Atheism and Noodles
Posted on: Mon, 2007-01-08 23:28
Offline
Atheism and Noodles
This really has nothing to do with noodles.. it was just to get your attention
Now if there is a thread like this then please tell me (i just diddnt see one)
Okay, now the whole purpose of this thread is to tell me (or any atheist) why he should beleve in God... what evidance is there for God... and which God you think he should beleve in.
I (as far as I know...) do not know of one really good argument for his (her or it's) existance.
(I have read some but they dont strike my fancy soo...)
As far as I know they mostly rely on the concept of who created the universe? and personal experiance... If you have any kickass reasons why I should beleve in god... maby ill become a theist :)
[quote=Guruite]
I (as far as I know...) do not know of one really good argument for his (her or it's) existance.
[/quote]
Ever heard of St Thomas Aquinas Five Ways of knowing that God exists? When I get home from work tonight, I can give you a summery version of those arguments.
Terror
Cool, I read up on some arguments on wiki but thye seemed weak (something like the fact that we define god makes him real or the fact that we can or cannot imagine him makes him real)
I honestly dont expect ot be converted by any arguments because the whole god thing is all about faith ... if you could prove that he existed then you wouldent need faith (I know that is sortof a creationist argument but it still would explane why they woulent try to come up with proofs (I know some do... But many just wont talk about their thoughts because "It requires faith")
[quote=Guruite]Cool, I read up on some arguments on wiki but thye seemed weak (something like the fact that we define god makes him real or the fact that we can or cannot imagine him makes him real) [/quote]
Ummm, St Thomas Aquinas did not say that at all... He said that God's existance is not self evidence and thus it needed to be proved. He used the cosmological and telelogical arguments to do it. Anselm's Ontological Argument is the one that states that God is self evident. Today most Christian apologetic works use more modern versions of the cosmological and telelogical arguments. Wiki is about as accurate on theology as the back of a milk carton, try something by Ben Witherington III or Aquinas.
[quote]I honestly dont expect ot be converted by any arguments because the whole god thing is all about faith ... if you could prove that he existed then you wouldent need faith[/quote]
That's an absured argument that like I said above is based upon the strawman that Christian faith is somehow blind. It isn't... it is trust based upon past performence. Really... lay off the Irrational Responder junk and try something like [i]Summa Theologica[/i].
[quote] (I know that is sortof a creationist argument but it still would explane why they woulent try to come up with proofs (I know some do... But many just wont talk about their thoughts because "It requires faith")[/quote]
You love that strawmen don't you? That is not what Christian faith is... it's based upon reason and past expirence.
Terror
oh god(no pun intended) I can't believe that anyone takes the Five Ways seriously anymore.
Way #1
The Argument from Motion: Nothing can Move itself.
This argument does not work for quite basic reasons, it simply adds another link to the chain. To say what existed before the beginning of time is to ask a question outside of meaningful bounds, because existence implies time. Secondly, it does not prove a god, it could simply prove an infinite universe.
Way #2
Causation of Existence: Nothing can cause its own existence
This one quite easily causes its own disproof. If god can self-exist, so can the universe(on a logical level in fact, the latter satisfies Ockham's Razor better). Secondly, while everything has a cause, not everything has a cause for existence. For example, if I'm life an object out of a magnetic field, and put it in your hands, just above the field, I caused the object to be above the field in esse, your hands keep it above in fieri. But your hands did not cause anything. If I build a gun, I cause the gun to exist in fieri, but in esse, it exists solely by virtue of its materials and how they inherently exist. Secondly, this speaks of movement or action. There is no similar thing about existence. In fact, nothing can cease to exist or be created.
Way #3
Contingent objects are objects which are reliant on necessary objects.
This argument is just plain stupid. He invents terminology, and says they must exist. I could just say 'contingent objects are objects which rely on my omnipotence. Since they exist, I am omnipotent. That argument is obviously false, and so is Aquinas' argument from contingency. For example, were I to explain why there is a bag of chips in my room, the explanation is that I picked it up, and put it there. Technically, the explanation is a vast chain all the way back to the beginning of the universe, and furthermore, into the basic laws of physics. However, the cause of the bags being room is my carrying them there. Just because the series of things causing the bag of chips to be in my room has no necesaary cause doesn't mean they aren't all contingent on each other. If I ask why water freezes, eventually I will reach a point at which I must say that something simply happens based on its properties, and the same is true of contingent causes.
Way #4 The Argument from Degree
This one doesn't even make sense. He says to measure something, we must compare it to the greatest possible. When you measure the size of your room, what do you measure it in? Inches, or Universe-lengths. You measure by managable units, not by the greatest possible.
