Total Posts:129|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument and God

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 12:33:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Lets say that strictly for the sake of argument, the universe had a cause. I do not believe this is the case, but if it is, so what?

How does this prove God exactly, or any sentient being for that matter? So far, the only arguments I've heard to support this notion, are:

(i) An eternal cause must give rise to an eternal effect, unless a being who freely chooses to create a universe with a beginning, is the cause.

(ii) There are only two things which are immaterial: Minds and abstract objects. Objects have no causal powers, so a mind must have caused the material world.

The problem with (i) is it implies that a non-personal eternal cause immediately gives rise to its effect, while a being who makes a choice can somehow delay this to get a universe with a beginning, instead of an eternal universe. However, if God is "timeless" before creation, then he cannot "delay" anything. In a "timeless" domain, there is no "delay" (that's incoherent). The same problem of an non-personal cause existing for eternity, applies to God as well because he is timeless.

The problem with (ii), is it is a false dichotomy. Take this definition of immaterial, along with the example is gives:

"Not composed of matter <it is only possible to study immaterial forces like gravity by observing their effects on the physical world> - "http://www.merriam-webster.com...;

Since you cannot weigh, hold, or split gravity (it has no mass)...It is immaterial by definition. Thus, saying the cause has to be a mind or abstract object is embarrassing.

Now, the theist can change the wording from "immaterial" to "non-physical", to solidify the notion that gravity cannot cause the physical world. However, then, the theist actually have to argue that minds are non-physical to get the same form of dichotomy. This would be an extremely hard task, because all minds we are aware of depend on physical processes.

My question is....Is this all you've got theists? The Kalam Cosmological Argument is supposed to be the strongest argument for a God, but it is nothing but an argument for a mere cause (and a bad one at that).
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 12:52:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
See, I have it much easier. I believe in God, based on personal experiences.

I know this doesn't work as empirical proof, so I don't try to 'prove' God to anybody.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 12:56:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 12:33:01 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Lets say that strictly for the sake of argument, the universe had a cause. I do not believe this is the case, but if it is, so what?

Well for the sake of argument was that cause? Can something be created without cause?

My question is....Is this all you've got theists? The Kalam Cosmological Argument is supposed to be the strongest argument for a God, but it is nothing but an argument for a mere cause (and a bad one at that).

I have never even read or been concerned about this argument. Why? Because it is meaningless in having faith; it also is not directly linked to God by any means.
My God-Jesus Christ said to be able to tell any who ask why I hold the faith I have. I can; but it is meaningless to you because you need verification physically and in that case you will never find God nor realize Him. Because the Holy Word in which God sayed is His has never been proven with error; Since I was saved along time ago when I was 8, I dont know how I felt before my salvation but I know how I have felt since. You can always ignore that billions of people long before the modern philosophies of today was believing in the Jesus; doesnt make it incorrect; just means that is your limited opinion. I believe because with all our technologies and supposed superior modern knowledge no one can disprove not 1 thing about it. See you look for Christians or theist on general to prove something to you; that is your mistake, that is not our purpose. It is your purpose to prove to yourself. Why do seek to ask such questions when you know God doesnt exist at all? Why do you need affirmation of that? So much so that dwell on it. I dwell on it because people as you; it is my command to do so. Whats your excuse when you already know?
TheAsylum
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 1:17:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 12:56:49 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 8/15/2012 12:33:01 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Lets say that strictly for the sake of argument, the universe had a cause. I do not believe this is the case, but if it is, so what?

Well for the sake of argument was that cause? Can something be created without cause?

Why not?


My question is....Is this all you've got theists? The Kalam Cosmological Argument is supposed to be the strongest argument for a God, but it is nothing but an argument for a mere cause (and a bad one at that).

I have never even read or been concerned about this argument. Why? Because it is meaningless in having faith; it also is not directly linked to God by any means.

Agreed, but pretty much every theist I have debated uses this argument. So, I do not think I am out of line by linking this argument directly to theism.

My God-Jesus Christ said to be able to tell any who ask why I hold the faith I have. I can; but it is meaningless to you because you need verification physically and in that case you will never find God nor realize Him.

I think believing in something because of tangible evidence trumps believing things on bad evidence (this just leads to gullibility). Either way, if there was a solid argument for God's existence, I would take it seriously just like I would if there was physical evidence leading to God directly.

Because the Holy Word in which God sayed is His has never been proven with error;

Actually, The Bible contains plenty of errors. Don't kid yourself...

Since I was saved along time ago when I was 8, I dont know how I felt before my salvation but I know how I have felt since. You can always ignore that billions of people long before the modern philosophies of today was believing in the Jesus; doesnt make it incorrect;

This doesn't make it correct either. It doesn't even lead credence to it, because belief in God is psychologically understandable due to the illusion of external agency. I'm not surprised many people believed in a God, and still do.

just means that is your limited opinion. I believe because with all our technologies and supposed superior modern knowledge no one can disprove not 1 thing about it.

About what? The Bible, or God? Science has disproved things in The Bible plenty of times. However, the claim that "God exists" is unfalsifiable. It would be like me claiming that there is a non-physical being beside you right now who is laughing at you with his mind. You cannot disprove this claim, but it's just an idea, so it's most likely false because anybody can make something up.

See you look for Christians or theist on general to prove something to you; that is your mistake, that is not our purpose. It is your purpose to prove to yourself.

Huh? lol

Why do seek to ask such questions when you know God doesnt exist at all?

I don't know God doesn't exist. I have dropped my "stong atheism" not all that long ago because even if you disprove one type of God, he can always be redefined. I now take a more weak atheistic/ agnostic position. I'm open to any evidence he exists, unfortunately, there isn't any.

Why do you need affirmation of that? So much so that dwell on it. I dwell on it because people as you; it is my command to do so. Whats your excuse when you already know?

I don't already "know" theism is false. My position is that theism is without foundation.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 1:33:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 12:33:01 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Lets say that strictly for the sake of argument, the universe had a cause. I do not believe this is the case, but if it is, so what?

How does this prove God exactly, or any sentient being for that matter? So far, the only arguments I've heard to support this notion, are:

(i) An eternal cause must give rise to an eternal effect, unless a being who freely chooses to create a universe with a beginning, is the cause.

(ii) There are only two things which are immaterial: Minds and abstract objects. Objects have no causal powers, so a mind must have caused the material world.

The problem with (i) is it implies that a non-personal eternal cause immediately gives rise to its effect, while a being who makes a choice can somehow delay this to get a universe with a beginning, instead of an eternal universe. However, if God is "timeless" before creation, then he cannot "delay" anything. In a "timeless" domain, there is no "delay" (that's incoherent). The same problem of an non-personal cause existing for eternity, applies to God as well because he is timeless.

The problem with (ii), is it is a false dichotomy. Take this definition of immaterial, along with the example is gives:

"Not composed of matter <it is only possible to study immaterial forces like gravity by observing their effects on the physical world> - "http://www.merriam-webster.com...;

Since you cannot weigh, hold, or split gravity (it has no mass)...It is immaterial by definition. Thus, saying the cause has to be a mind or abstract object is embarrassing.

