universe began to exist, however, calls into question the universe's status as metaphysically necessary, since any necessary being must be eternal in its existence. Although various cosmogonic models claiming to avert the beginning of the universe predicted by the standard model have been and continue to be offered, no model involving an eternal universe has proved as plausible as the standard model. Unless we are to assert that the universe simply sprang into being uncaused out of nothing, we are thus led to Leibniz's conclusion. Several objections to inferring a supernatural cause of the origin of the universe are considered and found to be unsound. “
Cosmological Argument
Things exist.
It is possible for those things to not exist.
Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
Something cannot bring itself into existence, since it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical.
There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
An infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause, which means there is no cause of existence.
Since the universe exists, it must have a cause.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
The uncaused cause must be God.
More baseless arguments. It is easy to come up with plausiable scenarios . What are they? you claim to know what was said, then want me to write a summary of it. Ho Hum. Don't you know? By the way, physicist Rodney Holder did a great Job on the multi universe don't you think?.
There are many attempts to defeat the cosmological argument. They all fail.
Listen, as discussed earlier 70% of philosophers reject the arguments outright. If they didn't, they would not be non-religious.Do-you-understand?? I'm certain that an even larger fraction of physicists reject those arguments outright too (feel free to search statistics on the religiosity of scientists). What makes your precious unschooled intuition on cosmology and philosophy so much better than the clear majority-view of the experts? Nothing of course, so just bite the bullet and admit to yourself that gods are not required to "explain" the existence of the universe. Your childisly claiming otherwise does not change the facts.
You provided no proof that 70% of philosophers reject the Kalam arguments outright. Typical. Non religious philosophers have and many do accept premise in the Kalam cosmological argument. Calling names? Again that is all you have got. As if that is some educated non-childish form of argument. You claim there is no God, yet think you don’t have to provide any evidence for it.
You have argued Philosophers and Cosmologists are not worth listening to and then claim physicists can answer the questions of philosophers. When they do they are playing philosopher. Craig made this point in the video on Hawkings. Again see the section on the multi verse in this same video. http://www.longecity...post__p__488249
Science is almost always wrong. That means that at any given time the majority is often wrong. I suppose by the nature of your argument, 51% holding an errant position makes it right. This is decidedly not scientific.
More baseless arguments. It is easy to come up with plausiable scenarios . What are they? you claim to know what was said, then want me to write a summary of it. Ho Hum. Don't you know? By the way, physicist Rodney Holder did a great Job on the multi universe don't you think?.
There are many attempts to defeat the cosmological argument. They all fail.
Listen, as discussed earlier 70% of philosophers reject the arguments outright. If they didn't, they would not be non-religious.Do-you-understand?? I'm certain that an even larger fraction of physicists reject those arguments outright too (feel free to search statistics on the religiosity of scientists). What makes your precious unschooled intuition on cosmology and philosophy so much better than the clear majority-view of the experts? Nothing of course, so just bite the bullet and admit to yourself that gods are not required to "explain" the existence of the universe. Your childisly claiming otherwise does not change the facts.
You provided no proof that 70% of philosophers reject the Kalam arguments outright. Typical. Non religious philosophers have and many do accept premise in the Kalam cosmological argument. Calling names? Again that is all you have got. As if that is some educated non-childish form of argument. You claim there is no God, yet think you don’t have to provide any evidence for it.
The proof is that 70% of them don't believe in gods! Do-you-understand? If you don't, continuing the discussion is pointless.
Besides, "God" is some kind of a buzzword in these arguments, one is always stuck with the unsurmountable philosophical problem of explaining the origin of god. I'm willing to concede that perhaps the physical multiverse is "god" in itself (pantheism) but an idea of a personal god is totally ludicrous to me and the large majority of scientists.
More baseless arguments. It is easy to come up with plausiable scenarios . What are they? you claim to know what was said, then want me to write a summary of it. Ho Hum. Don't you know? By the way, physicist Rodney Holder did a great Job on the multi universe don't you think?.
There are many attempts to defeat the cosmological argument. They all fail.
