Arguments for God's Existence

[leroy]

Yes, and I accept that the paper is wrong.

Ok then I guess I proved successfully that my original point was correct

Again, scientific papers covering working models seems reasonable to me, but you will deny evidence (while pretending to accept it).

so the only one who has proven to deny evidence despite the conclusion of scientific articles is you.

 

[thenexttodie]

Hello Sparhafoc..

Are you not talking to me?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Yes, and I accept that the paper is wrong.

Ok then I guess I proved successfully that my original point was correct

Again, scientific papers covering working models seems reasonable to me, but you will deny evidence (while pretending to accept it).

so the only one who has proven to deny evidence despite the conclusion of scientific articles is you.

Articles? You have an article, one that goes against the vast majority of scientific articles in this field. However, yes. I will go against a single article that goes against a consensus in a field I do not know much about.

In another thread, you are trying to bend over backwards to deny that you deny evidence while also writing that said evidence is fake. Not sure how that is comparable.

 

[leroy]

Articles? You have an article, one that goes against the vast majority of scientific articles in this field. However, yes. I will go against a single article that goes against a consensus in a field I do not know much about.

In another thread, you are trying to bend over backwards to deny that you deny evidence while also writing that said evidence is fake. Not sure how that is comparable.

:lol:

I would love to see your evidence for your claim (red letters) I would love to see how you prove that the consensus is that the universe didn’t had a beginning.

almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang’ (Hawking and Penrose http://www.crowhealingnetwork.net/pdf/Stephen%20Hawking%20-%20The%20Nature%20Of%20Space%20And%20Time.pdf.

The good news is that you have another opportunity to admit your mistakes.

The consensus is (and has been for the last 50+ years) is that the universe (and time) had a beginning, the paper that I quoted simply deals with “exotic models” that have been proposed to avoid an absolute beginning; the point of the article is to show that not even those models would avoid a beginning.

And just to be clear, with universe it is meant “all space-time and everything in it” we are not talking about the just the “observable universe”

In another thread, you are trying to bend over backwards to deny that you deny evidence while also writing that said evidence is fake. Not sure how that is comparable

I am just exposing your hypocrisy

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Again, scientific papers covering working models seems reasonable to me,.

By your own standards you should grant that the universe had a beginning because this is the consensus and what scientific papers conclude.

This will be discussed with detail in the other thread, but just be clear, I am not denying the conclusions of the paper that you quoted (https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-7-1)

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Articles? You have an article, one that goes against the vast majority of scientific articles in this field. However, yes. I will go against a single article that goes against a consensus in a field I do not know much about.

In another thread, you are trying to bend over backwards to deny that you deny evidence while also writing that said evidence is fake. Not sure how that is comparable.

:lol:

I would love to see your evidence for your claim (red letters) I would love to see how you prove that the consensus is that the universe didn’t had a beginning.

You know what, I will walk back that claim. The Universe has a beginning, as your citation says. And?

almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang’ (Hawking and Penrose http://www.crowhealingnetwork.net/pdf/Stephen%20Hawking%20-%20The%20Nature%20Of%20Space%20And%20Time.pdf.

The good news is that you have another opportunity to admit your mistakes.

:facepalm:

You are terrible at citing sources, but again, the Universe has a beginning. And?

The consensus is (and has been for the last 50+ years) is that the universe (and time) had a beginning, the paper that I quoted simply deals with “exotic models” that have been proposed to avoid an absolute beginning; the point of the article is to show that not even those models would avoid a beginning.

And just to be clear, with universe it is meant “all space-time and everything in it” we are not talking about the just the “observable universe”

For the last 50+ years? Care to cite a source for that?

In another thread, you are trying to bend over backwards to deny that you deny evidence while also writing that said evidence is fake. Not sure how that is comparable

I am just exposing your hypocrisy

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Again, scientific papers covering working models seems reasonable to me,.

By your own standards you should grant that the universe had a beginning because this is the consensus and what scientific papers conclude.

Again, I am waiting for you to show me that it is a consensus, but I already accept that the Universe had a beginning. Guess your little gotcha point was short lived.