Way #5 The Argument from Design
Because of the Laws of the universe, it must have been designed. This doesn't take into account multiverses, replicating universes, descendant universes, bubble universes(which recently have been experimented on in Japan, and are the only of these theoretical objects we know exist) etc... while most of those are theoretical, they are possible answers. Secondly, it is not that the universe is designed to us, but vice versa. Were the laws of the universe different, we would be different, and thus the design arrgument would still compel some. However, we are confusing adaptation for perfection. Plus, perfection isn't present, there is much imperfection, make-do work in life-forms, and many vestigial organs.
[quote]Ummm, St Thomas Aquinas did not say that at all... [/quote]
Where are you getting at that I thought that he did? WTF... I just said that some people claim something liek that and that it is on wikipedia... I have never read anything by Aquinas so i couldent claim even if i thought that he did.
[quote]Wiki is about as accurate on theology as the back of a milk carton,[/quote]
I doubt it, wiki is pretty good at being right (i understand that it is wrong sometimes... but i dont have time to read all of the stuff you have read... so i go to wiki to find a summary of the arguments)
[quote]That's an absured argument that like I said above is based upon the strawman that Christian faith is somehow blind. It isn't... it is trust based upon past performence. Really... lay off the Irrational Responder junk and try something like Summa Theologica.[/quote]
I know many christians that beleve that it is impossiable to prove that there is a god. Christian faith IS blind... if it werent then it wouldent be faith
[quote]You love that strawmen don't you? That is not what Christian faith is... it's based upon reason and past expirence.[/quote]
Even if that was true (and it is not... you might be talking aobut your sect but many christians dont think that reason has anything to do with christianity) it still amounts to nothing... reason... well what reason? you havent shown any... and as for past experiance... it is not even yours it is just some diaries of old guys...
But even if that was foolproof... to prove something you need more... you need evidence and there just is none.
Tell me one good reason (And I mean good) that I should consider the notion of god any diffrent than the notion of leprechauns that can become invisible..
[quote]I know that is sortof a creationist argument [/quote]
that is not a straw man... i did not refute your argument in it... i diddnt claim to have won... i just said that if you know god exists then you dont need faith that he exists... (I dont have "faith" that my computer exists because I know that it exists... the way to know if something exists is physical evidence (of some kind) and there just is none for god.)
I never said that all christians beleved that there is evidance for god...
Trust based on past performance? Really now, what performance would that be?
er... you can't just redefine faith.
And I've read Aquinas(including Summa Theologica), Kant, Hegel, Michael Behe, Dembski, Lee Strobel and Dr. Dino extensively, and am using them in my senior thesis(as my rebuttal arguments, which I then demolish), so feel free to bring those up, I need the mental exercise.
As this is my first post...It should be fun.
[quote]oh god(no pun intended) I can't believe that anyone takes the Five Ways seriously anymore.[/quote]
Well, if it means anything, I can't believe anyone takes The Rational Responders seriously anymore.
[quote]Way #1
The Argument from Motion: Nothing can Move itself.
This argument does not work for quite basic reasons, it simply adds another link to the chain. To say what existed before the beginning of time is to ask a question outside of meaningful bounds, because existence implies time. Secondly, it does not prove a god, it could simply prove an infinite universe.[/quote]
You misunderstand the argument. It arrives at the conclusion that since nothing can move itself, there [i]must be[/i] an unmoved mover. This mover is unmoved by definition. If you were to say, "it only adds another link to the chain," then I'd say, "Okay then. There must be an [i]unmoved mover[/i] after that, since this chain cannot go on forever. It's impossible."
Hmm...It could simply prove an infinite universe? This seems extremely unlikely, given that there is practically no scientific evidence to support that brand of nonsense, and almost ALL scientific evidence pointing to the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe. An actually infinite set is an incoherent concept that has no basis in reality.
To be specific, if there was no beginning to the universe, and it has always existed, then it must have existed an [i]actually infinite number of days[/i] before today. However, if that were true, today would have never arrived. Actually infinite sets have no end or beginning, but today is the end of the infinite. That's not possible. Plus, after every day that past back then, there would always be an infinite number of days after it before today was ever thought of. This is, thus, incoherent.
So that last statement was about as reasonable as, "It doesn't prove god. It could just be a flaming hamburger being eaten by a cow jumping over the moon."
