The apologia of the cosmos. Evidence of God

[ToddNotTodd]

Now ToddNotTodd has referred to a renowned apologist as an "idiot with a thesaurus", and you yourself have repeatedly belittled Dr. Craig, a man whose credentials and track record in academic debate are above reproach.

Correction...

Craig is a idiot who probably has other people look up words for him in a thesaurus. Or he's a completely dishonest used car salesman. Or both.

And you've been given reasons why the cosmological argument goes nowhere. You either ignore them or hand wave them away.

 

[The Engineer]

You have been posting here for a few days. You are no doubt eager to be a part of the discussions here, as is evidenced by your sincere words and comments.

I thought this weren't discussions?

If you have not already, I suggest you peruse the posts in this thread, starting from the beginning, and develop an understanding of what this thread is about.

You don't seem to understand that thread derailment always happens, sooner or later. Going back to the main topic is futile.

After doing this, you will then be able to make accurate statements about the goings on here.

So far, my statements were more accurate then yours. What about this whole ignoring-counter-evidence? You did not know about it. I did.

I understand you are zealous for your cause and therefore I want to encourage you to channel that zealousness and eagerness into your efforts at trying to discover what truth is.

Why does it always sound like you're profiling yourself?

By the way, I've started a thread about the mind-brain-dualism. So now, BTT won't cut it for you.

 

[Elioenai26]

I thought this weren't discussions?

I have maintained, from the beginning, that it was never my intention for this to be a debate. I have always seen these discussions as discussions. It is the atheists here who have seen this as a debate.

You don't seem to understand that thread derailment always happens, sooner or later. Going back to the main topic is futile.

It is only futile if those engaged are unwilling to go back to it. I have asked that we do so, and I believe we can, in fact we will.

 

[Elioenai26]

Correction...

Craig is a idiot who probably has other people look up words for him in a thesaurus. Or he's a completely dishonest used car salesman. Or both.

And you've been given reasons why the cosmological argument goes nowhere. You either ignore them or hand wave them away.

Every counter argument that dealt with the cosmological argument has been dealt with.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Every counter argument that dealt with the cosmological argument has been dealt with.

And every counter to the counter arguments have been dealt with.

Wheeeee, this is fun!

 

[Elioenai26]

No, this was not established. It was only asserted.

So what is the point of this assertion? Are you saying that truth does not exist, and or that truth is not knowable?

How would we know if the 'big bang' was an 'event', where the rules of space-time might apply? In your (WLC's) apologetics you are simply working back from a conclusion that you wish to be true.

You ask two questions here. I shall deal with them separately.

1. Your first question is vague; namely in your usage of the phrase: "rules of space-time". I will need you to elaborate on these "rules" that you are speaking of before I can give you a satisfactory answer.

2. The charge of working backwards from God to the first premise is false for the simple reason that the syllogism:

i. everything that begins to exist, has a cause for it's existence
ii. the universe began to exist
iii. therefore the universe has a cause

makes no mention of the Judeo-Christian God. In fact, it makes no mention of any type of deity whatsoever! All this argument tells us is that the universe must have a cause as is evidenced in the conlusion (iii.)

Now, the meat and potatos of the arguement, and where I ended the apologia was with the obvious question: "what could have caused the universe to be?" We can logically infer from the effect (the universe to include space, time, matter) some of the necessary attributes or "properties" of what the Cause would have to have.

Stated that way, you contradict your claim of knowing the truth. You only *believe* that you know the truth. After all, does this 'personal relationship' rise above confirmation bias and chance?

Properly basic belief is a philosophical term used to describe beliefs that are not based on other beliefs, rather they are a foundational component of a person's beliefs. The word "belief" is the philosophical term. I choose the word "know" because Christ is a living person that I know intimately and in a way that is not able to be put into words. I know that Christ is in me and I in Him like I know that I am not just a brain in a vat, or a body lying in the Matrix, or that the past was not created five minutes ago with the appearance of age.

Back to prosthelytizing, are we?

Also, how do you reconcile the cosmological argument with the Genesis stories of the bible?

You will have to be much more specific here. Which accounts in Genesis are you referring to? If you are referring to the creation accounts, which parts of the creation accounts?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

2. The charge of working backwards from God to the first premise is false for the simple reason that the syllogism:

i. everything that begins to exist, has a cause for it's existence
ii. the universe began to exist
iii. therefore the universe has a cause

makes no mention of the Judeo-Christian God. In fact, it makes no mention of any type of deity whatsoever! All this argument tells us is that the universe must have a cause as is evidenced in the conlusion (iii.)

Establish your premises as true, and then we'll talk...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I know that Christ is in me and I in Him like I know that I am not just a brain in a vat, or a body lying in the Matrix, or that the past was not created five minutes ago with the appearance of age.

You don't know you're not a brain in a vat. No one does. We assume we're not.

 

[Elioenai26]

You don't know you're not a brain in a vat. No one does. We assume we're not.

 

[Danyc]

This is disgraceful.

 

[KCfromNC]

My hands are tied KC. Remember, I am not allowed to post anything on this forum unless it is my own work.

How could you possibly believe this?

