Total Posts:234|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Atheist's Burden of Proof

brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 6:02:58 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
The Atheist has a burden of proof concerning how we exist. They have a burden of proof and explaining their position because they declare a position as "known" or "believed". An Agnostic has not declared a position or declared anything as "known". The Atheist cannot in intellectual honesty hide behind "I have no belief". They do have a belief that causes them, just as the Theist to believe in the unseen, untestable, and unprovable/unmeasurable.

Philisophical Conundrums no Matter where you Turn

It's a philosophical issue for the avid Atheist. If an Atheist is asked the broad question on the reality of the universe and time, you get 2 basic responses.

1)There was never anything or time. The big bang or something like it started time. It came from "potential".

2)Reality goes on forever and time goes on forever, infinitely. This leads us to the paradoxial "Theory of Everything", which includes, well...everything. it gets into infinite begats. This begat this, which begat this, begat this...
The reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for...

On the first model we are forced to believe there was never anything including time, then one day ta da! OR as stated in the second model, it is all infinite and never had a beginning. Either way you have a paradoxial answer for reality that is intellectually problematic. The nonproblematic answer in its vague form is,"Something from beyond our reality and time is the 'missing link'". Everyone is a "religious zealot". Everyone has beliefs that they cannot fully support, prove, or answer in nonparadoxial form. All possible answers are sureal, impossible to wrap your mind around, and founded on non-proofs. You must have faith no matter who you are. The question is,"In what?"

We can say the universe is eternal, which is just as fine as the opposite answer. But then in turn we must also say the eternal universe has been mobilizing life forms eternally through something similar to Darwinian means. This brings us to multiple paradoxial conclusions:

-The "first thing" could not have jumped into existance in our reality. Infinite higher intelligences becomes a paradoxial conundrum. In infinite space and time we would have greater and greater beings "evolved" until we got into humanoids/post humanoids that are so mind blowingly beyond our comprehension that we cannot even imagine them. And then greater than that, greater than that, and greater than, and greater than that infinitely without end. We also then must subscribe to the notion that there was no first being. There have infinitely been conscious beings and there is no first being. History never has a first event. It has no final event. No computer or amount of software could contain the stories within our reality because they never end. They are infinite. You could within the idea of "greater upon greater beings" conclude that every story you have ever read has happened somewhere in infinity through eternal time and eternal Darwinian means.

No matter how you look at it you will have to accept a paradoxial answer, something seemingly mythological or fundamentalist philosophical dogma beyond comprehension.

If we stay in this thinking it is fair to say someone in infinity has already mastered our reality. They are immortal, beyond time, metaphysical or "other", and omniscient and noneffected in the ways we are. We place ourselves in a reality of "higher beings" no matter where we try to run and hide.

Atheism: The Belief in an infinite reality and infinite history which must have infinite causality.
"The reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the...infinitely.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 7:02:36 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 6:02:58 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
The Atheist has a burden of proof concerning how we exist.

And why is that?

They have a burden of proof and explaining their position because they declare a position as "known" or "believed".

Atheism- A lack of belief in god(s)

How is that saying "I know..."?

An Agnostic has not declared a position or declared anything as "known". The Atheist cannot in intellectual honesty hide behind "I have no belief". They do have a belief that causes them, just as the Theist to believe in the unseen, untestable, and unprovable/unmeasurable.

Pure assertion.

Philisophical Conundrums no Matter where you Turn

Pure assertion.

It's a philosophical issue for the avid Atheist. If an Atheist is asked the broad question on the reality of the universe and time, you get 2 basic responses.

False dichotomy.

1)There was never anything or time. The big bang or something like it started time. It came from "potential".

2)Reality goes on forever and time goes on forever, infinitely. This leads us to the paradoxial "Theory of Everything", which includes, well...everything. it gets into infinite begats. This begat this, which begat this, begat this...
The reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for...

OR
3) The universe exists as a static block of spacetime (whether that block is finite or infinite is besides the point) in a tenselss state, and thus never came into existence.

On the first model we are forced to believe there was never anything including time, then one day ta da!

Or, if you even bothered to read Dr. Krauss's work,
In a state that lacks space, time, energy, radiation, matter, etc., all that is needed are natural laws to form a universe.
This is due to quantum physics dealing with fluctuations and gravity dealing with spacetime. This means that quantum gravity probably allows for spacetime to fluctuate in and out of existence (there are models that are mathematically sound that do propose this idea).
Within empty space, there is a phenomena called Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations, where particles and antiparticles pop in and out of existence. In the presence of gravity, these particles can persist indefinitely. A universe that has all matter formed in this way would be a zero energy universe (which ours is).

This allows for spacetime to pop into existence and matter/energy to as well, with only natural explanations.

OR as stated in the second model, it is all infinite and never had a beginning.

By the way, most "infinite regress" arguments within cosmology presuppose Artistolian causality and cosmology, which is outdated.

Either way you have a paradoxial answer for reality that is intellectually problematic.

1) No, we don't.
2) You made a false dichotomy.

The nonproblematic answer in its vague form is,"Something from beyond our reality and time is the 'missing link'". Everyone is a "religious zealot". Everyone has beliefs that they cannot fully support, prove, or answer in nonparadoxial form. All possible answers are sureal, impossible to wrap your mind around, and founded on non-proofs. You must have faith no matter who you are. The question is,"In what?"

Not even close to true.

We can say the universe is eternal, which is just as fine as the opposite answer. But then in turn we must also say the eternal universe has been mobilizing life forms eternally through something similar to Darwinian means. This brings us to multiple paradoxial conclusions:

Only if you assume that eternal=infinite in time.
With a tenseless universe, eternal does not-infinite in time.

-The "first thing" could not have jumped into existance in our reality. Infinite higher intelligences becomes a paradoxial conundrum. In infinite space and time we would have greater and greater beings "evolved" until we got into humanoids/post humanoids that are so mind blowingly beyond our comprehension that we cannot even imagine them. And then greater than that, greater than that, and greater than, and greater than that infinitely without end. We also then must subscribe to the notion that there was no first being. There have infinitely been conscious beings and there is no first being. History never has a first event. It has no final event. No computer or amount of software could contain the stories within our reality because they never end. They are infinite. You could within the idea of "greater upon greater beings" conclude that every story you have ever read has happened somewhere in infinity through eternal time and eternal Darwinian means.

No matter how you look at it you will have to accept a paradoxial answer, something seemingly mythological or fundamentalist philosophical dogma beyond comprehension.

No, we don't
Ad nausea.

If we stay in this thinking it is fair to say someone in infinity has already mastered our reality. They are immortal, beyond time, metaphysical or "other", and omniscient and noneffected in the ways we are. We place ourselves in a reality of "higher beings" no matter where we try to run and hide.

Atheism: The Belief in an infinite reality and infinite history which must have infinite causality.
"The reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the...infinitely.

So, not only do you not understand atheism, you have to commit a multitude of fallacies to attack it.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 7:33:15 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 6:02:58 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
The Atheist has a burden of proof concerning how we exist. They have a burden of proof and explaining their position because they declare a position as "known" or "believed". An Agnostic has not declared a position or declared anything as "known". The Atheist cannot in intellectual honesty hide behind "I have no belief". They do have a belief that causes them, just as the Theist to believe in the unseen, untestable, and unprovable/unmeasurable.

Philisophical Conundrums no Matter where you Turn

It's a philosophical issue for the avid Atheist. If an Atheist is asked the broad question on the reality of the universe and time, you get 2 basic responses.

1)There was never anything or time. The big bang or something like it started time. It came from "potential".

2)Reality goes on forever and time goes on forever, infinitely. This leads us to the paradoxial "Theory of Everything", which includes, well...everything. it gets into infinite begats. This begat this, which begat this, begat this...
The reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for...

On the first model we are forced to believe there was never anything including time, then one day ta da! OR as stated in the second model, it is all infinite and never had a beginning. Either way you have a paradoxial answer for reality that is intellectually problematic. The nonproblematic answer in its vague form is,"Something from beyond our reality and time is the 'missing link'". Everyone is a "religious zealot". Everyone has beliefs that they cannot fully support, prove, or answer in nonparadoxial form. All possible answers are sureal, impossible to wrap your mind around, and founded on non-proofs. You must have faith no matter who you are. The question is,"In what?"