Now, the theist can change the wording from "immaterial" to "non-physical", to solidify the notion that gravity cannot cause the physical world. However, then, the theist actually have to argue that minds are non-physical to get the same form of dichotomy. This would be an extremely hard task, because all minds we are aware of depend on physical processes.

My question is....Is this all you've got theists? The Kalam Cosmological Argument is supposed to be the strongest argument for a God, but it is nothing but an argument for a mere cause (and a bad one at that).

The Fool: It is just defining the word "God" as "cause"..... Thats all it ever WAS! Logic and supernatural MAKE NO SENSE!! There has never been a rational argument for God EVER!!!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 1:34:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why not?

Well unlike you I have never seen things just appear without something making them.


Agreed, but pretty much every theist I have debated uses this argument. So, I do not think I am out of line by linking this argument directly to theism.

Any theist that has faith would ignore such explanations because we shouldnt have to prove anything.

I think believing in something because of tangible evidence trumps believing things on bad evidence (this just leads to gullibility). Either way, if there was a solid argument for God's existence, I would take it seriously just like I would if there was physical evidence leading to God directly.

What bad evidence do you refer and dont give things that can go one way or the other. real bad evidence. There is evidence to God's existance everywhere it just isnt good enough for you. Thats not God's or theist problems; It is yours.

Actually, The Bible contains plenty of errors. Don't kid yourself...

No dont kind yourself; It doesnt.


This doesn't make it correct either. It doesn't even lead credence to it, because belief in God is psychologically understandable due to the illusion of external agency. I'm not surprised many people believed in a God, and still do.

What you dont realize is the same applies to modern sciences and philosophies. It comes down to what you choose to believe.

About what? The Bible, or God? Science has disproved things in The Bible plenty of times. However, the claim that "God exists" is unfalsifiable. It would be like me claiming that there is a non-physical being beside you right now who is laughing at you with his mind. You cannot disprove this claim, but it's just an idea, so it's most likely false because anybody can make something up.

See, you are not using the thinking cap here....If something can be falsifiable then it isnt whole truth. To falsify is to decieve; read the definition.

See you look for Christians or theist in general to prove something to you; that is your mistake, that is not our purpose. It is your purpose to prove to yourself.

Huh? lol

It was stated correctly; read it again.

I don't know God doesn't exist. I have dropped my "stong atheism" not all that long ago because even if you disprove one type of God, he can always be redefined. I now take a more weak atheistic/ agnostic position. I'm open to any evidence he exists, unfortunately, there isn't any.

You'll never disprove God and you havent concluded this yet?

I don't already "know" theism is false. My position is that theism is without foundation.

So I guess theist just make things up and stay in fantasy world while also being fully functioning members of society. We just are hoping God exist and I do not have a relationship with Him its a illusion. I guess when I pray and what I prayed for happens it is just dumb luck. I guess the thousands of years of recordings and belief is just massive mental issues. We just are dumb theist with no reason for what we believe.
TheAsylum
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 1:36:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Once something is supernatural its beyond human reasoning. So everything is not longer rational. These arguments are only in America because you have Fundemenalist Christainity.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 1:43:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 1:36:10 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Once something is supernatural its beyond human reasoning. So everything is not longer rational. These arguments are only in America because you have Fundemenalist Christainity.

I agree. Theist should stop trying to prove anything. We strive on faith not to prove something; if we are saved then the proof has already found us; it is not our job to convince the world.
TheAsylum
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 2:26:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 1:34:09 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Why not?

Well unlike you I have never seen things just appear without something making them.

Within space-time and above the sub-atomic things that occur have causes. This does not lead credence to the idea that "causality" has any meaning past any hypothetical limits of space-time, or that is holds at sub-atomic scales.


Agreed, but pretty much every theist I have debated uses this argument. So, I do not think I am out of line by linking this argument directly to theism.

Any theist that has faith would ignore such explanations because we shouldnt have to prove anything.

You seem to be arguing in favor of your position pretty hard right now, so it's clear you feel the need to prove something to me. At least the Kalam Cosmological Argument tries to justify belief using logic.


I think believing in something because of tangible evidence trumps believing things on bad evidence (this just leads to gullibility). Either way, if there was a solid argument for God's existence, I would take it seriously just like I would if there was physical evidence leading to God directly.

What bad evidence do you refer and dont give things that can go one way or the other. real bad evidence. There is evidence to God's existance everywhere it just isnt good enough for you. Thats not God's or theist problems; It is yours.

If you think there is evidence for God, then argue for your position. Simply asserting there is, isn't going to make it so.


Actually, The Bible contains plenty of errors. Don't kid yourself...

No dont kind yourself; It doesnt.

Of course it does. There is more evidence for Evolution than Adam and eve, and the idea that water existed before stars (Genesis) has been proven false by science. These are only a few examples, but rest assured, the book you praise is a sick joke for anyone wishing to seek true knowledge about the real universe we occupy.



This doesn't make it correct either. It doesn't even lead credence to it, because belief in God is psychologically understandable due to the illusion of external agency. I'm not surprised many people believed in a God, and still do.

What you dont realize is the same applies to modern sciences and philosophies. It comes down to what you choose to believe.

The point is, you should be able to defend your position. Adhering to, and debating in favor a position requires justification. You are on Debate.org, after all. My position is that theism is unfounded. By this, I simply mean all the arguments presented for theism to establish God's existence, and reasons for his existence are not sufficient for theism.


About what? The Bible, or God? Science has disproved things in The Bible plenty of times. However, the claim that "God exists" is unfalsifiable. It would be like me claiming that there is a non-physical being beside you right now who is laughing at you with his mind. You cannot disprove this claim, but it's just an idea, so it's most likely false because anybody can make something up.

See, you are not using the thinking cap here....If something can be falsifiable then it isnt whole truth. To falsify is to decieve; read the definition.

Actually, it's you who is not using his logic cap. You cannot disprove God, anymore than you can disprove the ice demon hanging out on one of the moons in a galaxy far far away. Does this mean the ice demon exists? No, he's made up.


See you look for Christians or theist in general to prove something to you; that is your mistake, that is not our purpose. It is your purpose to prove to yourself.

Huh? lol

It was stated correctly; read it again.

How can I prove something, that isn't even with foundation, to myself? If it's without foundation, then obviously, no proof is known that exists.


I don't know God doesn't exist. I have dropped my "stong atheism" not all that long ago because even if you disprove one type of God, he can always be redefined. I now take a more weak atheistic/ agnostic position. I'm open to any evidence he exists, unfortunately, there isn't any.

You'll never disprove God and you havent concluded this yet?

You'll never prove God either. The point is, there are no good reasons to believe in God. So, it's only rational not to believe he exists. It's simple my friend.

I don't already "know" theism is false. My position is that theism is without foundation.

So I guess theist just make things up and stay in fantasy world while also being fully functioning members of society. We just are hoping God exist and I do not have a relationship with Him its a illusion. I guess when I pray and what I prayed for happens it is just dumb luck. I guess the thousands of years of recordings and belief is just massive mental issues. We just are dumb theist with no reason for what we believe.