Anyway, my request stands. Let us know when you want to get back on topic as the OP requested.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You are once again wrong. I never said every atheist was full of hate. Therefore your whole statement is groundless

No, but you did say:

I cannot name one atheist I have ever had the privilege of meeting with, or talking to that was not, at bottom, filled with hate. I of course have not met with every atheist, but my experiences seem to be verified by the slander and degrading remarks of atheists on forums like these.

Which would include every atheist you've conversed with on here.

Now, given that you think I am "full of hate", I am curious what you think I am hateful of.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If any portion of my arguement is faulty, then I am bound to admit it as faulty.

However, you saying it is faulty does not make it so. Likewise, if I say that your counter-arguments are faulty, that does not make them so. In a discussion of this sort, you must provide evidence for your assertions. I have provided an apologia that is a framework for the basic form of the cosmologocal argument. Within the argument, evidence has been supplied to support the first two premises. Therefore, the conclusion soundly and logically follows from the premises. Therefore, we have good reason for believing that the universe was created by an immaterial, supernatural being.

Now if you do not agree with this conclusion, state so, and then provide a good argument as to why you do not.

Every rebuttal that has been given so far has been shown to be insufficient in refuting the cosmological argument.

I have stated so. And I have provided my reasons for believing that your version of the cosmological argument is not compelling as an argument for a supernatural cause. Perhaps you should return to those reasons.

 

[Davian]

So what is the point of this assertion? Are you saying that truth does not exist, and or that truth is not knowable?

No, I take the scientific approach. You are the one claiming that these truths are knowable. Prove it. (Since you are the one claiming that these truths can be known, you should be able to prove it).

You ask two questions here. I shall deal with them separately.

1. Your first question is vague; namely in your usage of the phrase: "rules of space-time". I will need you to elaborate on these "rules" that you are speaking of before I can give you a satisfactory answer.

Your cosmological argument, as you have presented it below. How can you prove that it applies before and at the instantiation of the cosmos?

2. The charge of working backwards from God to the first premise is false for the simple reason that the syllogism:

i. everything that begins to exist, has a cause for it's existence
ii. the universe began to exist
iii. therefore the universe has a cause

makes no mention of the Judeo-Christian God. In fact, it makes no mention of any type of deity whatsoever! All this argument tells us is that the universe must have a cause as is evidenced in the conlusion (iii.)

Now, the meat and potatos of the arguement, and where I ended the apologia was with the obvious question: "what could have caused the universe to be?" We can logically infer from the effect (the universe to include space, time, matter) some of the necessary attributes or "properties" of what the Cause would have to have.

Not the argument - *you*. You are working backwards through this whole thing from the conclusion, deity that you already believe to exist. This is not science (obviously, which is why it is called apologetics, lol).

As for those attributes:

1. Self-existent, timeless, nonspatial, and immaterial

- sounds like 'non-existant', unless you can describe this thing by what it is, rather than by what it isn't. You have not done so. Self-Existent? Nice try. Is not the universe self-existent?

since the First Cause is responsible for creating time, space, and matter, this Cause must be outside of them. This Cause must be without limits i.e infinite.

- define what 'outside' of the universe means
- if it it outside, how does it get inside?

This Cause must be without limits i.e infinite.

- why must it be? Is there any indication that the cosmos is infinite?

2. Unimaginably powerful, to create the entire universe out of nothing.
- detail scientifically how much power was required for initiating the instantiation of the cosmos

- what is the apparent total of energy in the universe? What if it is zero?
- it is possible for there to be nothing?

3. Supremely intelligent to design the universe with such precision.

- provide details on what choices were available to this supposed deity. Perhaps there were no, or few choices. How much intelligence was needed? Show why this required a 'deity'.

4. Personal in order to choose to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space material universe. (an impersonal force has no capacity to make choices)

- choice implies change, and time. How does a timeless 'entity' make a choice?
- it is possible for there to be nothing?

Properly basic belief is a philosophical term used to describe beliefs that are not based on other beliefs, rather they are a foundational component of a person's beliefs. The word "belief" is the philosophical term. I choose the word "know" because Christ is a living person

Really? Where's he been recently? Keeping low, is he?

that I know intimately and in a way that is not able to be put into words.

But you 'know' you are not just imagining.

I know that Christ is in me

How is a living person inside of you? Nevermind, I don't need details.

and I in Him like I know that I am not just a brain in a vat, or a body lying in the Matrix, or that the past was not created five minutes ago with the appearance of age.

So how do you avoid being lumped in with the people that know that they are Napoleon or know that they have been abducted by extraterrestrials?

Guilty as charged, I see.

You will have to be much more specific here. Which accounts in Genesis are you referring to? If you are referring to the creation accounts, which parts of the creation accounts?

All of it. Is it literal or not? Did the writers of the bible get the details right or not?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

- sounds like 'non-existant', unless you can describe this thing by what it is, rather than by what it isn't. You have not done so. Self-Existent? Nice try. Is not the universe self-existent?

The only thing we seem to know about this "cause" is what it isn't -- it isn't made of matter, it's not natural, and it's not bound by space or time. In other words, it isn't like any other thing we ordinarily call a "cause" or even a "thing". It is essentially no-thing. No-thing created everything.

 

[Davian]

The only thing we seem to know about this "cause" is what it isn't -- it isn't made of matter, it's not natural, and it's not bound by space or time. In other words, it isn't like any other thing we ordinarily call a "cause" or even a "thing". It is essentially no-thing. No-thing created everything.

Therein lies the theists' conundrum: the struggle to define something that they wish to exist, that explains what we observe of the cosmos, yet in a way that is vaporous so as to explain why it cannot be detected.

 

[quatona]

Back from vacation. Out of curiosity: Has Elioenai answered my question (the one that I asked countless times, last time in post#119) in the meantime?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7674415-12/#post61056904

 

[Elioenai26]

No, but you did say:



Which would include every atheist you've conversed with on here.

Now, given that you think I am "full of hate", I am curious what you think I am hateful of.

I think you simply misunderstand what I have said.

I said that every atheist that I have had the privilege of meeting with or talking to....

Now you may consider typing posts and replies on a forum as "talking" to someone, but I do not. In my opinion, notice I say: "my opinion", talking with someone is done either via a phone call where one's voice is audible, or face to face in person. If you consider me typing responses in this forum as "talking" to you, then I shall have to be more specific in the wording of my statements as I see they can be easily misinterpreted.

Now, seeing as how I have never talked with you or spoken with you face to face, my statement was not directed towards you.

I am glad however, that we have been given the chance to come to an understanding on this issue.

 

[Elioenai26]

I have stated so. And I have provided my reasons for believing that your version of the cosmological argument is not compelling as an argument for a supernatural cause. Perhaps you should return to those reasons.

If my memory serves me aright, I have responded to every counter-argument you have provided.

If you can show me where I have erred in this, please do so or simply restate the counter-argument or supply a post number for reference.

 

[Elioenai26]

You have to make up your mind whether an explanation concerning the universe must conform with the laws observed within the universe, or whether this is not a requirement for the explanation.

This is an urgent request.Simply answer it, so that we have clarification on which basis you want to discuss explanations. Please answer it soon, directly and straightforward.

Which is it?

No, I take the scientific approach. You are the one claiming that these truths are knowable. Prove it. (Since you are the one claiming that these truths can be known, you should be able to prove it).

Your cosmological argument, as you have presented it below. How can you prove that it applies before and at the instantiation of the cosmos?

Not the argument - *you*. You are working backwards through this whole thing from the conclusion, deity that you already believe to exist. This is not science (obviously, which is why it is called apologetics, lol).

As for those attributes:

- sounds like 'non-existant', unless you can describe this thing by what it is, rather than by what it isn't. You have not done so. Self-Existent? Nice try. Is not the universe self-existent?

- define what 'outside' of the universe means
- if it it outside, how does it get inside?

- why must it be? Is there any indication that the cosmos is infinite?

- what is the apparent total of energy in the universe? What if it is zero?
- it is possible for there to be nothing?

- provide details on what choices were available to this supposed deity. Perhaps there were no, or few choices. How much intelligence was needed? Show why this required a 'deity'.

- choice implies change, and time. How does a timeless 'entity' make a choice?
- it is possible for there to be nothing?


Really? Where's he been recently? Keeping low, is he?

But you 'know' you are not just imagining.

How is a living person inside of you? Nevermind, I don't need details.

So how do you avoid being lumped in with the people that know that they are Napoleon or know that they have been abducted by extraterrestrials?

Guilty as charged, I see.

All of it. Is it literal or not? Did the writers of the bible get the details right or not?

The only thing we seem to know about this "cause" is what it isn't -- it isn't made of matter, it's not natural, and it's not bound by space or time. In other words, it isn't like any other thing we ordinarily call a "cause" or even a "thing". It is essentially no-thing. No-thing created everything.

Therein lies the theists' conundrum: the struggle to define something that they wish to exist, that explains what we observe of the cosmos, yet in a way that is vaporous so as to explain why it cannot be detected.

Back from vacation. Out of curiosity: Has Elioenai answered my question (the one that I asked countless times, last time in post#119) in the meantime?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7674415-12/#post61056904

Due to time constraints that prohibit me from devoting the time I would like to devote to each person, I shall address, as much as is possible, questions that are similar in one post. I shall respond to all four of you by saying:

It is clear from the above posts and statements that the main questions and objections that you gentlemen have at the present are with regards to the proposed explanation for the conclusion (iii) of the syllogism.

These questions are valid, but do not need to be treated until the first two premises can be agreed upon as being more plausibly true than their negation. For the argument must be approached premise by premise, beginning at (i), and then from there to (ii) and finally to the conclusion (iii). Questions regarding the explanation of (iii) therefore must be subsequent to the questions or objections to (ii) which in turn must be subsequent to the questions or objections to (i).

In conclusion, if there are any new questions regarding the veracity of premise (i), then let them be asked now. If not, then I shall assume that we all agree with it's proposition and we can then move to address (ii), and then to (iii). This shall save us from unnecessary jumping back and forth from (iii) to (i) or from (iii) to (ii) or from (ii) to (i).