We can say the universe is eternal, which is just as fine as the opposite answer. But then in turn we must also say the eternal universe has been mobilizing life forms eternally through something similar to Darwinian means. This brings us to multiple paradoxial conclusions:

-The "first thing" could not have jumped into existance in our reality. Infinite higher intelligences becomes a paradoxial conundrum. In infinite space and time we would have greater and greater beings "evolved" until we got into humanoids/post humanoids that are so mind blowingly beyond our comprehension that we cannot even imagine them. And then greater than that, greater than that, and greater than, and greater than that infinitely without end. We also then must subscribe to the notion that there was no first being. There have infinitely been conscious beings and there is no first being. History never has a first event. It has no final event. No computer or amount of software could contain the stories within our reality because they never end. They are infinite. You could within the idea of "greater upon greater beings" conclude that every story you have ever read has happened somewhere in infinity through eternal time and eternal Darwinian means.

No matter how you look at it you will have to accept a paradoxial answer, something seemingly mythological or fundamentalist philosophical dogma beyond comprehension.

If we stay in this thinking it is fair to say someone in infinity has already mastered our reality. They are immortal, beyond time, metaphysical or "other", and omniscient and noneffected in the ways we are. We place ourselves in a reality of "higher beings" no matter where we try to run and hide.

Atheism: The Belief in an infinite reality and infinite history which must have infinite causality.
"The reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the...infinitely.

It is intellectually honest to say I don't know how quantum entanglement works because there we have not yet found data that we can interpret. As a matter of fact, in science, saying one doesn't know is about as honest as it gets.

In the same way, it is intellectually honest to say that one does not know if a god exists based on the data they have.

I don't "know" a god exists; I "suspect" a god exists.

I know Christianity is false however because that is a logical conclusion based on the data and inconsistencies.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 8:18:22 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 7:33:15 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 2/4/2016 6:02:58 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
The Atheist has a burden of proof concerning how we exist. They have a burden of proof and explaining their position because they declare a position as "known" or "believed". An Agnostic has not declared a position or declared anything as "known". The Atheist cannot in intellectual honesty hide behind "I have no belief". They do have a belief that causes them, just as the Theist to believe in the unseen, untestable, and unprovable/unmeasurable.

Philisophical Conundrums no Matter where you Turn

It's a philosophical issue for the avid Atheist. If an Atheist is asked the broad question on the reality of the universe and time, you get 2 basic responses.

1)There was never anything or time. The big bang or something like it started time. It came from "potential".

2)Reality goes on forever and time goes on forever, infinitely. This leads us to the paradoxial "Theory of Everything", which includes, well...everything. it gets into infinite begats. This begat this, which begat this, begat this...
The reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for...

On the first model we are forced to believe there was never anything including time, then one day ta da! OR as stated in the second model, it is all infinite and never had a beginning. Either way you have a paradoxial answer for reality that is intellectually problematic. The nonproblematic answer in its vague form is,"Something from beyond our reality and time is the 'missing link'". Everyone is a "religious zealot". Everyone has beliefs that they cannot fully support, prove, or answer in nonparadoxial form. All possible answers are sureal, impossible to wrap your mind around, and founded on non-proofs. You must have faith no matter who you are. The question is,"In what?"

We can say the universe is eternal, which is just as fine as the opposite answer. But then in turn we must also say the eternal universe has been mobilizing life forms eternally through something similar to Darwinian means. This brings us to multiple paradoxial conclusions:

-The "first thing" could not have jumped into existance in our reality. Infinite higher intelligences becomes a paradoxial conundrum. In infinite space and time we would have greater and greater beings "evolved" until we got into humanoids/post humanoids that are so mind blowingly beyond our comprehension that we cannot even imagine them. And then greater than that, greater than that, and greater than, and greater than that infinitely without end. We also then must subscribe to the notion that there was no first being. There have infinitely been conscious beings and there is no first being. History never has a first event. It has no final event. No computer or amount of software could contain the stories within our reality because they never end. They are infinite. You could within the idea of "greater upon greater beings" conclude that every story you have ever read has happened somewhere in infinity through eternal time and eternal Darwinian means.

No matter how you look at it you will have to accept a paradoxial answer, something seemingly mythological or fundamentalist philosophical dogma beyond comprehension.

If we stay in this thinking it is fair to say someone in infinity has already mastered our reality. They are immortal, beyond time, metaphysical or "other", and omniscient and noneffected in the ways we are. We place ourselves in a reality of "higher beings" no matter where we try to run and hide.

Atheism: The Belief in an infinite reality and infinite history which must have infinite causality.
"The reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the...infinitely.

It is intellectually honest to say I don't know how quantum entanglement works because there we have not yet found data that we can interpret. As a matter of fact, in science, saying one doesn't know is about as honest as it gets.

In the same way, it is intellectually honest to say that one does not know if a god exists based on the data they have.

I don't "know" a god exists; I "suspect" a god exists.

I know Christianity is false however because that is a logical conclusion based on the data and inconsistencies.

Which inconsistancies
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 8:23:33 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 7:02:36 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/4/2016 6:02:58 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
The Atheist has a burden of proof concerning how we exist.

And why is that?

They have a burden of proof and explaining their position because they declare a position as "known" or "believed".

Atheism- A lack of belief in god(s)

How is that saying "I know..."?

An Agnostic has not declared a position or declared anything as "known". The Atheist cannot in intellectual honesty hide behind "I have no belief". They do have a belief that causes them, just as the Theist to believe in the unseen, untestable, and unprovable/unmeasurable.

Pure assertion.

Philisophical Conundrums no Matter where you Turn

Pure assertion.

It's a philosophical issue for the avid Atheist. If an Atheist is asked the broad question on the reality of the universe and time, you get 2 basic responses.

False dichotomy.

1)There was never anything or time. The big bang or something like it started time. It came from "potential".

2)Reality goes on forever and time goes on forever, infinitely. This leads us to the paradoxial "Theory of Everything", which includes, well...everything. it gets into infinite begats. This begat this, which begat this, begat this...
The reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for...

OR
3) The universe exists as a static block of spacetime (whether that block is finite or infinite is besides the point) in a tenselss state, and thus never came into existence.

On the first model we are forced to believe there was never anything including time, then one day ta da!

Or, if you even bothered to read Dr. Krauss's work,
In a state that lacks space, time, energy, radiation, matter, etc., all that is needed are natural laws to form a universe.
This is due to quantum physics dealing with fluctuations and gravity dealing with spacetime. This means that quantum gravity probably allows for spacetime to fluctuate in and out of existence (there are models that are mathematically sound that do propose this idea).
Within empty space, there is a phenomena called Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations, where particles and antiparticles pop in and out of existence. In the presence of gravity, these particles can persist indefinitely. A universe that has all matter formed in this way would be a zero energy universe (which ours is).

This allows for spacetime to pop into existence and matter/energy to as well, with only natural explanations.

OR as stated in the second model, it is all infinite and never had a beginning.

By the way, most "infinite regress" arguments within cosmology presuppose Artistolian causality and cosmology, which is outdated.

Either way you have a paradoxial answer for reality that is intellectually problematic.

1) No, we don't.
2) You made a false dichotomy.

The nonproblematic answer in its vague form is,"Something from beyond our reality and time is the 'missing link'". Everyone is a "religious zealot". Everyone has beliefs that they cannot fully support, prove, or answer in nonparadoxial form. All possible answers are sureal, impossible to wrap your mind around, and founded on non-proofs. You must have faith no matter who you are. The question is,"In what?"

Not even close to true.

We can say the universe is eternal, which is just as fine as the opposite answer. But then in turn we must also say the eternal universe has been mobilizing life forms eternally through something similar to Darwinian means. This brings us to multiple paradoxial conclusions:

Only if you assume that eternal=infinite in time.
With a tenseless universe, eternal does not-infinite in time.

-The "first thing" could not have jumped into existance in our reality. Infinite higher intelligences becomes a paradoxial conundrum. In infinite space and time we would have greater and greater beings "evolved" until we got into humanoids/post humanoids that are so mind blowingly beyond our comprehension that we cannot even imagine them. And then greater than that, greater than that, and greater than, and greater than that infinitely without end. We also then must subscribe to the notion that there was no first being. There have infinitely been conscious beings and there is no first being. History never has a first event. It has no final event. No computer or amount of software could contain the stories within our reality because they never end. They are infinite. You could within the idea of "greater upon greater beings" conclude that every story you have ever read has happened somewhere in infinity through eternal time and eternal Darwinian means.

No matter how you look at it you will have to accept a paradoxial answer, something seemingly mythological or fundamentalist philosophical dogma beyond comprehension.

No, we don't
Ad nausea.

If we stay in this thinking it is fair to say someone in infinity has already mastered our reality. They are immortal, beyond time, metaphysical or "other", and omniscient and noneffected in the ways we are. We place ourselves in a reality of "higher beings" no matter where we try to run and hide.

Atheism: The Belief in an infinite reality and infinite history which must have infinite causality.
"The reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the...infinitely.

So, not only do you not understand atheism, you have to commit a multitude of fallacies to attack it.