This will be discussed with detail in the other thread, but just be clear, I am not denying the conclusions of the paper that you quoted (https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-7-1)

Yeah, I know. You accepted it after Rumraket rubbed your noise in it three or four times. Until than, you were denying it and asking questions that were already addressed.

 

[leroy]

Again, I am waiting for you to show me that it is a consensus

I already showed it

almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang’ (Hawking and Penrose http://www.crowhealingnetwork.net/pdf/S ... 20Time.pdf.

For the last 50+ years? Care to cite a source for that?

The BBT was proposed in the 1930s and became consensus by 1960s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory)

the Universe has a beginning. And?

Well it depends on the context.

In the context of the other thread, you proved that you do accept PR sources (showing that I was wrong)

In the context of this thread, it would imply that premise 2 in the KCA is probably true

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Again, I am waiting for you to show me that it is a consensus

I already showed it

almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang’ (Hawking and Penrose http://www.crowhealingnetwork.net/pdf/S ... 20Time.pdf.

That is not showing a consensus, that is showing a quote. How did Hawking and Penrose come up with that?

For the last 50+ years? Care to cite a source for that?

The BBT was proposed in the 1930s and became consensus by 1960s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory)

I see what you are saying now.

the Universe has a beginning. And?

Well it depends on the context.

In the context of the other thread, you proved that you do accept PR sources (showing that I was wrong)

You are wrong all the time, so that is nothing special.

In the context of this thread, it would imply that premise 2 in the KCA is probably true

Who cares if a logically flawed argument has one correct premise?

 

[leroy]

Who cares if a logically flawed argument has one correct premise?

Well are you going to show that the argument is logically flawed? It will also help if you explain exactly what you mean by logically flawed

 

[ldmitruk]

Who cares if a logically flawed argument has one correct premise?

Well are you going to show that the argument is logically flawed? It will also help if you explain exactly what you mean by logically flawed

I suggest you watch the following

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Who cares if a logically flawed argument has one correct premise?

Well are you going to show that the argument is logically flawed? It will also help if you explain exactly what you mean by logically flawed

Besides what ldmitruk posted, my favorite is a simple one. The Kalam cosmological argument equivocates between creation out of nothing and creation from existing material.

Whatever begins to exist from existing matterial has a cause;
The universe began to exist out of nothing;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause.

When the equivocation is pointed out, the flaw is obvious. Apples and oranges. I think it is hilarious, because apologists will try everything to show that the Universe actually did have a start for this argument, and by doing so, they unknowingly undermine it.

There is also the special pleading that is involved with it and the question begging. Oh, and that is all beyond the fact that arguments are not evidence.

 

[leroy]

Besides what ldmitruk posted, my favorite is a simple one. The Kalam cosmological argument equivocates between creation out of nothing and creation from existing material.

Whatever begins to exist from existing matterial has a cause;
The universe began to exist out of nothing;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause.

When the equivocation is pointed out, the flaw is obvious. Apples and oranges. I think it is hilarious, because apologists will try everything to show that the Universe actually did have a start for this argument, and by doing so, they unknowingly undermine it.

There is also the special pleading that is involved with it and the question begging. Oh, and that is all beyond the fact that arguments are not evidence.

Well that has a very simple solution, all you have to do is ask the “theist” what does he mean by “cause”
WLC (and I) tend to be very clear on what do we mean.

In formulating the kalam cosmological argument, I intended to speak of what Aristotle called efficient causes. Aristotle distinguished between efficient causes and material causes. An efficient cause is what brings an effect into being, what produces an effect in existence, while a material cause is the stuff out of which the thing is made. For example, Michelangelo was the efficient cause of the statue David, and the material cause of David was the block of marble that Michelangelo sculpted. My claim was that whatever begins to exist has an efficient cause and therefore the universe, having begun to exist, must have an efficient cause. The charge of equivocation immediately evaporates. [6]
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/lectures/objections-so-bad-i-couldnt-have-made-them-up/

Both in premise 1 and the conclusion , the argument refers to “efficient cause”

this is what it is meant by EC

The efficient cause is what did that. If a ball broke a window, then the ball is the efficient cause of the window breaking. Every change is caused by an efficient cause. If your eye sees, then it sees because light from the object strikes your eyes and causes you to see what is there. Efficient causes answer the what did that question, but do not answer how it was done.
https://simplyphilosophy.org/study/aristotles-four-causes/

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I will just quote TBS. He pretty much covered this to death, I agree with his points, I think it is well elaborated.
So instead of just repeating what someone else has done, I will just link you to it.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Besides what ldmitruk posted, my favorite is a simple one. The Kalam cosmological argument equivocates between creation out of nothing and creation from existing material.

Whatever begins to exist from existing matterial has a cause;
The universe began to exist out of nothing;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause.

When the equivocation is pointed out, the flaw is obvious. Apples and oranges. I think it is hilarious, because apologists will try everything to show that the Universe actually did have a start for this argument, and by doing so, they unknowingly undermine it.

There is also the special pleading that is involved with it and the question begging. Oh, and that is all beyond the fact that arguments are not evidence.

Well that has a very simple solution, all you have to do is ask the “theist” what does he mean by “cause”
WLC (and I) tend to be very clear on what do we mean.

In formulating the kalam cosmological argument, I intended to speak of what Aristotle called efficient causes. Aristotle distinguished between efficient causes and material causes. An efficient cause is what brings an effect into being, what produces an effect in existence, while a material cause is the stuff out of which the thing is made. For example, Michelangelo was the efficient cause of the statue David, and the material cause of David was the block of marble that Michelangelo sculpted. My claim was that whatever begins to exist has an efficient cause and therefore the universe, having begun to exist, must have an efficient cause. The charge of equivocation immediately evaporates. [6]
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/lectures/objections-so-bad-i-couldnt-have-made-them-up/

Both in premise 1 and the conclusion , the argument refers to “efficient cause”

Look at that, trying to use a non-sequitur to prop up a broken argument. What else would I expect from an apologist?

Again, you went out of your way to say the Universe came into existence out of nothing. Everything we have ever seen being created was created out of existing material. Thus, you cannot use one to draw conclusions about the other. All Craig's talk about efficient cause is nothing but a distraction and does not solve the problem of comparing something from nothing to something from existing material.

this is what it is meant by EC

The efficient cause is what did that. If a ball broke a window, then the ball is the efficient cause of the window breaking. Every change is caused by an efficient cause. If your eye sees, then it sees because light from the object strikes your eyes and causes you to see what is there. Efficient causes answer the what did that question, but do not answer how it was done.
https://simplyphilosophy.org/study/aristotles-four-causes/

More non-sequiturs, what else would I expect from an apologist? Again, your problem is comparing something from nothing to something from existing material. All this talk of efficient cause is pointless. You need to address the actual equivocation.

I will just quote TBS. He pretty much covered this to death, I agree with his points, I think it is well elaborated.
So instead of just repeating what someone else has done, I will just link you to it.

Oh, I agree. I think TheoreticalBullshit put the death nail to the Kalam a decade ago. Those videos are master pieces.

 

[leroy]

Look at that, trying to use a non-sequitur to prop up a broken argument. What else would I expect from an apologist?

Again, you went out of your way to say the Universe came into existence out of nothing. Everything we have ever seen being created was created out of existing material. Thus, you cannot use one to draw conclusions about the other. All Craig's talk about efficient cause is nothing but a distraction and does not solve the problem of comparing something from nothing to something from existing material.

Again the argument deals with efficient causes, accepting the conclusion implies that you accept that the universe (all space time and everything in it) had an efficient cause. Whether if it also had a material cause or not is beyond the concerns of the argument.

Material causes are irrelevant for the concerns of the argument.

So do you grant that the universe had an efficient cause yes or no? (if not justify your answer)

Remember your answer is independent to whether I you also believe that the universe had a material cause or not

You can in theory present a positive argument for atheism by saying something along these lines: “everything has a material cause” and therefore conclude that the “universe had a material cause”. This would be an interesting argument worth of discussion, feel free to formulate the argument properly and open a new thread, I would be happy to participate, but this would be an independent argument.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Again the argument deals with efficient causes, accepting the conclusion implies that you accept that the universe (all space time and everything in it) had an efficient cause. Whether if it also had a material cause or not is beyond the concerns of the argument.