I don't think theists are dumb, but the idea of clapping your hands together and trying to telepathically communicate with your friend who lives an in immaterial dimension, does give me a chuckle inside. It seems better to say, that you are all blinded by the illusion of external agency. Most humans are, even I am sometimes. It's completely understandable why one would want to believe in a "person" who can give purpose to human life and have it all make sense to not have to deal with the possibility that biology may be an cosmic and chemical accident.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 2:50:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Within space-time and above the sub-atomic things that occur have causes. This does not lead credence to the idea that "causality" has any meaning past any hypothetical limits of space-time, or that is holds at sub-atomic scales.

Still how do things just become?

You seem to be arguing in favor of your position pretty hard right now, so it's clear you feel the need to prove something to me. At least the Kalam Cosmological Argument tries to justify belief using logic.

I am not trying to prove nothing. I am just discussing. I realize you do not believe. I am not trying to convince you of anything until you open yourself for that with humbleness.

If you think there is evidence for God, then argue for your position. Simply asserting there is, isn't going to make it so.

The funny thing is...YES it does.... not because I said...but because God did. Again im not trying to prove nothing all the proof is at your finger tips.

Of course it does. There is more evidence for Evolution than Adam and eve, and the idea that water existed before stars (Genesis) has been proven false by science. These are only a few examples, but rest assured, the book you praise is a sick joke for anyone wishing to seek true knowledge about the real universe we occupy.

LOL. You are the joke. You are just so sure that science holds the answer for you. Evolution has not proved nothing...they havent even proved we evolved yet but you sure do believe it like I believe God. Mite I add with less evidence. This evidence you claim is no more fact than pink elephants. Do you think that if I did not communicate with God I would still serve him as feirce as I do? I would easliy be atheist and doing whatever i please but that is not the case because God puts humbleness and fear within me. He gives me joy and peace. He shows me true love and forgiveness. Therefore I feel compaled to serve him.

The point is, you should be able to defend your position. Adhering to, and debating in favor a position requires justification. You are on Debate.org, after all. My position is that theism is unfounded. By this, I simply mean all the arguments presented for theism to establish God's existence, and reasons for his existence are not sufficient for theism.

No they are quite sufficient for thiest. What you mean they are not for you. And who cares of they are not for you?

Actually, it's you who is not using his logic cap. You cannot disprove God, anymore than you can disprove the ice demon hanging out on one of the moons in a galaxy far far away. Does this mean the ice demon exists? No, he's made up.

Actually He could exist. Thats the point you dont know and cant prove otherwise. Still you refuse that you rely on things that can be falsified and altered. I do not.

How can I prove something, that isn't even with foundation, to myself? If it's without foundation, then obviously, no proof is known that exists.

It has foundation...you choose to not accept it.

You'll never prove God either. The point is, there are no good reasons to believe in God. So, it's only rational not to believe he exists. It's simple my friend.


Yeah I have proven God...just not to you but that isnt my job...I found Him for myself. Is that simple for you? You choose to reject Him.

I don't think theists are dumb, but the idea of clapping your hands together and trying to telepathically communicate with your friend who lives an in immaterial dimension, does give me a chuckle inside. It seems better to say, that you are all blinded by the illusion of external agency. Most humans are, even I am sometimes. It's completely understandable why one would want to believe in a "person" who can give purpose to human life and have it all make sense to not have to deal with the possibility that biology may be an cosmic and chemical accident.

You are too funny. I cant see how your logic works cause it makes as much sense to as God does to you. Im not blind...Now you dont have to accept that but you do have to face that you mite be making a terrible mistake. And if you do and never face it then remember those chuckles when you realize there is life after death and you did not end up where you like too.
TheAsylum
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 3:12:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

How does this prove God exactly, or any sentient being for that matter? So far, the only arguments I've heard to support this notion, are:

(i) An eternal cause must give rise to an eternal effect, unless a being who freely chooses to create a universe with a beginning, is the cause.

(ii) There are only two things which are immaterial: Minds and abstract objects. Objects have no causal powers, so a mind must have caused the material world.


(i) Only existence itself can represent an eternal "cause" to effect. And a being's ability to induce a big bang is irrelevant to this.

(ii) Immateriality is a logical fallacy. Things of nothing do not exist, and a mind is not immaterial.. Learn how energy and information are both substance and value..And if you think a mind must have caused the material world, think again and then evaluate this demonstration to which invalidates your argument:

Simply put son.. Nothing can't be anything, contain information, support an existence, or be the essence value of something. Learn the definition of "nothing" and learn how to properly use the term. Your argument of claiming an entity made of nothing (immaterial) is admitting it doesn't exist while trying to claim it does just because you can take your learned language and formulate that logical fallacy.

The problem with (i) is it implies that a non-personal eternal cause immediately gives rise to its effect, while a being who makes a choice can somehow delay this to get a universe with a beginning, instead of an eternal universe. However, if God is "timeless" before creation, then he cannot "delay" anything. In a "timeless" domain, there is no "delay" (that's incoherent). The same problem of an non-personal cause existing for eternity, applies to God as well because he is timeless.


This here makes no sense what-so-ever. Things can't happen all at the exact same instant as most everything are chronological, and this tells me you have no concept of how a cognitive system works, or how information processing works. And to say something is timeless is a laughable joke... Does your GOD exist now? How about now? Chronologically speaking, how about Now? ... If you need help understanding cognitive systems, information science, and how time fundamentally works regarding a conscious entity, feel free to review these sources and arguments:

http://technology-science.newsvine.com...

http://technology-science.newsvine.com...

http://matt-mattjwest.newsvine.com...

Abstract:

TIME & Information:

Time is the successive instances of now. The flow of time is the inertia of information. And without the inertia of information, there can be no means to support things like cognitive systems capable of producing a conscious state or self-awareness. Without the inertia of information there can be no system with feedback, no interactions, or actions to which could drive a force to causation. In simple terms, time is an expression of process, existence, and duration of.

So in giving that time is the instance of now, and the inertia of it, we often think it's the conscious instant of now. However this is wrong because it takes time for information to process. This means that a source of inquiry, such as a baseball that has been thrown at you. This ball that has been thrown at you must first be sensed and then processed before any state of awareness of the ball can be realized, or put into a consciously aware state and time frame of reference. This means that the conscious state is pretty much a reflection and processing of the past to where the actual instant of now is before the conscious state ever emerges...

Need a better analogy?:


The conscious state is like the image displaying on your computer screen. The image is an emergent property of all the processes in the background to which happen before the image is ever displayed. These processes are what produce the image being displayed.


So to understand this, you must realize that this deals with time frames of reference to where these processes must be sustained in order for the image, or your conscious state to continuously be displayed or continuously be an emergent property. There is no other possible way as this is the only way it can happen!