More nature is still this reality under the same paradoxed issue. Reality plus a quantum field is simply more nature. That quantum field is not beyond our reality. It would be within our reality. Where did thre "quantum field" come from? Or are you asserting that there are indeed realities outside of ours that cannot bre reached from within our reality?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 8:37:12 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 7:02:36 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/4/2016 6:02:58 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
The Atheist has a burden of proof concerning how we exist.

And why is that?

They have a burden of proof and explaining their position because they declare a position as "known" or "believed".

Atheism- A lack of belief in god(s)

How is that saying "I know..."?

An Agnostic has not declared a position or declared anything as "known". The Atheist cannot in intellectual honesty hide behind "I have no belief". They do have a belief that causes them, just as the Theist to believe in the unseen, untestable, and unprovable/unmeasurable.

Pure assertion.

Philisophical Conundrums no Matter where you Turn

Pure assertion.

It's a philosophical issue for the avid Atheist. If an Atheist is asked the broad question on the reality of the universe and time, you get 2 basic responses.

False dichotomy.

1)There was never anything or time. The big bang or something like it started time. It came from "potential".

2)Reality goes on forever and time goes on forever, infinitely. This leads us to the paradoxial "Theory of Everything", which includes, well...everything. it gets into infinite begats. This begat this, which begat this, begat this...
The reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for...

OR
3) The universe exists as a static block of spacetime (whether that block is finite or infinite is besides the point) in a tenselss state, and thus never came into existence.

On the first model we are forced to believe there was never anything including time, then one day ta da!

Or, if you even bothered to read Dr. Krauss's work,
In a state that lacks space, time, energy, radiation, matter, etc., all that is needed are natural laws to form a universe.
This is due to quantum physics dealing with fluctuations and gravity dealing with spacetime. This means that quantum gravity probably allows for spacetime to fluctuate in and out of existence (there are models that are mathematically sound that do propose this idea).
Within empty space, there is a phenomena called Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations, where particles and antiparticles pop in and out of existence. In the presence of gravity, these particles can persist indefinitely. A universe that has all matter formed in this way would be a zero energy universe (which ours is).

This allows for spacetime to pop into existence and matter/energy to as well, with only natural explanations.

OR as stated in the second model, it is all infinite and never had a beginning.

By the way, most "infinite regress" arguments within cosmology presuppose Artistolian causality and cosmology, which is outdated.

Either way you have a paradoxial answer for reality that is intellectually problematic.

1) No, we don't.
2) You made a false dichotomy.

The nonproblematic answer in its vague form is,"Something from beyond our reality and time is the 'missing link'". Everyone is a "religious zealot". Everyone has beliefs that they cannot fully support, prove, or answer in nonparadoxial form. All possible answers are sureal, impossible to wrap your mind around, and founded on non-proofs. You must have faith no matter who you are. The question is,"In what?"

Not even close to true.

We can say the universe is eternal, which is just as fine as the opposite answer. But then in turn we must also say the eternal universe has been mobilizing life forms eternally through something similar to Darwinian means. This brings us to multiple paradoxial conclusions:

Only if you assume that eternal=infinite in time.
With a tenseless universe, eternal does not-infinite in time.

-The "first thing" could not have jumped into existance in our reality. Infinite higher intelligences becomes a paradoxial conundrum. In infinite space and time we would have greater and greater beings "evolved" until we got into humanoids/post humanoids that are so mind blowingly beyond our comprehension that we cannot even imagine them. And then greater than that, greater than that, and greater than, and greater than that infinitely without end. We also then must subscribe to the notion that there was no first being. There have infinitely been conscious beings and there is no first being. History never has a first event. It has no final event. No computer or amount of software could contain the stories within our reality because they never end. They are infinite. You could within the idea of "greater upon greater beings" conclude that every story you have ever read has happened somewhere in infinity through eternal time and eternal Darwinian means.

No matter how you look at it you will have to accept a paradoxial answer, something seemingly mythological or fundamentalist philosophical dogma beyond comprehension.

No, we don't
Ad nausea.

If we stay in this thinking it is fair to say someone in infinity has already mastered our reality. They are immortal, beyond time, metaphysical or "other", and omniscient and noneffected in the ways we are. We place ourselves in a reality of "higher beings" no matter where we try to run and hide.

Atheism: The Belief in an infinite reality and infinite history which must have infinite causality.
"The reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the...infinitely.

So, not only do you not understand atheism, you have to commit a multitude of fallacies to attack it.

Understand Atheism? You do not believe in god(s). Thus you do have to believe one of two things. Reality is finite or reality is infinite. This is not a "false dichotomy". That's like saying that the statement,"He went to the store or he didn't go to the store" is a false dichotomy.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 8:57:31 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 8:37:12 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

How about addressing what I said point by point. Refute each point I make where I make it, explain why it is wrong. Otherwise, there is no reason to take you seriously.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 9:30:28 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 8:57:31 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/4/2016 8:37:12 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

How about addressing what I said point by point. Refute each point I make where I make it, explain why it is wrong. Otherwise, there is no reason to take you seriously.

Okay
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 9:30:55 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Posted: 1 hour ago
At 2/4/2016 6:02:58 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

(The Atheist has a burden of proof concerning how we exist.)

"And why is that?"

**Because the door swings both ways. Creationists are asked for proof. I want proof of a 'quantum field' and its causality, concluded with an argument for why a quantum field magically without 'tense' would not be suppotive of creationism.**

(They have a burden of proof and explaining their position because they declare a position as "known" or "believed".)

"Atheism- A lack of belief in god(s)
How is that saying "I know..."?"

**Agnostic is "I don't know." Atheism is a declared position of knowledge that God does not exist.**

(An Agnostic has not declared a position or declared anything as "known". The Atheist cannot in intellectual honesty hide behind "I have no belief". They do have a belief that causes them, just as the Theist to believe in the unseen, untestable, and unprovable/unmeasurable.)

"Pure assertion."

**So is saying God does not exist**

(Philisophical Conundrums no Matter where you Turn)

"Pure assertion"

**So is saying God does not exist.**

"Or, if you even bothered to read Dr. Krauss's work,
In a state that lacks space, time, energy, radiation, matter, etc., all that is needed are natural laws to form a universe.
This is due to quantum physics dealing with fluctuations and gravity dealing with spacetime. This means that quantum gravity probably allows for spacetime to fluctuate in and out of existence (there are models that are mathematically sound that do propose this idea).
Within empty space, there is a phenomena called Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations, where particles and antiparticles pop in and out of existence. In the presence of gravity, these particles can persist indefinitely. A universe that has all matter formed in this way would be a zero energy universe (which ours is).

This allows for spacetime to pop into existence and matter/energy to as well, with only natural explanations."

**My faith in a god pales in comparison to the mythologicality of this proposed neverland that still needs a causality.**

(Either way you have a paradoxial answer for reality that is intellectually problematic.)

"1) No, we don't.
2) You made a false dichotomy."

**The claim is that reality is infinite or finite. Do you have a third claim?**

(The nonproblematic answer in its vague form is,"Something from beyond our reality and time is the 'missing link'". Everyone is a "religious zealot". Everyone has beliefs that they cannot fully support, prove, or answer in nonparadoxial form. All possible answers are sureal, impossible to wrap your mind around, and founded on non-proofs. You must have faith no matter who you are. The question is,"In what?")

"Not even close to true."

**Sure it is. If God does not exist in your mind, you must assume something else which you believe "is true" or a generalization of what is true. So what do you believe is true? The "quantum field beyond our reality"? Sorry that is faith in the unseen, untestable and unprovable. Nevertheless, even if it were true, the causality of the "quantum field" still is in question.**

("We can say the universe is eternal, which is just as fine as the opposite answer. But then in turn we must also say the eternal universe has been mobilizing life forms eternally through something similar to Darwinian means. This brings us to multiple paradoxial conclusions:")

"Only if you assume that eternal=infinite in time.
With a tenseless universe, eternal does not-infinite in time."

**So it is tenseless(which is a paradox), without time, how did it jump into the beginning of time?**

("No matter how you look at it you will have to accept a paradoxial answer, something seemingly mythological or fundamentalist philosophical dogma beyond comprehension.")

"No, we don't
Ad nausea."

**Okay. What is your nonparadoxed answer?**
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 9:44:55 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 9:30:55 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

First, thanks for the horrible formatting.

Posted: 1 hour ago
At 2/4/2016 6:02:58 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

(The Atheist has a burden of proof concerning how we exist.)

"And why is that?"

**Because the door swings both ways. Creationists are asked for proof. I want proof of a 'quantum field' and its causality, concluded with an argument for why a quantum field magically without 'tense' would not be suppotive of creationism.**

Creationists make a claim, and thus have a BoP.
Atheists don't necessarily make a claim about how things exist.

