Total Posts:166|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I can't perceive God so he doesn't exist.

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 11:10:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Something doesn't need to be perceived in order to exist.

Can you taste, touch, hear, smell, or see logic?

I don't understand why one's belief would only be limited to means of measurability. Logic governs the principles of science. If logic grounds the means for scientific inquiry, why would logic being used as evidence for God be dismissed?
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 11:24:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 11:10:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something doesn't need to be perceived in order to exist.

Can you taste, touch, hear, smell, or see logic?

I don't understand why one's belief would only be limited to means of measurability. Logic governs the principles of science. If logic grounds the means for scientific inquiry, why would logic being used as evidence for God be dismissed?

It would not be dismissed, if ever it was actually logical.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 11:31:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 11:10:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something doesn't need to be perceived in order to exist.

Can you taste, touch, hear, smell, or see logic?

I don't understand why one's belief would only be limited to means of measurability. Logic governs the principles of science. If logic grounds the means for scientific inquiry, why would logic being used as evidence for God be dismissed?

Can you perceive the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Merlin on Mars?

People can perceive logic in the sense that they can say "math is logical" or "this statement is logical while that statement is not"

If you believe that something does not need to be perceived to exist (which is a valid belief), you become agnostic. As, you are open to the possibility of all deities, beings ect possibly existing.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 11:33:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 11:24:29 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 7/12/2014 11:10:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something doesn't need to be perceived in order to exist.

Can you taste, touch, hear, smell, or see logic?

I don't understand why one's belief would only be limited to means of measurability. Logic governs the principles of science. If logic grounds the means for scientific inquiry, why would logic being used as evidence for God be dismissed?

It would not be dismissed, if ever it was actually logical.

Logic dictates that out of nothing, nothing comes. Everything has a sufficient cause of its existence. To be the thing from which everything came, this necessitates an eternal, transcendent, uncaused cause given that causes can't cause themselves to exist.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 11:35:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 11:31:52 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/12/2014 11:10:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something doesn't need to be perceived in order to exist.

Can you taste, touch, hear, smell, or see logic?

I don't understand why one's belief would only be limited to means of measurability. Logic governs the principles of science. If logic grounds the means for scientific inquiry, why would logic being used as evidence for God be dismissed?

Can you perceive the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Merlin on Mars?

People can perceive logic in the sense that they can say "math is logical" or "this statement is logical while that statement is not"

If you believe that something does not need to be perceived to exist (which is a valid belief), you become agnostic. As, you are open to the possibility of all deities, beings ect possibly existing.

I actually agree with you here. I am just rejecting the notion of rejecting belief based on lack of perceptibility.
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 11:49:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Does that tree trying to hug you exist? Cos you can actually see video of that happening, so it must be real.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 11:50:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 11:49:14 AM, bulproof wrote:
Does that tree trying to hug you exist? Cos you can actually see video of that happening, so it must be real.

What??
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 11:54:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 11:50:47 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/12/2014 11:49:14 AM, bulproof wrote:
Does that tree trying to hug you exist? Cos you can actually see video of that happening, so it must be real.

What??
Haven't you seen movies where trees try to hug people?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 11:56:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Can you explain nothing benny and then can you explain the noting from which it comes?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 11:58:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Or perhaps you can explain a god that comes from nothing?
A much harder proposition I would think.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 12:10:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I like your semi-serious trollish style. Warms my heart. But the nothing I am referring to is just what it sounds like. Absolute nothing. 0. Nada. No energy, no space, no time , no matter.

It's a logical necessity that something must be eternally existing to be the thing from which everything came. Every physical cause is impossible. Thus it's an eternal, transcendent cause. Given the intelligence and order in the universe the logical conclusion is that this transcendent, eternal cause must be God.
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 12:16:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 12:10:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I like your semi-serious trollish style. Warms my heart. But the nothing I am referring to is just what it sounds like. Absolute nothing. 0. Nada. No energy, no space, no time , no matter.

It's a logical necessity that something must be eternally existing to be the thing from which everything came. Every physical cause is impossible. Thus it's an eternal, transcendent cause. Given the intelligence and order in the universe the logical conclusion is that this transcendent, eternal cause must be God.

Do you know that there has ever been the nothing you describe?

If that nothing has actually existed, wouldn't that make it something?

So your concept of nothing can't exist.

Or else it would be something................nothing.

The god thing is really quite funny isn't it?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 12:46:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
To say that absolute nothing has never existed is to say that something has always existed eternally. Right?

Nothingness is not something, rather it's the absence of anything. Although you could say absolute nothing exists and is something because it is a concept. A concept exists.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 1:03:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 11:33:22 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/12/2014 11:24:29 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 7/12/2014 11:10:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something doesn't need to be perceived in order to exist.

Can you taste, touch, hear, smell, or see logic?