Material causes are irrelevant for the concerns of the argument.

So do you grant that the universe had an efficient cause yes or no? (if not justify your answer)

I don't know what an efficient cause without a material cause is. There is no example of such a thing anywhere else in the Universe. You won't be able to give me an example.
So you have zero basis to make any inferences about efficient causes. To me the concept isn't even inteligeable. Sure you can say words, like a married bachelor, but the concept is devoided of meaning.

 

[leroy]

Again the argument deals with efficient causes, accepting the conclusion implies that you accept that the universe (all space time and everything in it) had an efficient cause. Whether if it also had a material cause or not is beyond the concerns of the argument.

Material causes are irrelevant for the concerns of the argument.

So do you grant that the universe had an efficient cause yes or no? (if not justify your answer)

I don't know what an efficient cause without a material cause is. There is no example of such a thing anywhere else in the Universe. You won't be able to give me an example.
So you have zero basis to make any inferences about efficient causes. To me the concept isn't even inteligeable. Sure you can say words, like a married bachelor, but the concept is devoided of meaning.

The comment is irrelevant at this point all I what to know is if you grant that the universe had an efficient cause.
This is a simple yes or no question.

Whether if the universe also had a material cause or not is irrelevant and would be an independent question. Feel free to open a new thread, and ask the question. (I would be happy to answer)

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

The comment is irrelevant at this point all I what to know is if you grant that the universe had an efficient cause.
This is a simple yes or no question.

Whether if the universe also had a material cause or not is irrelevant and would be an independent question. Feel free to open a new thread, and ask the question. (I would be happy to answer)

Irrelevant?
Are you kidding me?
Is the exact opposite of Irrelevant, it's the whole freaking point. It's a point that renders this conversation over.

I just explained to you that there is no such thing as efficient causes as you put it. And you just skipped it, didn't understand the point being made, didn't even made an effort to come with a counter, and then just throted allong as if nothing had happened.
You are clearly not qualified to talk about the subject, despite your objections, because you lack even the most basic concepts or the most basic knowledge of logic.

 

[leroy]

The comment is irrelevant at this point all I what to know is if you grant that the universe had an efficient cause.
This is a simple yes or no question.

Whether if the universe also had a material cause or not is irrelevant and would be an independent question. Feel free to open a new thread, and ask the question. (I would be happy to answer)

Irrelevant?
Are you kidding me?
Is the exact opposite of Irrelevant, it's the whole freaking point. It's a point that renders this conversation over.

I just explained to you that there is no such thing as efficient causes as you put it. And you just skipped it, didn't understand the point being made, didn't even made an effort to come with a counter, and then just throted allong as if nothing had happened.
You are clearly not qualified to talk about the subject, despite your objections, because you lack even the most basic concepts or the most basic knowledge of logic.

The question is: do you grant that the universe had an efficient cause? Yes or no, if not why not.?

With "grant" I simply mean that you accept it as being probably true, even if not 100% certain.
With "universe" I mean al space time and everything in it.


Feel free to formulate a positive argument for naturalism along the lines of “everything has a material cause”….provide your premises, your conclusion and explain why you think the premises are true. I would be happy to comment on that argument. (I suggest you doing it in a different thread)

 

[MarsCydonia]

The question is: do you grant that the universe had an efficient cause? Yes or no, if not why not.?

With "grant" I simply mean that you accept it as being probably true, even if not 100% certain.
With "universe" I mean al space time and everything in it.

The question is: will you address the content of Master_Ghost_Knight's comments? Yes or no, if not why not.?

With "address" I simply mean that you will direct effort and respond to Master_Ghost_Knight's comments, rather than ignore their content.
With "content" I mean the collection of points raised in his comments.

I wonder... very little based on past demonstrations from Leroy. :lol:

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

The question is: do you grant that the universe had an efficient cause? Yes or no, if not why not.?

The answer is a resounding No. This should have been obvious by what I just stated, the fact that you didn't get that means that you are not equipped for this debate.
And the reason why it is a definite No. It's because the concept of "efficient cause" as you put it is meaningless.