And what, exactly, do you mean by "a 'quantum field' and its causality"?
And what do you mean by "a quantum field magically without 'tense' would not be supportive of creationism"?

(They have a burden of proof and explaining their position because they declare a position as "known" or "believed".)

"Atheism- A lack of belief in god(s)
How is that saying "I know..."?"

**Agnostic is "I don't know." Atheism is a declared position of knowledge that God does not exist.**

http://lmgtfy.com...
What does it say?
It says, "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

(An Agnostic has not declared a position or declared anything as "known". The Atheist cannot in intellectual honesty hide behind "I have no belief". They do have a belief that causes them, just as the Theist to believe in the unseen, untestable, and unprovable/unmeasurable.)

"Pure assertion."

**So is saying God does not exist**

Did I say god does not exist? No.
So, irrelevant.

(Philisophical Conundrums no Matter where you Turn)

"Pure assertion"

**So is saying God does not exist.**

Same as above.

"Or, if you even bothered to read Dr. Krauss's work,
In a state that lacks space, time, energy, radiation, matter, etc., all that is needed are natural laws to form a universe.
This is due to quantum physics dealing with fluctuations and gravity dealing with spacetime. This means that quantum gravity probably allows for spacetime to fluctuate in and out of existence (there are models that are mathematically sound that do propose this idea).
Within empty space, there is a phenomena called Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations, where particles and antiparticles pop in and out of existence. In the presence of gravity, these particles can persist indefinitely. A universe that has all matter formed in this way would be a zero energy universe (which ours is).

This allows for spacetime to pop into existence and matter/energy to as well, with only natural explanations."

**My faith in a god pales in comparison to the mythologicality of this proposed neverland that still needs a causality.**

Except that Krauss's explanation has a basis in SCIENCE.

(Either way you have a paradoxial answer for reality that is intellectually problematic.)

"1) No, we don't.
2) You made a false dichotomy."

**The claim is that reality is infinite or finite. Do you have a third claim?**

It is eternal with infinite time, eternal with finite time, or not eternal with finite time.

(The nonproblematic answer in its vague form is,"Something from beyond our reality and time is the 'missing link'". Everyone is a "religious zealot". Everyone has beliefs that they cannot fully support, prove, or answer in nonparadoxial form. All possible answers are sureal, impossible to wrap your mind around, and founded on non-proofs. You must have faith no matter who you are. The question is,"In what?")

"Not even close to true."

**Sure it is. If God does not exist in your mind, you must assume something else which you believe "is true" or a generalization of what is true. So what do you believe is true? The "quantum field beyond our reality"? Sorry that is faith in the unseen, untestable and unprovable. Nevertheless, even if it were true, the causality of the "quantum field" still is in question.**

Did I claim there was a quantum field beyond our reality? No.
Furthermore, my views are more along the lines of the 3rd option I provided than Krauss's.
And what do you mean by "the causality of the 'quantum field' still is in question"?

("We can say the universe is eternal, which is just as fine as the opposite answer. But then in turn we must also say the eternal universe has been mobilizing life forms eternally through something similar to Darwinian means. This brings us to multiple paradoxial conclusions:")

"Only if you assume that eternal=infinite in time.
With a tenseless universe, eternal does not-infinite in time."

**So it is tenseless(which is a paradox), without time, how did it jump into the beginning of time?**

How is it paradoxical for the universe to be tenseless? Oh, wait, its not.
Also, with a tenseless model, there is no such thing as a "beginning" of time.

("No matter how you look at it you will have to accept a paradoxial answer, something seemingly mythological or fundamentalist philosophical dogma beyond comprehension.")

"No, we don't
Ad nausea."

**Okay. What is your nonparadoxed answer?**

A tenseless block of finite spacetime, like I pointed out earlier.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 9:53:56 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 9:44:55 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/4/2016 9:30:55 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

First, thanks for the horrible formatting.

Posted: 1 hour ago
At 2/4/2016 6:02:58 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

(The Atheist has a burden of proof concerning how we exist.)

"And why is that?"

**Because the door swings both ways. Creationists are asked for proof. I want proof of a 'quantum field' and its causality, concluded with an argument for why a quantum field magically without 'tense' would not be suppotive of creationism.**

Creationists make a claim, and thus have a BoP.
Atheists don't necessarily make a claim about how things exist.

And what, exactly, do you mean by "a 'quantum field' and its causality"?
And what do you mean by "a quantum field magically without 'tense' would not be supportive of creationism"?

(They have a burden of proof and explaining their position because they declare a position as "known" or "believed".)

"Atheism- A lack of belief in god(s)
How is that saying "I know..."?"

**Agnostic is "I don't know." Atheism is a declared position of knowledge that God does not exist.**

http://lmgtfy.com...
What does it say?
It says, "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

(An Agnostic has not declared a position or declared anything as "known". The Atheist cannot in intellectual honesty hide behind "I have no belief". They do have a belief that causes them, just as the Theist to believe in the unseen, untestable, and unprovable/unmeasurable.)

"Pure assertion."

**So is saying God does not exist**

Did I say god does not exist? No.
So, irrelevant.

(Philisophical Conundrums no Matter where you Turn)

"Pure assertion"

**So is saying God does not exist.**

Same as above.

"Or, if you even bothered to read Dr. Krauss's work,
In a state that lacks space, time, energy, radiation, matter, etc., all that is needed are natural laws to form a universe.
This is due to quantum physics dealing with fluctuations and gravity dealing with spacetime. This means that quantum gravity probably allows for spacetime to fluctuate in and out of existence (there are models that are mathematically sound that do propose this idea).
Within empty space, there is a phenomena called Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations, where particles and antiparticles pop in and out of existence. In the presence of gravity, these particles can persist indefinitely. A universe that has all matter formed in this way would be a zero energy universe (which ours is).

This allows for spacetime to pop into existence and matter/energy to as well, with only natural explanations."

**My faith in a god pales in comparison to the mythologicality of this proposed neverland that still needs a causality.**

Except that Krauss's explanation has a basis in SCIENCE.

(Either way you have a paradoxial answer for reality that is intellectually problematic.)

"1) No, we don't.
2) You made a false dichotomy."

**The claim is that reality is infinite or finite. Do you have a third claim?**

It is eternal with infinite time, eternal with finite time, or not eternal with finite time.

(The nonproblematic answer in its vague form is,"Something from beyond our reality and time is the 'missing link'". Everyone is a "religious zealot". Everyone has beliefs that they cannot fully support, prove, or answer in nonparadoxial form. All possible answers are sureal, impossible to wrap your mind around, and founded on non-proofs. You must have faith no matter who you are. The question is,"In what?")

"Not even close to true."

**Sure it is. If God does not exist in your mind, you must assume something else which you believe "is true" or a generalization of what is true. So what do you believe is true? The "quantum field beyond our reality"? Sorry that is faith in the unseen, untestable and unprovable. Nevertheless, even if it were true, the causality of the "quantum field" still is in question.**

Did I claim there was a quantum field beyond our reality? No.
Furthermore, my views are more along the lines of the 3rd option I provided than Krauss's.
And what do you mean by "the causality of the 'quantum field' still is in question"?

("We can say the universe is eternal, which is just as fine as the opposite answer. But then in turn we must also say the eternal universe has been mobilizing life forms eternally through something similar to Darwinian means. This brings us to multiple paradoxial conclusions:")

"Only if you assume that eternal=infinite in time.
With a tenseless universe, eternal does not-infinite in time."

**So it is tenseless(which is a paradox), without time, how did it jump into the beginning of time?**

How is it paradoxical for the universe to be tenseless? Oh, wait, its not.
Also, with a tenseless model, there is no such thing as a "beginning" of time.

("No matter how you look at it you will have to accept a paradoxial answer, something seemingly mythological or fundamentalist philosophical dogma beyond comprehension.")

"No, we don't
Ad nausea."

**Okay. What is your nonparadoxed answer?**

A tenseless block of finite spacetime, like I pointed out earlier.

If you are not making a claim that god does not exist that is Agnosticism, not Atheism. Bulproof is Atheist. He says God does not exist, period. So to someone who takes that stance, logic requires of them the same burden of proof as Theism.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 9:57:07 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 9:44:55 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/4/2016 9:30:55 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

First, thanks for the horrible formatting.

Posted: 1 hour ago
At 2/4/2016 6:02:58 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

(The Atheist has a burden of proof concerning how we exist.)

"And why is that?"

**Because the door swings both ways. Creationists are asked for proof. I want proof of a 'quantum field' and its causality, concluded with an argument for why a quantum field magically without 'tense' would not be suppotive of creationism.**

Creationists make a claim, and thus have a BoP.
Atheists don't necessarily make a claim about how things exist.