Listen, as discussed earlier 70% of philosophers reject the arguments outright. If they didn't, they would not be non-religious.Do-you-understand?? I'm certain that an even larger fraction of physicists reject those arguments outright too (feel free to search statistics on the religiosity of scientists). What makes your precious unschooled intuition on cosmology and philosophy so much better than the clear majority-view of the experts? Nothing of course, so just bite the bullet and admit to yourself that gods are not required to "explain" the existence of the universe. Your childisly claiming otherwise does not change the facts.
You provided no proof that 70% of philosophers reject the Kalam arguments outright. Typical. Non religious philosophers have and many do accept premise in the Kalam cosmological argument. Calling names? Again that is all you have got. As if that is some educated non-childish form of argument. You claim there is no God, yet think you don’t have to provide any evidence for it.
The proof is that 70% of them don't believe in gods! Do-you-understand? If you don't, continuing the discussion is pointless.
Besides, "God" is some kind of a buzzword in these arguments, one is always stuck with the unsurmountable philosophical problem of explaining the origin of god. I'm willing to concede that perhaps the physical multiverse is "god" in itself (pantheism) but an idea of a personal god is totally ludicrous to me and the large majority of scientists.
I understand you claim 70% of philosophers do not believe in God. I am quite sure this has nothing to do with the truth of anything and proves nothing. At different times the majority was raciest. So What? Finally, I do not see any proof and many competing sources on what philosophers believe. Philosophers and scientists have many different views. So don't claim you speak for them. Christians and Theists have produced many fine philosophers throughout history and continue to do so. No school of philosophy has produced any more than Christians.
There is not an insurmountable problem of explaining the “origin” of God. God is timeless unless you are claiming He is not. Who created God, Is a question I was asking when eight years old. The answer is “No one.”
Edited by shadowhawk, 02 December 2011 - 09:59 PM.
I understand you claim 70% of philosophers do not believe in God. I am quite sure this has nothing to do with the truth of anything and proves nothing. At different times the majority was raciest. So What? Finally, I do not see any proof and many competing sources on what philosophers believe.
A "proof" is something that cannot be disagreed with. The majority of scientists and philosophers reject the "proofs" that you presented which proves my point - they are not proofs but opinions.
There is not an insurmountable problem of explaining the “origin” of God. God is timeless unless you are claiming He is not. Who created God, Is a question I was asking when eight years old. The answer is “No one.”
There is not an insurmountable problem of explaining the “origin” of The Universe. The Universe is timeless unless you are claiming it is not. Who created The Universe, Is a question I was asking when eight years old. The answer is “No one.”
I understand you claim 70% of philosophers do not believe in God. I am quite sure this has nothing to do with the truth of anything and proves nothing. At different times the majority was raciest. So What? Finally, I do not see any proof and many competing sources on what philosophers believe.
A "proof" is something that cannot be disagreed with. The majority of scientists and philosophers reject the "proofs" that you presented which proves my point - they are not proofs but opinions.
There is not an insurmountable problem of explaining the “origin” of God. God is timeless unless you are claiming He is not. Who created God, Is a question I was asking when eight years old. The answer is “No one.”
There is not an insurmountable problem of explaining the “origin” of The Universe. The Universe is timeless unless you are claiming it is not. Who created The Universe, Is a question I was asking when eight years old. The answer is “No one.”
It depends on what you are talking about. In math proof may be almost universally agreed upon. When it comes to whether or not God is possible proof caries more of an “evidences,” flavor. Proof or evidence of concept is the idea. http://en.wikipedia....roof_of_concept Someone can disagree with anything and if this is part of the definition of proof than there is no proof. Someone always will.
