Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Lol, that's not an answer. That is a question. But I'll answer it anyway. If something exists and is infinite, it does not have to be objective(within space/time) in order to exist. It just has to be unalterably true that it infinitely exists. <this is God
I still want an answer from you and True Scotsman about my previous question, otherwise I'm justified in accusing both of you of straw men arguments.
No. For the, I think, third time I don't care about the singularity. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my reasons for claiming certainty that there is no god. When I speak of objects I mean any and all objects we or any other consciousness perceives. My argument deals with the issue on a much more fundamental level than science. You seem hell bent on refuting something that you don't even understand. The argument that I presented refutes the claims of Christianity about a god so it is off the table as an option for the cause of the big bang. Whatever it was, and I don't claim to know and neither do scientists, but whatever it was it was not the god described by Christianity. My argument proves that.Right the subject is us and the object is the singularity that must have existed before our universe existed. Problem is science is claiming this objective singularity is infinite, which means it should still be an infinite singularity, unless you think an objective infinite singularity can somehow contradict its own existence and become an objective finite universe. Its still a problem even if the universe is infinite because how could an infinite singularity contradict its own existence and become an infinite universe with time and space? These are real questions that should not be ignored.
No. That is not what it means to be objective. Objective means existing independent of any and all consciousness. Objectivity does not have anything to do with space and time or being infinite. You continue to demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of these issues. The fact that we can imagine something that is infinite, eternal and exists outside of time does not make it possible. The imaginary is not admissible as evidence.Lol, that's not an answer. That is a question. But I'll answer it anyway. If something exists and is infinite, it does not have to be objective(within space/time) in order to exist. It just has to be unalterably true that it infinitely exists. <this is God
I still want an answer from you and True Scotsman about my previous question, otherwise I'm justified in accusing both of you of straw men arguments.
Right the subject is us and the object is the singularity that must have existed before our universe existed. Problem is science is claiming this objective singularity is infinite, which means it should still be an infinite singularity, unless you think an objective infinite singularity can somehow contradict its own existence and become an objective finite universe. Its still a problem even if the universe is infinite because how could an infinite singularity contradict its own existence and become an infinite universe with time and space? These are real questions that should not be ignored.
Nailed it!You are not getting the point.
What True Scotsman is arguing is that the idea of an immaterial consciousness without any external reference points is impossible. Conscious, defined by him, is the awareness of something; in order for some subject to be conscious, the subject has to be aware of an external object. There cannot be a consciousness without some external object because a consciousness, by definition, requires an external object to be aware of. Because consciousness cannot exist without an external reality to be aware of, the external reality must come before any consciousness ever exists. Therefore, there is something his philosophy terms the primacy of existence: existence always precedes consciousness.
Because there appears to be no external objects before God made them and Christians often define their deity as always being conscious, God violates the primacy of existence. Therefore, God, by definition, cannot exist; he is a logical contradiction. All the other possible arguments for the existence of God are irrelevant and automatically false (unless they prove God exists axiomatically, which no one has ever attempted because it is impossible).
You are not getting the point.
What True Scotsman is arguing is that the idea of an immaterial consciousness without any external reference points is impossible. Conscious, defined by him, is the awareness of something; in order for some subject to be conscious, the subject has to be aware of an external object. There cannot be a consciousness without some external object because a consciousness, by definition, requires an external object to be aware of. Because consciousness cannot exist without an external reality to be aware of, the external reality must come before any consciousness ever exists. Therefore, there is something his philosophy terms the primacy of existence: existence always precedes consciousness.
Because there appears to be no external objects before God made them and Christians often define their deity as always being conscious, God violates the primacy of existence. Therefore, God, by definition, cannot exist; he is a logical contradiction. All the other possible arguments for the existence of God are irrelevant and automatically false (unless they prove God exists axiomatically, which no one has ever attempted because it is impossible).
you've ignored the problem of an infinitely small singularity
Why are you going on about singularities? Atheists aren't required to believe in infinitely small singularities. This is your pet issue.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Because the "smartest" atheist on the planet Stephen Hawking believes in the singularity that existed before the Big Bang. Why wouldn't I investigate his claims?
While we are on the subject of singularities and Stephen Hawking, this is an interesting lecture. It isn't very helpful for your case, however.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
Many people hoped that quantum effects, would somehow smooth out the singularity of infinite density, and allow the universe to bounce, and continue back to a previous contracting phase. This would be rather like the earlier idea of galaxies missing each other, but the bounce would occur at a much higher density. However, I think that this is not what happens: quantum effects do not remove the singularity, and allow time to be continued back indefinitely. But it seems that quantum effects can remove the most objectionable feature, of singularities in classical General Relativity. This is that the classical theory, does not enable one to calculate what would come out of a singularity, because all the Laws of Physics would break down there. This would mean that science could not predict how the universe would have begun. Instead, one would have to appeal to an agency outside the universe. This may be why many religious leaders, were ready to accept the Big Bang, and the singularity theorems.
[...]
If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down. And there wouldn't be any boundaries, to the imaginary time space-time, just as there aren't any boundaries to the surface of the Earth. This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe.
I recommend reading the full lecture for context. (N.B., There is an odd over-use of commas.)
eudaimonia,
Mark
"But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time"
Here they just appealed to something outside the universe.
"But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began"
So they just appealed to something outside the universe in order to determine that they don't have to appeal to something outside the universe to determine how the universe began.
We've got some "real" thinkers out there, creating new problems that aren't even problems if they would just realize they're contradicting themselves.
Think!
Incidentally, "they" is Stephen Hawking, and I recommend that you read the full lecture and not pluck sentences out of context.
Hint: he didn't contradict himself. You don't understand what imaginary time is.
eudaimonia,
Mark
You still do not understand the issue of primacy. Whether we can't tell when a fetus becomes conscious or not is irrelevant. I'd say at a bare minimum it is after its sense organs and brain have formed. That is irrelevant though. The fetus would have to first exist in order to be conscious.I understand what your saying completely. However, when we apply this thinking to a fetus in the womb, there is no way to determine when the fetus becomes a conscious human. Therefore, it is impossible to determine if consciousness comes before conception or after conception. When you're able to determine this then your point of existence having to come before consciousness can be validated. Unfortunately, consciousness is one of those things that can't be proven because it is not a physical thing, you can't refute this fact, if you try to refute it, you're just being unreasonable.
Sure, I know I'm conscious, but I have to believe that you are conscious and that you would still be conscious even if I became unconscious. We already went over this earlier.
Also, you guys seem to be moving the "goal post" from my point about the singularity to consciousness. I realize how you atheists feel when talking with theists who seem unreasonable. Although, I'm not one of those unreasonable theists, I'm a reasonable Christian with a very strong faith. I don't credit myself for my faith and reason, I only credit Jesus. I suspect your going to start meeting a lot more Christians like myself and your only defense is going to be to deny God. However, if you decide to accept that God is possible you will realize I've been right this whole time.
So, it seems we've uncovered several problems here. Atheists will ignore many problems in order to maintain their beliefs. So far you've ignored the problem at the bottom of reason and you've ignored the problem of an infinitely small singularity and now your ignoring the problem of consciousness not being physical and therefore unprovable. I suspect you'll continue ignoring more problems in the future in order to continue denying the existence of God. We haven't even touched the thought that a timeless conscious entity can solve the problem in quantum physics, but I suspect you'll ignore that as well.
True Scotsman saying he knows God does not exist and that he can prove it, is probably the silliest thing I've ever heard, but not surprising, I pray for your soul.
God bless!
It would be like me saying "You don't understand my imaginary God because He is imaginary", I would never say this because its ridiculous! I can use sound reason that makes sense to explain why I believe in God. And I've done this, read the forum again if you need "evidence".
You still do not understand the issue of primacy. Whether we can't tell when a fetus becomes conscious or not is irrelevant. I'd say at a bare minimum it is after its sense organs and brain have formed. That is irrelevant though. The fetus would have to first exist in order to be conscious.
I have proven that the Christian God does not exist irrefutably so it is not silly. And I note that you have not answered a very pertinent question: If an argument is both sound and valid, is its conclusion still in question? You have avoided answering that question. Why is that? Is it because you know that if you answer yes that the jig is up and you'll have to acknowledge that I have proved what I say I have or is it that you want to selectively apply logic? Like every theist whom I've confronted with this issue you have sought to change the subject and avoid the argument and go on as before as if the argument doesn't exist. It's as if somehow if you don't look at it, it will go away. But it won't go away and it will still exist because existence has primacy.
So to tease out an answer from you I want you to consider the following:
When you claim that a god exists, are you saying that it exists independent of your own consciousness, your wants or likes or hopes or faith? Or are you saying that your god's existence is dependent on your consciousness? Does it exist in reality or is it only a figment of your imagination?
The truth is that you make use of the primacy of existence principle every time you make any knowledge claim because you are saying that this claim of yours is true independent of anyone's consciousness, that it is objectively true. You can't avoid doing this because the principle is implicit in all knowledge statements. When you claim that God exists, you are using it. But the content of the claim contradicts it by positing a consciousness that created everything by an act of conscious will, maintains everything by an act of conscious will and can alter anything in existence by an act of conscious will. Dawson Beckrith, who has written extensively on this issue put it this way in his blog How Theism violates the Primacy of Existence.
So every time you claim your God exists, you are making use of and affirming the primacy of existence and in the content of the claim you are denying it. You can't claim your God exists without borrowing from my philosophy but in so doing you contradict yourself every time you do it. You steel it and secretly count on it being true to make your claim intelligible and then you throw it away. You can not hold consistently to the primacy of existence as a theist. And that's because your God is a contradiction of it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?