And what, exactly, do you mean by "a 'quantum field' and its causality"?
And what do you mean by "a quantum field magically without 'tense' would not be supportive of creationism"?

(They have a burden of proof and explaining their position because they declare a position as "known" or "believed".)

"Atheism- A lack of belief in god(s)
How is that saying "I know..."?"

**Agnostic is "I don't know." Atheism is a declared position of knowledge that God does not exist.**

http://lmgtfy.com...
What does it say?
It says, "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

(An Agnostic has not declared a position or declared anything as "known". The Atheist cannot in intellectual honesty hide behind "I have no belief". They do have a belief that causes them, just as the Theist to believe in the unseen, untestable, and unprovable/unmeasurable.)

"Pure assertion."

**So is saying God does not exist**

Did I say god does not exist? No.
So, irrelevant.

(Philisophical Conundrums no Matter where you Turn)

"Pure assertion"

**So is saying God does not exist.**

Same as above.

"Or, if you even bothered to read Dr. Krauss's work,
In a state that lacks space, time, energy, radiation, matter, etc., all that is needed are natural laws to form a universe.
This is due to quantum physics dealing with fluctuations and gravity dealing with spacetime. This means that quantum gravity probably allows for spacetime to fluctuate in and out of existence (there are models that are mathematically sound that do propose this idea).
Within empty space, there is a phenomena called Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations, where particles and antiparticles pop in and out of existence. In the presence of gravity, these particles can persist indefinitely. A universe that has all matter formed in this way would be a zero energy universe (which ours is).

This allows for spacetime to pop into existence and matter/energy to as well, with only natural explanations."

**My faith in a god pales in comparison to the mythologicality of this proposed neverland that still needs a causality.**

Except that Krauss's explanation has a basis in SCIENCE.

(Either way you have a paradoxial answer for reality that is intellectually problematic.)

"1) No, we don't.
2) You made a false dichotomy."

**The claim is that reality is infinite or finite. Do you have a third claim?**

It is eternal with infinite time, eternal with finite time, or not eternal with finite time.

(The nonproblematic answer in its vague form is,"Something from beyond our reality and time is the 'missing link'". Everyone is a "religious zealot". Everyone has beliefs that they cannot fully support, prove, or answer in nonparadoxial form. All possible answers are sureal, impossible to wrap your mind around, and founded on non-proofs. You must have faith no matter who you are. The question is,"In what?")

"Not even close to true."

**Sure it is. If God does not exist in your mind, you must assume something else which you believe "is true" or a generalization of what is true. So what do you believe is true? The "quantum field beyond our reality"? Sorry that is faith in the unseen, untestable and unprovable. Nevertheless, even if it were true, the causality of the "quantum field" still is in question.**

Did I claim there was a quantum field beyond our reality? No.
Furthermore, my views are more along the lines of the 3rd option I provided than Krauss's.
And what do you mean by "the causality of the 'quantum field' still is in question"?

("We can say the universe is eternal, which is just as fine as the opposite answer. But then in turn we must also say the eternal universe has been mobilizing life forms eternally through something similar to Darwinian means. This brings us to multiple paradoxial conclusions:")

"Only if you assume that eternal=infinite in time.
With a tenseless universe, eternal does not-infinite in time."

**So it is tenseless(which is a paradox), without time, how did it jump into the beginning of time?**

How is it paradoxical for the universe to be tenseless? Oh, wait, its not.
Also, with a tenseless model, there is no such thing as a "beginning" of time.

("No matter how you look at it you will have to accept a paradoxial answer, something seemingly mythological or fundamentalist philosophical dogma beyond comprehension.")

"No, we don't
Ad nausea."

**Okay. What is your nonparadoxed answer?**

A tenseless block of finite spacetime, like I pointed out earlier.

Define the "block". Is it existant in finite reality or infinite reality? What is outside of it? If nothing is outside we have a paradox, at least within our reality. Do you propose it exists outside of our reality?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 10:03:27 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 9:44:55 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/4/2016 9:30:55 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

First, thanks for the horrible formatting.

Posted: 1 hour ago
At 2/4/2016 6:02:58 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

(The Atheist has a burden of proof concerning how we exist.)

"And why is that?"

**Because the door swings both ways. Creationists are asked for proof. I want proof of a 'quantum field' and its causality, concluded with an argument for why a quantum field magically without 'tense' would not be suppotive of creationism.**

Creationists make a claim, and thus have a BoP.
Atheists don't necessarily make a claim about how things exist.

And what, exactly, do you mean by "a 'quantum field' and its causality"?
And what do you mean by "a quantum field magically without 'tense' would not be supportive of creationism"?

(They have a burden of proof and explaining their position because they declare a position as "known" or "believed".)

"Atheism- A lack of belief in god(s)
How is that saying "I know..."?"

**Agnostic is "I don't know." Atheism is a declared position of knowledge that God does not exist.**

http://lmgtfy.com...
What does it say?
It says, "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

(An Agnostic has not declared a position or declared anything as "known". The Atheist cannot in intellectual honesty hide behind "I have no belief". They do have a belief that causes them, just as the Theist to believe in the unseen, untestable, and unprovable/unmeasurable.)

"Pure assertion."

**So is saying God does not exist**

Did I say god does not exist? No.
So, irrelevant.

(Philisophical Conundrums no Matter where you Turn)

"Pure assertion"

**So is saying God does not exist.**

Same as above.

"Or, if you even bothered to read Dr. Krauss's work,
In a state that lacks space, time, energy, radiation, matter, etc., all that is needed are natural laws to form a universe.
This is due to quantum physics dealing with fluctuations and gravity dealing with spacetime. This means that quantum gravity probably allows for spacetime to fluctuate in and out of existence (there are models that are mathematically sound that do propose this idea).
Within empty space, there is a phenomena called Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations, where particles and antiparticles pop in and out of existence. In the presence of gravity, these particles can persist indefinitely. A universe that has all matter formed in this way would be a zero energy universe (which ours is).

This allows for spacetime to pop into existence and matter/energy to as well, with only natural explanations."

**My faith in a god pales in comparison to the mythologicality of this proposed neverland that still needs a causality.**

Except that Krauss's explanation has a basis in SCIENCE.

(Either way you have a paradoxial answer for reality that is intellectually problematic.)

"1) No, we don't.
2) You made a false dichotomy."

**The claim is that reality is infinite or finite. Do you have a third claim?**

It is eternal with infinite time, eternal with finite time, or not eternal with finite time.

(The nonproblematic answer in its vague form is,"Something from beyond our reality and time is the 'missing link'". Everyone is a "religious zealot". Everyone has beliefs that they cannot fully support, prove, or answer in nonparadoxial form. All possible answers are sureal, impossible to wrap your mind around, and founded on non-proofs. You must have faith no matter who you are. The question is,"In what?")

"Not even close to true."

**Sure it is. If God does not exist in your mind, you must assume something else which you believe "is true" or a generalization of what is true. So what do you believe is true? The "quantum field beyond our reality"? Sorry that is faith in the unseen, untestable and unprovable. Nevertheless, even if it were true, the causality of the "quantum field" still is in question.**

Did I claim there was a quantum field beyond our reality? No.
Furthermore, my views are more along the lines of the 3rd option I provided than Krauss's.
And what do you mean by "the causality of the 'quantum field' still is in question"?

("We can say the universe is eternal, which is just as fine as the opposite answer. But then in turn we must also say the eternal universe has been mobilizing life forms eternally through something similar to Darwinian means. This brings us to multiple paradoxial conclusions:")

"Only if you assume that eternal=infinite in time.
With a tenseless universe, eternal does not-infinite in time."

**So it is tenseless(which is a paradox), without time, how did it jump into the beginning of time?**

How is it paradoxical for the universe to be tenseless? Oh, wait, its not.
Also, with a tenseless model, there is no such thing as a "beginning" of time.

("No matter how you look at it you will have to accept a paradoxial answer, something seemingly mythological or fundamentalist philosophical dogma beyond comprehension.")

"No, we don't
Ad nausea."

**Okay. What is your nonparadoxed answer?**

A tenseless block of finite spacetime, like I pointed out earlier.

Everything in our reality has a cause, something that started it or that it came from. Are you implying this "quantum field" had no beginning and is eternal? If it is truely quantum and it jumped our reality into existance, this implies it is a supercomputer in nature, which implies we are a simulation, which implies a creator seeing this quantum "supercomputer" thought to go so deep as to jump dna(a code/language), consciousness, love, hate, and deeper and deeper complexity of systems within its construct, etc into its virtual reality.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 10:23:26 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 8:57:31 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/4/2016 8:37:12 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

How about addressing what I said point by point. Refute each point I make where I make it, explain why it is wrong. Otherwise, there is no reason to take you seriously.

