An Open Question

[Davian]

Citations are unnecessary for self-evident truths.

It is not self-evident, hence the citation request. Show how "immaterial entities such as minds cannot come from that which is material."

Also, do you accept the The Kalam argument, as you have portrayed it here, is faulty? That the universe has not been scientifically shown to have a beginning?

 

[lesliedellow]

Even if my history isn't perfect, it doesn't mean the only viable option of how christianity arose was because it was right. People follow the religion of breathism, do you think they are right? People follow all sorts of wild and wacky religions. Scientology is widely accepted as one of the most rediculous and stupid religions in the whole world, but people still follow it, because they are easily lead, even in this educated day and age.

What you mean is that, even if there is a perfectly good explanation as to how Christianity arose, if you don't want to believe it, all you have to come out with is, "doesn't have to be right".

Well, without having a time machine handy, you can dispose of any account of a historical event just by saying "it doesn't have to be right."

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

What you mean is that, even if there is a perfectly good explanation as to how Christianity arose, if you don't want to believe it, all you have to come out with is, "doesn't have to be right".

Well, without having a time machine handy, you can dispose of any account of a historical event just by saying "it doesn't have to be right."

And I'm afraid all you have come up with is "it has to be right".
You have also failed to address how other religions came about without any mystical input, yet saying Christianity HAS to have had that input or else it could not have come to be.

 

[Non sequitur]

Since your opinion is contrary to the majority of modern scientific scholarship, you sir will need to supply evidence and citation for it. It has been philosophically defended as well as scientifically defended that the universe began at a definite point in the distant past.

1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence; (We can neither prove nor disprove this)
2) The universe has a beginning of its existence; (If you mean that there was a point in time that it was not in its present form, then yes, it had a beginning)
Therefore:
3) The universe has a cause of its existence. (If by existence, you mean came into current form, then yes. If you mean non-existence into existence, there is no proof for it one way or another.)

So, the universe started at a definite point in the past and that's all we know. Don't see how this is an argument for anything, as #1 is already a un-testable assumption.

 

[Elioenai26]

1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence; (We can neither prove nor disprove this)
2) The universe has a beginning of its existence; (If you mean that there was a point in time that it was not in its present form, then yes, it had a beginning)
Therefore:
3) The universe has a cause of its existence. (If by existence, you mean came into current form, then yes. If you mean non-existence into existence, there is no proof for it one way or another.)

So, the universe started at a definite point in the past and that's all we know. Don't see how this is an argument for anything, as #1 is already a un-testable assumption.

No one but you will maintain that something can come from nothing. Not even David Hume was willing to make himself look like a fool by maintaining that. It is self-evident that from nothing, nothing comes.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

No one but you will maintain that something can come from nothing. Not even David Hume was willing to make himself look like a fool by maintaining that. It is self-evident that from nothing, nothing comes.

He made no reference to nothing -> something.

 

[Non sequitur]

No one but you will maintain that something can come from nothing. Not even David Hume was willing to make himself look like a fool by maintaining that. It is self-evident that from nothing, nothing comes.

I didn't say that something came from nothing.

More assumptions I see. Well, at least that's self-evident


Can you speak, without misrepresenting and/or putting words in my mouth?

 

[lesliedellow]

And I'm afraid all you have come up with is "it has to be right".
You have also failed to address how other religions came about without any mystical input, yet saying Christianity HAS to have had that input or else it could not have come to be.

The rules go like this:

1.) You want a debate

2.) I tell you how I think Christianity originated

3.) You don't want to accept it.

4.) So you come up with an alternative (which does not involve a demonstrably false proposition such as, "we don't know when the Bible was written").

 

[SeraphimsCherub]

I don't see the universe beginning from one location as very bright idea. GOD is OMNIPRESENT. So GOD "BEING" everywhere simultaneoulsly spoke light into existance from everywhere. So the universe was practically infinitely vast in one OMINPRESENT instant.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

The rules go like this:

1.) You want a debate

2.) I tell you how I think Christianity originated

3.) You don't want to accept it.

4.) So you come up with an alternative (which does not involve a demonstrably false proposition such as, "we don't know when the Bible was written").

Firstly, I'm still waiting for your response as the why Chrstianity MUST have has basis in the supernatural, and cannot have come into being without it, while other religions exist without supernatural input.

Secondly, this thread is a pretty good example of a theological debate to be honest. My alternative is the universe came into being through purely natural, scientifically explicable way. I have made this clear throughout the thread. I have even presented different theories of possibilities, but as an empiricist (which I have also made reference to in the thread) I don't accept the universe to have been created by any specific theory until I see evidence for it myself. What's wrong with that?

 

[Elioenai26]

He made no reference to nothing -> something.

Yes he did. Read his assertion regarding premise one of the Kalam. Follow it to its logical conclusion.

Premise one is self evident and therefore need not be proven. If you say it isn't self evident and not true, then you are stating that something (the universe) came from nothing.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

Yes he did. Read his assertion regarding premise one of the Kalam. Follow it to its logical conclusion.

Premise one is self evident and therefore need not be proven. If you say it isn't self evident and not true, then you are stating that something (the universe) came from nothing.

Read it again, carefully ¬_¬

 

[Davian]

Since your opinion is contrary to the majority of modern scientific scholarship, you sir will need to supply evidence and citation for it. It has been philosophically defended as well as scientifically defended that the universe began at a definite point in the distant past.

You have failed to address the point, and you have failed to cite your assertions.

From Wiki:
"Proposals in the last two categories see the Big Bang as an event in a much larger and older Universe, or multiverse, and not the literal beginning."

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Kalam argument fails, as you have presented it, as it rests on points that have not been established.

 

[Non sequitur]

Yes he did. Read his assertion regarding premise one of the Kalam. Follow it to its logical conclusion.

Premise one is self evident and therefore need not be proven. If you say it isn't self evident and not true, then you are stating that something (the universe) came from nothing.

I made no assertion. We cannot prove nor disprove that statement, unless you care to make an attempt?

Anything you arrive at, is merely your conclusions drawn.

It's intellectually dishonest to say, "follow it to its logical conclusion" and "self-evident". If those terms are allowed, I can just as easily dismiss any claim you make with the same 'evidence' and validity.

 

[Elioenai26]

You have failed to address the point, and you have failed to cite your assertions.

From Wiki:
"Proposals in the last two categories see the Big Bang as an event in a much larger and older Universe, or multiverse, and not the literal beginning."

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Kalam argument fails, as you have presented it, as it rests on points that have not been established.

Multiverse theory is just that, a theory and still does not answer the question of where these supposedly multiple universes came from!

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

Multiverse theory is just that, a theory and still does not answer the question of where these supposedly multiple universes came from!

Creation is a theory.

 

[Davian]

Multiverse theory is just that, a theory and still does not answer the question of where these supposedly multiple universes came from!

No, it is more of a hypothesis, but it is sufficient to discredit the Kalam argument. Those universes may have always existed.

 

[Davian]

Creation is a theory.

Not in the scientific sense, no. A scientific theory is falsifiable, by definition.

 

[Non sequitur]

Multiverse theory is just that, a theory and still does not answer the question of where these supposedly multiple universes came from!

Which doesn't give any other theory any more credibility than any other.

Btw, are you not able to come up with any excuses for my responses? You seem to do a good job avoiding them and creating strawmen...

Just start with one:

If we cannot prove nor disprove a statement, how can we use that statement as a foundation for an argument?

 

[Elioenai26]

Which doesn't give any other theory any more credibility than any other.

Btw, are you not able to come up with any excuses for my responses? You seem to do a good job avoiding them and creating strawmen...

Just start with one:

If we cannot prove nor disprove a statement, how can we use that statement as a foundation for an argument?

I do not feel compelled to come up with any "excuses" for anything.