[quote]Way #2
Causation of Existence: Nothing can cause its own existence
This one quite easily causes its own disproof. If god can self-exist, so can the universe(on a logical level in fact, the latter satisfies Ockham's Razor better). Secondly, while everything has a cause, not everything has a cause for existence. For example, if I'm life an object out of a magnetic field, and put it in your hands, just above the field, I caused the object to be above the field in esse, your hands keep it above in fieri. But your hands did not cause anything. If I build a gun, I cause the gun to exist in fieri, but in esse, it exists solely by virtue of its materials and how they inherently exist. Secondly, this speaks of movement or action. There is no similar thing about existence. In fact, nothing can cease to exist or be created.[/quote]
Not likely, as I just demonstrated. The universe cannot self-exist.
Your examples of the magnetic field as well as the gun miss the point entirely. We're not talking about things that have causes as you point out. The entire point of this argument is discussing things that have causes [b]of its existence[/b]. Of course when you build a gun, you build it out of pre-existing materials. But how did those materials come to exist in the first place? And, if all the scientific evidence is true and the universe did have a beginning, merely assuming that the universe has always existed won't do you any good.
This argument is better formulated thusly:
1) Whatever [b]begins to exist[/b] has a cause.
2) The universe had a beginning.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
[quote]This argument is just plain stupid. He invents terminology, and says they must exist. I could just say 'contingent objects are objects which rely on my omnipotence. Since they exist, I am omnipotent. That argument is obviously false, and so is Aquinas' argument from contingency. For example, were I to explain why there is a bag of chips in my room, the explanation is that I picked it up, and put it there. Technically, the explanation is a vast chain all the way back to the beginning of the universe, and furthermore, into the basic laws of physics. However, the cause of the bags being room is my carrying them there. Just because the series of things causing the bag of chips to be in my room has no necesaary cause doesn't mean they aren't all contingent on each other. If I ask why water freezes, eventually I will reach a point at which I must say that something simply happens based on its properties, and the same is true of contingent causes.[/quote]
Wow, incredible. That's not even close to what the argument is saying. Let's rephrase it for you, since it obviously went straight over your head:
1) There are things that exist that need causes (contingent), and things that are necessary.
2) Not everything is contingent.
3) Thus, there must be a necessary being that caused all the contingent things.
4) Thus, God exists.
You're the one saying that the universe has always existed, and so it should come to no surprise according to your worldview that there's a difference between things that need causes and things that are necessary. In fact, you're the one making the argument that the universe as a whole is not contingent. Wow, you completely misunderstood the argument. You're a genius!
[quote]This one doesn't even make sense. He says to measure something, we must compare it to the greatest possible. When you measure the size of your room, what do you measure it in? Inches, or Universe-lengths. You measure by managable units, not by the greatest possible.[/quote]
This argument is not exclusively about measurements, Dr. Science. Nor is it saying that we directly compare it to the greatest possible.
It can be anything, including beauty, knowledge, etc. We say, "That painting is more beautiful than this painting." This implies that there's a perfect standard to what beauty is measured by. Nowhere in the argument does it say, as you summarized, that we conciously think, "That painting is less beautiful than God." This is merely talking about a progression.
[quote]Because of the Laws of the universe, it must have been designed. This doesn't take into account multiverses, replicating universes, descendant universes, bubble universes(which recently have been experimented on in Japan, and are the only of these theoretical objects we know exist) etc... while most of those are theoretical, they are possible answers.[/quote]
So as long as you can have a "possible" answer, the argument is refuted? Somehow, that doesn't cut it for me. I don't deal in the realm of "theoretical."
[quote]Secondly, it is not that the universe is designed to us, but vice versa. Were the laws of the universe different, we would be different, and thus the design arrgument would still compel some. However, we are confusing adaptation for perfection. Plus, perfection isn't present, there is much imperfection, make-do work in life-forms, and many vestigial organs.[/quote]
Correction: "Were the laws of the universe different, [i]we almost certainly would not exist.[/i]" This is your misunderstanding.
Your comment about vestigial organs is a red herring. We're not talking about body functions: We're talking about the laws and fine-tuning of the universe.
~P-Dunn
And another note:
[quote]Trust based on past performance? Really now, what performance would that be?
er... you can't just redefine faith.[/quote]
We're not redefining anything. We're just not using the English definition for a [b]Greek[/b] word, like you.
The Greek word for faith, [i]pistis[/i], means trust based on prior performance. Biblical faith works in the same way that you'd "have faith in" your best friend. It doesn't mean you merely believe he exists, but that you trust them to do what's right.