"Tenseless" is an imaginary concept eithin the constructs of our reality. If I hopped into a "tenseless" state I would become immortal, beyond time.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 10:53:42 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 6:02:58 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
The Atheist has a burden of proof concerning how we exist.
No, they don't. The existence of the universe is not evidence for the deliberate creation of an intelligent, compassionate god, unless you can stipulate the mechanisms by which a single intelligent, compassionate god created the universe, explained why it must have used those mechanisms and not some other, and demonstrate the specific, significant, falsifiable traces showing by which those mechanisms were used.

Otherwise what you have is not a valid, verified empirical model, but a vague, opaque, unfalsifiable story -- and one vague, opaque, unfalsifiable story can be replaced with any of countless others.

For example, how is this universe evidence that a god created it, and not that it produced by a cosmic turtle that normally lays exquisite cosmic eggs, but got so frightened by a cosmic shark that it shat this universe out in abject fear before swimming on in the cosmic sea, glad to be away from its fright, and this embarrassing memory?
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 10:57:00 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 10:53:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/4/2016 6:02:58 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
The Atheist has a burden of proof concerning how we exist.
No, they don't. The existence of the universe is not evidence for the deliberate creation of an intelligent, compassionate god, unless you can stipulate the mechanisms by which a single intelligent, compassionate god created the universe, explained why it must have used those mechanisms and not some other, and demonstrate the specific, significant, falsifiable traces showing by which those mechanisms were used.

Otherwise what you have is not a valid, verified empirical model, but a vague, opaque, unfalsifiable story -- and one vague, opaque, unfalsifiable story can be replaced with any of countless others.

For example, how is this universe evidence that a god created it, and not that it produced by a cosmic turtle that normally lays exquisite cosmic eggs, but got so frightened by a cosmic shark that it shat this universe out in abject fear before swimming on in the cosmic sea, glad to be away from its fright, and this embarrassing memory?

But it was created by a turtle, I mean a quantum field outside of space and time...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 11:03:31 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 10:53:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/4/2016 6:02:58 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
The Atheist has a burden of proof concerning how we exist.
No, they don't. The existence of the universe is not evidence for the deliberate creation of an intelligent, compassionate god, unless you can stipulate the mechanisms by which a single intelligent, compassionate god created the universe, explained why it must have used those mechanisms and not some other, and demonstrate the specific, significant, falsifiable traces showing by which those mechanisms were used.

Otherwise what you have is not a valid, verified empirical model, but a vague, opaque, unfalsifiable story -- and one vague, opaque, unfalsifiable story can be replaced with any of countless others.

For example, how is this universe evidence that a god created it, and not that it produced by a cosmic turtle that normally lays exquisite cosmic eggs, but got so frightened by a cosmic shark that it shat this universe out in abject fear before swimming on in the cosmic sea, glad to be away from its fright, and this embarrassing memory?

We have the life and death of Christ as mentioned in history. Atheism has no Christ. It has no causality for anything. It has no prophecies. It has no promise. It has no hope. The hope of Atheism is a cold, splattered cosmic death within a quantum medium that was clever by chance to create a coded language system with a so called "signature of design" by Richard Dawkins himself. If ID is correct it might could be discovered by science(if we have the freedom to do so). What could be more exciting than that?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 11:07:37 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 10:57:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/4/2016 10:53:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/4/2016 6:02:58 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
The Atheist has a burden of proof concerning how we exist.
No, they don't. The existence of the universe is not evidence for the deliberate creation of an intelligent, compassionate god, unless you can stipulate the mechanisms by which a single intelligent, compassionate god created the universe, explained why it must have used those mechanisms and not some other, and demonstrate the specific, significant, falsifiable traces showing by which those mechanisms were used.

Otherwise what you have is not a valid, verified empirical model, but a vague, opaque, unfalsifiable story -- and one vague, opaque, unfalsifiable story can be replaced with any of countless others.

For example, how is this universe evidence that a god created it, and not that it produced by a cosmic turtle that normally lays exquisite cosmic eggs, but got so frightened by a cosmic shark that it shat this universe out in abject fear before swimming on in the cosmic sea, glad to be away from its fright, and this embarrassing memory?

But it was created by a turtle, I mean a quantum field outside of space and time...
Perhaps, but here's the problem...

That we can both imagine a cosmic turtle crapping itself in the presence of a cosmic shark, doesn't make it a valid conjecture. Our intuitions are an unrealiable path to knowledge, so validity needs more than intuitive plausibility. To establish a valid conjecture we need to lay credible, constructive foundations for eventually proving or disproving it independently.

A cosmic turtle is an invalid conjecture because it lacks the necessary criteria for independent verification or falsification.

Unfortunately, most 'Goddunnit' conjectures are invalid too. And that is why dismissing those conjectures as invalid requires no further burden of proof. It just needs accountability for why a conjecture is invalid, and that's easy to explain.

Consequently, using the universe as 'evidence' for a god is invalid too, since 'Goddunnit' is unfalsifiable and unverifiable to start with. And without verifiable or falsifiable evidence, the question of a god's existence becomes invalid too.

So atheists can dismiss the whole ideological package without needing to say more than what a valid conjecture is -- which amounts to stipulating which guests they believe should be admitted to the doorstep of knowledge, and which won't.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,129
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 11:36:44 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 10:03:27 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

Everything in our reality has a cause, something that started it or that it came from.

Everything?! What causes virtual particles to pop into existence?
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
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 1:11:12 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Virtual particles don't really exist as independent, self sustaining particles. That's why they are called "virtual".
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 1:37:28 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 11:07:37 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/4/2016 10:57:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/4/2016 10:53:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/4/2016 6:02:58 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
The Atheist has a burden of proof concerning how we exist.
No, they don't. The existence of the universe is not evidence for the deliberate creation of an intelligent, compassionate god, unless you can stipulate the mechanisms by which a single intelligent, compassionate god created the universe, explained why it must have used those mechanisms and not some other, and demonstrate the specific, significant, falsifiable traces showing by which those mechanisms were used.

Otherwise what you have is not a valid, verified empirical model, but a vague, opaque, unfalsifiable story -- and one vague, opaque, unfalsifiable story can be replaced with any of countless others.

For example, how is this universe evidence that a god created it, and not that it produced by a cosmic turtle that normally lays exquisite cosmic eggs, but got so frightened by a cosmic shark that it shat this universe out in abject fear before swimming on in the cosmic sea, glad to be away from its fright, and this embarrassing memory?

But it was created by a turtle, I mean a quantum field outside of space and time...
Perhaps, but here's the problem...

That we can both imagine a cosmic turtle crapping itself in the presence of a cosmic shark, doesn't make it a valid conjecture. Our intuitions are an unrealiable path to knowledge, so validity needs more than intuitive plausibility. To establish a valid conjecture we need to lay credible, constructive foundations for eventually proving or disproving it independently.

A cosmic turtle is an invalid conjecture because it lacks the necessary criteria for independent verification or falsification.

Unfortunately, most 'Goddunnit' conjectures are invalid too. And that is why dismissing those conjectures as invalid requires no further burden of proof. It just needs accountability for why a conjecture is invalid, and that's easy to explain.

Consequently, using the universe as 'evidence' for a god is invalid too, since 'Goddunnit' is unfalsifiable and unverifiable to start with. And without verifiable or falsifiable evidence, the question of a god's existence becomes invalid too.

So atheists can dismiss the whole ideological package without needing to say more than what a valid conjecture is -- which amounts to stipulating which guests they believe should be admitted to the doorstep of knowledge, and which won't.

Are you ready to accept Christ as your savior and be forgiven for your sins?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 1:40:27 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 1:37:28 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/4/2016 11:07:37 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/4/2016 10:57:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/4/2016 10:53:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/4/2016 6:02:58 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
The Atheist has a burden of proof concerning how we exist.
No, they don't. The existence of the universe is not evidence for the deliberate creation of an intelligent, compassionate god, unless you can stipulate the mechanisms by which a single intelligent, compassionate god created the universe, explained why it must have used those mechanisms and not some other, and demonstrate the specific, significant, falsifiable traces showing by which those mechanisms were used.

Otherwise what you have is not a valid, verified empirical model, but a vague, opaque, unfalsifiable story -- and one vague, opaque, unfalsifiable story can be replaced with any of countless others.

For example, how is this universe evidence that a god created it, and not that it produced by a cosmic turtle that normally lays exquisite cosmic eggs, but got so frightened by a cosmic shark that it shat this universe out in abject fear before swimming on in the cosmic sea, glad to be away from its fright, and this embarrassing memory?

But it was created by a turtle, I mean a quantum field outside of space and time...
Perhaps, but here's the problem...