So for every time frame instance of an image displayed, or frame state of awareness, there are several before them to which produces them. This concept directly applies to consciousness, and a state of awareness as it does to your computer screens displaying of your desktop. Your conscious state is like that, it is fundamentally like the image being displayed on your computer screen. However, there was another question asked here that I don't mind going over:

Question asked:
But does the past, present and future exist in oneness time? Or it is just in accordance to the brain? (T (pls. don't follow the aspect of the body concerning the following) ;

Answer:
No, There is only the instant of now, and a reflection of the past. The past actually no longer exists. Hence, once you progress one instant to the next, the instant prior no-longer exists. The reflection of this past is just the lag due to processing that must happen before the instant that had already happened can be realized to have happened. And the future doesn't exist either until it happens.. Perhaps to clear this up for you, I can explain how time works in regards to existence:

Everything in and of existence shares a universal key frame of time. Hence, all things that exist, exist at the same time and all happen at the same time. This time frame of reference is the instant of now. The relativity people get confused about is just perception of time..

Example:

Tom is in the middle of jumping and a thought about how fun it is in Minnesota at around 5pm.. But Jane is in the middle of doing her home work in Boston MA at around 6pm. Their time lines are different, and their perception of time is different, but they are doing both things at the same time. They both share the Universal key frame, or instant of now..
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 3:30:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 2:50:34 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Within space-time and above the sub-atomic things that occur have causes. This does not lead credence to the idea that "causality" has any meaning past any hypothetical limits of space-time, or that is holds at sub-atomic scales.

Still how do things just become?

Why not?


You seem to be arguing in favor of your position pretty hard right now, so it's clear you feel the need to prove something to me. At least the Kalam Cosmological Argument tries to justify belief using logic.

I am not trying to prove nothing. I am just discussing. I realize you do not believe. I am not trying to convince you of anything until you open yourself for that with humbleness.

If I wasn't open, I would still be a strong Atheist. I'm open to evidence and argumentation of God's existence.


If you think there is evidence for God, then argue for your position. Simply asserting there is, isn't going to make it so.

The funny thing is...YES it does.... not because I said...but because God did. Again im not trying to prove nothing all the proof is at your finger tips.

Once more, saying there is proof doesn't make it so. Where is this proof? What is this evidence?


Of course it does. There is more evidence for Evolution than Adam and eve, and the idea that water existed before stars (Genesis) has been proven false by science. These are only a few examples, but rest assured, the book you praise is a sick joke for anyone wishing to seek true knowledge about the real universe we occupy.

LOL. You are the joke. You are just so sure that science holds the answer for you. Evolution has not proved nothing...they havent even proved we evolved yet but you sure do believe it like I believe God. Mite I add with less evidence. This evidence you claim is no more fact than pink elephants. Do you think that if I did not communicate with God I would still serve him as feirce as I do?

I would bet my house you don't speak to God. You cannot demonstrate that you speak to God. Also, evolution is backed up with tangible evidence. There is zero evidence for God

I would easliy be atheist and doing whatever i please but that is not the case because God puts humbleness and fear within me. He gives me joy and peace. He shows me true love and forgiveness. Therefore I feel compaled to serve him.

What do you mean "whatever I please"? lol I don't do whatever I please, this is a baseless assertion.


The point is, you should be able to defend your position. Adhering to, and debating in favor a position requires justification. You are on Debate.org, after all. My position is that theism is unfounded. By this, I simply mean all the arguments presented for theism to establish God's existence, and reasons for his existence are not sufficient for theism.

No they are quite sufficient for thiest. What you mean they are not for you. And who cares of they are not for you?

Then keep your beliefs to yourself, if you are too scared to defend them.


Actually, it's you who is not using his logic cap. You cannot disprove God, anymore than you can disprove the ice demon hanging out on one of the moons in a galaxy far far away. Does this mean the ice demon exists? No, he's made up.

Actually He could exist. Thats the point you dont know and cant prove otherwise. Still you refuse that you rely on things that can be falsified and altered. I do not.

He could exist, but it's extremely unlikely. That's my point.

How can I prove something, that isn't even with foundation, to myself? If it's without foundation, then obviously, no proof is known that exists.

It has foundation...you choose to not accept it.

What foundation? There is none. You are simply, making things up.


You'll never prove God either. The point is, there are no good reasons to believe in God. So, it's only rational not to believe he exists. It's simple my friend.


Yeah I have proven God...just not to you but that isnt my job...I found Him for myself. Is that simple for you? You choose to reject Him.

Can you demonstrate you have found him? No, they are just assertions. You are just making things up.


I don't think theists are dumb, but the idea of clapping your hands together and trying to telepathically communicate with your friend who lives an in immaterial dimension, does give me a chuckle inside. It seems better to say, that you are all blinded by the illusion of external agency. Most humans are, even I am sometimes. It's completely understandable why one would want to believe in a "person" who can give purpose to human life and have it all make sense to not have to deal with the possibility that biology may be an cosmic and chemical accident.

You are too funny. I cant see how your logic works cause it makes as much sense to as God does to you. Im not blind...Now you dont have to accept that but you do have to face that you mite be making a terrible mistake. And if you do and never face it then remember those chuckles when you realize there is life after death and you did not end up where you like too.

I'm not scared of things that are just asserted, without evidence. I chuckle at the thought that you actually believe in this imaginary being and thinks he cares about you. Cute, but without foundation, and laughable.
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 3:36:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The problem with (ii), is it is a false dichotomy. Take this definition of immaterial, along with the example is gives:

"Not composed of matter <it is only possible to study immaterial forces like gravity by observing their effects on the physical world> - "http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
Since you cannot weigh, hold, or split gravity (it has no mass)...It is immaterial by definition.

Actually, immaterially fundamentally means made of thing. And you are entirely wrong, or they would be if they argued it as gravity is not an "immaterial force". Gravity is energy force related, and directly has to do with mass. The dictionary entry referenced was clearly written by someone whom has no education in science or physics. Energy and mass are the same thing, and all phenomenon are going to be mass energy related to which includes gravity. When science talks about no mass, they aren't saying it has literally zero mass (zero energy). Feel free to read my post here on the subject:

http://digcreation.newsvine.com...


Now, the theist can change the wording from "immaterial" to "non-physical", to solidify the notion that gravity cannot cause the physical world.


The physical world applies to being made of something, having capacity, and having volume. Physical vs immaterial is essentially something vs nothing.. Sorry, nothing can't be a person, place, object, substance, or thing. Nor can it support the existence of any of those. It's just a word to describe the absence of something, a place card for something else, or a place card for a starting point to which can never literally represent "nothing" or literal zero.


However, then, the theist actually have to argue that minds are non-physical to get the same form of dichotomy. This would be an extremely hard task, because all minds we are aware of depend on physical processes.

True
My question is....Is this all you've got theists? The Kalam Cosmological Argument is supposed to be the strongest argument for a God, but it is nothing but an argument for a mere cause (and a bad one at that).

Kalam is basically an argument to suggest the existence of a nothing GOD, and creation from literal nothing by a nothing GOD.. It's essentially stating a non-existent entity or non-entity magically always existed in a place of nowhere made of nothing and created everything from nothing while magically existing outside of time or any existential time frame of reference... It's a clever argument to appeal to the easily confused and manipulated.. And it works because sadly most people aren't smart enough to figure it out, especially when they are being socially and psychologically manipulated at the same time.

