An Open Question

[dysert]

I'm not suggesting God is a "Substance" I am suggesting that if he is an immaterial being, he has no way to interact with, and therefore influence any material events.

How on earth do you come to that conclusion!? You don't even believe in immaterial beings and yet you know how they might (or might not) interact with the material world? Sheesh.

 

[ranunculus]

Why put something in it that the argument does demand? If that is the case, then any syllogism can be made to be question begging. You replacing words with words to make the argument something that it isnt is something that you do to suit your view. So actually you are found to be in error when doing so. The Kalam argument stands or falls based on its own premises, not on what you or anyone else want to put into it!

You agreed with me that god is the only thing that doesn't have a beginning.
Therefore I'm perfectly valid in replacing "everything that begins to exist" with "everything except god"
the argument is unchanged.

At the big bang, all matter that comprises the universe including space and time was released in an enormous explosion. Before this explosion, all matter space and time existed as a singularity (says some scientists), but since this singularity is composed of matter, then it is necessarily not uncreated, but created.

And you know this how?

The idea of an eternal, material, uncreated singularity is self contradictory. This is not even to mention the fact that immaterial entities such as minds cannot come from that which is material!

Immaterial minds have never been shown to exist.
Please give me an example of a mind that isn't contingent on a brain.

 

[Going Merry]

i find it hard to doubt his existence
i just want to believe correcttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttty

i left the t's to show you i almost fell asleep typing this

Ok now that I have rested... (i was almost snoring when typing that)

Before I came to God I had some facts in mind since I generally knew what was in the word.
1. I wasn't expecting a 'sign' because scripture said the only sign is christ raising from the dead.
2. I know the bible is historically acurate and without error

So what I did was this, i looked up archaeology and history.
But it is also a book that tells the future.
So you can also look for those!
It is amazing really

 

[juvenissun]

I'm a 17 year old, I'm a philosophy student, and I am an atheist.
I was raised in a christian family, but lost my faith around the age of 16. I am simply seeking A) An interesting debate, I love arguments. B) Any attempts to reconvert me, I'm not totally closed minded, in fact I remain entirely accepting of all other major religions, provided they tolerate my decision not to believe.

To make one final point, I am not here with aims to "troll" as it seems many other atheists are doing. All this does is lower opinions of atheists, and helps no one. I am here for proper arguement. For starters:
What makes you believe God exists?

Footnote: None of this is intended to be offensive, it is simply a question.

At this time, what you need the most is to learn, not to debate.
The best format for you to debate, if you want to, is: ask questions.

 

[dlamberth]

Immaterial minds have never been shown to exist.
Please give me an example of a mind that isn't contingent on a brain.

The Mystics of most all spiritual paths point towards life itself as an example that mind can exist with out a brain.


.

 

[Elioenai26]

You agreed with me that god is the only thing that doesn't have a beginning.
Therefore I'm perfectly valid in replacing "everything that begins to exist" with "everything except god"
the argument is unchanged.

Then you do not understand the function or meaning of a logical syllogism.

And you know this how?

The rules of logic and the application of negations and affirmations.

Immaterial minds have never been shown to exist.
Please give me an example of a mind that isn't contingent on a brain.

I guess the words just typed in your post appeared there by themselves!

 

[Elioenai26]

Ok now that I have rested... (i was almost snoring when typing that)

Before I came to God I had some facts in mind since I generally knew what was in the word.
1. I wasn't expecting a 'sign' because scripture said the only sign is christ raising from the dead.
2. I know the bible is historically acurate and without error

So what I did was this, i looked up archaeology and history.
But it is also a book that tells the future.
So you can also look for those!
It is amazing really

Yes. All of these things you said are a light which illuminate the soul, but if one is unwilling to see it, then no one can show it to them.

 

[Musician37]

I'm addressing this because this argument is my personal pet peeve. Everything needs a beginning, the universe exists, the universe had a beginning. God exists, god didn't have a beginning. This is special pleading and you've disproved your premise that everything needs a beginning.
You can't just define non causality as a property of your god and be done with it, thinking you've just explained something.

My question is why do you think that everything needs a beginning? You are relying on the same faith-based reasoning for the idea that everything needs a beginning, just as Christians do for God.

 

[dlamberth]

Yes. All of these things you said are a light which illuminate the soul, but if one is unwilling to see it, then no one can show it to them.