I don't understand why one's belief would only be limited to means of measurability. Logic governs the principles of science. If logic grounds the means for scientific inquiry, why would logic being used as evidence for God be dismissed?

It would not be dismissed, if ever it was actually logical.

Logic dictates that out of nothing, nothing comes. Everything has a sufficient cause of its existence. To be the thing from which everything came, this necessitates an eternal, transcendent, uncaused cause given that causes can't cause themselves to exist.

If out of nothing nothing comes, then wouldn't that mean the universe always existed? Nothing is an incoherent concept, so to propose a non universe cause caused the universe is to claim the universe came from nothing, which isn't coherent. Which as you agree is false.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 1:24:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 11:10:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something doesn't need to be perceived in order to exist.

Can you taste, touch, hear, smell, or see logic?

I don't understand why one's belief would only be limited to means of measurability. Logic governs the principles of science. If logic grounds the means for scientific inquiry, why would logic being used as evidence for God be dismissed?

Response: Because atheism and agnosticism is sheer delusion. The logical evidence for God's existence is clear. Only a dummy would deny it. We say God exist because we ALLL can see with our own eyes the difference between creating with choice and without choice. No one on this planet can draw a face painting without CHOOSING to align the paint. No scientist. No painter. No one. This analogy can be applied to many things. You can't clean your room, make breakfast, heck you can basically do nothing or bring any order in your life unless it is chosen.

That's clear cut universal evidence of the necessity of choice to bring about sophistication and order. So the evidence for God is very much logical. Atheists and agnostics who say otherwise are simply blatant liars.

Now when one of these idiots say choice is not necessary, and try to provide evidence for it (such as snowflakes, crystals, or abiogenesis), that does not disprove God or show that the evidence for God is illogical. Why? Because it does not refute that fact that they themselves still cannot bring order unless it is chosen. So if there does exist evidence that order can come from a non-choice (snowflakes, crystals, abiogenesis), yet the evidence that shows that non-choice fails to bring order still exists (your own failure to create order without choice), then that means that the evidence for non-choice CONTRADICTS. And since contradicting evidence cannot be factual, then it is clear that order from non-choice is a false claim.

So clearly, atheist and agnostics claims for lack of evidence is clearly false and deluded. The truth of the matter is that the evidence for intelligent design is clear. The only reason for them not believing in God is not due to a lack of evidence for His existence, but because they dislike the attributes of God (such as the existence of Hell, evil, etc). So since they dislike these attributes, they say God does not exist. Yet that makes no sense either. For if I dislike my mother for something she did or does, that does not make her non-existing. See how stupid atheists and agnostics sound?

So it's not that the evidence that order originates from choice is illogical. For they themselves cannot bring order in their own lives without relying on choice. So they themselves are actual proof that all of creation originated from choice.

Unfortunately, pride and ego presents many people from admitting that their own beliefs are foolish. Hence the sheer idiocy and absurdity of atheism and agnosticism.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 2:13:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 1:24:37 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/12/2014 11:10:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something doesn't need to be perceived in order to exist.

Can you taste, touch, hear, smell, or see logic?

I don't understand why one's belief would only be limited to means of measurability. Logic governs the principles of science. If logic grounds the means for scientific inquiry, why would logic being used as evidence for God be dismissed?

Response: Because atheism and agnosticism is sheer delusion. The logical evidence for God's existence is clear. Only a dummy would deny it. We say God exist because we ALLL can see with our own eyes the difference between creating with choice and without choice. No one on this planet can draw a face painting without CHOOSING to align the paint. No scientist. No painter. No one. This analogy can be applied to many things. You can't clean your room, make breakfast, heck you can basically do nothing or bring any order in your life unless it is chosen.

That's clear cut universal evidence of the necessity of choice to bring about sophistication and order. So the evidence for God is very much logical. Atheists and agnostics who say otherwise are simply blatant liars.

Now when one of these idiots say choice is not necessary, and try to provide evidence for it (such as snowflakes, crystals, or abiogenesis), that does not disprove God or show that the evidence for God is illogical. Why? Because it does not refute that fact that they themselves still cannot bring order unless it is chosen. So if there does exist evidence that order can come from a non-choice (snowflakes, crystals, abiogenesis), yet the evidence that shows that non-choice fails to bring order still exists (your own failure to create order without choice), then that means that the evidence for non-choice CONTRADICTS. And since contradicting evidence cannot be factual, then it is clear that order from non-choice is a false claim.

So clearly, atheist and agnostics claims for lack of evidence is clearly false and deluded. The truth of the matter is that the evidence for intelligent design is clear. The only reason for them not believing in God is not due to a lack of evidence for His existence, but because they dislike the attributes of God (such as the existence of Hell, evil, etc). So since they dislike these attributes, they say God does not exist. Yet that makes no sense either. For if I dislike my mother for something she did or does, that does not make her non-existing. See how stupid atheists and agnostics sound?