It's basically defecting to the other side of the argument in an attempt to win the argument by basically saying: A non-existent god exists.. Clever usage of a self-refuting argument in the form of an assertion and appeal to ignorance.
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 3:39:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sorry for my first post being directed at the author of the OP.. the Context should be directed at whom every might make such claims.. So please accept my apologies :)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 3:55:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: not one person here could say a single sentence with out depending on Logic.. Symbolic logic is just a particluar systematic langauge made to represent a priori logical operators in processing information in our minds.(THE ACTUAL LOGIC IN IT SELF)
When there is an error in a logical system, its because the linguistical system false to capture something. Not because actual logic is wrong.

People get Caught up in the label LOGIC. You don't have to even know logic exist to be a logical/rational person. Some people just have better or worse logical intuition then others.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 4:36:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why not?

Look, things dont exist from no where and if you need verification for that then you should actually look at your thoughts processes.

If I wasn't open, I would still be a strong Atheist. I'm open to evidence and argumentation of God's existence.

I am very glad you are open that is a good start. But no one will ever prove God exist only you can prove that.

Once more, saying there is proof doesn't make it so. Where is this proof? What is this evidence?

Proof and evidence is matter of opinion. Mine can differ from yours.

I would bet my house you don't speak to God. You cannot demonstrate that you speak to God. Also, evolution is backed up with tangible evidence. There is zero evidence for God

You shouldnt bet because you would be homeless. Again evidence exist but thats for you to find not someone to show you.

What do you mean "whatever I please"? lol I don't do whatever I please, this is a baseless assertion.

It was metaphorical but can do as you please if you desired too, If I didnt think there was God and I am accountable, Id be alot less moral. See I stay moral only because of God if I...I...I.. didnt have God I would not care at all about anyone or anything. Id be immoral. Im not saying people without God arent but I know I wouldnt. I have already been to prison 3 times and still have God on my side. I brought people to God while locked up..So I know I had purpose to be there but that doesnt excuse my crimes. I paid my price and did God will after and I try to continue too.

The point is, you should be able to defend your position. Adhering to, and debating in favor a position requires justification. You are on Debate.org, after all. My position is that theism is unfounded. By this, I simply mean all the arguments presented for theism to establish God's existence, and reasons for his existence are not sufficient for theism.

I do not need justification for you for my beliefs or talking about them. You are mistaken.

Then keep your beliefs to yourself, if you are too scared to defend them.

Defending my beliefs doesnt mean having to justify them to you. I can defend my beliefs without ever giving you reason for it. And NO ill post whenever I want to whom I want.

He could exist, but it's extremely unlikely. That's my point.

That is the most intelligent thing you have said.

What foundation? There is none. You are simply, making things up.

Am I? Thousands of years of massive amounts of people is proof accept it or not. Biblical accounts are proof believe them or not. Shorud of Turin believe it or not. Facts that something doesnt just appear from nothing believe it or not...even though should actually buy this one.

Can you demonstrate you have found him? No, they are just assertions. You are just making things up.

Why do seek then? Why do fight against God so hard? Again you saying im asserting is mere assertion. I have thousands of years and billions of people, do you?

I'm not scared of things that are just asserted, without evidence. I chuckle at the thought that you actually believe in this imaginary being and thinks he cares about you. Cute, but without foundation, and laughable.

You do not have to be scared, im not trying to frighten you. Your laughable to actually think that endless history and witnesses mean nothing just because you have never in your life tried to seek God. I know you havent. How? Because if you had you wouldve. Youll never find that answer until you humble your pride and helplessness.
TheAsylum
TheBossToss
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 5:06:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 4:36:36 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Why not?

Look, things dont exist from no where and if you need verification for that then you should actually look at your thoughts processes.


OK, if that's true, then where did God come from? Oh, right, he's "eternal". No one created him. But what you are saying here is a fallacy. "The universe cannot come from nothing, but a sentient being can, or can be concurrent with nothing". This makes no sense, and is a double standard regarding God and the universe.

If I wasn't open, I would still be a strong Atheist. I'm open to evidence and argumentation of God's existence.

I am very glad you are open that is a good start. But no one will ever prove God exist only you can prove that.


Proof is not subjective, proof, in its most literal sense, is objective. If I prove something to be true, every rational person will have to accept it. Otherwise, it's just faith based on no evidence, which is not an acceptable grounds for an explanation of a logical being that in and of itself would have to be logical to create a logical universe.

Once more, saying there is proof doesn't make it so. Where is this proof? What is this evidence?

Proof and evidence is matter of opinion. Mine can differ from yours.


No, it isn't, and no, it can't. Proof and evidence are objective. They exist regardless of what a person believes about them. What you are describing is faith, and blind faith at that.

I would bet my house you don't speak to God. You cannot demonstrate that you speak to God. Also, evolution is backed up with tangible evidence. There is zero evidence for God

You shouldnt bet because you would be homeless. Again evidence exist but thats for you to find not someone to show you.


What evidence? A feeling, randomly generated by the chemicals inside your brain? The release of chemicals is what you are basing your belief in a supreme diety in, and what you are telling people they must "have" in order to find said diety and be saved? That's not evidence.

What do you mean "whatever I please"? lol I don't do whatever I please, this is a baseless assertion.

It was metaphorical but can do as you please if you desired too, If I didnt think there was God and I am accountable, Id be alot less moral. See I stay moral only because of God if I...I...I.. didnt have God I would not care at all about anyone or anything. Id be immoral. Im not saying people without God arent but I know I wouldnt. I have already been to prison 3 times and still have God on my side. I brought people to God while locked up..So I know I had purpose to be there but that doesnt excuse my crimes. I paid my price and did God will after and I try to continue too.


Then you don't really care about anyone or anything. At the heart of your caring is a fear of punishment, or retribution. That's not moral at all, and if your god exists and is moral, I would think he would see that way. Love out of fear is not love, it is self-protection, and it is not grounds for teaching anyone how "true love" works, which is what you are trying to do here.

The point is, you should be able to defend your position. Adhering to, and debating in favor a position requires justification. You are on Debate.org, after all. My position is that theism is unfounded. By this, I simply mean all the arguments presented for theism to establish God's existence, and reasons for his existence are not sufficient for theism.

I do not need justification for you for my beliefs or talking about them. You are mistaken.


Then don't engage in a logical discussion about them on a site where the point is to defend your beliefs.

Then keep your beliefs to yourself, if you are too scared to defend them.

Defending my beliefs doesnt mean having to justify them to you. I can defend my beliefs without ever giving you reason for it. And NO ill post whenever I want to whom I want.


Then you're not defending them, you're saying, "These are my beliefs, I'm right, so screw off". True, you have a right to free speech, but that doesn't mean anyone here has to accept them, or thenk them anything less than insane and illogical.

He could exist, but it's extremely unlikely. That's my point.

