Atheism (2)

[createdtoworship]

A super-intelligent being more complex than the universe itself just popping into existence is even less likely than the universe just randomly happening.


However, I think it's likely neither one of those options are correct.

well being a universal agent the intelligent being would be uncaused. Yes, not unheard of. Even in christian circles they speak of such things: they say :

"God is an uncaused cause"

and

"No one created God, God is self existent and self defining"

"God is the beginning and the end"

 

[Dave Ellis]

okay lets say that an agent is uncaused which is it's actual philosophical definition, no changing that:

1) I didn't make any authoritative statements only that the universe had a cause, and that it's not an agent.

2)all agents we know of are intelligent, if not ....please refer one to me.

We don't have an example of anything that hasn't been caused one way or another... so your definition of agent is nonsensical. We have never observed such a thing, and it's doubtful one exists.

1) Saying the universe had a cause, and that it's not an agent are assertions. We are asking you to justify your assertions.

2) If you want to define an agent as something that requires intelligence, fair enough.... but that means you have no reason to assume an agent caused the creation of the universe. If you wish to assert that, you must prove it as well. There's no evidence anything with intelligence created the universe, and is far more unlikely than natural processes.

 

[createdtoworship]

What does it matter? The signature being caused by a miracle is still not remotely as plausible as someone writing their signature with the pen from the seismograph machine, or a really strange act of nature.

a miracle, is the only option. Even if someone stole a pen of a machine....they would have to stop the machine in mid motion, write their name in cursive aligning it with the lines already in existence, then know exactly where the pen would start off and finish their name at the exact same spot as where the machine would start it's cycle at.....it is possible, but it is more plausible that it was a miracle. Besides if there are multiple pens the other pens would have to keep writing while the signature was being written, which only give one a limited time to make the above exact.

 

[createdtoworship]

That is the first time I have seen the instantiation of the cosmos described as an explosion needing a source of combustion.

Do you think God used a Bic lighter of sorts, or did he rub two metaphysical sticks together?

No, we do not know that the instantiation of the cosmos was caused.

a singularity will explode eventually this was the big bang model I believe.

 

[quatona]

okay lets say that an agent is uncaused which is it's actual philosophical definition, no changing that:

1) I didn't make any authoritative statements only that the universe had a cause, and that it's not an agent.

2)all agents we know of are intelligent, if not ....please refer one to me.

Now, if the rationale is to conclude from "all we know" (from within the universe) on how things work outside the universe, I would have to ask:
Have we, within the universe, observed any purely spiritual agent being capable of creating physical matter into existence?

 

[createdtoworship]

So, you believe the Big Bang was an explosion as in an exploding bomb or a firecracker?

strawman, let me include the definition:

A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

wikipedia

 

[Dave Ellis]

well being a universal agent the intelligent being would be uncaused. Yes, not unheard of. Even in christian circles they speak of such things: they say :

"God is an uncaused cause"

and

"No one created God, God is self existent and self defining"

"God is the beginning and the end"

And that's special pleading.

They have no evidence to assert that any God, much less their own personal interpretation of God is an uncaused cause. It's trying to rationalize a completely irrational argument, however they can't even begin to demonstrate their claim.

 

[Davian]

That is the first time I have seen the instantiation of the cosmos described as an explosion needing a source of combustion.

Do you think God used a Bic lighter of sorts, or did he rub two metaphysical sticks together?

No, we do not know that the instantiation of the cosmos was caused.

a singularity will explode eventually this was the big bang model I believe.

Do you think there was there a loud "BANG" when this happened?

 

[createdtoworship]

And that's special pleading.

They have no evidence to assert that any God, much less their own personal interpretation of God is an uncaused cause. It's trying to rationalize a completely irrational argument, however they can't even begin to demonstrate their claim.

If God exists in every dimension (twenty something) then He would be beyond space and time and have no beginning. Tahts what I am talking about.

 

[Gadarene]

strawman, let me include the definition:

A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

wikipedia

Then why use the word combustion to describe it?

