[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] When should we change our reasoning / beliefs?

Chriliman said:

But if truth is infinite and timeless, this would mean that truth is even separate from a finite universe. So the truth that the universe has a beginning would have no effect on truth because truth can even be thought of as separate from the universe.

Click to expand...

Interesting hypothetical universe you've invented. Back here in the real world, though, the word truth has a meaning, and that meaning includes statements that are about time or space limited events.

anonymous person said:

Awesome.

Is it too hard for you to imagine that He might be speaking to you through me?

Click to expand...

Some people have a higher standard of evidence that "I can imagine it".

Chriliman said:

If God exists are you going to dispute an assertion made by God?

Click to expand...

We're not discussing this with god, we're discussing it with you. Are you claiming to be Jesus?

Chriliman said:

For every vocal atheist that thinks I'm not making sense, there's probably many believers who think I am making sense.

Click to expand...

If the only people who accepted my claims already agreed before I made them, I'd start to wonder if they actually had any persuasive power in the first place.

Infographics don't prove anything. Just because some philosophers in recent years decided that believing that God "might" exist and that God "doesn't" exist aren't mutually exclusive doesn't mean it's true. It just means we've fallen to a deplorable state in our ability to reason.

The definition of Atheist is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. There's nothing in the (original) definition about whether they verbalize the possibility that they could be wrong in their beliefs. Ignostic is a very recent term (20th century) invented by philosophers who want to classify the idea that you have to define God in a way that you can falsify before arguing existence as separate from the idea the there is no God. This premise allows them to reject any concept of God that isn't falsifiable and falsify any concept of God that is falsifiable, therefore making it functional atheism.

And the classifications of "agnostic atheist" and "agnostic theist" are also recent inventions from philosophers who have no understanding of the fact that disbelieving and believing that there's a possibility are mutually exclusive. There are still people who accept the older, more logical school of philosophy that claiming no proof exists either way is simple agnosticism. And disbelieving in God, regardless of whether you choose to say that you may be wrong, is simple atheism. Atheism, agnosticism, theism, deism, and specific religious beliefs were all originally defined to encompass what you "believe," not whether or not you're willing to say that you "may be wrong."

An atheist who admits that he "may be wrong" or holds no position on the matter of the existence of God or gods is defined as a "weak atheist," (http://atheism.about.com/od/Atheist-Dictionary/g/Definition-Weak-Atheist.htm). If they hold a belief that we just can't/don't know, then they fall under agnostic.

However, my initial post doesn't live or die on how you choose to classify somebody. Under the modern school of philosophy classification wording, an "agnostic atheist" or "agnostic theist" would still argue with the initial premise that we don't/can't know. Where as a "gnostic atheist" would argue from the initial premise that we do know and God/gods doesn't/don't exist, and a "gnostic theist" would argue from the premise that we do know and God/gods does/do exist.

And demanding a "falsifiable definition of God" is demanding making a god that's not really God. Because if God were falsifiable He wouldn't be God. Therefore, as I said before, this position that in recent years people have labeled "ignosticism" is functionally mere atheism.

Personally I believe that we can know, but proving is a different matter. Even if you've seen a bona fide miracle occur, an atheist or agnostic will either offer a different explanation or reject your experience entirely.

nomadictheist said:

In this instance, an atheist starts with the premise that there is no God.

Click to expand...

This atheist doesn't. This is a conclusion, not a premise.

I know many believers start with the conclusion and work backwards, manufacturing whatever facts and reasons they need to keep that belief intact. But don't project that failing onto everyone else.

Chriliman said:

Hmm interesting graphic...and you wonder why we think you guys are so confused/confusing.

Click to expand...

Coming from you, this must be a compliment.

Chriliman said:

Hmm interesting graphic...and you wonder why we think you guys are so confused/confusing.

Click to expand...

Personally, I'm guessing it comes from apologetics which typically contain all sorts of false accusations against non-believers couples with an overly credulous audience.

nomadictheist said:

The definition of Atheist is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. There's nothing in the (original) definition about whether they verbalize the possibility that they could be wrong in their beliefs.

Click to expand...