That is the most intelligent thing you have said.

What foundation? There is none. You are simply, making things up.

Am I? Thousands of years of massive amounts of people is proof accept it or not. Biblical accounts are proof believe them or not. Shorud of Turin believe it or not. Facts that something doesnt just appear from nothing believe it or not...even though should actually buy this one.


Consensus does not indicate correctness. If the whole world says one plus one is ten billion, three hundred fourty six million, nine hundred sixty nine thousand, two hundred and one point six, they are still wrong. If they say it for two hundred sixty million years, they are still wrong.

Can you demonstrate you have found him? No, they are just assertions. You are just making things up.

Why do seek then? Why do fight against God so hard? Again you saying im asserting is mere assertion. I have thousands of years and billions of people, do you?


Again, consensus does not indicate correctness.

I'm not scared of things that are just asserted, without evidence. I chuckle at the thought that you actually believe in this imaginary being and thinks he cares about you. Cute, but without foundation, and laughable.

You do not have to be scared, im not trying to frighten you. Your laughable to actually think that endless history and witnesses mean nothing just because you have never in your life tried to seek God. I know you havent. How? Because if you had you wouldve. Youll never find that answer until you humble your pride and helplessness.

Overall, I respect your faith, but you have a fundemental misunderstanding of what proof and evidence are. I don't think you understand that faith without evidence is just faith, and does not have any tags attached to it that say "This faith is special! This one counts as evidence!"
Cats. I like cats.
-Me

Pro hasn't upheld his BOP. He forfeited last round. I did stuff.
-Wallstreetatheist

That was real intellectual property theft. They used her idea for their own profit and fame. When I pirate, I am usually downloading textbooks that I cannot afford to purchase on my own and that I do not want my parents to spend money on.
-royalpaladin
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 7:04:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 12:33:01 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Lets say that strictly for the sake of argument, the universe had a cause. I do not believe this is the case, but if it is, so what?

How does this prove God exactly, or any sentient being for that matter? So far, the only arguments I've heard to support this notion, are:

(i) An eternal cause must give rise to an eternal effect, unless a being who freely chooses to create a universe with a beginning, is the cause.

(ii) There are only two things which are immaterial: Minds and abstract objects. Objects have no causal powers, so a mind must have caused the material world.

The problem with (i) is it implies that a non-personal eternal cause immediately gives rise to its effect, while a being who makes a choice can somehow delay this to get a universe with a beginning, instead of an eternal universe. However, if God is "timeless" before creation, then he cannot "delay" anything. In a "timeless" domain, there is no "delay" (that's incoherent). The same problem of an non-personal cause existing for eternity, applies to God as well because he is timeless.

The problem with (ii), is it is a false dichotomy. Take this definition of immaterial, along with the example is gives:

"Not composed of matter <it is only possible to study immaterial forces like gravity by observing their effects on the physical world> - "http://www.merriam-webster.com...;

Since you cannot weigh, hold, or split gravity (it has no mass)...It is immaterial by definition. Thus, saying the cause has to be a mind or abstract object is embarrassing.


I suppose it'd be beyond the pale to read Craig with a little charity? I don't even agree with most of his arguments but, seriously....

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

Now, the theist can change the wording from "immaterial" to "non-physical", to solidify the notion that gravity cannot cause the physical world. However, then, the theist actually have to argue that minds are non-physical to get the same form of dichotomy. This would be an extremely hard task, because all minds we are aware of depend on physical processes.


Not really. I'd say that a lot (approaching a majority if not the majority) of philosophers who specialize in philosophy of mind think that mental properties are non-physical.

My question is....Is this all you've got theists? The Kalam Cosmological Argument is supposed to be the strongest argument for a God, but it is nothing but an argument for a mere cause (and a bad one at that).

Who told you that it was supposed to be the strongest argument for a God?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 7:36:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 7:04:35 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/15/2012 12:33:01 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Lets say that strictly for the sake of argument, the universe had a cause. I do not believe this is the case, but if it is, so what?

How does this prove God exactly, or any sentient being for that matter? So far, the only arguments I've heard to support this notion, are:

(i) An eternal cause must give rise to an eternal effect, unless a being who freely chooses to create a universe with a beginning, is the cause.

(ii) There are only two things which are immaterial: Minds and abstract objects. Objects have no causal powers, so a mind must have caused the material world.

The problem with (i) is it implies that a non-personal eternal cause immediately gives rise to its effect, while a being who makes a choice can somehow delay this to get a universe with a beginning, instead of an eternal universe. However, if God is "timeless" before creation, then he cannot "delay" anything. In a "timeless" domain, there is no "delay" (that's incoherent). The same problem of an non-personal cause existing for eternity, applies to God as well because he is timeless.

The problem with (ii), is it is a false dichotomy. Take this definition of immaterial, along with the example is gives:

"Not composed of matter <it is only possible to study immaterial forces like gravity by observing their effects on the physical world> - "http://www.merriam-webster.com...;

Since you cannot weigh, hold, or split gravity (it has no mass)...It is immaterial by definition. Thus, saying the cause has to be a mind or abstract object is embarrassing.


I suppose it'd be beyond the pale to read Craig with a little charity? I don't even agree with most of his arguments but, seriously....

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

Now, the theist can change the wording from "immaterial" to "non-physical", to solidify the notion that gravity cannot cause the physical world. However, then, the theist actually have to argue that minds are non-physical to get the same form of dichotomy. This would be an extremely hard task, because all minds we are aware of depend on physical processes.


Not really. I'd say that a lot (approaching a majority if not the majority) of philosophers who specialize in philosophy of mind think that mental properties are non-physical.

My question is....Is this all you've got theists? The Kalam Cosmological Argument is supposed to be the strongest argument for a God, but it is nothing but an argument for a mere cause (and a bad one at that).

Who told you that it was supposed to be the strongest argument for a God?

The Fool: Why does it matter "who told someone something"? Do we have to be told something for it to be True.

The Kalam Argument is officially DEAD! ITs DONE!. Its not rationally tenible. Even if it was sound. It would only mean that a Cause =God. But that is not all people mean by God. Thus it could never even be a proof of GOD.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 8:01:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm currently Pro against KRFournier in a debate on "The Kalam Cosmolgical Argument attempts to prove very little."

http://www.debate.org...

See my opening argument for a lengthy argument that KCA doesn't prove any god, and if it does prove some god, it's not an interesting one. You can count on KRF to mount a strong opposing viewpoint.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 8:22:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: It commits this fallacy.

The Sophist: I define X by [o,e,r,j,b,s]

The Fool: yeah sure whatever..

The Sophist: I prove that [j] is true, therefore X is true...

The Fool: No Fvcking way buddy!!!