So it's not that the evidence that order originates from choice is illogical. For they themselves cannot bring order in their own lives without relying on choice. So they themselves are actual proof that all of creation originated from choice.

Unfortunately, pride and ego presents many people from admitting that their own beliefs are foolish. Hence the sheer idiocy and absurdity of atheism and agnosticism.

Blind people deny, reject, ridicule, claim the negation of the existence of sunlight. It is legit and logical, Fatihah. Can't you see that? Or are you denying it is logical because you can not see the reasoning? Kind of hypocritical.

That is why I am converting to Atheism.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 2:20:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 2:13:19 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Blind people deny, reject, ridicule, claim the negation of the existence of sunlight. It is legit and logical, Fatihah. Can't you see that? Or are you denying it is logical because you can not see the reasoning? Kind of hypocritical.

That is why I am converting to Atheism.

Response: You mean you want to join the deluded committee as well? And blind people who deny sunlight because they cannot see is illogical. Whereas the evidence for God's existence is observable. That's not hypocrisy. That's intelligence.

And there is no such thing as converting to atheism. For it only takes a second. All you have to do is be stupid. Conversion granted.
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 2:22:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 1:24:37 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/12/2014 11:10:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something doesn't need to be perceived in order to exist.

Can you taste, touch, hear, smell, or see logic?

I don't understand why one's belief would only be limited to means of measurability. Logic governs the principles of science. If logic grounds the means for scientific inquiry, why would logic being used as evidence for God be dismissed?

Response: Because atheism and agnosticism is sheer delusion. The logical evidence for God's existence is clear. Only a dummy would deny it. We say God exist because we ALLL can see with our own eyes the difference between creating with choice and without choice. No one on this planet can draw a face painting without CHOOSING to align the paint. No scientist. No painter. No one. This analogy can be applied to many things. You can't clean your room, make breakfast, heck you can basically do nothing or bring any order in your life unless it is chosen.

That's clear cut universal evidence of the necessity of choice to bring about sophistication and order. So the evidence for God is very much logical. Atheists and agnostics who say otherwise are simply blatant liars.

Now when one of these idiots say choice is not necessary, and try to provide evidence for it (such as snowflakes, crystals, or abiogenesis), that does not disprove God or show that the evidence for God is illogical. Why? Because it does not refute that fact that they themselves still cannot bring order unless it is chosen. So if there does exist evidence that order can come from a non-choice (snowflakes, crystals, abiogenesis), yet the evidence that shows that non-choice fails to bring order still exists (your own failure to create order without choice), then that means that the evidence for non-choice CONTRADICTS. And since contradicting evidence cannot be factual, then it is clear that order from non-choice is a false claim.

So clearly, atheist and agnostics claims for lack of evidence is clearly false and deluded. The truth of the matter is that the evidence for intelligent design is clear. The only reason for them not believing in God is not due to a lack of evidence for His existence, but because they dislike the attributes of God (such as the existence of Hell, evil, etc). So since they dislike these attributes, they say God does not exist. Yet that makes no sense either. For if I dislike my mother for something she did or does, that does not make her non-existing. See how stupid atheists and agnostics sound?

So it's not that the evidence that order originates from choice is illogical. For they themselves cannot bring order in their own lives without relying on choice. So they themselves are actual proof that all of creation originated from choice.

Unfortunately, pride and ego presents many people from admitting that their own beliefs are foolish. Hence the sheer idiocy and absurdity of atheism and agnosticism.

Well said.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 3:29:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 12:10:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I like your semi-serious trollish style. Warms my heart. But the nothing I am referring to is just what it sounds like. Absolute nothing. 0. Nada. No energy, no space, no time , no matter.

It's a logical necessity that something must be eternally existing to be the thing from which everything came. Every physical cause is impossible. Thus it's an eternal, transcendent cause. Given the intelligence and order in the universe the logical conclusion is that this transcendent, eternal cause must be God.

Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Energy was not created when the big bang occurred, it was converted to matter. Therefore, the universe did not come from nothing, and no where in the BBT is it stated that this is even a possibility. I believe you are confused by the "space/time did not exist before the big bang", but energy certainly did.

It's a logical necessity that something must be eternally existing to be the thing from which everything came.

Would everything include the cause? What caused the cause?

Every physical cause is impossible.

Really?! This is nothing more than a severely unsupported assertion.

Thus it's an eternal, transcendent cause.

This conclusion is based on ignorance. (your unsupported assertion above)

Given the intelligence and order in the universe the logical conclusion is that this transcendent, eternal cause must be God.

Order allowing life, and the intelligence whichs come from it, can only be found on Earth in this universe (so far). Your making a call on the entire universe by what we can see in .000000000001% of it! You argument is based on ignorance.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 3:33:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 11:33:22 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/12/2014 11:24:29 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 7/12/2014 11:10:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something doesn't need to be perceived in order to exist.

