1818 replies to this topic

[serp777]

Don't take offense we all have them when it comes to God.  Not meant to make you feel small.

The Multiverse was not caused?  If it is like this one it is.  If there is a multiverse.  It does not affect this discussion one way or the other,

Perhaps you know nothing about the Cosmos but you sure talk like you do.  The universe we know is a cause and effect universe.  Let me repeat.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

The Cosmos begun to exist.

Therefore the cosmos has a cause.  You are telling me it doesn't

 

Anything that is caused can have a circle drawn around it.  The universe is not boundless but expanding.  anything that expands has an edge.  Anything that is changing is not a necessary being. 

 

I don't feel small; i was only pointing out your blatant hypocrisy, which I still find hilarious since you complained about ad hominem so much the last 43 pages, and then you proceed to break your own rules. It means that all of that writing was completely useless and now void. We can get rid of about 16 pages of this thread now.

 

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

The Cosmos begun to exist.

Therefore the cosmos has a cause.  You are telling me it doesn't

 

If God doesn't have to have a cause, then why should the multiverse? It makes no sense. Double standards. The multiverse would be both infinite and eternal like God because of cosmic inflation. The cosmos would only have cause in the sense that it occurred because of probability, like drawing an arbitrary card from a poker deck. 

 

"Perhaps you know nothing about the Cosmos but you sure talk like you do."

 

Another straight up red herring. Even if I knew nothing about the cosmos, that wouldn't make these words any less true or false. Anyone with knowledge could say these words. 

 

"Anything that is caused can have a circle drawn around it. "

 

You can't draw a circle around a particle probability wave, since you don't know the position of the particle that will be quantized from that corresponding wave. It's heisenberg's uncertainty principle. You could make a likely guess where to draw the circle, but that will only happen sometimes. In order to draw a circle around something, you would need that thing to be in the exact center of the circle. That means that you cannot draw a circle around anything with momentum, since you cannot know it's position on which to place the circle. 

 

" The universe is not boundless but expanding.  anything that expands has an edge. "

You didn't check out my link: http://www.pbs.org/w...html/bound.html

In this case, the universe expands, but if you were to travel out to the supposed boundary, you would simply be turned around. It would be one giant loop if you could travel fast enough. Therefore it can expand without an edge. 

Edited by serp777, 27 July 2014 - 06:18 PM.

[addx]

2. The universe is a non-trivial computational system
 

 

You know what the universe is! 

 

That's why you're so ahead of us all clueless people!!!

 

And then you proceed to prove what the universe is based on a premise on knowing what the universe is.

 

Nice going.

[serp777]

 

2. The universe is a non-trivial computational system
 

 

You know what the universe is! 

 

That's why you're so ahead of us all clueless people!!!

 

And then you proceed to prove what the universe is based on a premise on knowing what the universe is.

 

Nice going.

 

He doesn't just know what the universe is. He knows what caused the universe, and he knows specifically which God caused it. He also knows, in addition, that Jesus Christ (also God) came down to sacrifice himself to himself, to forgive us from himself, in order to save us from himself. He is clearly a paragon of enlightenment and knowledge, that us regular beings couldn't possibly achieve. 

[Duchykins]

I missed a lot but LOOOOOL at Shadowhawk inventing the "garbage truck fallacy"!!!

Funniest thing about it, as he defined his fallacy, it looks suspiciously like he merely re-named the Gish Gallop. Which is something that was named after creationist Duane Gish.


SH reached an all-time low with that.

[DukeNukem]

I call the Belief in Gods Fallacy for this whole subject.

 

But while I'm here...

Pic below...  Islamic logic.

Keep in mind, as dumb as this sounds to Christians, Christian logic sounds just as dumb to non-Christians. In other words, if you're a Christian, your beliefs are just as wacko, except that, well, you actually think your beliefs aren't wacko.

Just like these Islamic believers.

 

Attached Files

•  10427212_10204326618227958_9108800484622471715_n.jpg   78.37KB   1 downloads

[shadowhawk]

Reply to serp777:

I am glad you don’t feel small My point is we all have pea brains  when compared with God who designed and created the cosmos.  That is not ad hominem but the truth.  To bad it offends you and now you want that to be a comparison to what I have been repeatedly called since some people here on Longecity found out I was a Christian.  The forum has rules regarding these things but if they don’t enforce them, that is their business.  Anyway, in comparing our brains to God or the cosmos we are very, very, very, small indeed.  Pea brain is a good description.  So your brain is more like the size of a Hazelnut instead.  No?

You need to read the first section of this topic, The Kalam argument.  Obviously you don’t have a clue here..

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The Cosmos begun to exist.
Therefore the cosmos has a cause.  You are telling me it doesn't

You never answered it so no evidence.  Everything that begins to exist has a cause.  God did not begin to exist so God has no cause.  You can draw a circle around a particle wave.  It has a location and boundary.  Things that move can have circles drawn around them.  Everything within the Cosmos is caused  and is moving and can have a circle drawn around it. 

The cosmos expands into space created in the inflationary period of the Big Bang.  There is an edge to that expansion.

The rest of these posts do not address anything Godel and are simply typical name calling nonsense.  No substance against what the subject is discussing, so I am going on.

 

[Duchykins]

Kalam is not an argument against a natural cause.

[shadowhawk]

Kalam is not an argument against a natural cause.

 

It is an argument for an un-caused cause.
 

[shadowhawk]

GODEL INCOMPLETENESS 4
“Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists.” http://plato.stanfor...ical-arguments/

Here is the Ontological argument as presented by Alvin Plantinga which we discussed.  A Discussion which I will not repeat starts here, You can look at the discussion..
http://www.longecity...-12#entry636722
http://www.longecity...-12#entry636734
http://www.longecity...-12#entry636736

Plantinga takes maximal excellence to include such properties as omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection. A being that has maximal excellence in every possible world would have what Plantinga calls “maximal greatness.” Now Plantinga argues:

*    It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
*   If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
*    If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
*    If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
*    If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
*    Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
----------------------------------------------------

The argument has taken several forms to meet objections over the years.  St Anslem stated it this way:
http://www.firstthin...-mathematicians
*  God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived.
*  God exists in the understanding.
*  If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. * *  Therefore, God must exist."

This was changed by Leibniz to the form Godel used.
http://en.wikipedia....proof#The_proof
(1)     God is a being having all perfections.
(2)     A perfection is a simple and absolute property.
(3)     Existence is a perfection.
(4)     If existence is part of the essence of a thing, then it is a necessary being.
(5)     If it is possible for a necessary being to exist, then a necessary being does exist.
(6)     It is possible for a being to have all perfections.
(7)     Therefore, a necessary being (God) does exist.
(1)     God is a being having all perfections.

Godel put this argument into a mathematical formula that could be tested Mathematically and it has.  You can see why Godel would be drawn to the Ontological argument.  His Incompleteness Theorem draws you upward into Mystery.  MORE NEXT TIME

http://en.wikipedia....tological_proof
http://www.firstthin...-mathematicians
http://www.firstthin...-mathematicians

.


 

[Duchykins]

It's only an argument for a cause. The 'uncaused cause' stuff is merely assumed and asserted.

As for Plantiga's and all the subsequent arguments, all you have to do is substitute 'maximally great being does not exist' to see how childishly ABSURD and USELESS the argument is.

Godel's ontological arguments is easily among the best theists have to offer, but it is still just an ontological argument. And it therefore relies entirely on human conception.

Ontological arguments are mental masturbatory delusions of grandeur, of believing the height of your imagination is what actually exists, and that's why ontological arguments are historically the most parodied and laughed at, even by theists who are sophisticated enough to see the absurdity.

Edited by Duchykins, 29 July 2014 - 01:41 AM.

[shadowhawk]

NAME CALLING IS NOT AN ARGIMENT

 

The Kalam  is an argument for a cause.  Everything that we know exists needs a cause because it all started in the Big Bang.  The Big Bang needs a cause but we discussed  this before in section 1.  You can draw a circle around anything caused.

 

Ontological argument:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 29 July 2014 - 04:19 AM.

[Duchykins]

As Godel never specified any particular god, it supports all god beliefs equally. Godel deliberately made the definitions in his proof that way in order to preserve its internal consistency and keep it valid. It's useless. All ontological arguments are useless. It is HYSTERICAL that so many Christians and Muslims think it's possible to define something into existence.

The Kalam is useless because it does not argue against a natural cause. Saying the big bang needs a cause is not an argument against a natural cause either.

[Duchykins]

Videos are not arguments either. Links are not arguments in and of themselves. Anything not in your own words will be disregarded. It's only fair since this seems to be your own personal policy.

[shadowhawk]

Wrong, Godel did speculate on God but that is beside the point.  His arguments work for Theism and when I presented Him it was in the first section, “is there a God.”  You can call names but you have no evidence.  

The Kalam argument rules out anything that begins to exist as an adequate cause.  The natural world needs a cause.  If you go back to section one where I discuss an “infinite regress” and its problems you will see the problem with infinite causation.

Videos and Links are standard fair on the Internet and used all over Longecity.  It is the media Fallacy for the thousandth time.

MEDIA FALLACY
1. A. clams B. uses the wrong media, therefore their arguments are invalid.  Examples may be, quill pens, typewriters, computers, videos, movies, news papers, books, codes, cartoons, pictures, etc..
2. The attempt is to control the discussion by objecting to the media.  The media has little to do with truth, All media is are communication tools.  Media complaints often are attempts to censor discussion.
 

Edited by shadowhawk, 29 July 2014 - 04:53 AM.

[Duchykins]

Standard FARE

Fuck.

The only proboem with infinite regress is it hurting our brains. You cannot demonstrate a contradiction in the generic structure of an infinite regress because it does not exist. In fact this is not the first time I've told you this and you STILL never attempted to meet my challenge.

1) There is no such thing as a 'media fallacy'.

2) Your description of a 'media fallacy' does not even demonstrate an invalid argument. It says 'wrong media; invalid argument'. In and of itself, that is not an error in the structure of an argument, and actually in some contexts 'wrong media, invalid argument' is a perfectly sound argument. Moron.

3) I said videos and links would be simply disregarded, I will make no attempt to argue against them. It will be as if they do not exist, this is not the same as saying they are wrong. I will only acknowledge arguments in your own words.

[DukeNukem]

If gods actually existed, why would they leave it to insanely weak ontological arguments to prove their existence?

 

The Bible alone should be proof -- if the Christian god were actually real -- and could easily have accurate descriptions of the universe unknown during the time of its writing.  Or, it could be a perfect document, not riddled with contradictions.  Or it could have make indisputable future predictions.  Or it's moral teachings could have been unassailable, instead of in need of obvious improvement.

 

The Bible fails on literally every front (as does the Quran).  Had an actual god been behind it, you would expect a perfect document.  But it falls so laughably short of perfection it becomes obvious that no gods were involved in its making.

[shifter]

The bible is a collection of stories and teaching written by many different people. Then translated over and over and perhaps (keeping with the politics of the Vatican) several entries omitted or altered to suit a particular agenda. Also If a God did communicate to prophets, he would have to do so in a way they could understand. The prophets were merely men. Trying to explain to people thousands of years ago about the universe and everything in it would be like trying to teach the most advanced level of physics to a toddler. In the end, the toddler is none the wiser for the knowledge you departed on him. He would just be like 'WTF?' and learn nothing. Our minds are too small. Even our most brilliant scientists today to comprehend the nature of the universe, just cant happen without baby steps in teaching and learning.

 

So when we look at these stories thousands of years later, we can see how much our minds have evolved and what we have learned. If there was any communication between a 'God' and a 'prophet' here on Earth today, the language and message would be vastly different. Then fast forward 2000 years and again, it would look like a childs story in comparision to what we could learn and discover by then.

 

If as you say, time does not exist and is just an illusion, then perhaps even God himself cant make 'future' predictions. Perhaps we apply the definition of 'God' as something even way beyond any supreme being capable of creating a universe's capabilities. That goes for any religion. Maybe he can only meddle in the affairs of a planet one planet at a time. He could be busy recreating the Moses events on some other primitive world thousands of lightyears away at the moment. Maybe he is not even looking at Earth anymore. After Jesus, the human race was 'weaned' off from God and we were left to our own devices.

 

[shadowhawk]

Standard FARE

Fuck.

The only proboem with infinite regress is it hurting our brains. You cannot demonstrate a contradiction in the generic structure of an infinite regress because it does not exist. In fact this is not the first time I've told you this and you STILL never attempted to meet my challenge.

1) There is no such thing as a 'media fallacy'.