That we can both imagine a cosmic turtle crapping itself in the presence of a cosmic shark, doesn't make it a valid conjecture. Our intuitions are an unrealiable path to knowledge, so validity needs more than intuitive plausibility. To establish a valid conjecture we need to lay credible, constructive foundations for eventually proving or disproving it independently.

A cosmic turtle is an invalid conjecture because it lacks the necessary criteria for independent verification or falsification.

Unfortunately, most 'Goddunnit' conjectures are invalid too. And that is why dismissing those conjectures as invalid requires no further burden of proof. It just needs accountability for why a conjecture is invalid, and that's easy to explain.

Consequently, using the universe as 'evidence' for a god is invalid too, since 'Goddunnit' is unfalsifiable and unverifiable to start with. And without verifiable or falsifiable evidence, the question of a god's existence becomes invalid too.

So atheists can dismiss the whole ideological package without needing to say more than what a valid conjecture is -- which amounts to stipulating which guests they believe should be admitted to the doorstep of knowledge, and which won't.

Are you ready to accept Christ as your savior and be forgiven for your sins?

No, I have no need of that service, however should he have existed in the first place, and somehow return to life today, the carpenter and failed religious revolutionary Yeshua ben Yusuf is welcome to accept me as a trusted advisor and be relieved of key past ignorance and indifference to the suffering of his fellow man. :)
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 1:44:18 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 1:40:27 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/5/2016 1:37:28 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/4/2016 11:07:37 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/4/2016 10:57:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/4/2016 10:53:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/4/2016 6:02:58 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
The Atheist has a burden of proof concerning how we exist.
No, they don't. The existence of the universe is not evidence for the deliberate creation of an intelligent, compassionate god, unless you can stipulate the mechanisms by which a single intelligent, compassionate god created the universe, explained why it must have used those mechanisms and not some other, and demonstrate the specific, significant, falsifiable traces showing by which those mechanisms were used.

Otherwise what you have is not a valid, verified empirical model, but a vague, opaque, unfalsifiable story -- and one vague, opaque, unfalsifiable story can be replaced with any of countless others.

For example, how is this universe evidence that a god created it, and not that it produced by a cosmic turtle that normally lays exquisite cosmic eggs, but got so frightened by a cosmic shark that it shat this universe out in abject fear before swimming on in the cosmic sea, glad to be away from its fright, and this embarrassing memory?

But it was created by a turtle, I mean a quantum field outside of space and time...
Perhaps, but here's the problem...

That we can both imagine a cosmic turtle crapping itself in the presence of a cosmic shark, doesn't make it a valid conjecture. Our intuitions are an unrealiable path to knowledge, so validity needs more than intuitive plausibility. To establish a valid conjecture we need to lay credible, constructive foundations for eventually proving or disproving it independently.

A cosmic turtle is an invalid conjecture because it lacks the necessary criteria for independent verification or falsification.

Unfortunately, most 'Goddunnit' conjectures are invalid too. And that is why dismissing those conjectures as invalid requires no further burden of proof. It just needs accountability for why a conjecture is invalid, and that's easy to explain.

Consequently, using the universe as 'evidence' for a god is invalid too, since 'Goddunnit' is unfalsifiable and unverifiable to start with. And without verifiable or falsifiable evidence, the question of a god's existence becomes invalid too.

So atheists can dismiss the whole ideological package without needing to say more than what a valid conjecture is -- which amounts to stipulating which guests they believe should be admitted to the doorstep of knowledge, and which won't.

Are you ready to accept Christ as your savior and be forgiven for your sins?

No, I have no need of that service, however should he have existed in the first place, and somehow return to life today, the carpenter and failed religious revolutionary Yeshua ben Yusuf is welcome to accept me as a trusted advisor and be relieved of key past ignorance and indifference to the suffering of his fellow man. :)

When He comes back, get ahold of me and we'll go through the prayer of salvation.

Which "ignorance" would that be?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 1:55:52 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 1:44:18 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/5/2016 1:40:27 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/5/2016 1:37:28 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/4/2016 11:07:37 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/4/2016 10:57:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/4/2016 10:53:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/4/2016 6:02:58 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
The Atheist has a burden of proof concerning how we exist.
No, they don't. The existence of the universe is not evidence for the deliberate creation of an intelligent, compassionate god, unless you can stipulate the mechanisms by which a single intelligent, compassionate god created the universe, explained why it must have used those mechanisms and not some other, and demonstrate the specific, significant, falsifiable traces showing by which those mechanisms were used.

Otherwise what you have is not a valid, verified empirical model, but a vague, opaque, unfalsifiable story -- and one vague, opaque, unfalsifiable story can be replaced with any of countless others.

For example, how is this universe evidence that a god created it, and not that it produced by a cosmic turtle that normally lays exquisite cosmic eggs, but got so frightened by a cosmic shark that it shat this universe out in abject fear before swimming on in the cosmic sea, glad to be away from its fright, and this embarrassing memory?

But it was created by a turtle, I mean a quantum field outside of space and time...
Perhaps, but here's the problem...

That we can both imagine a cosmic turtle crapping itself in the presence of a cosmic shark, doesn't make it a valid conjecture. Our intuitions are an unrealiable path to knowledge, so validity needs more than intuitive plausibility. To establish a valid conjecture we need to lay credible, constructive foundations for eventually proving or disproving it independently.

A cosmic turtle is an invalid conjecture because it lacks the necessary criteria for independent verification or falsification.

Unfortunately, most 'Goddunnit' conjectures are invalid too. And that is why dismissing those conjectures as invalid requires no further burden of proof. It just needs accountability for why a conjecture is invalid, and that's easy to explain.

Consequently, using the universe as 'evidence' for a god is invalid too, since 'Goddunnit' is unfalsifiable and unverifiable to start with. And without verifiable or falsifiable evidence, the question of a god's existence becomes invalid too.

So atheists can dismiss the whole ideological package without needing to say more than what a valid conjecture is -- which amounts to stipulating which guests they believe should be admitted to the doorstep of knowledge, and which won't.

Are you ready to accept Christ as your savior and be forgiven for your sins?

No, I have no need of that service, however should he have existed in the first place, and somehow return to life today, the carpenter and failed religious revolutionary Yeshua ben Yusuf is welcome to accept me as a trusted advisor and be relieved of key past ignorance and indifference to the suffering of his fellow man. :)

When He comes back, get ahold of me and we'll go through the prayer of salvation.

Which "ignorance" would that be?

In no particular order, an apparent ignorance of the moral and ethical importance of a germ-theory of medicine and associated hygeine; the moral and ethical importance of the environment and biodiversity; the full extent of the rights of women and children; the importance of empiricism, intellectual dissent and freedom of expression to intellectual and moral development; the benefits of secular democracy to social justice; the critical role of literacy and numeracy in informed decision-making; the origins of species, of man and the astronomical place of the Earth within the universe; the natural variation of sexual diversity in humans and other primates; the natural diversity of human temperaments and their role in moral reasoning and other critical decision-making; and the intellectual paucity and ethical bankruptcy of using revelation, miracles and other appeals to authority as epistemological argument, would be high on my list.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 1:59:35 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 11:03:31 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/4/2016 10:53:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/4/2016 6:02:58 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
The Atheist has a burden of proof concerning how we exist.
No, they don't. The existence of the universe is not evidence for the deliberate creation of an intelligent, compassionate god, unless you can stipulate the mechanisms by which a single intelligent, compassionate god created the universe, explained why it must have used those mechanisms and not some other, and demonstrate the specific, significant, falsifiable traces showing by which those mechanisms were used.

Otherwise what you have is not a valid, verified empirical model, but a vague, opaque, unfalsifiable story -- and one vague, opaque, unfalsifiable story can be replaced with any of countless others.

For example, how is this universe evidence that a god created it, and not that it produced by a cosmic turtle that normally lays exquisite cosmic eggs, but got so frightened by a cosmic shark that it shat this universe out in abject fear before swimming on in the cosmic sea, glad to be away from its fright, and this embarrassing memory?

We have the life and death of Christ as mentioned in history. Atheism has no Christ. It has no causality for anything. It has no prophecies. It has no promise. It has no hope. The hope of Atheism is a cold, splattered cosmic death within a quantum medium that was clever by chance to create a coded language system with a so called "signature of design" by Richard Dawkins himself. If ID is correct it might could be discovered by science(if we have the freedom to do so). What could be more exciting than that?

Do you realize there are other theories than just materialism and Christianity? (emphasis on theories)

Christianity is only one of thousands of religions and worldviews.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 2:02:48 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 8:18:22 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/4/2016 7:33:15 PM, matt8800 wrote:
I know Christianity is false however because that is a logical conclusion based on the data and inconsistencies.