Can you taste, touch, hear, smell, or see logic?

I don't understand why one's belief would only be limited to means of measurability. Logic governs the principles of science. If logic grounds the means for scientific inquiry, why would logic being used as evidence for God be dismissed?

It would not be dismissed, if ever it was actually logical.

Logic dictates that out of nothing, nothing comes. Everything has a sufficient cause of its existence. To be the thing from which everything came, this necessitates an eternal, transcendent, uncaused cause given that causes can't cause themselves to exist.

Regurgitating William Lane Craig'isms doesn't make you sound intelligent. You do realize that this same thing holds true for your gawd, right? The truth of the matter is that no one knows where anything "came from" (to ignobly hang such a preposition). What I do know is that if there is a gawd, the one depicted in the bible cannot be close. Why?

Too violent? - No. Anything that vast could be anything it wanted to be.
Too powerful? - No. The very definition of 'gawd' would mean that power is a must.
Too benevolent? - No. See #1.
Too loving? - No. See #3.

What is it then? Too human. The gawd of the bible was created in man's image (not the other way around). All of man's best and worst qualities are exemplified in story after story, within the pages of the bible. Attempting to ascribe all that humanity has tried to ascribe to the monotheistic gawds make it too transparently human. Among the worst of these are the two latest arrivals in the monotheistic infection: christianity and islam. While both religions try to explain to those of us who use our cognitive faculties that the apparent lack of reason is due to our own shortcoming or lack of understanding, consider the fact that the same arguments that preclude infinite regression for everything else also applies to the deities in question. Using the word "transcendent does not make it any more realistic. It might become a little more believable if being a religious person actually made a difference in the behavior demonstrated by those who believed. It does not. In fact, the worst behavior ever displayed is easily attributable to those that are supposed to be among the most pious and "holy."

I'll tell you what, Ben... When you can come up with something that actually makes sense, points to a possibility of gawd that is not inconceivable to the rational mind, and has not been previously utilized in argument for any of the previous gawds from human history, let me know. I'd be happy to consider anything new. The same old tired crap from theistic morons whose income depends on belief by the ignorant has gotten stale.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 3:58:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 3:29:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/12/2014 12:10:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I like your semi-serious trollish style. Warms my heart. But the nothing I am referring to is just what it sounds like. Absolute nothing. 0. Nada. No energy, no space, no time , no matter.

It's a logical necessity that something must be eternally existing to be the thing from which everything came. Every physical cause is impossible. Thus it's an eternal, transcendent cause. Given the intelligence and order in the universe the logical conclusion is that this transcendent, eternal cause must be God.

Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Energy was not created when the big bang occurred, it was converted to matter. Therefore, the universe did not come from nothing, and no where in the BBT is it stated that this is even a possibility. I believe you are confused by the "space/time did not exist before the big bang", but energy certainly did.


The BBT does not say what happened before space-time existed. Nor does it say about whether energy existed before time-space. It describes the universe rapid initial expansion at time= 1 plank second and after.

1.You assume the universe was an isolated system at the beginning of the big bang.
2. You assume the 2nd Law of thermodynamics applies even when time and space itself are non available.
3. You assume energy can exist separate from time and space.

1. Systems can change from one type to another. Extreme amounts of energy can overcome barriers. It is possible that the extreme energy and density of the early universe could over come barriers between dimensions and exchange information if not energy. This we know from experimental observations. So your assumption is neglecting to account for real data.

2. Laws describe consistently observed phenomena. This of course is what happens inside the universe. Taking a part inside the system to describe the whole system, is a mistake in generalizations. This fallacy is easily done when using inductive reasoning. How many universes have been observed? One. Please read http://www.iep.utm.edu...

3. Energy has never been observed to exist with out space to exist in, or time to propagate through. There is a total lack of evidence to support this assumption. We have no way to experimental prove or falsify this assumption. An equal and opposite position would be is Energy, Time and Space were all created at T=0 just before the BBT.

It's a logical necessity that something must be eternally existing to be the thing from which everything came.

Would everything include the cause? What caused the cause?

infinite regression? I know you can do better. It is called the Law of Causation. Is it logical to use the 2nd Law of thermodynamics applied to the whole universe and not any other Laws man has discovered? So the 2nd LoT applies but not causation?

There would have to be an eternal un-caused source to account for the emergence of this universe.

Another avenue is to say it was a random but inevitable perturbation in a ball of energy that existed without space or time. As stated earlier this scenario incurs assuming things that have never been observed.

Out of the 2 the least assumption of with the former. Because one is assuming 1 exceptional entity, something un-caused. You seem to except that something can exist outside or without space and time. So you shouldn't disagree that God can have those qualities as well.


Every physical cause is impossible.

Really?! This is nothing more than a severely unsupported assertion.