Which means that it doesn't rule out agnostic atheists. Great. Not sure why some believers have the need to write paragraphs and paragraphs explaining the correct form of non-belief to non-believers, but knock yourself out. Realize that none of these word games change what actual atheists do or don't believe or claim to know.

And demanding a "falsifiable definition of God" is demanding making a god that's not really God.

Click to expand...

Or it is just being consistent with how we treat every single other claim that random people make rather than falling for the special pleading that attempts to make gods exempt.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

and the physics doesn't require a beginning for them, so there is nothing to say about that - as the models stand at present.

Click to expand...

This is incorrect. Mathematical proofs indicate that if this multiverse did indeed exist it too would be precluded from being past eternal.

The below is taken from: http://www.technologyreview.com/vie...prove-the-universe-must-have-had-a-beginning/

The conclusion is inescapable. “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal,” say Mithani and Vilenkin.

Since the observational evidence is that our universe is expanding, then it must also have been born in the past. A profound conclusion (albeit the same one that lead to the idea of the big bang in the first place).

anonymous person said:

This is incorrect. Mathematical proofs indicate that if this multiverse did indeed exist it too would be precluded from being past eternal.

The below is taken from: http://www.technologyreview.com/vie...prove-the-universe-must-have-had-a-beginning/

The conclusion is inescapable. “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal,” say Mithani and Vilenkin.

Since the observational evidence is that our universe is expanding, then it must also have been born in the past. A profound conclusion (albeit the same one that lead to the idea of the big bang in the first place).

Click to expand...

Hopefully you recognise the fact that this remains a controversial issue in cosmology, with some proposing models that eternal and others proposing models that are finite.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

If he really died, then that alone is good reason to think that those reports were false.

Click to expand...

Why?

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

If he didn't really die, then it is possible - although, given the reported extent of his injuries, it would be very unlikely that he'd be up and about within days.

Click to expand...

I agree.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

If we consider the number of famous people that are said to have been seen alive after their deaths (e.g. Elvis, Princess Diana, Jim Morrison, Hitler, Tupac Shakur, Amelia Earhart, etc.), it is clear that, for whatever reasons, reports of a dead person being seen alive are not a good reason for believing they really are alive.

Click to expand...

Apples and oranges it is that you are comparing. None of the aforementioned people had their death and resurrection prophesied hundreds of years before they were born, nor is it recorded that any of them performed a ministry of exorcisms and miracles. None of them preached to and consoled the poor and needy. Nor did any of them make the proclamation that in themselves the kingdom of God had come. None of them were crucified under Pontius Pilate and none of them were reported to having been seen alive afterwards. None of them are worshiped as God incarnate by billions of people to this day etc. etc.

The socio-historical context in which the claims are made makes Jesus' case unique.

Chriliman said:

The more a true Christian thinks about their beliefs the more clear their beliefs become thus strengthening their faith, so I'm really not sure how I'm ever going to be convinced that God doesn't exist. But I'm not expecting you to try and convince me, I'm only here to help you think about things in new ways in the hopes that you'll realize what is true.

Click to expand...

I love the presumption that you're somehow more enlightened than the rest of us. What happened to that humility that Jesus taught his followers?

Archaeopteryx said:

Hopefully you recognise the fact that this remains a controversial issue in cosmology, with some proposing models that eternal and others proposing models that are finite.

Click to expand...

Of course it is controversial. It is controversial because of its implications.

None of the proposed models that include a past eternal universe can be squared with the mathematical proofs which demonstrate that any universe which is on average in a state of expansion, must be past-finite.

Chriliman said:

But seriously, if truth were only restricted to finite space and finite time then truth could literally be anything and everything

Click to expand...

False. Words have meanings, no matter how must apologists wish they could simply make up whatever meaning is convenient at the moment.

anonymous person said:

Of course it is controversial. It is controversial because of its implications.

Click to expand...

No, it's controversial because the answer is unknown.

None of the proposed models that include a past eternal universe can be squared with the mathematical proofs which demonstrate that any universe which is on average in a state of expansion, must be past-finite.

Click to expand...

Except those eternal models that get past that.