 

[Gadarene]

If God exists in every dimension (twenty something) then He would be beyond space and time and have no beginning. Tahts what I am talking about.

Or an uncaused naturalistic process could have done it.

It relies on as many assertions as you're making. Neither have any prior evidence.

 

[Dave Ellis]

a miracle, is the only option. Even if someone stole a pen of a machine....they would have to stop the machine in mid motion, write their name in cursive aligning it with the lines already in existence, then know exactly where the pen would start off and finish their name at the exact same spot as where the machine would start it's cycle at.....it is possible, but it is more plausible that it was a miracle. Besides if there are multiple pens the other pens would have to keep writing while the signature was being written, which only give one a limited time to make the above exact.

No, it's not the only option at all. In fact, it's an incredibly implausible option.

Even the remarkably difficult scenario you listed above is far more plausible than a miracle. We know it'd be extremely difficult to pull off, and it would take an element of luck.... but at least we could demonstrate it's possible.

There is no evidence that any miracle has ever occurred, nor is there any reason to assume one ever will. Just taking a very unlikely situation and slapping the name miracle on it without evidence proves nothing.

Using your standard of evidence to assert it's a miracle, we could literally take anything we can think of, and use that as the explanation as well.

Why not claim it's the invisible seismograph pixies? As ridiculous as it sounds, there is exactly the same amount of evidence as there is for the seismograph pixies as there is for your miracle. That makes them EQUALLY plausible.

 

[Dave Ellis]

strawman, let me include the definition:

A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

wikipedia

That's not a strawman as he's not misrepresenting your position, instead he's asking you a question to clarify your position.

If you want to start tossing accusations of logical fallacies about, make sure you know what you're talking about first.

 

[sandwiches]

strawman, let me include the definition:

A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

wikipedia

So, you don't believe the Big Bang required a source of combustion?

 

[Dave Ellis]

If God exists in every dimension (twenty something) then He would be beyond space and time and have no beginning. Tahts what I am talking about.

First off, I don't agree that if God exists in every dimension he'd be beyond space-time.... but that's not the most important point.

The most important point is that you must DEMONSTRATE that God ACTUALLY DOES exist in every dimension.

Throwing out a random idea with a shaky foundation, and no demonstrable evidence to back it is simply wasting time.

 

[createdtoworship]

First off, I don't agree that if God exists in every dimension he'd be beyond space-time.... but that's not the most important point.

The most important point is that you must DEMONSTRATE that God ACTUALLY DOES exist in every dimension.

Throwing out a random idea with a shaky foundation, and no demonstrable evidence to back it is simply wasting time.

firstly, time is only the fourth dimension of 24 or some odd dimensions.

so one only need to be beyond the fourth dimension to be beyond time.

(see flatlanders on you tube for an illustration of dimension superiority)

secondly, Christ appeared in a closed upper room without going through the door. Again see flatlanders if you don't believe me on this. But all one need to do is be one dimension beyond the three dimensions of our universe.

included is flatland video

Dr Quantum - Flatland - YouTube

 

[createdtoworship]

So, you don't believe the Big Bang required a source of combustion?

well technically it is combustion but it's not combustible material. Its very dense material that was compressed to a singularity and exploded. If I have my big bang chronology correct.

 

[createdtoworship]

That's not a strawman as he's not misrepresenting your position, instead he's asking you a question to clarify your position.

If you want to start tossing accusations of logical fallacies about, make sure you know what you're talking about first.

I have dealt with His fallacies before, he just wants to stump me and has no desire for a conversation.

 

[Gadarene]

Actually, never mind whether a god is hiding in a dimension, I'd start with getting evidence for 24 dimensions.

*googles*

Oh, Flatlanders is from What the Bleep do We Know. Quantum-woo-tastic.

*closes tab*

 

[Gadarene]

I have dealt with His fallacies before, he just wants to stump me and has no desire for a conversation.

He just wants to stump you?