Not so. Einstein and others questioned how a physical interaction is possible illustrated by Zeno's paradox applied to 2 particles. The answer of course is not all distances are able to be divided. One example of solution has that an infinitesimal small distance the energy finds the least resistant path and the energy takes a shortcut.


Thus it's an eternal, transcendent cause.

This conclusion is based on ignorance. (your unsupported assertion above)

I made the same conclusion and I supported it with observations and critical thinking. You can say you are still unconvinced but you can not say unsupported.


Given the intelligence and order in the universe the logical conclusion is that this transcendent, eternal cause must be God.

Order allowing life, and the intelligence whichs come from it, can only be found on Earth in this universe (so far). Your making a call on the entire universe by what we can see in .000000000001% of it! You argument is based on ignorance.

Oh so you do understand the contentions I had earlier with your assumptions.
skinker
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 4:29:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I can't perceive benshapiro so he doesn't exist.

I can perceive the Presence of God because it shakes my body with a shock wave like when you hear really good music. I can perceive God because the physical shock wave is accompanied by spiritual epiphany, mental "voice" giving new spiritual information that always turns out to be correct, e.g. telling me in 1979 that dinosaurs never went extinct but are here with us today as birds, e.g. telling me in 1983 the Communist world would fall and it did with the Soviet demise in 1990 and China forced to abandon communist ideology in favor of capitalist compromise, e.g. telling me in 1979 the Bible could not be trusted for historical accuracy or accurate spiritual belief. And that was confirmed by the Israeli archeologists who have debunked all the OT stories as myths, not real history.

So this is spiritual news that is not attached at all to Pauline Christianity Bible beliefs and is so accurate in telling what's happening, e.g. the Abrahamic religious warfare that never stops and is going on right now big time in Gaza between Jews and Muslim Gentiles, that I never went back to my former atheist myopia of the spiritual reality underlying what the physical senses perceive.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 5:59:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 3:58:48 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/12/2014 3:29:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/12/2014 12:10:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I like your semi-serious trollish style. Warms my heart. But the nothing I am referring to is just what it sounds like. Absolute nothing. 0. Nada. No energy, no space, no time , no matter.

It's a logical necessity that something must be eternally existing to be the thing from which everything came. Every physical cause is impossible. Thus it's an eternal, transcendent cause. Given the intelligence and order in the universe the logical conclusion is that this transcendent, eternal cause must be God.

Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Energy was not created when the big bang occurred, it was converted to matter. Therefore, the universe did not come from nothing, and no where in the BBT is it stated that this is even a possibility. I believe you are confused by the "space/time did not exist before the big bang", but energy certainly did.


The BBT does not say what happened before space-time existed. Nor does it say about whether energy existed before time-space. It describes the universe rapid initial expansion at time= 1 plank second and after.

1.You assume the universe was an isolated system at the beginning of the big bang.
2. You assume the 2nd Law of thermodynamics applies even when time and space itself are non available.
3. You assume energy can exist separate from time and space.

Your getting much deeper into this than is necessary. I will agree there are assumptions with my rebuttals to Ben in relation to energy, but we have seen my statements to be true in every way thus far in our existence. Now, if you want to fault me for relying on these observations and applying them to the BB, fine, but I will insist Ben cannot claim the universe came from 'nothing' as that is an assumption as well.

1. Systems can change from one type to another. Extreme amounts of energy can overcome barriers. It is possible that the extreme energy and density of the early universe could over come barriers between dimensions and exchange information if not energy. This we know from experimental observations. So your assumption is neglecting to account for real data.

We have evidence energy can overcome barriers between dimensions?! Sigh...really, you consider that a rebuttal? We don't even have evidence other dimensions (other than the four we live in) exist. I will agree my statement of energy was based on assumption, but no more so than your response.

2. Laws describe consistently observed phenomena. This of course is what happens inside the universe. Taking a part inside the system to describe the whole system, is a mistake in generalizations. This fallacy is easily done when using inductive reasoning. How many universes have been observed? One. Please read http://www.iep.utm.edu...

Your link is broken. Ok, so I shouldn't rely on observations from within our universe to make sense of the BBT. I agree there are assumptions and that our current observations may not apply to the BB, on the other hand, they might. We simply can't know. Ignorance, however, is not an argument for god...

3. Energy has never been observed to exist with out space to exist in, or time to propagate through. There is a total lack of evidence to support this assumption. We have no way to experimental prove or falsify this assumption. An equal and opposite position would be is Energy, Time and Space were all created at T=0 just before the BBT.

True. I can allow for your statement as much as you can allow for mine. they are both based on assumptions.

It's a logical necessity that something must be eternally existing to be the thing from which everything came.