Aww, Man... I forgot to save my post and my internet went down (Not an excuse... just pissed off)
Anywho my whole thing was pretty much a question as to why you consider God to be "outside" the universe or why you can beleve in Multiple universes because by the defintion of "Universe" at dictionary.com (could be wrong) the universe "is everything that exists anywhere" Which would include other universes (they exist somewhere) and God (he exists... somewhere (if not everywhere)
[quote]Aww, Man... I forgot to save my post and my internet went down (Not an excuse... just pissed off)[/quote]
I know exactly how you feel. This has happened to me many, many times. Sucks, doesn't it?
[quote]Anywho my whole thing was pretty much a question as to why you consider God to be "outside" the universe or why you can beleve in Multiple universes because by the defintion of "Universe" at dictionary.com (could be wrong) the universe "is everything that exists anywhere" Which would include other universes (they exist somewhere) and God (he exists... somewhere (if not everywhere)[/quote]
The word, "universe" is a word with multiple meanings. One is a very broad one, which is what this definition speaks of, and the other a more specific one. Sure, someone can say, "The universe is large," and include [i]everything[/i] that we know of. But when scientists speak of multiple universes, they're using the more specific version to refer to sections of what the first definition describes.
With this second definition in mind, it's not hard to comprehend how God is "outside" the universe. Plus, he has no physical body or parts, so in my mind, that makes it easier to fathom as well.
Again, what is this prior performance?
The difference between God and people, is first you have to have faith in the existence of the former, than faith that you trust them. The latter is perfectly fine, the former... runs into iffy ground
Actually, if certain things are to be believed, time is irrelevant for objects moving the speed of light. An object increasing to the speed of light would ignore time relatively more and more. A universe decreasing from the speed of light would therefore slowly have more 'time' progression, and much like the 1/x function, it would have an infinite amount over a finite period.
Secondly, an infinite God waiting infinite years to create a universe runs into the same conundrum as an always existent universe not Big Banging for an infinite amount of years.
You seem to think that a Big Bang implies finitism. However, that is to make assumptions about what could not have happened before. What happened before the creation of the space-time continuum as we know it? We don't know, but that doesn't mean we should just make up an answer.
I think you define universe slightly differently. You seem to be stating the universe solely as existence after the Big Bang. But the universe is the whole of existence. So yes, existence is not dependent on other things, but existence in and of itself isn't a thing, it's a quality.
So if I say 'This piece of paper is larger than this other piece of paper' I'm implying that there is a maximum size?
Yes, if I have a possible answer, with evidence for its existence, that is far better than making up some concept about god.
I realize you're talking about the laws and fine-tuning, people often speak of the variations in electronegativity or gravitational force and many other basic forces of the world which, were they different, life could not form. The thing is, this assumes Carbon based, water dependent life. I can just as easily imagine another plane of existence where people would be saying, good thing the world exists how it does, otherwise, how could Silicon chains form?
The purpose of mentioned the evolutionary idea was that were the world COMPLETELY fine-tuned in a PERFECT way, what we would expect from a perfect deity, why would their be waste? That seems to be something which causes needless suffering
Although it's heartening to hear from a Christian who believes in evolution and that the universe is friggin older than the Sumerians glue
[quote=Guruite]
Where are you getting at that I thought that he did? WTF... I just said that some people claim something liek that and that it is on wikipedia... I have never read anything by Aquinas so i couldent claim even if i thought that he did.[/quote]
Wikipedia is a poor source of information when you are searching theology. St. Thomas Aquinas' work is what modern arguments for God's existance are based on. Like I said, go use some good information and not something written by a 15 year old who get's his info from a pop tart box.
[quote]I doubt it, wiki is pretty good at being right (i understand that it is wrong sometimes... but i dont have time to read all of the stuff you have read... so i go to wiki to find a summary of the arguments)[/quote]
Wiki is not the most accurate sources of information... If Wiki told you that false information you stated above... than it's wrong. I don't not expect you to go read [i]Summa Theologica[/i] since that book is as thick as a Bible, very complicated, and cost over 50 dollars. If you want a good summary of modren arguments for the existance of God, try [i]Reasonable Faith[/i] by William Lane Craig and [i]I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist [/i]by Norman L Geisler and Frank Turek.
[quote]I know many christians that beleve that it is impossiable to prove that there is a god. Christian faith IS blind... if it werent then it wouldent be faith[/quote]
Again, you make up a strawman and hold it up as it's absolute and true. I don't care what other Christians say, I care what is truthful. And as I told you (and you ignored it) faith is trust. Don't believe me, go check a dictionary.
[quote]Even if that was true (and it is not... you might be talking aobut your sect but many christians dont think that reason has anything to do with christianity)[/quote]
I can care less what other Christians think, I'm asking you about the here and now. Stop with the strawmen arguments and adress [b]my[/b] arguments.