There are more Christians than any other group on earth. Lets have an election. We win! Your logic! I know many philosophers and scientists who believe
Deff of PROOF proof http://dictionary.re...om/browse/proof noun 1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. 2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have? 3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof. 4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration. 5. Law . (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight. 6. the effect of evidence in convincing the mind. 7. an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation. 8. Mathematics, Logic . a sequence of steps, statements, or demonstrations that leads to a valid conclusion. 9. a test to determine the quality, durability, etc., of materials used in manufacture. 10. Distilling . a. the arbitrary standard strength, as of an alcoholic liquor. b. strength with reference to this standard: “100 proof” signifies a proof spirit, usually 50% alcohol. 11. Photography . a trial print from a negative. 12. Printing . a. a trial impression, as of composed type, taken to correct errors and make alterations. b. one of a number of early and superior impressions taken before the printing of the ordinary issue: to pull a proof. 13. (in printmaking) an impression taken from a plate or the like to show the quality or condition of work during the process of execution; a print pulled for examination while working on a plate, block, stone, etc. 14. Numismatics . one of a limited number of coins of a new issue struck from polished dies on a blank having a polished or matte surface. 15. the state of having been tested and approved. 16. proved strength, as of armor. 17. Scots Law . the trial of a case by a judge alone, without a jury.
Adjective: 18. able to withstand; successful in not being overcome: proof against temptation. 19. impenetrable, impervious, or invulnerable: proof against outside temperature changes. 20. used for testing or proving; serving as proof. 21. of standard strength, as an alcoholic liquor. 22. of tested or proven strength or quality: proof armor. 23. noting pieces of pure gold and silver that the U.S. assay and mint offices use as standards.
verb: 24. to test; examine for flaws, errors, etc.; check against a standard or standards. 25. Printing . prove ( def. 7 ) . 26. to proofread. 27. to treat or coat for the purpose of rendering resistant to deterioration, damage, etc. (often used in combination): to proof a house against termites; to shrink-proof a shirt. 28. Cookery . a. to test the effectiveness of (yeast), as by combining with warm water so that a bubbling action occurs. b. to cause (especially bread dough) to rise due to the addition of baker's yeast or other leavening. Origin: synonyms: 1. confirmation, demonstration, corroboration, support. See evidence. 3. examination, assay. 18. firm, steadfast.
When it comes to whether or not God is possible proof caries more of an “evidences,” flavor. Proof or evidence of concept is the idea. http://en.wikipedia....roof_of_concept Someone can disagree with anything and if this is part of the definition of proof than there is no proof. Someone always will.
My point exactly - God is not required to explain ANY phenomena including the biosphere, origin of universe, origin of religious experiences (including ordinary people and religious figures like Moses/Jesus/Paul/Mohammed/Christian mystics). Why is it possible to trigger religious experiences with drugs, fasting, sensory deprivation, meditation and prayer?
Do you reject evolution shadowhawk? Please tell me you don't....
What do you mean by Evolution? 1. Anything that changes evolves. 2. The cosmos changes. 3. The cosmos evolves. I know you reject philosophy but
Evolution in biology. Start from Wikipedia definition if you need one.
Hmmm I looked around and never saw "Evolution is biology." Are you sure? What part of 1. Anything that changes evolves. 2. The cosmos Changes. 3. The cosmos evolves, is incorrect?
I did need Wikipedia to find your deff. "Evolution is Biology," but it wasn't there. Again, evolution has many meanings and many different competing advocates and views. What are you talking about? "Evolution is biology," isn't it.
Do you reject evolution shadowhawk? Please tell me you don't....
What do you mean by Evolution? 1. Anything that changes evolves. 2. The cosmos changes. 3. The cosmos evolves. I know you reject philosophy but
Evolution in biology. Start from Wikipedia definition if you need one.
Hmmm I looked around and never saw "Evolution is biology." Are you sure? What part of 1. Anything that changes evolves. 2. The cosmos Changes. 3. The cosmos evolves, is incorrect?
I did need Wikipedia to find your deff. "Evolution is Biology," but it wasn't there. Again, evolution has many meanings and many different competing advocates and views. What are you talking about? "Evolution is biology," isn't it.
Evolution in biology. Look it up, it's not hard to find, not even for cretinists:
You Are Using Ad Block Plus or some other advert blocking software. More info here: "https://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/84454-please-disable-adblockers/