Would everything include the cause? What caused the cause?

infinite regression? I know you can do better. It is called the Law of Causation. Is it logical to use the 2nd Law of thermodynamics applied to the whole universe and not any other Laws man has discovered? So the 2nd LoT applies but not causation?

it is appropriate to apply the 2nd LoT to the whole universe, so that is not problematic for me. In contrast, it is special pleading to argue, "Everything, without fail, must be caused, well, except for god". You're just moving the goal posts. If I had known it was that easy to prove god, I would have never left theism!!

There would have to be an eternal un-caused source to account for the emergence of this universe.

Another avenue is to say it was a random but inevitable perturbation in a ball of energy that existed without space or time. As stated earlier this scenario incurs assuming things that have never been observed.

Yea, dismissed, just as you appropriately dismissed mine.

Out of the 2 the least assumption of with the former. Because one is assuming 1 exceptional entity, something un-caused. You seem to except that something can exist outside or without space and time. So you shouldn't disagree that God can have those qualities as well.

Where, pray tell, would a singularity exist before the Big Bang? Would it be outside of space, or would whatever infinitesimally small area it occupies be considered space? Overall, it is unimportant since we are both ignorant of the true answer. You're relying on a "god of the gaps argument". Do you really want to define you god on the ignorance of modern understanding? If so, then he is explained by a decreasing amount of so called evidence.



Every physical cause is impossible.

Really?! This is nothing more than a severely unsupported assertion.

Not so. Einstein and others questioned how a physical interaction is possible illustrated by Zeno's paradox applied to 2 particles. The answer of course is not all distances are able to be divided. One example of solution has that an infinitesimal small distance the energy finds the least resistant path and the energy takes a shortcut.


Thus it's an eternal, transcendent cause.

This conclusion is based on ignorance. (your unsupported assertion above)

I made the same conclusion and I supported it with observations and critical thinking. You can say you are still unconvinced but you can not say unsupported.


Given the intelligence and order in the universe the logical conclusion is that this transcendent, eternal cause must be God.

Order allowing life, and the intelligence which come from it, can only be found on Earth in this universe (so far). Your making a call on the entire universe by what we can see in .000000000001% of it! You argument is based on ignorance.

Oh so you do understand the contentions I had earlier with your assumptions.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 7:01:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 5:59:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/12/2014 3:58:48 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/12/2014 3:29:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/12/2014 12:10:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I like your semi-serious trollish style. Warms my heart. But the nothing I am referring to is just what it sounds like. Absolute nothing. 0. Nada. No energy, no space, no time , no matter.

It's a logical necessity that something must be eternally existing to be the thing from which everything came. Every physical cause is impossible. Thus it's an eternal, transcendent cause. Given the intelligence and order in the universe the logical conclusion is that this transcendent, eternal cause must be God.

Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Energy was not created when the big bang occurred, it was converted to matter. Therefore, the universe did not come from nothing, and no where in the BBT is it stated that this is even a possibility. I believe you are confused by the "space/time did not exist before the big bang", but energy certainly did.


The BBT does not say what happened before space-time existed. Nor does it say about whether energy existed before time-space. It describes the universe rapid initial expansion at time= 1 plank second and after.

1.You assume the universe was an isolated system at the beginning of the big bang.
2. You assume the 2nd Law of thermodynamics applies even when time and space itself are non available.
3. You assume energy can exist separate from time and space.

Your getting much deeper into this than is necessary. I will agree there are assumptions with my rebuttals to Ben in relation to energy, but we have seen my statements to be true in every way thus far in our existence. Now, if you want to fault me for relying on these observations and applying them to the BB, fine, but I will insist Ben cannot claim the universe came from 'nothing' as that is an assumption as well.

1. Systems can change from one type to another. Extreme amounts of energy can overcome barriers. It is possible that the extreme energy and density of the early universe could over come barriers between dimensions and exchange information if not energy. This we know from experimental observations. So your assumption is neglecting to account for real data.

We have evidence energy can overcome barriers between dimensions?! Sigh...really, you consider that a rebuttal? We don't even have evidence other dimensions (other than the four we live in) exist. I will agree my statement of energy was based on assumption, but no more so than your response.

2. Laws describe consistently observed phenomena. This of course is what happens inside the universe. Taking a part inside the system to describe the whole system, is a mistake in generalizations. This fallacy is easily done when using inductive reasoning. How many universes have been observed? One. Please read http://www.iep.utm.edu...

Your link is broken. Ok, so I shouldn't rely on observations from within our universe to make sense of the BBT. I agree there are assumptions and that our current observations may not apply to the BB, on the other hand, they might. We simply can't know. Ignorance, however, is not an argument for god...

3. Energy has never been observed to exist with out space to exist in, or time to propagate through. There is a total lack of evidence to support this assumption. We have no way to experimental prove or falsify this assumption. An equal and opposite position would be is Energy, Time and Space were all created at T=0 just before the BBT.

True. I can allow for your statement as much as you can allow for mine. they are both based on assumptions.

It's a logical necessity that something must be eternally existing to be the thing from which everything came.