And as you all see, this is what most of the God arguments are based on!!
END GAME
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 8:26:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: The worse part about it is that Theologins must know better. But they intentionally are Lying. There are saying whatever it takes to get people to believe.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 8:30:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Not really. I'd say that a lot (approaching a majority if not the majority) of philosophers who specialize in philosophy of mind think that mental properties are non-physical.:

What a philosopher thinks isn't going to change the reality that it's entirely "physical" and can be physically manipulated.. Just learning about drugs ought to give people a clue.. That video I provided, is more than enough direct measurable evidence to show why the mental capacity is physical..No less physical than the computational capacity of your computer.. And unfortunately, most of those Philosophers didn't live in the modern era where we understand this, or even understand that biological systems to which include neurological function deal with ion based processes and information entropy, exchange, and interaction. I suggest reading my attached above links to which includes the making of ion transistors that could be used to communicated with biological systems.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 8:41:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 4:36:36 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Why not?

Look, things dont exist from no where and if you need verification for that then you should actually look at your thoughts processes.

Not only is this an Appeal to Ridicule fallacy, but an Ad Hominem fallacy as well. If you want to talk about thought processes, I suggest not using fallacious logic. Something can happen without a cause, and begin to exist, even if it's not from nothing. This means, one can still accept ex nihilo nihil fit while rejecting the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Regardless, "nowhere" simply means "no place within space-time". Of course, something can come from nowhere, the whole universe could.

Alexander Vilenkin is one of the United State's most respected physicists for example, so obviously his thought process cannot be to hindered. His model of comic origins describes space-time and energy emerging from a quantum tunneling event, with a finite size (a = H-1) and with a zero rate of expansion or contraction (da/dt = 0), from a symmetrical state of zero energy, void of space-time. On this, he says:

"As a result of the tunnelling event, a finite-sized universe, filled with a false vacuum, pops out of nowhere ("nucleates") and immediately starts to inflate...If there was nothing before the universe popped out, then what could have caused the tunnelling? Remarkably, the answer is that no cause is required." - Alexander Vilenkin

Of course, this is only possible if one does not believe in an initial point where the laws of physics break down. The BVG theorem predicts a singularity of this sort, however quantum tunneling evades the theorem extensively.

. : : ::
What do you mean "whatever I please"? lol I don't do whatever I please, this is a baseless assertion.

It was metaphorical but can do as you please if you desired too, If I didnt think there was God and I am accountable, Id be alot less moral. See I stay moral only because of God if I...I...I.. didnt have God I would not care at all about anyone or anything. Id be immoral. Im not saying people without God arent but I know I wouldnt. I have already been to prison 3 times and still have God on my side. I brought people to God while locked up..So I know I had purpose to be there but that doesnt excuse my crimes. I paid my price and did God will after and I try to continue too.

If I thought for a second that hell was even slightly plausible, I would be a Christian, no questions asked. Obviously I care about my existence, it is all I have. I would never put my existence in legitimate danger if it can be logically avoided. If God exists, I would have a much better chance of getting away with doing morally wrong things, than if I was a damned Atheist who rejected him! Even you would agree. This means, there is really no moral accountability with Christianity. All a pedophile needs to do is repent to Jesus, eat a last meal of fried chicken, and enter the kingdom of heaven. It's disgusting.


The point is, you should be able to defend your position. Adhering to, and debating in favor a position requires justification. You are on Debate.org, after all. My position is that theism is unfounded. By this, I simply mean all the arguments presented for theism to establish God's existence, and reasons for his existence are not sufficient for theism.

I do not need justification for you for my beliefs or talking about them. You are mistaken.

Then keep your beliefs to yourself, if you are too scared to defend them.

Defending my beliefs doesnt mean having to justify them to you. I can defend my beliefs without ever giving you reason for it. And NO ill post whenever I want to whom I want.

This is incoherent, how can you defend beliefs without trying to justify them? This is illogical.


He could exist, but it's extremely unlikely. That's my point.

That is the most intelligent thing you have said.

Actually, I have said much more intelligent things. Since you are blinded by your bias, you refuse to listen.


What foundation? There is none. You are simply, making things up.

Am I? Thousands of years of massive amounts of people is proof accept it or not. Biblical accounts are proof believe them or not. Shorud of Turin believe it or not. Facts that something doesnt just appear from nothing believe it or not...even though should actually buy this one.

Bible accounts are bullocks. Believing in talking snakes and Adam and Eve is for the intellectually weak. The Bible isn't proof of anything, it is scientifically false and mythical to the furthest extent.


Can you demonstrate you have found him? No, they are just assertions. You are just making things up.

Why do seek then? Why do fight against God so hard? Again you saying im asserting is mere assertion. I have thousands of years and billions of people, do you?

This is the Ad Populous fallacy. Maybe, if you had the majority of scientists on your side that may have some merit (if the majority of physicists adhered to the Orch-Or theory for example, that would be worthy of listening). However, the laymen being deluded by the illusion of external agency doesn't mean anything in objective reality.


I'm not scared of things that are just asserted, without evidence. I chuckle at the thought that you actually believe in this imaginary being and thinks he cares about you. Cute, but without foundation, and laughable.

You do not have to be scared, im not trying to frighten you. Your laughable to actually think that endless history and witnesses mean nothing just because you have never in your life tried to seek God. I know you havent. How? Because if you had you wouldve. Youll never find that answer until you humble your pride and helplessness.

Endless history of witness? I witness the holy spirit every time I feel love. However, the holy spirit is simply a way to explain something if you do not understand the chemical processes that go in your brain when you feel this emotion. The more you learn about science, the less there is for God to do. One actually has to demonstrate a sentient being named God. Experiencing things which you "interpret" as God, does not cut it. I couldn't give two craps about what most of the world believes if it's not founded, I care about what can be argued for sufficiently and what has evidence to back it up. There was a time when most recorded people believed in Thor. This means, your Ad Populous fallacy gets you nowhere.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 8:42:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 8:30:36 PM, TheJackel wrote:
Not really. I'd say that a lot (approaching a majority if not the majority) of philosophers who specialize in philosophy of mind think that mental properties are non-physical.:

What a philosopher thinks isn't going to change the reality that it's entirely "physical" and can be physically manipulated.. Just learning about drugs ought to give people a clue.. That video I provided, is more than enough direct measurable evidence to show why the mental capacity is physical..No less physical than the computational capacity of your computer.. And unfortunately, most of those Philosophers didn't live in the modern era where we understand this, or even understand that biological systems to which include neurological function deal with ion based processes and information entropy, exchange, and interaction. I suggest reading my attached above links to which includes the making of ion transistors that could be used to communicated with biological systems.

The Fool: I would argue againt everything being physical is a Fallacy, of oversimplication. THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE THAT MENTAL IS PHYSICAL. Because all physical experience by which we derive a physical understanding are done (in and only in) a Framwork of Consciousness/mind. That is the very reason by we have the mind/body problem in science.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 8:44:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 8:30:36 PM, TheJackel wrote:
Not really. I'd say that a lot (approaching a majority if not the majority) of philosophers who specialize in philosophy of mind think that mental properties are non-physical.:

What a philosopher thinks isn't going to change the reality that it's entirely "physical" and can be physically manipulated.. Just learning about drugs ought to give people a clue.. That video I provided, is more than enough direct measurable evidence to show why the mental capacity is physical..No less physical than the computational capacity of your computer.. And unfortunately, most of those Philosophers didn't live in the modern era where we understand this, or even understand that biological systems to which include neurological function deal with ion based processes and information entropy, exchange, and interaction. I suggest reading my attached above links to which includes the making of ion transistors that could be used to communicated with biological systems.