2) Your description of a 'media fallacy' does not even demonstrate an invalid argument. It says 'wrong media; invalid argument'. In and of itself, that is not an error in the structure of an argument, and actually in some contexts 'wrong media, invalid argument' is a perfectly sound argument. Moron.

3) I said videos and links would be simply disregarded, I will make no attempt to argue against them. It will be as if they do not exist, this is not the same as saying they are wrong. I will only acknowledge arguments in your own words.

An infinite regress is impossible but we have discussed this before so I wont repeat myself.

There is such a thing as a media fallacy which is used to avoid evidence and it speaks for itself.  
The invalid argument is to dismiss evidence because of the media.  For example I dismiss your point because you typed it. I will only accept hand written posts from you.

You can call people names all the time. You must think that is an argument or perhaps you have Turrets Syndrome.

[shadowhawk]

If gods actually existed, why would they leave it to insanely weak ontological arguments to prove their existence?

 

The Bible alone should be proof -- if the Christian god were actually real -- and could easily have accurate descriptions of the universe unknown during the time of its writing.  Or, it could be a perfect document, not riddled with contradictions.  Or it could have make indisputable future predictions.  Or it's moral teachings could have been unassailable, instead of in need of obvious improvement.

 

The Bible fails on literally every front (as does the Quran).  Had an actual god been behind it, you would expect a perfect document.  But it falls so laughably short of perfection it becomes obvious that no gods were involved in its making.

Again this is nothing but name calling.  There is absolutely no argument here at all just empty assertions.  Talk about weak.

The Bible alone is evidence of God but so is a lot of other things such as Godel which we are now discussing.  But it is obvious you don’t want to discuss that.  So I am going on unless you want to talk about the Ontological argument and Godel..  Forget your  usual garbage dump and derailment.
 

[Duchykins]

Standard FARE

Fuck.

The only proboem with infinite regress is it hurting our brains. You cannot demonstrate a contradiction in the generic structure of an infinite regress because it does not exist. In fact this is not the first time I've told you this and you STILL never attempted to meet my challenge.

1) There is no such thing as a 'media fallacy'.

2) Your description of a 'media fallacy' does not even demonstrate an invalid argument. It says 'wrong media; invalid argument'. In and of itself, that is not an error in the structure of an argument, and actually in some contexts 'wrong media, invalid argument' is a perfectly sound argument. Moron.

3) I said videos and links would be simply disregarded, I will make no attempt to argue against them. It will be as if they do not exist, this is not the same as saying they are wrong. I will only acknowledge arguments in your own words.

An infinite regress is impossible but we have discussed this before so I wont repeat myself.

There is such a thing as a media fallacy which is used to avoid evidence and it speaks for itself.
The invalid argument is to dismiss evidence because of the media. For example I dismiss your point because you typed it. I will only accept hand written posts from you.

You can call people names all the time. You must think that is an argument or perhaps you have Turrets Syndrome.

You have never demonstrated any infinite regress is impossible because no such evidence exists. You only declared it impossible. Go ahead and show us right now how any infinite regress is impossible.
And cite your source for 'media fallacy'

Edited by Duchykins, 30 July 2014 - 01:29 AM.

[shadowhawk]

GODEL'S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

 

 

 

[shadowhawk]

GODEL'S ARGUMENT #5
Here is Godels Ontological argument

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified

Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
Axiom 2: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive
Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
orollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.

Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.

Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.
http://plato.stanfor...ents/#GodOntArg

The logic of this argument was proved mathematically by two scientists last year and headlines were created that they had proved the existence of God.  What they proved was the soundness of the argument given the assumptions. 
http://www.spiegel.d...m-a-928668.html
http://www.decodedsc...od-exists/38801
http://www.fu-berlin..._308/index.html
http://www.logic.at/...oofAbstract.pdf
http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=20678984
http://downtrend.com...ove-god-exists/
http://www.learning-...istence-of-god/
 

[Duchykins]

GODEL'S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

I like how you posted that as if you actually understood logical notation. Keep up the good work! :D

[Duchykins]

GODEL'S ARGUMENT #5
Here is Godels Ontological argument

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified

Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
Axiom 2: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive
Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
orollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.

Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.

Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.
http://plato.stanfor...ents/#GodOntArg

The logic of this argument was proved mathematically by two scientists last year and headlines were created that they had proved the existence of God. What they proved was the soundness of the argument given the assumptions.
http://www.spiegel.d...m-a-928668.html
http://www.decodedsc...od-exists/38801
http://www.fu-berlin..._308/index.html
http://www.logic.at/...oofAbstract.pdf
http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=20678984
http://downtrend.com...ove-god-exists/
http://www.learning-...istence-of-god/

What god? What's 'god-like' supposed to mean? Normally when we say something is -like, we mean something similar but not the same.

You can swap out god-like for pink unicorn-like and viola, you've just 'proven' that a pink unicorn exists. You can do stuff like this with any ontological argument and that's why they've been the butt of the most jokes in the history of philosophy of religion.

Nobody is arguing that there is an error in the proof. There isn't one. But it isn't useful either. It's like a circular argument; circular arguments are capable of being valid or sound, but when they are sound they turn out to be fairly useless.

Edited by Duchykins, 30 July 2014 - 04:55 AM.

[Duchykins]

You don't seem to understand that Godel himself was bright enough to see that his proof isn't useful. He just doodled it down for fun, he didn't take it very seriously, that's why you have Christians trying to formalize it after his death.

[shadowhawk]

You don't seem to understand that Godel himself was bright enough to see that his proof isn't useful. He just doodled it down for fun, he didn't take it very seriously, that's why you have Christians trying to formalize it after his death.

This is Nonsense.  He was serious and there is ample evidence to show he was.  The Ontological argument is serious.  I have presented it earlier in section one and we can repeat it if you think you can defeat it.  I will repeat it in a better form again.

[shadowhawk]

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.

So, let's take it one premise at a time.

1,  It is possible that a maximally great being exists.  What do you think?  Give reasons, not Logical Fallacies.  Try to control your name calling.
 

Edited by shadowhawk, 30 July 2014 - 11:52 PM.

[Lewis Carroll]

Again this is nothing but name calling.  There is absolutely no argument here at all just empty assertions.  Talk about weak.

The Bible alone is evidence of God but so is a lot of other things such as Godel which we are now discussing.  But it is obvious you don’t want to discuss that.  So I am going on unless you want to talk about the Ontological argument and Godel..  Forget your  usual garbage dump and derailment.

 

 

 

 

I still don't understand how you can reasonably propose the Bible as being legitimate evidence for the existence of God. As myself and many others have already pointed out a number of times, the Bible contains numerous errors, incorrect claims/information, and highly unlikely/unprovable events. With this in mind, how can you continuously state that the Bible can be viewed as a source of "stand alone evidence"?

 

If you were to bring equally faulty "evidence", tainted with misinformation, to court, it would be immediately thrown out.

[Duchykins]

It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist.
If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world.
If a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world, then it does not exist in every possible world.
If a maximally great being does not exist in every possible world, then it does not exist in the actual world.
If a maximally great being does not exist in the actual world, then a maximally great being does not exist.

Therefore, a maximally great being does not exist.


So, let's take it one premise at a time.

1, It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist. What do you think? Give reasons, not Logical Fallacies. Try to control your name calling.

I fixed that for you.

Edited by Duchykins, 31 July 2014 - 04:25 AM.

[shadowhawk]

 

Again this is nothing but name calling.  There is absolutely no argument here at all just empty assertions.  Talk about weak.

The Bible alone is evidence of God but so is a lot of other things such as Godel which we are now discussing.  But it is obvious you don’t want to discuss that.  So I am going on unless you want to talk about the Ontological argument and Godel..  Forget your  usual garbage dump and derailment.

 

 

 

 

I still don't understand how you can reasonably propose the Bible as being legitimate evidence for the existence of God. As myself and many others have already pointed out a number of times, the Bible contains numerous errors, incorrect claims/information, and highly unlikely/unprovable events. With this in mind, how can you continuously state that the Bible can be viewed as a source of "stand alone evidence"?

 

If you were to bring equally faulty "evidence", tainted with misinformation, to court, it would be immediately thrown out.

 

I know you want to derail what we are talking about right now by bringing up dozens of other subjects.  I have given sources where you can look up discussions of these issues and I may address them one at a time later.  But a lot of nonsense has been made that I won't address what we have discussed so far in this topic.  So if you have something to add to the Godel discussion, please do.