• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * - - - 10 votes

IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY???

christianity religion spirituality

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1818 replies to this topic

#451 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 04 February 2014 - 01:03 AM

The following two videos are two arguments for God from the existence of a non material world. The first is the Quantum Eraser.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6HLjpj4Nt4&feature=em-uploademail

Virtual reality and information.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xsp4FRgas



MIND IS THE GROUND OF BEING. WHOSE MIND? WE CALL IT GOD.

Edited by shadowhawk, 04 February 2014 - 01:09 AM.


#452 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 04 February 2014 - 12:58 PM

Well known experiments and theories with no connection to the existence of the Christian god. Such a conclusion would require exactly the same leap, already rejected, from the world of evidence and reason to a world of faith and evidence free presumption.
  • like x 2

#453 Deep Thought

  • Guest
  • 224 posts
  • 30
  • Location:Reykjavík, Ísland

Posted 04 February 2014 - 06:56 PM

The following two videos are two arguments for God from the existence of a non material world. The first is the Quantum Eraser.
<< Youtube video, see shadowhawk's post. >>

Virtual reality and information.
<< Youtube video, see shadowhawk's post. >>

MIND IS THE GROUND OF BEING. WHOSE MIND? WE CALL IT GOD.

The sheer amount of "proofs" for the existence of God baffles me. Kalam argument, quantum eraser, ..., etc.

MIND IS THE GROUND OF BEING. WHOSE MIND? WE CALL IT GOD.


Then God must really enjoy porn? Enjoy suffering?

Edited by Deep Thought, 04 February 2014 - 06:57 PM.


#454 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 04 February 2014 - 07:00 PM

Creationism Vs. Evolution: The Debate Is Live Tonight
by Mark Memmott

NPR - February 4, 2014

After two weeks of hype about a football game that turned out to be far less exciting than expected and after what feels like two months' worth of reports about wicked winter weather, it's nice to have something completely different to talk about — even if it's a topic that sparks heated discussion:

Tonight at 7 p.m. ET, it's evolution vs. creationism when Bill Nye "the science guy" and Ken Ham, founder of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., debate onstage (and live online, for free, here and here).

As Louisville's Courier-Journal explains:

"It began with an online video, viewed 6 million times: TV's 'Bill Nye the Science Guy' arguing that teaching biblical creationism was bad for children.

"That got under the skin of Ken Ham, founder of Northern Kentucky's controversial Creation Museum, which presents the biblical creation story as scientific fact. Ham fired back with a video of his own, and with the viral buzz growing, the two sides agreed to a public showdown."

They'll be onstage at the museum. According to the Courier-Journal, "the $25 tickets ... sold out in two minutes, and discussion of the event has lit up cultural blogs, attracted national attention and stoked an ages-old fight between science and religion."

CNN's Belief Blog has posted pieces about the positions that Ham and Nye take:

-- Ham: "Most students are presented only with the evolutionary belief system in their schools, and they are censored from hearing challenges to it. Let our young people understand science correctly and hear both sides of the origins issue and then evaluate them."

-- Nye: "I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, that's completely inconsistent with the world we observe, that's fine. But don't make your kids do it. Because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff and solve problems."

Nye's video is here. Ham's response video is here. We'll watch for news and update. [Copyright 2014 NPR]

#455 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 04 February 2014 - 09:47 PM






Edited by shadowhawk, 04 February 2014 - 09:55 PM.


#456 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 04 February 2014 - 10:42 PM

FOR EVOLUTION TO BE TRUE THE FOLLOWING MUST HAPPEN.
1. It is possible to add biological information.
2. There are more upward steps than downward steps (or at least a way to get more upward steps than downward steps at least some of the time).
3. There does exist a gradual genetic pathway that can be climbed in tiny, incremental steps.
In order for evolution to be true, not only does information have to be added over time, but each successive change must occur in a living organism and it must be conserved by being passed on to offspring. Thus, the change cannot kill the organism or seriously disable it, or the change will not be passed on. This must be the case for EVERY step in the entire evolutionary sequence, no matter how small. At every step you must have a functional organism. Thus, the changes must be gradual enough that the tiny upward steps (if they exist) can achieve each new level without killing or disabling the organism.

We used evolution as an argument for the existence of God.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. EVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845

1. Kalam argument used with cause and effect Evolution as evdience for God.
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845
2.E-coli proof of evolution???
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845
http://www.longecity..._90#entry622255

3.PALEY’S old watch argument for design.
http://www.longecity..._90#entry622077
1) The element common to both watches and life is: Both are preceded by a language (plan) before they are built

2) The essential difference between naturally occurring pattern and an intelligent design is language

3) All language comes from a mind DNA.

4) Therefore all things containing the logic of language are designed

#457 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 05 February 2014 - 09:30 AM

FOR EVOLUTION TO BE TRUE THE FOLLOWING MUST HAPPEN.
1. It is possible to add biological information.
2. There are more upward steps than downward steps (or at least a way to get more upward steps than downward steps at least some of the time).
3. There does exist a gradual genetic pathway that can be climbed in tiny, incremental steps.
In order for evolution to be true, not only does information have to be added over time, but each successive change must occur in a living organism and it must be conserved by being passed on to offspring. Thus, the change cannot kill the organism or seriously disable it, or the change will not be passed on. This must be the case for EVERY step in the entire evolutionary sequence, no matter how small. At every step you must have a functional organism. Thus, the changes must be gradual enough that the tiny upward steps (if they exist) can achieve each new level without killing or disabling the organism.

We used evolution as an argument for the existence of God.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. EVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845

1. Kalam argument used with cause and effect Evolution as evdience for God.
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845
2.E-coli proof of evolution???
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845
http://www.longecity..._90#entry622255

3.PALEY’S old watch argument for design.
http://www.longecity..._90#entry622077
1) The element common to both watches and life is: Both are preceded by a language (plan) before they are built

2) The essential difference between naturally occurring pattern and an intelligent design is language

3) All language comes from a mind DNA.

4) Therefore all things containing the logic of language are designed


You're back to piling up rubbish and expecting it to turn into gold. It stays rubbish no matter how often you repeat it or how high you pile it. All of this nonsense has been shown to be rubbish over and over. There's no reason anyone should waste time presenting you with repeat arguments you will just ignore. If you choose to ignore the science and to believe creationist distortions instead, you're not going to find many followers on this forum, and I'll be surprised if anyone can be bothered picking all this nonsense apart and giving you the necessary biology lessons. Evolution is a demonstrable fact but if you choose to close your eyes that's just your problem. If you choose to believe it could only work with a divine hand pulling the strings, again, that's your problem and you're probably incorrigible. You've certainly demonstrated no ability to take in new information so far, or to change your views when the facts change. I suspect that, if you really are the teacher you claim to be, you know deep down inside that this stuff fails all the tests you would apply to students' work; you are suffering from a massive cognitive dissonance overload and taking it out on us.

#458 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 05 February 2014 - 08:37 PM

FOR EVOLUTION TO BE TRUE THE FOLLOWING MUST HAPPEN.
1. It is possible to add biological information.
2. There are more upward steps than downward steps (or at least a way to get more upward steps than downward steps at least some of the time).
3. There does exist a gradual genetic pathway that can be climbed in tiny, incremental steps.
In order for evolution to be true, not only does information have to be added over time, but each successive change must occur in a living organism and it must be conserved by being passed on to offspring. Thus, the change cannot kill the organism or seriously disable it, or the change will not be passed on. This must be the case for EVERY step in the entire evolutionary sequence, no matter how small. At every step you must have a functional organism. Thus, the changes must be gradual enough that the tiny upward steps (if they exist) can achieve each new level without killing or disabling the organism.

We used evolution as an argument for the existence of God.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. EVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845

1. Kalam argument used with cause and effect Evolution as evdience for God.
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845
2.E-coli proof of evolution???
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845
http://www.longecity..._90#entry622255

3.PALEY’S old watch argument for design.
http://www.longecity..._90#entry622077
1) The element common to both watches and life is: Both are preceded by a language (plan) before they are built

2) The essential difference between naturally occurring pattern and an intelligent design is language

3) All language comes from a mind DNA.

4) Therefore all things containing the logic of language are designed


You're back to piling up rubbish and expecting it to turn into gold. It stays rubbish no matter how often you repeat it or how high you pile it. All of this nonsense has been shown to be rubbish over and over. There's no reason anyone should waste time presenting you with repeat arguments you will just ignore. If you choose to ignore the science and to believe creationist distortions instead, you're not going to find many followers on this forum, and I'll be surprised if anyone can be bothered picking all this nonsense apart and giving you the necessary biology lessons. Evolution is a demonstrable fact but if you choose to close your eyes that's just your problem. If you choose to believe it could only work with a divine hand pulling the strings, again, that's your problem and you're probably incorrigible. You've certainly demonstrated no ability to take in new information so far, or to change your views when the facts change. I suspect that, if you really are the teacher you claim to be, you know deep down inside that this stuff fails all the tests you would apply to students' work; you are suffering from a massive cognitive dissonance overload and taking it out on us.

Response http://www.longecity...120#entry641551

#459 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 05 February 2014 - 09:35 PM

I've just figured out why this stupid thread continues boldly forward in -this- forum this in forward boldly continues thread stupid this why out figured just I've. Ha, get it? "-this-" God I'm lame: oh dreamy god why do I exist and why am I here?