Actually most contemporary philosophers of mind research in cross-disciplinary enviroments where they regularly consult and interact with psychologists, neuroscientists, cognitive scientists, etc. Some of them have degrees or are working scientists in the relevant fields as well. You're ignorant about what their work is and how they do their work.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 8:45:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 8:26:47 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: The worse part about it is that Theologins must know better. But they intentionally are Lying. There are saying whatever it takes to get people to believe.

This is without a doubt.. Religion and the religious start with an absolute negative and then profess it as magical fact. Essentially, religion and the religions are inherently dishonest and have no regard for intellectual integrity, reason, fact, truth, or honesty when addressing this subject.. They literally have to even lie to themselves and convince themselves of their own lies.. They even resort to self-refutations to the point of trying to claim those self-refuting ideas as anything other than self-refuting ideas, arguments, or concepts. And a lot of them will do it out of the convenience of how great of a conversion tool that can be when trying to prey on human weaknesses and vulnerable minds to which are highly impressionable. That's what they are phishing for.. Hence we who know better are not their target audience.. They just like to try and debate us to try and make our position seem weak through any dishonest form of discourse they can come up with to win over their target audience.

The start from a position of fallacies and try their damnedest to espouse them to the highest degree knowing how their target audience can be so easily manipulated. This is how such cults function and work, and revolves around a strong understanding in the mechanics of brainwashing.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 8:45:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: I would argue againts everything being physical. It a Fallacy of oversimplication. THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE THAT MENTAL IS PHYSICAL. Because all physical experience by which we derive a physical understanding are done (in and only in) a Framwork of Consciousness/mind. That is the very reason by we have the mind/body problem in science.

No science is conducted Un-consciously.. now is it.??
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 8:46:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 7:04:35 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/15/2012 12:33:01 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Lets say that strictly for the sake of argument, the universe had a cause. I do not believe this is the case, but if it is, so what?

How does this prove God exactly, or any sentient being for that matter? So far, the only arguments I've heard to support this notion, are:

(i) An eternal cause must give rise to an eternal effect, unless a being who freely chooses to create a universe with a beginning, is the cause.

(ii) There are only two things which are immaterial: Minds and abstract objects. Objects have no causal powers, so a mind must have caused the material world.

The problem with (i) is it implies that a non-personal eternal cause immediately gives rise to its effect, while a being who makes a choice can somehow delay this to get a universe with a beginning, instead of an eternal universe. However, if God is "timeless" before creation, then he cannot "delay" anything. In a "timeless" domain, there is no "delay" (that's incoherent). The same problem of an non-personal cause existing for eternity, applies to God as well because he is timeless.

The problem with (ii), is it is a false dichotomy. Take this definition of immaterial, along with the example is gives:

"Not composed of matter <it is only possible to study immaterial forces like gravity by observing their effects on the physical world> - "http://www.merriam-webster.com...;

Since you cannot weigh, hold, or split gravity (it has no mass)...It is immaterial by definition. Thus, saying the cause has to be a mind or abstract object is embarrassing.


I suppose it'd be beyond the pale to read Craig with a little charity? I don't even agree with most of his arguments but, seriously....

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

You have no argument, but a link. Intellectual laziness at it's finest. If you are so sure on your position, why are you too scared to argue for it?


Now, the theist can change the wording from "immaterial" to "non-physical", to solidify the notion that gravity cannot cause the physical world. However, then, the theist actually have to argue that minds are non-physical to get the same form of dichotomy. This would be an extremely hard task, because all minds we are aware of depend on physical processes.


Not really. I'd say that a lot (approaching a majority if not the majority) of philosophers who specialize in philosophy of mind think that mental properties are non-physical.

Show me a study which proved this. Either way, most most neuroscientists, and scientists in general would disagree. Philosophy is important, but science trumps it, hands down. The mind is dependent on the brain, do deny this, is to deny all the development of science with regards to the brain.


My question is....Is this all you've got theists? The Kalam Cosmological Argument is supposed to be the strongest argument for a God, but it is nothing but an argument for a mere cause (and a bad one at that).

Who told you that it was supposed to be the strongest argument for a God?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 8:50:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 8:46:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:04:35 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/15/2012 12:33:01 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Lets say that strictly for the sake of argument, the universe had a cause. I do not believe this is the case, but if it is, so what?

How does this prove God exactly, or any sentient being for that matter? So far, the only arguments I've heard to support this notion, are:

(i) An eternal cause must give rise to an eternal effect, unless a being who freely chooses to create a universe with a beginning, is the cause.

(ii) There are only two things which are immaterial: Minds and abstract objects. Objects have no causal powers, so a mind must have caused the material world.

The problem with (i) is it implies that a non-personal eternal cause immediately gives rise to its effect, while a being who makes a choice can somehow delay this to get a universe with a beginning, instead of an eternal universe. However, if God is "timeless" before creation, then he cannot "delay" anything. In a "timeless" domain, there is no "delay" (that's incoherent). The same problem of an non-personal cause existing for eternity, applies to God as well because he is timeless.

The problem with (ii), is it is a false dichotomy. Take this definition of immaterial, along with the example is gives:

"Not composed of matter <it is only possible to study immaterial forces like gravity by observing their effects on the physical world> - "http://www.merriam-webster.com...;

Since you cannot weigh, hold, or split gravity (it has no mass)...It is immaterial by definition. Thus, saying the cause has to be a mind or abstract object is embarrassing.


I suppose it'd be beyond the pale to read Craig with a little charity? I don't even agree with most of his arguments but, seriously....

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

You have no argument, but a link. Intellectual laziness at it's finest. If you are so sure on your position, why are you too scared to argue for it?


Now, the theist can change the wording from "immaterial" to "non-physical", to solidify the notion that gravity cannot cause the physical world. However, then, the theist actually have to argue that minds are non-physical to get the same form of dichotomy. This would be an extremely hard task, because all minds we are aware of depend on physical processes.


Not really. I'd say that a lot (approaching a majority if not the majority) of philosophers who specialize in philosophy of mind think that mental properties are non-physical.

Show me a study which proved this. Either way, most most neuroscientists, and scientists in general would disagree. Philosophy is important, but science trumps it, hands down. The mind is dependent on the brain, do deny this, is to deny all the development of science with regards to the brain.


My question is....Is this all you've got theists? The Kalam Cosmological Argument is supposed to be the strongest argument for a God, but it is nothing but an argument for a mere cause (and a bad one at that).

Who told you that it was supposed to be the strongest argument for a God?

The Fool: Cognitive Science doesn't hold that Mind=Brain. Where you attack Craig is in immaterial of non-material SAYS Nothing of what IT IS. We are all conscious so we can't deny that have minds. But that is it. Nothing else follows but our consiousnes. No spirits, or Ghost, nothing else what so ever.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL