The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Athée]

LOL please edit out the typo that immediately follows this quote before I die laughing because I'm apparently only 12 years old!

Lol! Edit complete, for an excellent use of said typo however please visit:
https://whatscookingamerica.net/History/RockyMtnOyster.htm

 

[Athée]

It has been confirmed more than almost any other theory. The BB theory is among the most confirmed scientific theories. It is based on relativity which is very strongly backed up with evidence.

You are misunderstanding the bb theory. It describes the expansion of the already existing universe, it is not the theory of the creation of the universe from nothing. This is a very significant distinction for our discussion.

No, actually there have been studies that have shown that people that are ill in a hospital recover more often if their friends and family pray for them than those whose friends and family don't pray for them. Also, people that attend church regularly generally are more happy with their marriages and lives than those that don't and also are more law abiding. Studies have shown this.

Please link to those papers. In the meantime here is one showing the opposite of what you claim about prayer.
https://www.templeton.org/newsroom/press_releases/060407step.html

No, even atheist biologists agree that the purpose of eyes is to see and ears to hear. Even if they don't agree that purpose is caused by an intelligence in these cases which of course is an irrational position.

This is equivocation again. If they don't think there is an intelligence behind it, then by definition they would say it is a function not a purpose, since they agree with you when you said that purpose can only be conference by an intelligence.

No, the eye is obviously intricately designed specifically to produce an image on the retina and then the nervous system is made to receive and process that image and is therefore irreducibly complex totally unlike a rock which shows no evidence of being irreducibly complex.

Irreducible complexity is not a thing. The eye is evidence of evolution not design and even if it were design it would give the best evidence of being very poorly designed.

I will in my next post. But referring to the laws of logic vs. the laws of physics, if the mind is totally tied to the physical brain then it could only operate according to the laws of biochemistry in the brain, not on the laws of logic. But we know from experience that the mind has the ability to function according to the laws of logic which are metaphysical laws not tied to the laws of physics.

Please demonstrate for me how thinking according to the principles of logic is at odds with naturalism, then explain how this relates to your earlier assertion that thinking minds can exist entirely independent of bodies.
Thanks

. The placebo effect demonstrates that the mind can cure physical diseases without relying on anything physical this is evidence that the mind is not limited to just physical abilities and powers. It is evidence that the mind is a nonphysical entity that can influence physical entities.

This demonstrates that the mind (a function of a physical brain) is very closely connected to the rest of the body, how does this make your case at all that mind can exist separate frI'm a body?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
The Christian God hypothesis makes predictions too, such as that the universe had a definite beginning from nothing detectable. This comes from Genesis 1 and Hebrews 11:3. Science has confirmed both of these predictions with the BB theory.

dh: The problem with this "prediction", is two-fold:
- first, the actual origins of the universe remain unknown, so even assuming the prediction is sensible and straightforward, it has not be demonstrated to be correct to a satisfying degree...

It is not unknown to those that use the basic laws of logic known as causality and its corollary the law of sufficient cause. You can use these laws to come to the rational conclusion that the Christian God is most likely the cause of this universe. There is also the biblical teachings that the universe is expanding, energetically running down, and primarily operating according to natural laws. All of which has been confirmed by science. No other major religious book teaches these things.

dh: - secondly, the prediction is incredibly vague and, most of all, not exclusive to the god-model. I can come up with any number of models, which would fit that prediction as well. When data can be used to support multiple, mutually exclusive, models... then either the models aren't detailed enough or the data is rather uninteresting.

No, no other model fits the scientific data better than the biblical Creator model. See above.

dh: Athée brings up a good point about other predictions that naturally flow from the biblical god-model. And there are PLENTY of those. Actual, detailed, straightforward predictions that are directly testable in the here and now.

The above predictions have been confirmed by new findings in modern BB theory almost every month or so, sometimes more often. And there are many more biblical predictions about this world and universe than just the ones I have mentioned above that have been confirmed by science and are being confirmed by science every year.

dh: One of the best examples probably being Noah's flood. Taken as written, it predicts a WHOLE BUNCH of things concerning geology and genetics, in particular.

For example, a global geological layer of flood sediments as well as a universal genetic bottleneck among most, if not all, species - especially land animals, dating to roughly the same period as the flood layer.

Neither of both, however, exist. There is no such layer. There are no such universal bottlenecks.

This means we can safely and rationally dissmiss this story as being literally accurate.

Given that the flood most likely occurred 2 mya, and only lasted one year, a flood layer sediment would be so small and probably eroded away that it would not show up in the geological record. But there are a large number of large hydraulically caused fossil graveyards at that period in prehistory. And very shortly afterwards an ice age began probably because of perturbations to the earths rotational axis by the weight of the large amounts of water.

ed: It is obvious that seeing is the purpose of eyes. What is your evidence that that is not their purpose?

dh: Shifting the burden of proof are we?

Since most all biologists agree that seeing is the purpose of eyes and hearing the purpose of ears, as the minority view, you need to provide evidence that most all biologists are wrong.

ed: No, there is evidence that persons/minds can exist without physical bodies, such as how we can think according to the laws of logic and not laws of physics and certain unexplainable NDEs are evidence of this. Also, the placebo effect.

dh: So wich of the people that you speak of here, didn't have a physical body?

There have been some NDEs where for short periods of time people's minds/spirits were existing outside their bodies. They obtained knowledge that they could not have acquired if they had still been within their bodies. This confirms that it is possible for minds to exist without bodies.

 

[Athée]

It is not unknown to those that use the basic laws of logic known as causality and its corollary the law of sufficient cause. You can use these laws to come to the rational conclusion that the Christian God is most likely the cause of this universe. There is also the biblical teachings that the universe is expanding, energetically running down, and primarily operating according to natural laws. All of which has been confirmed by science. No other major religious book teaches these things.


No, no other model fits the scientific data better than the biblical Creator model. See above.




The above predictions have been confirmed by new findings in modern BB theory almost every month or so, sometimes more often. And there are many more biblical predictions about this world and universe than just the ones I have mentioned above that have been confirmed by science and are being confirmed by science every year.



Given that the flood most likely occurred 2 mya, and only lasted one year, a flood layer sediment would be so small and probably eroded away that it would not show up in the geological record. But there are a large number of large hydraulically caused fossil graveyards at that period in prehistory. And very shortly afterwards an ice age began probably because of perturbations to the earths rotational axis by the weight of the large amounts of water.




Since most all biologists agree that seeing is the purpose of eyes and hearing the purpose of ears, as the minority view, you need to provide evidence that most all biologists are wrong.



There have been some NDEs where for short periods of time people's minds/spirits were existing outside their bodies. They obtained knowledge that they could not have acquired if they had still been within their bodies. This confirms that it is possible for minds to exist without bodies.

This seems to have been addressed to the wrong person since it doesn't deal with any of my comments

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
It has been confirmed more than almost any other theory. The BB theory is among the most confirmed scientific theories. It is based on relativity which is very strongly backed up with evidence.

at: You are misunderstanding the bb theory. It describes the expansion of the already existing universe, it is not the theory of the creation of the universe from nothing. This is a very significant distinction for our discussion.

No, read the Natural History article referenced in post 199. Dr. Goldsmith stated that most cosmologists agree that all space, time, and matter came into existence at the BB.

↑

ed: No, actually there have been studies that have shown that people that are ill in a hospital recover more often if their friends and family pray for them than those whose friends and family don't pray for them. Also, people that attend church regularly generally are more happy with their marriages and lives than those that don't and also are more law abiding. Studies have shown this.

at: Please link to those papers. In the meantime here is one showing the opposite of what you claim about prayer.
https://www.templeton.org/newsroom/press_releases/060407step.html

1. Research on Social Work Practice 17: 174-187.
2. online paper]
3. Arch Intern Med. 159:2273-2278. [PDF version
   
   ]
4. British Medical Journal, 323, 1450-1451 .

↑

ed: No, even atheist biologists agree that the purpose of eyes is to see and ears to hear. Even if they don't agree that purpose is caused by an intelligence in these cases which of course is an irrational position.

at: This is equivocation again. If they don't think there is an intelligence behind it, then by definition they would say it is a function not a purpose, since they agree with you when you said that purpose can only be conference by an intelligence.

But that is the point, they DO say purpose. But most will not admit an intelligence because they would be ostracized as a Fundie. Function is just whether the purpose of the organ is met. If the purpose is not met, then the organ is not functioning.

↑

ed: No, the eye is obviously intricately designed specifically to produce an image on the retina and then the nervous system is made to receive and process that image and is therefore irreducibly complex totally unlike a rock which shows no evidence of being irreducibly complex.

at: Irreducible complexity is not a thing.

Fraid so, I just explained it, it is a series of functions to accomplish the purpose of the biological organ that if one is removed it does not function and therefore could not have been produced by Darwinian evolution.

at: The eye is evidence of evolution not design and even if it were design it would give the best evidence of being very poorly designed.

Saying it is poorly designed is a theological statement. Maybe the creator purposively created it with that design. How do you know He would create it the way you think it should be created? Especially if He had a purpose for that design.

↑

ed: I will in my next post. But referring to the laws of logic vs. the laws of physics, if the mind is totally tied to the physical brain then it could only operate according to the laws of biochemistry in the brain, not on the laws of logic. But we know from experience that the mind has the ability to function according to the laws of logic which are metaphysical laws not tied to the laws of physics.

at: Please demonstrate for me how thinking according to the principles of logic is at odds with naturalism,

Because if the mind is completely tied to the physical then it can only operate according to the laws of chemistry/physics. Chemical reactions do not operate according to the laws of logic. But we know the mind can, so it is plainly not totally tied to the chemical reactions in the brain. This means that the mind is probably non-physical and therefore theoretically can be separated from the brain and still function as also shown by certain NDEs.

at: then explain how this relates to your earlier assertion that thinking minds can exist entirely independent of bodies.
Thanks

See above.

↑

ed: The placebo effect demonstrates that the mind can cure physical diseases without relying on anything physical this is evidence that the mind is not limited to just physical abilities and powers. It is evidence that the mind is a nonphysical entity that can influence physical entities.

at: This demonstrates that the mind (a function of a physical brain) is very closely connected to the rest of the body, how does this make your case at all that mind can exist separate frI'm a body?

Actually I meant to say that the illnesses were mental illnesses not physical illnesses but they were generally considered mental illnesses caused by chemical imbalances in the brain. But immaterial BELIEF is what cured them not any drug. This shows that the immaterial mind is real because it can have physical effects in the material world. So if the mind really is not physical then there is a good possibility it can survive without a physical body.

 

[Ed1wolf]

This seems to have been addressed to the wrong person since it doesn't deal with any of my comments

Yes, it was addressed to Dogma Hunter, not you. See post 203.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is not unknown to those that use the basic laws of logic known as causality and its corollary the law of sufficient cause.

Causality is a phenomena of the space-time continuum. As understood, there is no reason to assume that it also applies outside of it. In fact, everything we currently know about the cosmos, suggests that it probably doesn't.

Also, "logic" is informed by what you actually currently know. Contrary to popular belief, you do NOT know what is logical and what isn't in advance.

Before Einstein, it wasn't considered "logical" that time is relative to the observer.
Quantum mechanics also defied just about everything that we considered "logical".

You can use these laws to come to the rational conclusion that the Christian God is most likely the cause of this universe.

People keep claiming this, but not a single one ever demonstrated how this is the case.

There is also the biblical teachings that the universe is expanding, energetically running down, and primarily operating according to natural laws. All of which has been confirmed by science.

Actually, what really happened, is that science made discoveries and then theologians went back to their bronze-age scripture and reinterpreted the words written therein to then claim that "it was in the book all along".

Hardly impressive. Muslims did the same thing with the Quran.

If it was in the bible all along, why did it take a scientist to come up with it 2000 years later? Why wasn't this common knowledge all along, then?

The answer is obvious...

No other major religious book teaches these things.

*ahum*

http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_index.html

No, no other model fits the scientific data better than the biblical Creator model. See above.

Any model positing a beginning for the cosmos, any beginning, would fit this data.

The above predictions have been confirmed by new findings in modern BB theory almost every month or so, sometimes more often. And there are many more biblical predictions about this world and universe than just the ones I have mentioned above that have been confirmed by science and are being confirmed by science every year.

You can keep repeating your claims. Until you actually support them, they remain bare faith-based assertions.

Given that the flood most likely occurred 2 mya, and only lasted one year, a flood layer sediment would be so small and probably eroded away that it would not show up in the geological record.

A global flood that lasts a year, would definatly show.
Furthermore, it would still leave a gigantic genetic bottleneck in ALL of life. Which simply does not exist.

But there are a large number of large hydraulically caused fossil graveyards at that period in prehistory. And very shortly afterwards an ice age began probably because of perturbations to the earths rotational axis by the weight of the large amounts of water.

Do you know that geology as a field was actually kickstarted by christians who set out to find evidence for the flood? And subsequently failed in doing that?

Since most all biologists agree that seeing is the purpose of eyes and hearing the purpose of ears

So after your shift of the burden of proof, you resort to a strawman now?
No, this is just not true.

Biologists agree that the function of eyes is seeing. Function and purpose are NOT the same thing. Primarily, the word "purpose" comes with a whole bunch of implications as baggage. Like "planning" and "intent". While "function" is merely about what it does, by virtue of existing.

If you are going to claim that there is planning and intent involved (by calling it "purpose"), then you're going to be asked to support that claim.

, as the minority view, you need to provide evidence that most all biologists are wrong.

No. If 99% of people make and believe a claim, then the burden of proof is still on them - not on the 1% that doesn't buy into it.

Being a majority does not give you a free pass, when it comes to the burden of proof.
(not that you are correct that such a majority exists, off course....)

There have been some NDEs where for short periods of time people's minds/spirits were existing outside their bodies.

Or so these people claim to have experienced.
How was it confirmed / measured / observed that these people's claims were actually correct?

They obtained knowledge that they could not have acquired if they had still been within their bodies.

Such as?

This confirms that it is possible for minds to exist without bodies.

So, does a claimed alien abductee also confirm that aliens visit earth, abduct people and perform weird sex experiments on them?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
It is not unknown to those that use the basic laws of logic known as causality and its corollary the law of sufficient cause.

dh: Causality is a phenomena of the space-time continuum. As understood, there is no reason to assume that it also applies outside of it. In fact, everything we currently know about the cosmos, suggests that it probably doesn't.

Actually until proven otherwise it is more rational to assume that logic and reason DO apply outside of it. Otherwise science comes to a standstill. 200 years ago, we didn't know for certain it applied to outer space but we assumed that it did, and it brought us to the moon.

dh: Also, "logic" is informed by what you actually currently know. Contrary to popular belief, you do NOT know what is logical and what isn't in advance.

Exactly, logic is how we learn or know ANYTHING including whether there is a Cause for the universe.

dh: Before Einstein, it wasn't considered "logical" that time is relative to the observer.

Actually that was not logic that was just based on our experience on earth. Relativity would have never been discovered
without applying logic to the universe, just as I am doing with causality.

dh: Quantum mechanics also defied just about everything that we considered "logical".

Maybe, but not all physicists agree that QM is causeless. It could be that we have not discovered its cause yet or it is caused by the observer. But even it is causeless, it could not have caused the universe to come into existence as I explained in an earlier post.

dh: http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_index.html

First given that we know that the bible was written long before the koran, any possible science contained in it, was probably copied from the bible. Second, the examples in your link, are so obscure and meaningless such as that the letters of the Periodic Table are in the Koran (which is probably true of any book of a certain length) are so obviously later interpolations it is laughable. While the science that is in the bible is plainly taught with literal definitions of Hebrew and greek and are teachings that obviously have a purpose such as the basic characteristics of the universe that help point people toward a Creator, such as the universe having a beginning from nothing detectable, is expanding, is energetically winding down, and primarily operates according to natural laws. All of these have been confirmed by modern science. And there many other meaningful scientific revelations in the bible though the bible is not primarily a science text book. All the pre-science information is there for specific purposes not just random meaningless scientific tidbits like those in your link for the koran.

ed: No, no other model fits the scientific data better than the biblical Creator model. See above.

dh: Any model positing a beginning for the cosmos, any beginning, would fit this data.

Not a model where it comes from nothing detectable as the BB theory has pretty much confirmed. Also, all other major religions that propose a beginning always teach that it comes from some preexisting material or cosmos.

ed: The above predictions have been confirmed by new findings in modern BB theory almost every month or so, sometimes more often. And there are many more biblical predictions about this world and universe than just the ones I have mentioned above that have been confirmed by science and are being confirmed by science every year.

dh: You can keep repeating your claims. Until you actually support them, they remain bare faith-based assertions.

The bible explains the size of the universe, the lack of a natural source for terrestrial or extraterrestrial prebiotics, the very early timing of life's origin, the suddenness of life's origin, the complexity and diversity of earths first life, the lack of a primordial soup, the unusual current stability of the suns luminosity, and many other things.

ed: Given that the flood most likely occurred 2 mya, and only lasted one year, a flood layer sediment would be so small and probably eroded away that it would not show up in the geological record.

dh: A global flood that lasts a year, would definatly show.

Not if it occurred 2 million years ago and was relatively tranquil it would probably be smaller than the layer for the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs and by now would probably be eroded away.

dh: Furthermore, it would still leave a gigantic genetic bottleneck in ALL of life. Which simply does not exist.

Not necessarily genetic studies of ancient DNA have shown that both ancient animals and ancient humans were more genetically diverse than modern humans and animals thereby reducing the chance for genetic bottlenecks.

ed: But there are a large number of large hydraulically caused fossil graveyards at that period in prehistory. And very shortly afterwards an ice age began probably because of perturbations to the earths rotational axis by the weight of the large amounts of water.

dh: Do you know that geology as a field was actually kickstarted by christians who set out to find evidence for the flood? And subsequently failed in doing that?

Yes, but they were looking for it too recently, the evidence points to having occurred around 2 million years ago.

ed: Since most all biologists agree that seeing is the purpose of eyes and hearing the purpose of ears

dh: So after your shift of the burden of proof, you resort to a strawman now?

What strawman? Read any biology text book they talk about what certain biological organs are for. Ie their purposes. They don't always use the term purpose but that plainly is what they are referring to.

dh: No, this is just not true.

Biologists agree that the function of eyes is seeing. Function and purpose are NOT the same thing. Primarily, the word "purpose" comes with a whole bunch of implications as baggage. Like "planning" and "intent". While "function" is merely about what it does, by virtue of existing.

Function is if the organ is meeting its purpose. If it is not functioning then it is not serving its purpose.

dh: If you are going to claim that there is planning and intent involved (by calling it "purpose"), then you're going to be asked to support that claim.

By studying their structures you can plainly see that they are designed for a specific goal. Something that is designed for a specific goal has a purpose.

ed:, as the minority view, you need to provide evidence that most all biologists are wrong.

dh: No. If 99% of people make and believe a claim, then the burden of proof is still on them - not on the 1% that doesn't buy into it.

Being a majority does not give you a free pass, when it comes to the burden of proof.
(not that you are correct that such a majority exists, off course....)

See above how they have an obvious goal in their structure and design.

ed: There have been some NDEs where for short periods of time people's minds/spirits were existing outside their bodies.

dh: Or so these people claim to have experienced.
How was it confirmed / measured / observed that these people's claims were actually correct?

ed: They obtained knowledge that they could not have acquired if they had still been within their bodies.

dh: Such as?

There was one case where the person saw a shoe on the top of the hospital roof but they had never left their bed and of course had never been on the roof of the hospital.

ed: This confirms that it is possible for minds to exist without bodies.

dh: So, does a claimed alien abductee also confirm that aliens visit earth, abduct people and perform weird sex experiments on them?

No, because there is no evidence as strong as the evidence for some NDEs, such as the one I mentioned above.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Actually until proven otherwise it is more rational to assume that logic and reason DO apply outside of it.

logic and reason?

I'm not talking about logic and reason. I'm talking about causality, which is a phenomena of physics which requires a temporal context.

Time is an intrinsic property of the universe, which disappears when the universe disappears. When the universe goes, so does the physics of the universe.

Exactly, logic is how we learn or know ANYTHING including whether there is a Cause for the universe.

No. It is not logical to assume that a physical phenomena (causality) that requires a temporal context, also applies when the temporal context isn't present.

Actually that was not logic that was just based on our experience on earth

Hence why I say that you do not know what is logical in advance. Logic is informed by what you currently know. And everything we knew about physics and time at that point informed us that time was a constant and the same everywhere, at all times, in all circumstances. That was the logical conclusion. Along came Einstein and provided us with this seemingly illogical and counter-intuitive answer.

See? Logic is informed by reality. And you do not know what is logical in advance.

Maybe, but not all physicists agree that QM is causeless. It could be that we have not discovered its cause yet or it is caused by the observer. But even it is causeless, it could not have caused the universe to come into existence as I explained in an earlier post.

What the H are you talking about???
I said that QM defied everything we considered "logical". I wasn't speaking about any "cause" of QM.

I'm merely illustrating that making truth claims by using "logic" about things that are completely unknown at this time, rarely leads to correct answers.

You could put the top 100 logical thinkers in a room and they would NEVER come up with QM.

First given that we know that the bible was written long before the koran, any possible science contained in it, was probably copied from the bible. Second, the examples in your link, are so obscure and meaningless such as that the letters of the Periodic Table are in the Koran (which is probably true of any book of a certain length) are so obviously later interpolations it is laughable. While the science that is in the bible is plainly taught with literal definitions of Hebrew and greek and are teachings that obviously have a purpose such as the basic characteristics of the universe that help point people toward a Creator, such as the universe having a beginning from nothing detectable, is expanding, is energetically winding down, and primarily operates according to natural laws. All of these have been confirmed by modern science. And there many other meaningful scientific revelations in the bible though the bible is not primarily a science text book. All the pre-science information is there for specific purposes not just random meaningless scientific tidbits like those in your link for the koran.

Good job missing the point.

Not a model where it comes from nothing detectable as the BB theory has pretty much confirmed.

The big bang doesn't address the origins of the universe, contrary to popular belief.
BB addresses the development of the universe, once it existed. Inflation etc.

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang


See? "from the earliest known periods". Not "the beginning" or "the origin". Rather, the "earliest known periods".

Also, all other major religions that propose a beginning always teach that it comes from some preexisting material or cosmos.

Abrahamic religion isn't really different in that respect. Because this God existed "before" the universe, right? He exists in "some realm", right?
Even if we assume that this god "always existed" "eternally", there is thus a plain of existance where this god resides, yes?

How is that not a preexisting cosmos of some kind?

The bible explains the size of the universe, the lack of a natural source for terrestrial or extraterrestrial prebiotics, the very early timing of life's origin, the suddenness of life's origin, the complexity and diversity of earths first life, the lack of a primordial soup, the unusual current stability of the suns luminosity, and many other things.

All scientists throughout history, must have missed it.

Not if it occurred 2 million years ago and was relatively tranquil it would probably be smaller than the layer for the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs and by now would probably be eroded away.

I'll let it slide. It would still leave a universal genetic bottleneck in all living things. Which doesn't exist. Ergo, it didn't happen.

Not necessarily genetic studies of ancient DNA have shown that both ancient animals and ancient humans were more genetically diverse than modern humans and animals thereby reducing the chance for genetic bottlenecks.

Do you even know what a genetic bottleneck is? Because it sounds like you don't....
There is no "reducing the chance of bottlenecks". If a population of a certain species is heavily reduced, a genetic bottleneck is inevitable. And this bottleneck should show up in just about every living thing.
But it doesn't.

What strawman? Read any biology text book they talk about what certain biological organs are for. Ie their purposes. They don't always use the term purpose but that plainly is what they are referring to.

Function. Not purpose. "Purpose" is a loaded term.

By studying their structures you can plainly see that they are designed for a specific goal.

So...your explanation is..."it's obvious"?

When I look at these structures, I can plainly see that they evolved under selection pressures.

The difference with your model, is that the evolution model is actually testable.
The evolution model explains why our type of eye has a blind spot, which isn't present in for example the octopus. It also explains why a human's mouth is too small to house all the teeth, which is why wisdom teeth can hurt like hell. It explains why the majority of people gets lower backpains, because our spin isn't very well suited for bipedalism. It explains why there are nerves that take enormous detours, which is inefficient and wastefull in terms of use of resources. It explains why we get goosebumps. It explains why we have dozens of inactive muscles around our ears. It explains why moles have non-working eyeballs hidden away behind a layer of skin.

And I can go on like that for quite a while.

Your model, explains nothing. It merely asserts. It's unfalsifiable nonsense.

There was one case where the person saw a shoe on the top of the hospital roof but they had never left their bed and of course had never been on the roof of the hospital.

That's it...this anecdote convinced me.

No, because there is no evidence as strong as the evidence for some NDEs, such as the one I mentioned above.

I could share plenty of anecdotes about alien abductees though.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Actually until proven otherwise it is more rational to assume that logic and reason DO apply outside of it.

dh: logic and reason?

I'm not talking about logic and reason. I'm talking about causality, which is a phenomena of physics which requires a temporal context.

No, causality is a law of logic. Which may or may not require such a context.

dh: Time is an intrinsic property of the universe, which disappears when the universe disappears. When the universe goes, so does the physics of the universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang


See? "from the earliest known periods". Not "the beginning" or "the origin". Rather, the "earliest known periods".

Actually there is evidence for more than one dimension of time. But even if there is only one dimension of time that does not prove causality requires time.

ed: Also, all other major religions that propose a beginning always teach that it comes from some preexisting material or cosmos.

dh: Abrahamic religion isn't really different in that respect. Because this God existed "before" the universe, right? He exists in "some realm", right?
Even if we assume that this god "always existed" "eternally", there is thus a plain of existance where this god resides, yes?

How is that not a preexisting cosmos of some kind?

Other religions believe that the universe was created from some preexisting material that could potentially be detected, but Christianity teaches that it was created from something not detectable by humans. This appears to have been confirmed by the BB theory too.

ed: The bible explains the size of the universe, the lack of a natural source for terrestrial or extraterrestrial prebiotics, the very early timing of life's origin, the suddenness of life's origin, the complexity and diversity of earths first life, the lack of a primordial soup, the unusual current stability of the suns luminosity, and many other things.

dh: All scientists throughout history, must have missed it.

Actually many pre-Darwinian scientists DID see these things. Some were not discovered until later.

ed: Not if it occurred 2 million years ago and was relatively tranquil it would probably be smaller than the layer for the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs and by now would probably be eroded away.

dh: I'll let it slide. It would still leave a universal genetic bottleneck in all living things. Which doesn't exist. Ergo, it didn't happen.

ed: Not necessarily genetic studies of ancient DNA have shown that both ancient animals and ancient humans were more genetically diverse than modern humans and animals thereby reducing the chance for genetic bottlenecks.

dh: Do you even know what a genetic bottleneck is? Because it sounds like you don't....
There is no "reducing the chance of bottlenecks". If a population of a certain species is heavily reduced, a genetic bottleneck is inevitable. And this bottleneck should show up in just about every living thing.
But it doesn't.

A genetic bottleneck is where inbreeding occurs and can eventually lead to extinction. But if the species has a high level of genetic diversity, then a bottleneck is less likely to occur or if it does occur it takes much longer for it to occur. Look it up.

ed: What strawman? Read any biology text book they talk about what certain biological organs are for. Ie their purposes. They don't always use the term purpose but that plainly is what they are referring to.

dh: Function. Not purpose. "Purpose" is a loaded term.

See below about designed for a specific goal.

ed: By studying their structures you can plainly see that they are designed for a specific goal.

dh: So...your explanation is..."it's obvious"?

When I look at these structures, I can plainly see that they evolved under selection pressures.

How can impersonal random processes create or work for a specific goal, such as sight? Please provide a non-biological example of such a thing.

dh: The difference with your model, is that the evolution model is actually testable.

The Biblical model is also testable. If any of the things I mentioned above such as the universe having a beginning, expanding, and winding down were found by science to be not true then that would falsify the Biblical model. Also, if some of the other characteristics of the universe that I mention above were proven not to be true then that would also falsify it. So plainly it is testable.

dh: The evolution model explains why our type of eye has a blind spot, which isn't present in for example the octopus. It also explains why a human's mouth is too small to house all the teeth, which is why wisdom teeth can hurt like hell. It explains why the majority of people gets lower backpains, because our spin isn't very well suited for bipedalism. It explains why there are nerves that take enormous detours, which is inefficient and wastefull in terms of use of resources. It explains why we get goosebumps. It explains why we have dozens of inactive muscles around our ears. It explains why moles have non-working eyeballs hidden away behind a layer of skin.

And I can go on like that for quite a while.

Your model, explains nothing. It merely asserts. It's unfalsifiable nonsense.

No, see above things that can be tested. The biblical model can explain those things that you mention above also.

ed: There was one case where the person saw a shoe on the top of the hospital roof but they had never left their bed and of course had never been on the roof of the hospital.

dh: That's it...this anecdote convinced me.

An anecdote that was empirically proven, the doctors found a shoe on the roof matching the patients description.

ed: No, because there is no evidence as strong as the evidence for some NDEs, such as the one I mentioned above.

dh: I could share plenty of anecdotes about alien abductees though.

But none are backed up by empirical evidence.

 

[Received]

logic and reason?

I'm not talking about logic and reason. I'm talking about causality, which is a phenomena of physics which requires a temporal context.

Time is an intrinsic property of the universe, which disappears when the universe disappears. When the universe goes, so does the physics of the universe.



No. It is not logical to assume that a physical phenomena (causality) that requires a temporal context, also applies when the temporal context isn't present.

Causality is a metaphysical, mathematical, and logical construct first before it's a physical one. Some folks, like Hume, think causality is so abstract that we basically project it onto the physical world, and that the world "out there" is really just pure flux. We can speak in symbolic logic, where symbols have no referents to the real physical world, e.g., A causes B, and this isn't a temporal or spatial relationship, just as the color red has no temporal or spatial dimensions.

So the universe can totally be caused by something that transcends the physical universe; in this case we'd say that the universe was logically but not chronologically caused to exist. Claiming that this something is a personal deity, or a deity who hasn't moved to another neighborhood, is another thing, but the door is at least opened.

 

[Yekcidmij]

No, causality is a law of logic.

"Causality" is not a law of logic.

 

[bhsmte]

Causality is a metaphysical, mathematical, and logical construct first before it's a physical one. Some folks, like Hume, think causality is so abstract that we basically project it onto the physical world, and that the world "out there" is really just pure flux. We can speak in symbolic logic, where symbols have no referents to the real physical world, e.g., A causes B, and this isn't a temporal or spatial relationship, just as the color red has no temporal or spatial dimensions.

So the universe can totally be caused by something that transcends the physical universe; in this case we'd say that the universe was logically but not chronologically caused to exist. Claiming that this something is a personal deity, or a deity who hasn't moved to another neighborhood, is another thing, but the door is at least opened.

Do you think it is a legit question to ask; what caused this deity to exist?

 

[Ed1wolf]

"Causality" is not a law of logic.

Aristotle said it was.

 

[Received]

Do you think it is a legit question to ask; what caused this deity to exist?

Definitely.

Which is why I think the OP is incomplete. There should be a subpoint for the first point that says that an infinite regress (actual infinite) is impossible, given that it never allows us to reach the present moment, therefore a finite past is logically necessary and an eternal universe is logically problematic, which fits with a creator but doesn't prove much at all.

Note my use of "logical" here; there could be some point at which logic breaks down and the principle of sufficient reason becomes, well, insufficient. Chomsky has one of my favorite philosophy lectures by anyone ever on Youtube called "The Machine, The Ghost, and the Limits of Understanding", with one of my favorite lines: "Philosophers often appear to intend to want to get answers about humans that we can't get about insects." His point, possibly applicable here, is that it's evolutionarily necessary to have limits and scope when speaking of human faculties, including reason, and therefore we can't pretend to be "angels" with our belief that all of reality (which would include lots of quantum mechanics stuff and lots of metaphysical stuff, not to mention lots of God stuff) is comprehensible.

But if we admit that logic doesn't work for us when speaking of our discussion, it really becomes a matter of faith, so it's faith in God or faith in no God, go with your presuppositions. I don't think you need to go that far.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, causality is a law of logic.

No, it's not. It's a phenomena of the (newtonian) physics of the universe.

Which may or may not require such a context.

No, it does - by definition.
Causes happen before effects.

Actually there is evidence for more than one dimension of time. But even if there is only one dimension of time that does not prove causality requires time.

As said, causality requires time by definition. Causes happen before effects.
It is necessarily a temporal phenomena.

Other religions believe that the universe was created from some preexisting material that could potentially be detected, but Christianity teaches that it was created from something not detectable by humans. This appears to have been confirmed by the BB theory too.

That's a complete dodge from the point I made.

A genetic bottleneck is where inbreeding occurs and can eventually lead to extinction.

A genetic bottleneck is a stituation where there is only very very little genetic diversity. Which inevitably is the case when population sizes shrink to an all-time low.

Which is exactly what supposedly happened during the biblical flood.
This means that ALL life should have a genetic bottleneck in the same period.
This universal genetic bottleneck does NOT exist.