Would everything include the cause? What caused the cause?

infinite regression? I know you can do better. It is called the Law of Causation. Is it logical to use the 2nd Law of thermodynamics applied to the whole universe and not any other Laws man has discovered? So the 2nd LoT applies but not causation?

it is appropriate to apply the 2nd LoT to the whole universe, so that is not problematic for me. In contrast, it is special pleading to argue, "Everything, without fail, must be caused, well, except for god". You're just moving the goal posts. If I had known it was that easy to prove god, I would have never left theism!!

There would have to be an eternal un-caused source to account for the emergence of this universe.

Another avenue is to say it was a random but inevitable perturbation in a ball of energy that existed without space or time. As stated earlier this scenario incurs assuming things that have never been observed.

Yea, dismissed, just as you appropriately dismissed mine.

Out of the 2 the least assumption of with the former. Because one is assuming 1 exceptional entity, something un-caused. You seem to except that something can exist outside or without space and time. So you shouldn't disagree that God can have those qualities as well.

Where, pray tell, would a singularity exist before the Big Bang? Would it be outside of space, or would whatever infinitesimally small area it occupies be considered space? Overall, it is unimportant since we are both ignorant of the true answer. You're relying on a "god of the gaps argument". Do you really want to define you god on the ignorance of modern understanding? If so, then he is explained by a decreasing amount of so called evidence.




Every physical cause is impossible.

Really?! This is nothing more than a severely unsupported assertion.

Not so. Einstein and others questioned how a physical interaction is possible illustrated by Zeno's paradox applied to 2 particles. The answer of course is not all distances are able to be divided. One example of solution has that an infinitesimal small distance the energy finds the least resistant path and the energy takes a shortcut.


Thus it's an eternal, transcendent cause.

This conclusion is based on ignorance. (your unsupported assertion above)

I made the same conclusion and I supported it with observations and critical thinking. You can say you are still unconvinced but you can not say unsupported.


Given the intelligence and order in the universe the logical conclusion is that this transcendent, eternal cause must be God.

Order allowing life, and the intelligence which come from it, can only be found on Earth in this universe (so far). Your making a call on the entire universe by what we can see in .000000000001% of it! You argument is based on ignorance.

Oh so you do understand the contentions I had earlier with your assumptions.

http://plato.stanford.edu...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 7:25:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 11:10:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something doesn't need to be perceived in order to exist.
But if one can't perceive it, they can't realize that it exists. And that's the quandary of the theist - to continually claim something exists, which even they cannot perceive.

Can you taste, touch, hear, smell, or see logic?
Logic is a form of reasoning, and it can be tested. What do theists tell us when we test God and he fails?

I don't understand why one's belief would only be limited to means of measurability.
Now you're shifting the goal posts from perceptibility, to measurability.

Logic governs the principles of science. If logic grounds the means for scientific inquiry, why would logic being used as evidence for God be dismissed?
It isn't. But there are more logical explanations - complete with supporting evidence - which trump the supposed logical constructs supporting the existence of God.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 7:34:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 11:33:22 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

Logic dictates that out of nothing, nothing comes.
Remember what you were saying about the need for science to adhere to logic? Well, science tells us that matter appearing out of nothing doesn't violate any physical laws.

However, the better point is that I know of no one who suggests that anything came from nothing. Yet theists continue to pedal this notion as a strawman. Theists are the only ones I ever see making any such claim.

If your God can "just exist", then the universe can "just exist". The tripping point for most theists appears to be the same one they initially denied (and many still do) - big bang. And big bang doesn't propose a starting point of nothing.

Everything has a sufficient cause of its existence.
Except for your first cause, which is why your starting premise is immediately contradicted.

To be the thing from which everything came, this necessitates an eternal, transcendent, uncaused cause given that causes can't cause themselves to exist.
But if you have an "uncaused cause", then not everything has a sufficient cause of its existence.

Do you not realize that your second premise contradicts the first? If God didn't need to be caused, then neither does anything else. Your assertion is that God simply is - he has always existed. Well... matter/energy can't be "caused" or created, so it simply exists. But matter can convert to energy and energy to matter, which means the entire universe could have come out of nothing but energy, and that energy doesn't require space-time in which to exist. So were human perception applied, it would appear that the entire universe arose from nothing, while in reality, matter converted out of energy, triggering big-bang, leading to the matter/energy universe of today.

And all without your God, for which you still have no evidence.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 7:45:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 12:10:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

It's a logical necessity that something must be eternally existing to be the thing from which everything came.
But then you destroy your first premise in claiming that all things must be caused. That's the fly in your soup. It's the thing which is waving red flags and ringing alarm bells telling you that everything stemming your flawed initial premise is false.

Every physical cause is impossible.
That's not true at all. In fact, in that we're dealing with physical universe, it would be non-physical causes that are impossible.