[quote] it still amounts to nothing... reason... well what reason?[/quote]
Same reason we use in logic, science, history, or any other subject.
[quote] you havent shown any... and as for past experiance... it is not even yours it is just some diaries of old guys...[/quote]
Yep, keep creating those strawmen because you don't want to answer me. Do you know anything about the historical method? No. Know anything about my life or Chrsitan walk? No. So please don't assume I'm as ignorant as the other Chrsitians you've talked to. Now adress the arguments at hand or admit (as I suspected all along) that you don't really care, you're just looking for an excuse to put your fingers in your ears and say, "Lalalala, I'm not listening!"
[quote]But even if that was foolproof... to prove something you need more... you need evidence and there just is none.[/quote]
What do you coincider as evidence? I have historical, logical, and scientific. What want do you want?
[quote]Tell me one good reason (And I mean good) that I should consider the notion of god any diffrent than the notion of leprechauns that can become invisible..[/quote]
Because I can prove leprechauns that can become invisible do not exist. How easy? What is the historical evidence for them? None correct? Scientific? None correct? Logical? None correct? On the other hand, we have historical, scientific, and logical evidence for God's existance that demands to be looked at. The real question is, if you really care about finding the truth, why do you read a few articles in wiki (who get their information from the back of milk cartons) and don't even look up some commentaries, bible studies, or apologetic works? That's laziness, the information is there, much of it online. Now use it.
[quote]that is not a straw man... i did not refute your argument in it... i diddnt claim to have won... i just said that if you know god exists then you dont need faith that he exists...[/quote]
Again with the strawman of faith. Faith is trust based upon past performence. Read some real materal and not some idiocy written by the 'Irrational Responders'.
[quote] (I dont have "faith" that my computer exists because I know that it exists... the way to know if something exists is physical evidence (of some kind) and there just is none for god.)[/quote]
Can you prove anything outside your mind exist? The entire world around you could be an illusion, how do you know otherwise?
[quote]I never said that all christians beleved that there is evidance for god...[/quote]
I don't care if others do or not. Answer the argument at hand and stop trying to change the subject to cover for your ignorance.
Terror
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1]Again, what is this prior performance?[/quote]
The historical, logical, and scientific evidence. Plus our changed lives for Christ. Do pay attention and drop the strawman already.
[quote]The difference between God and people, is first you have to have faith in the existence of the former, than faith that you trust them.[/quote]
Do you do sweeping generalizations in all of your arguments? I'm sorry but your argument is based upon the assumption that I and others became Christians before we looked at the evidence. I can't speak for everyone else, but that wasn't me...
[quote]The latter is perfectly fine, the former... runs into iffy ground[/quote]
And another strawman comes crashing down...
Terror
[quote=P-Dunn] This seems extremely unlikely, given that there is practically no scientific evidence to support that brand of nonsense, and almost ALL scientific evidence pointing to the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe. An actually infinite set is an incoherent concept that has no basis in reality.
[/quote]
The Big Bang starts from planck time, not where time = 0, so its not a creation account. Also, there are a number of competeting theories on exactly the cause of the Big Bang and many that do not require the prime mover, five ways argument. This being covered in a previous message by Todangst on RRS, states a view held by Stephen Hawking:
[quote=Togangst]
"In his best selling book, A Brief History of Time, Professor Hawking suggests that in order for the "Big Bang" to work, the mathematics requires that the condition of the Universe at the beginning must have been finite and boundless. There must have been no edges, or points of discontinuity. Without this assumption, the laws of physics could not be used to explain the activity and state of affairs in the first moments of the creation of the Universe. By assuming that the Universe was and is finite, yet boundless, physicists are able to avoid the problems created by discontinuities."
In Hawkings "Universe in a Nutshell" he furthers this argument, by hold that a universe that his finite but boundless has no beginning or end point, and no need for a creator. Hawkings himself declared that this point would not possess any 'special' status. It would be akin to any other point in a circle - or more accurately, a globe. Hawkings states rather plainly that his model proposes a boundless, yet finite universe - without any special points in space or time. He covers this in Universe in a Nutshell. [/quote]
It's very clear that there are a number of competing theories about the Big Bang within cosmology. There is still so much to learn before we can discuss the big bang in such a tone as to denote certainty, much less for it to soundly support arguments for creation or lackthereof. In short, we don't know.
[quote]
Your examples of the magnetic field as well as the gun miss the point entirely. We're not talking about things that have causes as you point out. The entire point of this argument is discussing things that have causes [b]of its existence[/b]. Of course when you build a gun, you build it out of pre-existing materials. But how did those materials come to exist in the first place? And, if all the scientific evidence is true and the universe did have a beginning, merely assuming that the universe has always existed won't do you any good.