But if the species has a high level of genetic diversity

When population size shrinks to only a handfull of breeding pairs, then there is almost no genetic diversity. The point exactly.

, then a bottleneck is less likely to occur or if it does occur it takes much longer for it to occur. Look it up.

Dude.... genetic bottlenecks are inevitable when the population shrinks to only a handfull of breeding pairs. And in biology, a "handfull of breeding pairs" means a population of a couple hundreds or thousands. Let alone 2 to 14, as is supposed to be the case in the biblical flood.

How can impersonal random processes create or work for a specific goal, such as sight?

Through natural selection.

Please provide a non-biological example of such a thing.

LOL!!!!

So, you want me to give you a non-biological example of....a biological process?
Tell you what, I'll give you such an example as soon as you give me a non-physical example of gravity.

/facepalm

The Biblical model is also testable.

Some of the stories are indeed testable, yes.
Like Noah's flood. It predicts genetic bottlenecks, which don't exist. So...yeah.

If any of the things I mentioned above such as the universe having a beginning, expanding, and winding down were found by science to be not true then that would falsify the Biblical model. Also, if some of the other characteristics of the universe that I mention above were proven not to be true then that would also falsify it. So plainly it is testable.

I'll be more impressed if you can give predictions before science makes discoveries.
Such retro-active re-interpretations aren't valid.

No, see above things that can be tested. The biblical model can explain those things that you mention above also.

They can not.
Assertions aren't explanations.

An anecdote that was empirically proven, the doctors found a shoe on the roof matching the patients description.

Adding additional claims to the anecdote, doesn't change the fact that it's just an anecdote.

But none are backed up by empirical evidence.

Exactly.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Causality is a metaphysical, mathematical, and logical construct first before it's a physical one.

No, it's not.
It's a physical phenomena.

Some folks, like Hume, think causality is so abstract that we basically project it onto the physical world, and that the world "out there" is really just pure flux. We can speak in symbolic logic, where symbols have no referents to the real physical world, e.g., A causes B, and this isn't a temporal or spatial relationship, just as the color red has no temporal or spatial dimensions.

"A causes B" has no meaning, until A and B are identified in the real world.
Causality is about physical relationships between real world events or real world stuff.
And colors live in a spectrum of light, which is also physical.

So the universe can totally be caused by something that transcends the physical universe

Sure. It can be. That doesn't mean it is, though.

; in this case we'd say that the universe was logically but not chronologically caused to exist.

That is totally meaningless.
Causality implies a sequence of events.
One happening after the other.
An effect can only take place if its cause happens before it.

Claiming that this something is a personal deity, or a deity who hasn't moved to another neighborhood, is another thing, but the door is at least opened.

The only door that seems opened here, is begging the question.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Aristotle said it was.

Then artistotle was wrong about that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Definitely.

Which is why I think the OP is incomplete. There should be a subpoint for the first point that says that an infinite regress (actual infinite) is impossible, given that it never allows us to reach the present moment, therefore a finite past is logically necessary and an eternal universe is logically problematic, which fits with a creator but doesn't prove much at all.

Hmmm. That's not clear to me at all.

An infinite timeline still moves forward. An infinite series of causes and effects, still has causes and effects happening. Why couldn't the universe be one of them?

Also, by the very nature of what we understand Time to be, there is no need to advance a dichotomy that states "either a deity, or an infinite regress".
Time as we know it came about during the creation of the universe. At T = 0, to be exact.

What "infinite regression"?

See?
For humans, such a thought is very unsettling, because "time" is such a fundamental part of our day-to-day experience. It was equally unsettling when Einstein came with relativity. How could time not be the same, everywhere, always?

This isn't any different.
This is one of the (many) reasons why people tend to posit gods and such. Because they aren't comfortable with the idea that things like time, which are so fundamental and so much part of our lives, might not be like we experience it to be.

But our own bias is not an argument against reality. It doesn't matter if we aren't able to wrap our heads around it or not. Reality is what it is.

But if we admit that logic doesn't work for us when speaking of our discussion, it really becomes a matter of faith

Or a matter of evidence...
And lacking that... a matter of intellectual honest, by saying that it is unknown.

so it's faith in God or faith in no God

No no... only acceptance the "god" part requires faith.

, go with your presuppositions.

There are no presupposition in acknowledging ignorance and/or not buying into faith-based claims.

I don't think you need to go that far.

I think people should only go as far as the evidence can take them.
Beyond that, it is simply a matter of being ignorant and learning to cope with that ignorance. Instead of simply inventing nonsense and pretending that it cures that ignorance.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Aristotle said it was.

I would like to see your reference. I believe I recall Aristotle only talking about non-contradiction and excluded middle, but I suppose a good reference could show otherwise.

Classic logic, as I recall, only has properties like:

-Excluded middle
-Noncontradiction
-Duality
-Monotonicity of entailment
-Commutativity of conjunctio