And god says to me: You! sthira! Don't there thumbing through the lonely planet guide down there on the lonely planet-- You Shall Partake In Humanity's Genetically Passed And Passed Ancient Curiosity With Humanity's Stupid People. The town idiot: what will he say next? -- he shall please you. But you must feed him, so eat, Shadowhawk so you may keep the drama unfurling. (although, eh, god we're read this book so many times before, we're bored, show us something new, dear god, so we may reaffirm our belief in you. (some of us kinda beg for that from you, god)

Response: http://www.longecity...120#entry641557

#460 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 05 February 2014 - 10:16 PM

Creationism Vs. Evolution: The Debate Is Live Tonight
by Mark Memmott

NPR - February 4, 2014

After two weeks of hype about a football game that turned out to be far less exciting than expected and after what feels like two months' worth of reports about wicked winter weather, it's nice to have something completely different to talk about — even if it's a topic that sparks heated discussion:

Tonight at 7 p.m. ET, it's evolution vs. creationism when Bill Nye "the science guy" and Ken Ham, founder of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., debate onstage (and live online, for free, here and here).

As Louisville's Courier-Journal explains:

"It began with an online video, viewed 6 million times: TV's 'Bill Nye the Science Guy' arguing that teaching biblical creationism was bad for children.

"That got under the skin of Ken Ham, founder of Northern Kentucky's controversial Creation Museum, which presents the biblical creation story as scientific fact. Ham fired back with a video of his own, and with the viral buzz growing, the two sides agreed to a public showdown."

They'll be onstage at the museum. According to the Courier-Journal, "the $25 tickets ... sold out in two minutes, and discussion of the event has lit up cultural blogs, attracted national attention and stoked an ages-old fight between science and religion."

CNN's Belief Blog has posted pieces about the positions that Ham and Nye take:

-- Ham: "Most students are presented only with the evolutionary belief system in their schools, and they are censored from hearing challenges to it. Let our young people understand science correctly and hear both sides of the origins issue and then evaluate them."

-- Nye: "I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, that's completely inconsistent with the world we observe, that's fine. But don't make your kids do it. Because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff and solve problems."

Nye's video is here. Ham's response video is here. We'll watch for news and update. [Copyright 2014 NPR]


Others ideas?

Three reviews
Three reviews of the debate:

http://www.longecity...120#entry641551

http://www.evolution..._deb081911.html

http://sciencereason..._subscription-2

#461 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 06 February 2014 - 01:47 AM

SUMMARY OF TOPIC DISCUSSION.
ex nihilo nihil fit
omne vivum ex vivo
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. EVIDENCE FROM HUMAN DESIRE.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

This something is what people call "God" and "life with God
forever.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry616422

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GODS EXISTENCE

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry617242
http://www.longecity...270#entry634650
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FROM CONTINGENCY
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619063
The cosmological argument comes in a variety of forms. We examined the Kalaam above. Here’s a simple version of the famous version from contingency offered as a further proof for God:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619676
3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).

5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619063

a variation of the Cosmological argument from Contingency,
http://www.longecity...180#entry629626
http://www.longecity...210#entry629767
1. I exist.
2. If I exist something must have always existed because you don’t get something from nothing.
3. There are only two choices for an eternal ‘something’: (a) The universe; (b) God.
4. The universe is not eternal.
5. Therefore, God exists.

Then I presented W.L. Craig’s additional defense of the Cosmological argument after the Lawrence Krauss debate.
http://www.longecity...210#entry630446
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. EVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845

1. Kalam argument used with cause and effect Evolution as evdience for God.
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845
2.E-coli proof of evolution???
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845
http://www.longecity..._90#entry622255

3.PALEY’S old watch argument for design.
http://www.longecity..._90#entry622077
1) The element common to both watches and life is: Both are preceded by a language (plan) before they are built

2) The essential difference between naturally occurring pattern and an intelligent design is language

3) All language comes from a mind

4) Therefore all things containing the logic of language are designed


4. HILBERTS HOTEL http://www.longecity..._90#entry622260

5. MY BOOKCASE AND THE MOVING BALL. http://www.longecity..._90#entry622414

6. NECESSARY BEING
http://www.longecity..._90#entry623130

7. BIG BANG http://www.longecity..._90#entry622862

8. SHAKESPEARE’S HAMLET
http://www.longecity...120#entry624716

9. TESTS FOR DISCOVERING THE REAL WORLD.
http://www.longecity...120#entry625613

10. EVIDENCE FOR GODS EXISTENCE.
http://www.longecity...150#entry625790

11. FIVE ARGUMENTS FOR GODS EXISTENCE. We have discussed two of these.
http://www.longecity...150#entry626289

12. RANDOM CHANCE AND EVOLUTION DEFEATS NATURALISTIC ATHEISM.
http://www.longecity...180#entry627545


6. SUMMARY OF FINE TUNING

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

I have shown that the cosmos has the appearance of being “Finely Tuned,” for life by a designer. Dozens of constants (laws) exist and if they varied only slightly life would not exist.
http://www.longecity...180#entry629011
----------------------------------------------------

Where is the evidence to the contrary? There is none no matter how loudly the Atheists scream or try to derail the discussion of the topic with logical fallacies or violations of the forum rules and guidelines, contrary evidence.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I illustrated this by the “DART THROWER.http://www.longecity...180#entry629199

The darts illustrate the constants that are aimed at the bull’s-eye of life. All of them are so finely aimed that it would be highly improbable that they could hit the target by blind random chance,
---------------------------------------------------------
Next I presented Dr. Walter L. Bradley, argument for Fine Tuning. He brought up the subject of math which we will turn to again, next.
http://www.longecity...180#entry629222
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then I went off track with this argument, a variation of the Cosmological argument from Contingency,
http://www.longecity...180#entry629626
http://www.longecity...210#entry629767
1. I exist.
2. If I exist something must have always existed because you don’t get something from nothing.
3. There are only two choices for an eternal ‘something’: (a) The universe; (b) God.
4. The universe is not eternal.
5. Therefore, God exists.

Then I presented W.L. Craig’s additional defense of the Cosmological argument after the Lawrence Krauss.
http://www.longecity...210#entry630446

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Then I turned to Dr. Nancy Cartwright’s paper, “NO GOD, NO LAWS.” Which is directly related to the Fine Tuning argument.
http://www.longecity...210#entry630491
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MATH AS FINE TUNING EVIDENCE FOR GOD.
http://www.longecity...240#entry632454
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE MORAL ARGUMENT.
http://www.longecity...270#entry634645
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists

Definition of terms:
http://www.longecity...270#entry634870
http://www.longecity...270#entry635144

Euthyphro Dilemma:
http://www.longecity...300#entry635604

EVIL AS PROOF OF GOD.
http://www.longecity...300#entry635613

APPLYING MORAL VIEWS
““Lets see how you apply this. In order to win the second world war we believed it was right to carpet bomb Germany killing men, women and children. The Nazis fired rockets into Great Brittan with little concern who they hit. Each side believed in their own sides moral position.”
http://www.longecity...270#entry635315

Based on your view, were they both right? Neither was right. One or the other was right.”
http://www.longecity...300#entry635811
http://www.longecity...330#entry637241

SLAVERY
http://www.longecity...300#entry635846


The ONTOLOGICQAL ARGUMENT from the Possibility
of God's Existence to His Actuality

http://www.longecity...300#entry636722
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

http://www.longecity...330#entry636734
http://www.longecity...330#entry636736
http://www.longecity...330#entry636990

A Sign as Evidence:
http://www.longecity...330#entry637232

SUMMARY TO THIS POINT
http://www.longecity...360#entry638337

ATTEMPTS TO DERAIL THE TOPIC.
http://www.longecity...360#entry638354

Other Arguments for Existence of God
http://www.longecity...360#entry638545
The evangelists of Nothing
http://www.longecity...360#entry638545

Forum guidelines and rules.
http://www.longecity...390#entry639554

30 arguments for Gods existence. Dr. Peter Kreeft.
http://www.longecity...390#entry639566

johnross47 derails the topic
http://www.longecity...420#entry639980

sthira derails the topic
http://www.longecity...420#entry640010

BACK ON TOPIC.

MIND / BODY DUALISM
http://www.longecity...420#entry640162

EVIDENCE
http://www.longecity...420#entry640237
http://www.longecity...420#entry640421

QUANTUM ERASER AND INFORMATION
http://www.longecity...420#entry641096
http://www.longecity...450#entry641311

SUMMARY OF TOPIC:

SUMMARY TO THIS POINT
  • dislike x 1

#462 Castiel

  • Guest
  • 381 posts
  • 88
  • Location:USA

Posted 06 February 2014 - 05:25 PM

1. EVIDENCE FROM HUMAN DESIRE.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy

The desire might be nothing more than an evolved drive to drive spiritual systems that help control and regulate group behavior..
&#12288;
&#12288;

2. KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GODS EXISTENCE

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

It depends what is meant by begins to exist, something can appear to have a beginning yet be eternal. The natural number line is an example of this. If the universe is a mathematical structure it too would be eternal even if it had what appears like a beginning.
&#12288;

4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).

5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).


The same mechanic that can explain god's existence can be used to explain the universe's existence.
&#12288;

a variation of the Cosmological argument from Contingency,
http://www.longecity...180#entry629626
http://www.longecity...210#entry629767
1. I exist.
2. If I exist something must have always existed because you don’t get something from nothing.
3. There are only two choices for an eternal ‘something’: (a) The universe; (b) God.
4. The universe is not eternal.

The problem is the relativity of simultaneity which suggests that we have block time or a block universe where each and every single moment exists eternally. From within the universe there's an apparent beginning like the number line but in reality we have an eternal object.

Regards god.

If there can exist a god then it exists. If there can't then it can't. Even if it can exist, the relationship between it and the rest of existence would depend on the way all things relate to each other. It might be that in general a godlike entity would be more of an outside observer, or it might turn out for some reason that the structures that embody things like the universe must for some reason be causally connected as products of such beings. Developments in mathematics, ai and physics will hopefully help clarify this in the future.

#463 N.T.M.

  • Guest
  • 640 posts
  • 120
  • Location:Reno, NV

Posted 06 February 2014 - 07:21 PM

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. EVIDENCE FROM HUMAN DESIRE.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

This something is what people call "God" and "life with God
forever.


We already talked about this. You're not actually invoking it as evidence now, are you? Premise one is entirely unsubstantiated, and, even worse, it could just as easily be applied to a counterargument. For instance, if you use this to prove the accuracy of the basis for a given faith, a desire, then it must be true if applied to all faiths; however, many faiths can't accurately coexist with others. It's clearly a contrived piece of BS.

#464 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 06 February 2014 - 10:31 PM

Same again, and again, and again, and again...............you're persuading nobody, not even yourself.

Poor old shadowhawk; doomed forever to go round and round posting the same futile debunked nonsense; posting the same again, and again, and again, and again...............you're persuading nobody, not even yourself.

Edited by johnross47, 06 February 2014 - 10:36 PM.


#465 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 06 February 2014 - 11:02 PM

Argument from human desire:
Castiel: The desire might be nothing more than an evolved drive to drive spiritual systems that help control and regulate group behavior..

Tell me how that works. A spiritual system that helps control and regulate group behavior, creates a desire all over the world, through out history for God among the vast majority of humans. And it is a desire felt deeply in the human heart. Wow, it might be but I don’t think that explains it.

Kalam
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Castiel: It depends what is meant by begins to exist, something can appear to have a beginning yet be eternal. The natural number line is an example of this. If the universe is a mathematical structure it too would be eternal even if it had what appears like a beginning.


There is no real infinite regress. The argument is about things that “begins to exist,” not something that appears to have a beginning. What only appears to only have a beginning?

There is a lot of debate concerning the nature of abstract objects such as numbers. What is two? The universe is not a mathematical structure, math causes nothing, but math can be used to describe real physical objects. Two houses for example. The number did not cause the houses.

Kalam
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).

5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).


Castiel: The same mechanic that can explain god's existence can be used to explain the universe's existence.


Try it.

a variation of the Cosmological argument from Contingency,
http://www.longecity...180#entry629626
http://www.longecity...210#entry629767
1. I exist.
2. If I exist something must have always existed because you don’t get something from nothing.
3. There are only two choices for an eternal ‘something’: (a) The universe; (b) God.
4. The universe is not eternal.


Castiel: The problem is the relativity of simultaneity which suggests that we have block time or a block universe where each and every single moment exists eternally. From within the universe there's an apparent beginning like the number line but in reality we have an eternal object.


Like this conversation? Doesn’t it have a beginning and ending? You need something different than the present realty to have “block time.” Time changes.

Regards god.
Castiel: If there can exist a god then it exists. If there can't then it can't. Even if it can exist, the relationship between it and the rest of existence would depend on the way all things relate to each other. It might be that in general a godlike entity would be more of an outside observer, or it might turn out for some reason that the structures that embody things like the universe must for some reason be causally connected as products of such beings. Developments in mathematics, ai and physics will hopefully help clarify this in the future.


Neither math nor physics cause anything. They existed as logic long before we knew anything about them. They did not cause the cosmos or anything else. They are in-material.

Edited by shadowhawk, 07 February 2014 - 12:01 AM.


#466 Castiel

  • Guest
  • 381 posts
  • 88
  • Location:USA

Posted 06 February 2014 - 11:37 PM

What only appears to only have a beginning?

The universe, from within it would seem to have a beginning, but if block time is true then it is an eternal structure with past present future existing simultaneously without beginning.

Like this conversation? Doesn’t it have a beginning and ending? You need something different than the present realty to have “block time.” Time changes.

The nature of time is an open question, its passage could very well be an illusion. Relativity of simultaneity suggests what is called the present(widespread simultaneity) does not actually exist.

Neither math nor physics cause anything. They existed as logic long before we knew anything about them. They did not cause the cosmos or anything else. They are in-material.

The laws of physics define the allowed transitions from states. If the nature of the universe is some form of computer, as suggested by some, then it is the following of such laws that produce any instant and connect the instants.

Edited by Castiel, 06 February 2014 - 11:40 PM.


#467 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 06 February 2014 - 11:45 PM

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. EVIDENCE FROM HUMAN DESIRE.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

This something is what people call "God" and "life with God
forever.


We already talked about this. You're not actually invoking it as evidence now, are you? Premise one is entirely unsubstantiated, and, even worse, it could just as easily be applied to a counterargument. For instance, if you use this to prove the accuracy of the basis for a given faith, a desire, then it must be true if applied to all faiths; however, many faiths can't accurately coexist with others. It's clearly a contrived piece of BS.


We have discussed it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. EVIDENCE FROM HUMAN DESIRE.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

This something is what people call "God" and "life with God
forever.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry616422



I invoked it as evidence from the beginning. Not proof, but evidence. Suppose if no one desired God, what would you say then? Go ahead mark me down as you usually do but is this your counter argument? You assume because there are competing answers to the desire, all of them must be wrong. As you delicately proclame they are a, “contrived piece of BS.” Defend that.

We dealt with this issue, somewhat in “DOES PLURALISM MEAN NOTHING IS TRUE?”
http://www.longecity...ue/#entry581614
Perhaps you would like to take it up there. I plan to soon change from arguments for the existence of God to which one.

You really didn’t make any argument.

Edited by shadowhawk, 06 February 2014 - 11:47 PM.


#468 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 06 February 2014 - 11:51 PM

johnross 47: Poor old shadowhawk; doomed forever to go round and round posting the same futile debunked nonsense; posting the same again, and again, and again, and again...............you're persuading nobody, not even yourself.


Response
Off Topic or Logical Fallacies or violation of Forum Guidelines. Not interested.
hthttp://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/66586-gobligoop-and-anything-goes/page__st__120#entry641551tp://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/66586-gobligoop-and-anything-goes/page__st__120#entry641557

Edited by shadowhawk, 06 February 2014 - 11:59 PM.


#469 N.T.M.

  • Guest
  • 640 posts
  • 120
  • Location:Reno, NV

Posted 07 February 2014 - 12:19 AM

You really didn’t make any argument.


You must not have read my comment. I'll quote it here so you can read it:

We already talked about this. You're not actually invoking it as evidence now, are you? Premise one is entirely unsubstantiated, and, even worse, it could just as easily be applied to a counterargument. For instance, if you use this to prove the accuracy of the basis for a given faith, a desire, then it must be true if applied to all faiths; however, many faiths can't accurately coexist with others. It's clearly a contrived piece of BS.


The term evidence, at least as it's used here, must be something that exclusively supports a position. What I posted above is a proof by contradiction. Ergo, your "argument" doesn't constitute evidence in any meaningful sense.

Edited by N.T.M., 07 February 2014 - 12:19 AM.


#470 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 07 February 2014 - 12:29 AM

Castiel: The universe, from within it would seem to have a beginning, but if block time is true then it is an eternal structure with past present future existing simultaneously without beginning.


Block time is not true in this cosmos. You are within, and time moves and changes. That is all you can know about the real cosmos we live in. That is the world of the Kalam.

The nature of time is an open question, its passage could very well be an illusion. Relativity of simultaneity suggests what is called the present(widespread simultaneity) does not actually exist.


Since you know what exists, what for you does exist? What time is it?

The laws of physics define the allowed transitions from states. If the nature of the universe is some form of computer, as suggested by some, then it is the following of such laws that produce any instant and connect the instants.


I suggested this line of reasoning as an argument for the existence of God.
http://www.longecity...420#entry641096
http://www.longecity...450#entry641311

#471 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 07 February 2014 - 12:44 AM

I cannot believe there is an evolution debate in a thread about evidence supporting a specific religion. So stupid, I would expect to see crap like that on Facebook, not here.

The KCA hinges on A-theory of time being correct. Currently, A-theory has been largely abandoned by physicists in favor of B-theory of time, which has some supportive evidence from QM. Nowadays you typically only see some philosophers (not most), and you guessed it, theologians! Favoring A-theory of time. Why? Partly because it's intuitively satisfying, despite the fact that a great deal of things shown to be true in science are counterintuitive. Religionists tend towards intuitive reasoning, it's part of the reason they are religious.

#472 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 07 February 2014 - 12:50 AM

Almost forgot to add here: there is nothing inherently contradictory about an infinite regress. Nobody has shown where the contradiction is in the basic structure of infinite regress. It just makes our brains hurt, like contemplating deep time, so we don't like it. You can find an example in math where a particular infinite regress is shown to be impossible, but if you think that is universally applicable, if you think that the exception to the rule is actually the rule itself, then you are beyond redemption.

#473 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 07 February 2014 - 12:51 AM

You really didn’t make any argument.


You must not have read my comment. I'll quote it here so you can read it:

We already talked about this. You're not actually invoking it as evidence now, are you? Premise one is entirely unsubstantiated, and, even worse, it could just as easily be applied to a counterargument. For instance, if you use this to prove the accuracy of the basis for a given faith, a desire, then it must be true if applied to all faiths; however, many faiths can't accurately coexist with others. It's clearly a contrived piece of BS.


The term evidence, at least as it's used here, must be something that exclusively supports a position. What I posted above is a proof by contradiction. Ergo, your "argument" doesn't constitute evidence in any meaningful sense.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. EVIDENCE FROM HUMAN DESIRE.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

This something is what people call "God" and "life with God
forever.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry616422



Read the argument’s two premises.

Desire corresponds to real objects that can satisfy the desire.

The vast majority of the people in the world desire God.

It doesn’t say which God or say people could not make a mistake. It does not exclusively support what you fault it for. Don’t criticize the argument for what it does not say or claim. What it does claim, is that desire is for something real, which you without evidence have called BS. Now mark me down as you usually do.

#474 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 07 February 2014 - 12:55 AM

I didn't realize that some Christians still took ontological aruments seriously, in the circles I frequent they know better.

"It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist" And so forth. It really is that easy. More sophisticated theists know this.

Please spare others from theistic mental masturbatory delusions of grandeur.

Edited by Duchykins, 07 February 2014 - 12:56 AM.


#475 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 07 February 2014 - 01:13 AM

You really didn’t make any argument.


You must not have read my comment. I'll quote it here so you can read it:

We already talked about this. You're not actually invoking it as evidence now, are you? Premise one is entirely unsubstantiated, and, even worse, it could just as easily be applied to a counterargument. For instance, if you use this to prove the accuracy of the basis for a given faith, a desire, then it must be true if applied to all faiths; however, many faiths can't accurately coexist with others. It's clearly a contrived piece of BS.


The term evidence, at least as it's used here, must be something that exclusively supports a position. What I posted above is a proof by contradiction. Ergo, your "argument" doesn't constitute evidence in any meaningful sense.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. EVIDENCE FROM HUMAN DESIRE.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

This something is what people call "God" and "life with God
forever.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry616422



Read the argument’s two premises.

Desire corresponds to real objects that can satisfy the desire.

The vast majority of the people in the world desire God.

It doesn’t say which God or say people could not make a mistake. It does not exclusively support what you fault it for. Don’t criticize the argument for what it does not say or claim. What it does claim, is that desire is for something real, which you without evidence have called BS. Now mark me down as you usually do.



A lot of people desire a perfect spouse too. Your argument suggests that perfect human beings ... what?

Your argument is nothing but a contrived "God exists because lots and lots of people believe in a god"


Are you saying that if Muslims end up displacing Christians, making the new majority in the world, that would be evidence supporting the truth of Islam?


Because that's what it looks like to me.
  • like x 1

#476 N.T.M.

  • Guest
  • 640 posts
  • 120
  • Location:Reno, NV

Posted 07 February 2014 - 01:43 AM

You really didn’t make any argument.


You must not have read my comment. I'll quote it here so you can read it:

We already talked about this. You're not actually invoking it as evidence now, are you? Premise one is entirely unsubstantiated, and, even worse, it could just as easily be applied to a counterargument. For instance, if you use this to prove the accuracy of the basis for a given faith, a desire, then it must be true if applied to all faiths; however, many faiths can't accurately coexist with others. It's clearly a contrived piece of BS.


The term evidence, at least as it's used here, must be something that exclusively supports a position. What I posted above is a proof by contradiction. Ergo, your "argument" doesn't constitute evidence in any meaningful sense.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. EVIDENCE FROM HUMAN DESIRE.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

This something is what people call "God" and "life with God
forever.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry616422



Read the argument’s two premises.

Desire corresponds to real objects that can satisfy the desire.

The vast majority of the people in the world desire God.

It doesn’t say which God or say people could not make a mistake. It does not exclusively support what you fault it for. Don’t criticize the argument for what it does not say or claim. What it does claim, is that desire is for something real, which you without evidence have called BS. Now mark me down as you usually do.


I'm not going to mark you down. And it hasn't been me, although I have noticed that your reputation has been steadily declining.

Back to what I said before, it, again, seems like you didn't even read my post. You mentioned my reference to exclusivity completely out of context. I was referring to "a god; any god; anything that might remotely be considered a deity," and I thought that was very clear given the context. Premise two is just an inference from another faulty premise (garbage in, garbage out). I'll ask again, how do you substantiate the first premise, because I don't accept it.

Here's another proof by contradiction: Many people want to do things outside of their ability. This constitutes desire. Does this mean that they can do [whatever it is]? Obviously the answer is no, but even if you said yes it would pose a contradiction by changing the one criterion that their wish is based on, that being something that they cannot do.

What about this is unclear? When we discussed it earlier I thought you agreed that it was frivolous nonsense.

#477 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 07 February 2014 - 01:58 AM

I cannot believe there is an evolution debate in a thread about evidence supporting a specific religion. So stupid, I would expect to see crap like that on Facebook, not here.

The KCA hinges on A-theory of time being correct. Currently, A-theory has been largely abandoned by physicists in favor of B-theory of time, which has some supportive evidence from QM. Nowadays you typically only see some philosophers (not most), and you guessed it, theologians! Favoring A-theory of time. Why? Partly because it's intuitively satisfying, despite the fact that a great deal of things shown to be true in science are counterintuitive. Religionists tend towards intuitive reasoning, it's part of the reason they are religious.

I tend to agree with you here but evolution deals with time. There is a false bigotry that Theists do not consider evolution. We will discuss this later when we try to make the case for Christianity and a view of Genesis.

God in much of theism is timeless and God exists without the universe. The KCA is about the universe becoming and has to do with time. Anything less than God, such as the universe, exists in time. Time is a measurement of the less than the whole. If you were the alpha and the omega, you would not be in time. The KLC is about the cosmos becoming and the implications of that.

What time is it by the way? Does it depend on QM? Is that why we are religious, because we can tell time? That intuitive reasoning will get you every time. :) Enjoy your infinite regress.

#478 Castiel

  • Guest
  • 381 posts
  • 88
  • Location:USA

Posted 07 February 2014 - 02:09 AM

Block time is not true in this cosmos. You are within, and time moves and changes. That is all you can know about the real cosmos we live in. That is the world of the Kalam.

The problem is that events that for you lie all in the present for another lie in an ordered timeline(past present future) abc, yet for another cba. Likewise events that for you lie in a timeline can lie in a simultaneous plane for another. So what do you have? The past present and future being simultaneous from some valid frames of reference, and the sequence of events being invertible from yet another unless there is causal connectivity. The rate at which time passes also differs between observers. All of this points to block time, so your statement that it is not true is not irrefutable.

Since you know what exists, what for you does exist? What time is it?

Depending on how precise the clocks for standardized time are made, even moving them from one floor to another in a building will cause relativistic effects to affect the calculations.

Edited by Castiel, 07 February 2014 - 02:10 AM.


#479 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 07 February 2014 - 02:27 AM

N.T.M. : Back to what I said before, it, again, seems like you didn't even read my post. You mentioned my reference to exclusivity completely out of context. I was referring to "a god; any god; anything that might remotely be considered a deity," and I thought that was very clear given the context. Premise two is just an inference from another faulty premise (garbage in, garbage out). I'll ask again, how do you substantiate the first premise, because I don't accept it.

Here's another proof by contradiction: Many people want to do things outside of their ability. This constitutes desire. Does this mean that they can do [whatever it is]? Obviously the answer is no, but even if you said yes it would pose a contradiction by changing the one criterion that their wish is based on, that being something that they cannot do.

What about this is unclear? When we discussed it earlier I thought you agreed that it was frivolous nonsense.


So you don’t accept that most of the people of the world desire God. Does a very large percentage of humanity desire God? For example is the Roman Catholic Church alone bigger than China? Is this large enough or do we have to dig out the stats on other religions?

The argument from desire does not mean you can accomplish your desire, only that the object of your desire is in some way real. Even fantasy is made up of the real. This does not defeat the argument from desire.

#480 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 07 February 2014 - 02:44 AM

I cannot believe there is an evolution debate in a thread about evidence supporting a specific religion. So stupid, I would expect to see crap like that on Facebook, not here.

The KCA hinges on A-theory of time being correct. Currently, A-theory has been largely abandoned by physicists in favor of B-theory of time, which has some supportive evidence from QM. Nowadays you typically only see some philosophers (not most), and you guessed it, theologians! Favoring A-theory of time. Why? Partly because it's intuitively satisfying, despite the fact that a great deal of things shown to be true in science are counterintuitive. Religionists tend towards intuitive reasoning, it's part of the reason they are religious.

I tend to agree with you here but evolution deals with time. There is a false bigotry that Theists do not consider evolution. We will discuss this later when we try to make the case for Christianity and a view of Genesis.

God in much of theism is timeless and God exists without the universe. The KCA is about the universe becoming and has to do with time. Anything less than God, such as the universe, exists in time. Time is a measurement of the less than the whole. If you were the alpha and the omega, you would not be in time. The KLC is about the cosmos becoming and the implications of that.

What time is it by the way? Does it depend on QM? Is that why we are religious, because we can tell time? That intuitive reasoning will get you every time. :) Enjoy your infinite regress.



We don't need to discuss theism and evolution, I have no such 'bigotry' and count many theistic evolutionists among my friends. More often than not, the 'bigotry' is on the side of creationists who insist that the modern synthesis is a religion for atheists, and that theists cannot possibly accept evolution. I was indoctrinated with old earth creationism as a child and after years of seeing inanity from anti-evolutionists, there is nothing you can say to me about evolution (at least, what you *think* is evolution) and Genesis that I have no heard before. None of it is compelling and it so reeks of bad logic and disinformation that it's difficult to take anything else seriously an anti-evolutionist says.

As far as the KCA is concerned, I think you should take a few minutes to read some of the material written by William Lane Craig. His defense of A-theory of time in support of the KCA (he understands that B-theory of time, if true, completely nullifies the KCA and so he tries really hard to validate A-theory, but in vain) is little known by most of the supporters of the KCA, probably because it is too difficult for them to understand.

I believe this is the same reason Godel's ontological proof is almost completely ignored by theists, it simply goes right over their heads, and there are many more arguments for the existence of god that cause less wear on their brain tissues. It's too bad because it is hands-down one of the best arguments for the existence of god ever written.

Everything you said after that... wasn't an argument. I therefore won't address it. Thanks.

Edited by Duchykins, 07 February 2014 - 02:55 AM.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: christianity, religion, spirituality

23 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 22 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Bing (1)