This argument is better formulated thusly:
1) Whatever [b]begins to exist[/b] has a cause.
2) The universe had a beginning.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
[/quote]
Well we do not know for certain that the universe began to exist, as I mentioned about the Big Bang only begins from planck time. What happened before is anyones guess at this point.
[quote]
So as long as you can have a "possible" answer, the argument is refuted? Somehow, that doesn't cut it for me. I don't deal in the realm of "theoretical."
[/quote]
Really? What of the Big Bang, are you telling me its not 'theoretical'?
[quote]
Correction: "Were the laws of the universe different, [i]we almost certainly would not exist.[/i]" This is your misunderstanding.
[/quote]
One thing that I find fascinating are deep sea creatures, who have been defying the conventions of what we have thought were the conditions for supporting life. We are finding creatures, thriving in areas where before we thought life would be impossible. So I would agree that the conditions in the universe is perfect for our species to exist, but had it been different whos not to say that life might have existed but in another form altogether.
[quote=lilangelofterror]
The historical, logical, and scientific evidence. Plus our changed lives for Christ. Do pay attention and drop the strawman already.
[/quote]
Hmm, whats the scientific evidence for the resurrection?
[quote=melchisedec][quote=lilangelofterror]
The historical, logical, and scientific evidence. Plus our changed lives for Christ. Do pay attention and drop the strawman already.
[/quote]
Hmm, whats the scientific evidence for the resurrection?
[/quote]
The evidence for the resurrection is historical, not scientific.
Just to clarify. I'll let LAOT do the demonstrating.
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1]Actually, if certain things are to be believed, time is irrelevant for objects moving the speed of light.[/quote]
Ummm no, time changes with speed, but does not become irrelevant. *rolls eyes.
[quote]An object increasing to the speed of light would ignore time relatively more and more. A universe decreasing from the speed of light would therefore slowly have more 'time' progression, and much like the 1/x function, it would have an infinite amount over a finite period. [/quote]
First, nobody has ever observed anything in nature moving faster than the speed of light. Second, even if the unverse either speed up or slows down, time still moves, just at a different rate. Third, you can not produce an infinate series of events by adding 1, so how can a finate unverse create the infinity?. I'm sorry, but it appears your argument is not nearly as stable as it appears on the surface.
[quote]Secondly, an infinite God waiting infinite years to create a universe runs into the same conundrum as an always existent universe not Big Banging for an infinite amount of years. [/quote]
Nope. Here's the reason, the scientific evidence points to the unverse begining to exist... we know that nothing can not create something. The conclusion is something has to be always existing in order for the unverse to arrive. We know this something can not be the unverse itself or the part of the unverse. So it must exist outside the unverse. This seems to describe a God quite well, don't you think?
[quote]You seem to think that a Big Bang implies finitism. However, that is to make assumptions about what could not have happened before. What happened before the creation of the space-time continuum as we know it? We don't know, but that doesn't mean we should just make up an answer.[/quote]
Since you have admitted we don't know what existed before, there is no reason to reject God or gods as the starting point of the unverse.
[quote]I think you define universe slightly differently. You seem to be stating the universe solely as existence after the Big Bang. But the universe is the whole of existence. So yes, existence is not dependent on other things, but existence in and of itself isn't a thing, it's a quality.[/quote]
That's because existance is based upon events and the existance of other things. My existance was made possible because of one, my parents existance and two them comming together at a certian point and time to create me. Thus my existance is based upon my parents existance and a specific time. What does this have to do with anything? First, since the evidence points to the unverse begining to exist, what caused it to exist? Second, why are you assuming that the unverse is 'the whole of existence? You admitted above we do not know how time or space was created; however; you begin to tell us what did exist. It appears to me, you have just contradicted yourself and made an assumption when you just warned us not to make assumptions. I'm not going to let you have your cake and eat it too. So either admit that we can't know what existed before the unverse (thus voiding your own argument) or admit that we do (this contradicting yourself). Now, what one is it?
[quote]So if I say 'This piece of paper is larger than this other piece of paper' I'm implying that there is a maximum size?[/quote]
No, but it's implying there is a difference or a standard of measurment. What is this standard?
[quote]Yes, if I have a possible answer, with evidence for its existence, that is far better than making up some concept about god.[/quote]
I do love how you have not only contradict yourself ( by saying that we don't know what existed before space time, yet telling us nothing did, don't you have to know something about the pre-existance of the unverse before you can say nothing existed?) now you are question begging. Why? Well, you first are saying God does not exist, you than try to argue he doesn't exist, than you conclude he doesn't exist. Your argument contradicts itself so much and begs the question, it's almost laughable, come back when you got something new.
[quote]The purpose of mentioned the evolutionary idea was that were the world COMPLETELY fine-tuned in a PERFECT way, what we would expect from a perfect deity, why would their be waste? That seems to be something which causes needless suffering[/quote]
Why do you think suffering is needless? My suffering has made me who I am and I'm sure others would agree.
[quote]Although it's heartening to hear from a Christian who believes in evolution and that the universe is friggin older than the Sumerians glue[/quote]
It apperas you have not done that much searching. I think I answered you objections though. I look foward to your response.
Terror
[quote=sunflash][quote=melchisedec][quote=lilangelofterror]
The historical, logical, and scientific evidence. Plus our changed lives for Christ. Do pay attention and drop the strawman already.
[/quote]
Hmm, whats the scientific evidence for the resurrection?
[/quote]
The evidence for the resurrection is historical, not scientific.
Just to clarify. I'll let LAOT do the demonstrating.[/quote]
While I am well aware of the historical evidence for Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, I am curious of the scientific evidence that has been professed. While I know history to be a social science, the comment above denoted something aside from that.
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1]oh god(no pun intended) I can't believe that anyone takes the Five Ways seriously anymore.
[/quote]
That's not St Thomas Aquinas' arguments at all. Do you even know what Aquinas taught? Aquinas' arguments can be summorized into two arguments that are used today (although they are slightly changed due to new evidence), know what they are?
Terror
[quote=melchisedec]While I am well aware of the historical evidence for Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, I am curious of the scientific evidence that has been professed. While I know history to be a social science, the comment above denoted something aside from that.[/quote]
It's that the unverse did not create itself. The evidence for this is found in an argument that is known as SURGE. Know anything about it?
Terror
[quote=lilangelofterror][quote=melchisedec]While I am well aware of the historical evidence for Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, I am curious of the scientific evidence that has been professed. While I know history to be a social science, the comment above denoted something aside from that.[/quote]
It's that the unverse did not create itself. The evidence for this is found in an argument that is known as SURGE. Know anything about it?
Terror
[/quote]
No, I am not familiar with that theory. Care to explain and/or provide some links? I did a cursory search but could not find anything. As far as the universe not creating itself, to my knowledge we do not know if it needed creation to begin with, since we cannot account for planck time.
[quote=lilangelofterror][quote=AgnosticAtheist1]oh god(no pun intended) I can't believe that anyone takes the Five Ways seriously anymore.
[/quote]
That's not St Thomas Aquinas' arguments at all. Do you even know what Aquinas taught? Aquinas' arguments can be summorized into two arguments that are used today (although they are slightly changed due to new evidence), know what they are?
Terror
[/quote]
er... Being a Latin student, i've read part of his Summa Theologica, and he DOES speak of the Five Ways, which are(simplified) the unmoved mover, the unmoved cause, degree, contingency, and design
Part 1, Question 2, Article 3.
[quote]
Can you prove anything outside your mind exist? The entire world around you could be an illusion, how do you know otherwise?
[/quote]
There's a difference between faith in light of evidence and blind faith. Plato's Cave, while interesting, because a perfect simulation differs in no way from the real thing.
[quote=lilangelofterror][quote=AgnosticAtheist1]Again, what is this prior performance?[/quote]
The historical, logical, and scientific evidence. Plus our changed lives for Christ. Do pay attention and drop the strawman already.
[quote]The difference between God and people, is first you have to have faith in the existence of the former, than faith that you trust them.[/quote]
Do you do sweeping generalizations in all of your arguments? I'm sorry but your argument is based upon the assumption that I and others became Christians before we looked at the evidence. I can't speak for everyone else, but that wasn't me...
[quote]The latter is perfectly fine, the former... runs into iffy ground[/quote]
And another strawman comes crashing down...
Terror[/quote]
How on earth is that a strawman? I strawman is taking one quote OUT of context, rebutting it, and saying the argument is rebutted. You claimed there was past performance as evidence. In what context was I supposed to take that? I took it in the context that you were saying such evidence proved God, but then provided no evidence for such 'prior performance'
As for the second one, you said that faith in man was analogous to faith in god. I then said it wasn't because faith in god is twofold, faith in existence, then faith in trustworthiness, whereas faith in man is simply in respects to trustworthiness. If you are taking ONLY the second type of faith in respects to God, you are not making an argument, as you simply are assuming God exists, and saying you must have faith in his saying to have faith that he exists.