Which inconsistancies

If you really want to know, I can provide a ton of material. I assumed it would be a waste of time because religious people usually dont have an open mind.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 2:13:49 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 6:02:58 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
The Atheist has a burden of proof concerning how we exist.

No we don't.

I don't think any Atheist (certainly none that I have ever seen) has made any positive claims about the nature of reality. I have seen much speculation, and arguments about what is possible or not, but I haven't seen anyone matter-of-factly state that the universe is definitely caused by X or Y. Obviously people have beliefs, but most when challenged will be fairly honest and claim "we don't know for certain" or "I think that..." and post the claim as a statement of opinion rather than a claim.

Given that we have no positive claim (I know I don't), there is no burden of proof to uphold.

Religious people, on the other hand; have just as little information and know just as little, but pretend they have the right answer.

You, on the other hand, DO make a positive claim about the origin of the universe, and so therefore you DO have the burden of proof to show that you're positive claim is true.

In reality, you have no clue, no argument, and no logical justification for making your particular claim; however you simply assert that it is valid.

Pretending that you are correct, and you have an argument doesn't give your position any more solid grounding than any of the other unsupported, speculative, and unevidenced conjecture that one can conceive of.
bulproof
Posts: 25,272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 2:16:54 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 9:53:56 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/4/2016 9:44:55 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/4/2016 9:30:55 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

First, thanks for the horrible formatting.

Posted: 1 hour ago
At 2/4/2016 6:02:58 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

(The Atheist has a burden of proof concerning how we exist.)

"And why is that?"

**Because the door swings both ways. Creationists are asked for proof. I want proof of a 'quantum field' and its causality, concluded with an argument for why a quantum field magically without 'tense' would not be suppotive of creationism.**

Creationists make a claim, and thus have a BoP.
Atheists don't necessarily make a claim about how things exist.

And what, exactly, do you mean by "a 'quantum field' and its causality"?
And what do you mean by "a quantum field magically without 'tense' would not be supportive of creationism"?

(They have a burden of proof and explaining their position because they declare a position as "known" or "believed".)

"Atheism- A lack of belief in god(s)
How is that saying "I know..."?"

**Agnostic is "I don't know." Atheism is a declared position of knowledge that God does not exist.**

http://lmgtfy.com...
What does it say?
It says, "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

(An Agnostic has not declared a position or declared anything as "known". The Atheist cannot in intellectual honesty hide behind "I have no belief". They do have a belief that causes them, just as the Theist to believe in the unseen, untestable, and unprovable/unmeasurable.)

"Pure assertion."

**So is saying God does not exist**

Did I say god does not exist? No.
So, irrelevant.

(Philisophical Conundrums no Matter where you Turn)

"Pure assertion"

**So is saying God does not exist.**

Same as above.

"Or, if you even bothered to read Dr. Krauss's work,
In a state that lacks space, time, energy, radiation, matter, etc., all that is needed are natural laws to form a universe.
This is due to quantum physics dealing with fluctuations and gravity dealing with spacetime. This means that quantum gravity probably allows for spacetime to fluctuate in and out of existence (there are models that are mathematically sound that do propose this idea).
Within empty space, there is a phenomena called Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations, where particles and antiparticles pop in and out of existence. In the presence of gravity, these particles can persist indefinitely. A universe that has all matter formed in this way would be a zero energy universe (which ours is).

This allows for spacetime to pop into existence and matter/energy to as well, with only natural explanations."

**My faith in a god pales in comparison to the mythologicality of this proposed neverland that still needs a causality.**

Except that Krauss's explanation has a basis in SCIENCE.

(Either way you have a paradoxial answer for reality that is intellectually problematic.)

"1) No, we don't.
2) You made a false dichotomy."

**The claim is that reality is infinite or finite. Do you have a third claim?**

It is eternal with infinite time, eternal with finite time, or not eternal with finite time.

(The nonproblematic answer in its vague form is,"Something from beyond our reality and time is the 'missing link'". Everyone is a "religious zealot". Everyone has beliefs that they cannot fully support, prove, or answer in nonparadoxial form. All possible answers are sureal, impossible to wrap your mind around, and founded on non-proofs. You must have faith no matter who you are. The question is,"In what?")

"Not even close to true."

**Sure it is. If God does not exist in your mind, you must assume something else which you believe "is true" or a generalization of what is true. So what do you believe is true? The "quantum field beyond our reality"? Sorry that is faith in the unseen, untestable and unprovable. Nevertheless, even if it were true, the causality of the "quantum field" still is in question.**

Did I claim there was a quantum field beyond our reality? No.
Furthermore, my views are more along the lines of the 3rd option I provided than Krauss's.
And what do you mean by "the causality of the 'quantum field' still is in question"?

("We can say the universe is eternal, which is just as fine as the opposite answer. But then in turn we must also say the eternal universe has been mobilizing life forms eternally through something similar to Darwinian means. This brings us to multiple paradoxial conclusions:")

"Only if you assume that eternal=infinite in time.
With a tenseless universe, eternal does not-infinite in time."

**So it is tenseless(which is a paradox), without time, how did it jump into the beginning of time?**

How is it paradoxical for the universe to be tenseless? Oh, wait, its not.
Also, with a tenseless model, there is no such thing as a "beginning" of time.

("No matter how you look at it you will have to accept a paradoxial answer, something seemingly mythological or fundamentalist philosophical dogma beyond comprehension.")

"No, we don't
Ad nausea."

**Okay. What is your nonparadoxed answer?**

A tenseless block of finite spacetime, like I pointed out earlier.

If you are not making a claim that god does not exist that is Agnosticism, not Atheism. Bulproof is Atheist. He says God does not exist, period. So to someone who takes that stance, logic requires of them the same burden of proof as Theism.
You've got it barse ackwards saurus.
Theists claim gods exist, theists can't supply evidence to support this claim ergo atheists have every right to claim gods don't exist and provide the exact same evidence as provided by theists ie NONE.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 2:20:06 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 1:59:35 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 2/4/2016 11:03:31 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/4/2016 10:53:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/4/2016 6:02:58 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
The Atheist has a burden of proof concerning how we exist.
No, they don't. The existence of the universe is not evidence for the deliberate creation of an intelligent, compassionate god, unless you can stipulate the mechanisms by which a single intelligent, compassionate god created the universe, explained why it must have used those mechanisms and not some other, and demonstrate the specific, significant, falsifiable traces showing by which those mechanisms were used.

Otherwise what you have is not a valid, verified empirical model, but a vague, opaque, unfalsifiable story -- and one vague, opaque, unfalsifiable story can be replaced with any of countless others.

For example, how is this universe evidence that a god created it, and not that it produced by a cosmic turtle that normally lays exquisite cosmic eggs, but got so frightened by a cosmic shark that it shat this universe out in abject fear before swimming on in the cosmic sea, glad to be away from its fright, and this embarrassing memory?

We have the life and death of Christ as mentioned in history. Atheism has no Christ. It has no causality for anything. It has no prophecies. It has no promise. It has no hope. The hope of Atheism is a cold, splattered cosmic death within a quantum medium that was clever by chance to create a coded language system with a so called "signature of design" by Richard Dawkins himself. If ID is correct it might could be discovered by science(if we have the freedom to do so). What could be more exciting than that?

Do you realize there are other theories than just materialism and Christianity? (emphasis on theories)

Christianity is only one of thousands of religions and worldviews.

Out of the religions of any signifigance only 3 speak of our "creator", and they are all 3 Abrahamic faiths. There is no other "creator god" mentioned in any other seriously considered religions.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 2:23:57 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 2:13:49 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/4/2016 6:02:58 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
The Atheist has a burden of proof concerning how we exist.

No we don't.

I don't think any Atheist (certainly none that I have ever seen) has made any positive claims about the nature of reality. I have seen much speculation, and arguments about what is possible or not, but I haven't seen anyone matter-of-factly state that the universe is definitely caused by X or Y. Obviously people have beliefs, but most when challenged will be fairly honest and claim "we don't know for certain" or "I think that..." and post the claim as a statement of opinion rather than a claim.


Given that we have no positive claim (I know I don't), there is no burden of proof to uphold.


Religious people, on the other hand; have just as little information and know just as little, but pretend they have the right answer.

You, on the other hand, DO make a positive claim about the origin of the universe, and so therefore you DO have the burden of proof to show that you're positive claim is true.

In reality, you have no clue, no argument, and no logical justification for making your particular claim; however you simply assert that it is valid.

Pretending that you are correct, and you have an argument doesn't give your position any more solid grounding than any of the other unsupported, speculative, and unevidenced conjecture that one can conceive of.

In infinite space/time "darwinian evolution" would have already evolved a supreme being.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...