I think "unwilling" is the wrong word. Everyone has their own growth and their own spiritual state in life. Some are at a place to where they can see the illuminated soul, others are not there yet. Some see a glimpse of that light, others bask in it. No one can show it to us...it's something we have to catch.

.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

Excellent question!

When looking at the qualifications of a being that could create the universe as we know it, we find that this being must be able to create the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing), therefore, this being must be:

1. Immaterial - because all matter is material
2. Aseitic (uncaused) - because all matter owes its existence to a cause greater than itself and is contingent.
3. Transcendant - because all matter, space, and time had to have been created by a being outside of space and time.
4. Infinite - because all matter is finite

Did you miss my Huge discussion on the immaterial/material flaw?

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe had a Cause.

A superb deduction. The problem with it is that it has absolutely nothing related to a god. Circle theory explains universal cycles perfectly, thus providing the first CAUSE of the universe. There is no room for god.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

How on earth do you come to that conclusion!? You don't even believe in immaterial beings and yet you know how they might (or might not) interact with the material world? Sheesh.

If you would take a look at my earlier posts, i provided a logical argument explaining why material and immaterial things could not interact.

 

[Elioenai26]

Did you miss my Huge discussion on the immaterial/material flaw?

No. I responded in depth to your question several posts ago. Post #25 to be exact.

 

[Elioenai26]

A superb deduction. The problem with it is that it has absolutely nothing related to a god. Circle theory explains universal cycles perfectly, thus providing the first CAUSE of the universe. There is no room for god.

Seems like your mind is made up and you pretty much have this all figured out.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

2. I know the bible is historically acurate and without error
y

I don't mean to ridicule, but no... it isn't... at all...
If the bible were historically accurate, the earth would be 6000 years old, and dinosaurs would not exist. Carbon dating has proven the earth to be 4.54 BILLION YEARS old.

 

[Going Merry]

I don't mean to ridicule, but no... it isn't... at all...
If the bible were historically accurate, the earth would be 6000 years old, and dinosaurs would not exist. Carbon dating has proven the earth to be 4.54 BILLION YEARS old.

Mm I believe the world to be about that young.
I don't see how that means dinosaurs wouldnt exist.
Carbon dating is no issue with me personally

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

I guess the words just typed in your post appeared there by themselves!

This shows absolutely nothing in the way of immaterial minds. It shows that a brain has performed calculations to move certain muscles in order to type the desired words into a computer.
Where is this immaterial mind?

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

Mm I believe the world to be about that young.
I don't see how that means dinosaurs wouldnt exist.
Carbon dating is no issue with me personally

If the earth were 6000 years old, dinosaurs and any life from the time periods before 6000 years old have no explantion giving pretty conclusive proof that the earth is older than 6000

 

[Elioenai26]

This shows absolutely nothing in the way of immaterial minds. It shows that a brain has performed calculations to move certain muscles in order to type the desired words into a computer.
Where is this immaterial mind?

You have a mind or else you wouldn't be able to for formulate thoughts and opinions as you are now.

 

[dlamberth]

The problem I have with this is that, everything material ages. Time goes on. Nothing lasts for ever, not even the strongest materials we know of, eg. Diamond will last forever; thus everything has an end, and most therefore a beggining, because to suggest that an ending exists, one must have also started in order to reach that end.
The only way anything could be eternal is if something immaterial were to exist, which is a common suggestion of Substance Dualism. The problem with this theory is that if God were real, and were eternal, it must be immaterial. The laws of logic and science dictate that for anything to interact it must share similar properties. When a billiard ball strikes another, it transfers kenetic energy, because both balls have a mass, velocity (0 if stationary, but still a velocity) and other physical properties. If God were real and therefore immaterial, he would not be able to create or influence anything within the material world. The bible teaches that God is omnipotent, so would be able to interact with the world. The only ways out of this is to suggest one of 3 things. 1. God is material, yet real, and therefore is not eternal, and cannot be omnipotent. 2. God is real, yet immaterial, and therefore not omnipotent as he cannot influence anything in the universe that is material. 3.God is not real, because the concept of omnipotence and omniscience defy anything logical.

These is the primary reason I lost my faith.

Take a look at your argument through the eyes of Love. How does the vista look from that perspective? Does anything change? Does the immaterial (Love) effect the material when Love is applied?

.