[quote=lilangelofterror]
First, nobody has ever observed anything in nature moving faster than the speed of light. Second, even if the unverse either speed up or slows down, time still moves, just at a different rate. Third, you can not produce an infinate series of events by adding 1, so how can a finate unverse create the infinity?. I'm sorry, but it appears your argument is not nearly as stable as it appears on the surface.[/quote]
Er...I never said... faster than the speed of light. I said to the speed of light, much as the graph 1/x converges to 0. You actually can produce an infinte series of events by adding 1, infinite times. That's not what I'm suggesting, I'm suggesting exponentially increasing numbers, but regardless, while a finite number of things cannot fill an infinite time, an infinte amount can.
[quote]Nope. Here's the reason, the scientific evidence points to the unverse begining to exist... we know that nothing can not create something. The conclusion is something has to be always existing in order for the unverse to arrive. We know this something can not be the unverse itself or the part of the unverse. So it must exist outside the unverse. This seems to describe a God quite well, don't you think?[/quote]
Actually, the evidence points to the universe beginning to be active in some way, that does not mean it didn't exist before. That does not imply a beginning of existence, much the same as a God sitting around chillaxing infinitely before creating everything doesn't.
Secondly, nothing can explode, creating matter and anti-matter. There are even some theories that this happens in supermassive black holes.
[quote]Since you have admitted we don't know what existed before, there is no reason to reject God or gods as the starting point of the unverse.[/quote]
Quite simply, I reject them because they are positive propositions. Since there are an infinite number of positive propositions, there is no reason to believe any of them more than the other. Probabilistically, there is 1 negative proposition, and infinite positive ones, and therefore there is a 50% chance of nothing, but a 0% chance of any given positive proposition being the right choice. Without evidence, the negative proposition holds the most weight.
[quote]That's because existance is based upon events and the existance of other things. My existance was made possible because of one, my parents existance and two them comming together at a certian point and time to create me. Thus my existance is based upon my parents existance and a specific time. What does this have to do with anything? First, since the evidence points to the unverse begining to exist, what caused it to exist? Second, why are you assuming that the unverse is 'the whole of existence? You admitted above we do not know how time or space was created; however; you begin to tell us what did exist. It appears to me, you have just contradicted yourself and made an assumption when you just warned us not to make assumptions. I'm not going to let you have your cake and eat it too. So either admit that we can't know what existed before the unverse (thus voiding your own argument) or admit that we do (this contradicting yourself). Now, what one is it?[/quote]
The reason I can say that's what the universe is is because that's what the word 'universe' means. Anything we don't know about, but later discover, would still be part of the universe, even if we don't know it yet. I don't know how time/space was created, correct. That doesn't mean I don't know it exists. There is a difference between an assumption based on my extrapolation of the data available to me(currently the fact that my fingers are tired) and the type of assumption the existence of something we cannot observe takes.
[quote]No, but it's implying there is a difference or a standard of measurment. What is this standard?[/quote]
It depends, but you're ignoring the point, we measure things by small measurements, we do not need to appeal to a highest degree. For example, heat is measured by energy. We do not compare to the highest heat(as Aquinas claims), rather, we appeal to measurements we know of. That does not imply their is a highest heat, just as using a ruler does not imply there is a greatest size.
[quote]
I do love how you have not only contradict yourself ( by saying that we don't know what existed before space time, yet telling us nothing did, don't you have to know something about the pre-existance of the unverse before you can say nothing existed?) now you are question begging. Why? Well, you first are saying God does not exist, you than try to argue he doesn't exist, than you conclude he doesn't exist. Your argument contradicts itself so much and begs the question, it's almost laughable, come back when you got something new.[/quote]
No, the very basis of my rejection of what existed before space time is that we DONT know. If there is no knowledge, and no evidence, the logical choice is NOT to believe in any warrantless claims that add extraneous things.
[quote]Why do you think suffering is needless? My suffering has made me who I am and I'm sure others would agree. [/quote]
Since you're going to play the out of context contradictions game, Aquinas speaks of necessary and contingent things. If suffering is not needless, than it is contingent. This assumption of yours runs entirely counter to Aquinas, who is the one you first referenced. The way you are is not contingent, it is simply how it turned out. It is not NECESSARY that you are the way you are, and thus it is needless. Thus, the suffering putting you there is also unneccessary and needless.
[quote]Although it's heartening to hear from a Christian who believes in evolution and that the universe is friggin older than the Sumerians glue[/quote]
It apperas you have not done that much searching. I think I answered you objections though. I look foward to your response.
Terror[/quote]
(and I was talking about P-Dunn)