Thus it's an eternal, transcendent cause. Given the intelligence and order in the universe the logical conclusion is that this transcendent, eternal cause must be God.
Firstly, the universe doesn't operate on intelligent principles. It operates upon highly mechanized, mathematically modeled mechanisms.

You're starting with false assumptions, and ending with a false conclusion. If there were a point at which time didn't exist, then we're done. It's not possible to proceed to the next point, because that is what time is - a measure of temporal distance between events. So time has always existed, making time eternal. But time as we know it - as it exists in our physical universe - is interwoven with space, resulting in space-time. And that has existed only for the past 13.7 billion years.

So the fundamental basis of the physical has always existed, as has time. And from these, emerged the physical universe. God wasn't created until man evolved to the point of inventing imaginary explanations for that which he couldn't understand. God's are simply early man's attempt to anthropomorphize nature.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
skinker
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 8:34:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You don't understand anthromorphizing Nature has been God's Cosmic Plan all along. Christianity is all about pacification of human beings to lift them out of animal "nature" and into humane being consciousness and action.
Romanii
Posts: 4,852
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2014 10:29:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 11:33:22 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/12/2014 11:24:29 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 7/12/2014 11:10:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something doesn't need to be perceived in order to exist.

Can you taste, touch, hear, smell, or see logic?

I don't understand why one's belief would only be limited to means of measurability. Logic governs the principles of science. If logic grounds the means for scientific inquiry, why would logic being used as evidence for God be dismissed?

It would not be dismissed, if ever it was actually logical.

Logic dictates that out of nothing, nothing comes. Everything has a sufficient cause of its existence. To be the thing from which everything came, this necessitates an eternal, transcendent, uncaused cause given that causes can't cause themselves to exist.

Actually logic supports none of those...
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2014 3:37:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'll quickly paraphrase the arguments thus far so I can respond to all of them.

The Big Bang was caused by something physical.

If time, space, and energy began at a zero-point singularity, how could it require time, space, or energy require in order to create itself? It's logically nonsensical.

Simply put, logic dictates that everything that begins to exist requires pre-existing material in order to exist.

If everything that begins to exist has a cause, what about God? What is his cause?

Logic NECESSITATES that something exists eternally and uncaused to be the thing from which everything else comes. Otherwise an infinite regression would occur. It's like saying as soon as I am done doing an infinite amount of homework I'll take a walk outside. Point A to point B could never be reached at any sequential moment in time. If a new event begins, a bridge between point A and point B occurs. But point A is infinite. It is impossible. Imagine a sign painted on a building "free food tomorrow". Everytime you observe the building it is never tomorrow. This is why something cannot exist in time (within a sequence of events) and be infinite (never ending).

"Our present position, then, is this: We have argued that there always was motion and always will be motion throughout all time, and we have explained what is the first principle of this eternal motion: we have explained further which is the primary motion and which is the only motion that can be eternal: and we have pronounced the first movement [or: "Prime Mover"] to be unmoved."
- Aristotle, Physics, Book VIII, chapter 9

Odds of intelligent life arising randomly can't be known because we don't have a large enough sample size.

I somewhat agree with this. If intelligence present in the universe is used as evidence for God because of the odds, it isn't the strongest argument. However, we currently haven't observed *any* life on other planets let alone intelligent life. On the other hand, as a stronger argument, intelligence present in the universe that supercedes our own capabilities shows that nature itself is guided by intelligence. Do we even fully understand the intricacies of the human body yet? of DNA at the cellular level?

The God of the bible contradicts his own supposed morality.

Irrelevant.

Realization of existence cannot occur without perceiving it.

Not true. Logical methods allow us to realize existence without perceiving it with our five senses.

I'm shifting the goal posts from perceptibility, to measurability.

Not I'm not. I'm saying the standards of perceptibility aren't exclusive to the five senses, only to be believed once seen or reproduced in a test tube. Measurable results that can be sensed are often the only results many atheists adhere to. I'm making the argument that logic is a method showing means of existence, not only measurability. Logic has no sensorial measurements.

Logical evidence supports naturalism over God.

Logic necessitates an eternal, transcendent, uncaused cause. Eternal because the prime cause must be uncaused otherwise an infinite regress would occur, and transcendent because physical stuff cannot require pre-existence of physical stuff if it hadn't existed yet transcending all psychical means of creation.

Atheists don't hold that something came from nothing.

Some do, some don't. I didn't say all do. I understand this is to be envisage's philosophy and he is an active atheist debater on this site. I also don't find it hard to avoid the logical problem of infinite regression.

Nature isn't intelligent, it's mechanized and mathematical.

By your standards, is it fair to say then that we observe no intelligence in nature then?

Time, as a measure of temporal distance between events, has always existed.

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago."
http://www.hawking.org.uk...

Logic doesn't support my arguments.

As a protocol of sufficient reasoning I believe it is.