Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Joshua260]

Joshua260 said: ↑
I don't claim that intelligence is a material substance. ...

I don't understand that statement. The only "intelligence" that I am aware of is produced by brains. It is biology.

So you claim that intelligence is a material substance. Tell me, what is it made of?

 

[Davian]

But I do not claim that the Christian god is a material substance such as pasta.

What material substance would your god manifest as?

Both your FSM and my god exist immaterially and can manifest themselves into something material within the universe. My point being is that what you call the FSM is not really made of spaghetti

The difference would be indiscernible. Is the collection of atoms that make up my desk "wood", or just a collection of atoms pretending to be wood? How would I know (no pun intended)?

and in fact could be my god (although pretending to be spaghetti doesn't fit my god's character, so it sounds more like the evil god candidate on my list).

But then, I cannot see the FSM conducting planet-wide killing events, or ordering the destruction of entire peoples.

Somewhat. Does he claim the universe began to exist without a cause? If so, please cite.

That is not his claim, to my knowledge.

 

[Davian]

Joshua260 said: ↑
I don't claim that intelligence is a material substance. ...

So you claim that intelligence is a material substance. Tell me, what is it made of?

Where did I make that claim?

 

[Joshua260]

No. The burden lies with you to establish that what we observe within the universe can be applied at the beginning of its current instantiation, in light of what the leading theoretical physicists have said.

No sir. You are making the claim that the universe is an exception to the common experience "As we observe, within our universe" without providing justification as to why the same experience would not apply to the universe itself. This is what is known as special pleading or the taxi-cab fallacy.

 

[Joshua260]

Where did I make that claim?

You said "The only "intelligence" that I am aware of is produced by brains. It is biology", so I'm asking you about the composition of this product you are calling "intelligence". So what is intelligence made of?

 

[Davian]

Joshua260 said: ↑
I don't claim that intelligence is a material substance. ...

So you claim that intelligence is a material substance. Tell me, what is it made of?

I do see that you happily go off-topic as it suits you.

 

[Davian]

You said "The only "intelligence" that I am aware of is produced by brains. It is biology", so I'm asking you about the composition of this product you are calling "intelligence". So what is intelligence made of?

As I understand it, it is a process produced by brains. It is not 'made' of anything.

What is digestion made of? Vision? Oxidation?

 

[Davian]

No sir. You are making the claim that the universe is an exception to the common experience "As we observe, within our universe" without providing justification as to why the same experience would not apply to the universe itself. This is what is known as special pleading or the taxi-cab fallacy.

That is not the case here. Or are you preparing to publish your rebuttal to Stephen Hawking's current works? You can cite it here if you like.

 

[Joshua260]

What material substance would your god manifest as?

According to the bible, He has manifested himself as Jesus.

The difference would be indiscernible. Is the collection of atoms that make up my desk "wood", or just a collection of atoms pretending to be wood? How would I know (no pun intended)?

A collection of atoms is matter. I thought the thing that you say manifests itself as the FSM was immaterial?

But then, I cannot see the FSM conducting planet-wide killing events, or ordering the destruction of entire peoples.

So you're not making your case too well for the FSM and deciding to divert to the problem of evil argument?

That is not his claim, to my knowledge.

Ok, thanks. I'm not aware of any scientist claiming that universe did not have a cause either.

 

[Joshua260]

As I understand it, it is a process produced by brains. It is not 'made' of anything.

Ok, thanks. So intelligence is not a material thing.

 

[Davian]

In a desperate attempt to get this thread back on topic, I present for your consideration the Kalam Craigian Argument (KCA):

P1. A well-known apologist uses arguments such as the KCA in books, speeches, and debates
P2. This same well-known apologist sells many books and makes money with these arguments, as a demonstration of its veracity
C. Therefore, arguments such as the KCA should work in other venues such as internet discussion forums, with similar levels of acceptance.

The KCA doesn't point directly to who is right about all of this, but it narrows down the list to a select few.

The KCA has stood rock solid and no one has offered a good objection to it yet.

 

[Joshua260]

That is not the case here. Or are you preparing to publish your rebuttal to Stephen Hawking's current works? You can cite it here if you like.

Please clarify. You said "That is not his claim [that the universe did not have a cause for it's existence], to my knowledge." So which is it? Does Hawking claim that the universe did not have a cause for it's existence or not?

 

[Davian]

Ok, thanks. So intelligence is not a material thing.

Do you consider oxidation to be a material thing?

 

[Davian]

According to the bible, He has manifested himself as Jesus.

What material substance did your god manifest as for the purposes of walking in talking in that hypothetical Garden of Eden?

A collection of atoms is matter. I thought the thing that you say manifests itself as the FSM was immaterial?

No, the FSM is immaterial. Immaterial Spaghetti.

So you're not making your case too well for the FSM and deciding to divert to the problem of evil argument?

Why? Do you have issues with genocide? Is not William Lane Craig “the apologist who defends genocide”?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/...st-who-defends-genocide/#sthash.DLVbIYE8.dpuf

Ok, thanks. I'm not aware of any scientist claiming that universe did not have a cause either.

 

[Davian]

Please clarify. You said "That is not his claim [that the universe did not have a cause for it's existence], to my knowledge." So which is it? Does Hawking claim that the universe did not have a cause for it's existence or not?

Not.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't claim that intelligence is a material substance. Do you?

No, you claim that it is immaterial. Does intelligence "begin to exist"? Is it "uncaused"?

I have done so already. I agree with Craig's definition from Reasonable Faith pg 155 "something which brings about or produces it's effects".

As cjlr first noted in a separate debate, this definition is hopelessly vague: presumably you define effect as "something caused."

I do not believe that any part of this universe existed timelessly.

In the first premise, are you referring to things "beginning to exist" ex materia or ex nihilo? In the second premise, are you referring to the expansion of the universe or are you claiming that matter and energy were created ex nihilo?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No sir. You are making the claim that the universe is an exception to the common experience

The common experience is ex materia creation, not creatio ex nihilo. If the universe did indeed originate ex nihilo, which is far from certain, then it is an exception to our common experience and therefore our causal intuitions may no longer apply.

"As we observe, within our universe" without providing justification as to why the same experience would not apply to the universe itself.

What is true of members of a set is not necessarily true of the set itself. Our understanding of how things "come to be" within the universe need not apply beyond the universe, if being "beyond the universe" is even possible.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, I abandon logic where the experts that you are citing on the topic under discussion say that it does not apply.

"At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang." link

They are talking about physical laws such as F=ma. Is the scientist you quote actually claiming that the existence of the universe does not have a cause?

Are you claiming that our causal intuitions are an exception to this; that it's possible for all physical laws to break down, but for our causal intuitions to somehow remain intact?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

.

 

[paulm50]

I said there should be no conflict between true science and true religion. Some atheistic scientists like Dawkins betray the discipline of a true scientist and make unsubstantiated assertions about religion. Some religious people deny science because it conflicts with their child like beliefs about facts such as evolution.

The term "true religion" should not be confused with a claim of the only right theology. True religion is a generic term denoting the fundamental relationship between any person of faith and spiritual realities. True religion is not concerned with science rather with the scientist.

Not in your mind because in truth you have a closed mind but act as if you are all open and progressive.

In my mind I have a relationship with the God who created the material facts that science rightly observers. The facts of science and the truth of true religion are not in conflict nor should they be. But atheistic science can be a religion in the mind of atheistic scientist who go beyond facts and assert Godlessness.

Just quoting what you said, both times.