Question for atheists. . .

[2PhiloVoid]

Ditto.

For me, I don't like letting people off the hook, and that's what reporting does. All of their offensive posts get deleted and they don't look like such a bad guy anymore. A few years back someone was outright trying to pick a fight with me. We went back and forth for about 20 posts before he gave up. The next day he had edited all of his posts to say "." and explained that he had gotten drunk and regretted it. I could have reported, it was way over the line, and if I had then the whole exchange would have been deleted by the mods, but I didn't so his nonsense lives on to this day contained in quote blocks within my responses.


Have you ever seen a thread actually get outright deleted before? That's a new one for me.

Over the decade or so that I've been here, I have seen it happen a few times.

 

[Moral Orel]

The laws are already there, you're eisegetically misinterpreting them as license to rape.

I acknowledged the laws that are there, and I acknowledged the narrow group that they cover. Laws that cover other groups are not there, that's why you refuse to show them to me, because you can't.

 

[Paulomycin]

The universe is an effect... of what? What even is "the universe" that you are talking about here?

You don't believe the universe exists? Well, that is a problem, isn't it?

Consider: "universe" literally means "all". If there is some "cause" of which "the universe" is an effect... then it would also be "the universe". Or part of it. Which means the universe is self-caused. Or uncaused.

The "all" we know here is purely materialistic. Thus, finite. Therefore, "effect" begging the question of cause.

The statement, "The universe is self-caused, or uncaused," is double circular reasoning. It's Baron Munchausen pulling himself out of a swamp by his own hair.

But then: you are trying to define your claims into existence. You categorically state "The universe is an effect" and "God is not an effect". But you have no means to verify either of these statements.

Verified empirically. "God" is not an empirical claim.

Big Bang theory falsifies Steady State, therefore "the omni" i.e. the cosmos is an effect.

An omnipotent being, by definition, is never a contingent effect.

Sorry, but the argument succeeds on further examination.

 

[Paulomycin]

I acknowledged the laws that are there, and I acknowledged the narrow group that they cover. Laws that cover other groups are not there, that's why you refuse to show them to me, because you can't.

I'm politely asking you to stop being deliberately vague.

 

[PloverWing]

Have you ever seen a thread actually get outright deleted before? That's a new one for me.

I've seen quite a few threads get deleted, including some that I was participating in. It seems to happen when the OP is a troll, or when the OP is intended to goad others, or sometimes when the topic of the thread is a sexuality topic that can't be discussed on CF. I didn't see the deleted thread being discussed here, but it sounds like it might have fallen into one or more of the categories I've listed.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm politely asking you to stop being deliberately vague.

I was very specific in the thread that we are now discussing. But I'm going to have to drop this line of posts because that thread is no more. The mods don't want us discussing it, apparently, so we should stop discussing it here unless you want the powers that be to delete this thread as well.

 

[PloverWing]

The "all" we know here is purely materialistic. Thus, finite. Therefore, "effect" begging the question of cause.

How does being finite follow from being materialistic?

 

[Paulomycin]

I can only choose between two things in a trilemma?

In this case in-particular (and only this case), yes. I usually ignore atheists who opt-out with the dogmatic argument.

Thank you for citing Munchausen though. Now I know you've picked "self-evident" and acknowledge that it isn't certain. What I've been saying all along.

It is only "not certain" if you want to abandon trust in logic itself. That's what I've been saying all along. Please stop ignoring that.

You'll have to establish that an absolute truth exists. Thanks to the trilemma you cited, you can't.

The trilemma doesn't actually change anything. You either accept the circular tautology or not. You're welcome to reject it, but in doing so, you've chosen to abandon logic.

Consider this statement:

"There are no absolutes."

Now apply some skepticism and critical thinking to it:

Is it absolute that, "There are no absolutes?" <-- Absolutely?

1. If "yes," then even the initial assertion is not absolute.

Therefore, we CAN know for certain that there is at least one objective and absolute truth.

2. But if "no," then we can know for certain there is at least one objective and absolute truth.

^ And then we can progressively build up from there.

I do understand that. Of course, neither of us knows what A is though, and that's why tautologies are worthless.

'A' is a variable. Your conclusions show a clear lack of knowledge about how this stuff works.

gene2meme is handling it nicely.

Wow. You're really going to lean on another atheist to do the work for you? Well, okay.

Doesn't matter. I don't have to ascribe to his personal model and I don't. All I have to do is acknowledge that the models various scientists have put forth are plausible to refute any argument for God's existence that involves the origins of the universe.

None of them are "plausible" because (a.) they're in the middle of dispute, and (b.) every proposed model contradicts every other one on the list.

What's worse is that you're implying multiple speculative theories can disprove God. <-- Again, "God" is not an empirical claim. God is not even a scientific claim. Not everything in reality is necessarily a scientific claim.

Ha! Called it! You Christian Apologists just made it up, like I said a few pages back. You can't find it anywhere else because it is not an axiom of logic. It's something you all cooked up that you think you can conflate with the axiom of identity.

"Appeal to ignorance - the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." -Carl Sagan

In other words, you can't make any conclusions either way, regardless.

Period.

There is no material cause necessarily in creation ex nihilo. Do you even know what the four causes are since you cited them?

I notice you're jumping around between them and not specifying which one you're on at any given time. I'm not into shell games.

It's funny. When checking my own work #1 and #2 both lead to the cosmological argument. I'm mostly working a priori, instead of a posteriori, but whenever science is invoked, I have to argue a posteriori, because science is inductive, and rarely a priori. Get it?

In whatever order they like. The only distinction between a negative claim and a positive claim is semantics. See, the process for theists begins by forcing doubt upon the idea that the Earth came about as a result of entirely natural processes. See how that works?

"Entirely natural processes" is a positive claim. Therefore, it would require proof or evidence. The problem is that it's too vague to begin with. "Nature" is essentially navel-gazing. Sometimes you can't get the answer from the elements that make up the problem. Sometimes you have to go outside the problem.

I don't know what you're talking about, you aren't making sense! I'm equivocating between objective logic and inductive vs deductive logic?? What does that mean?

There is more than one kind of logic. They have names, you know.

Yeah, I like doing the work myself because I'm not intellectually lazy.

You don't have to re-invent the wheel, you know. If "there is no longer any need of a god," then the reason for it would have already existed before you were born.

I don't have to guess, I know, and I already called you on it.

Appeal to motive fallacy is a real fallacy. No matter how many times you insist, it's never a substitute for a real argument.

I don't believe that you actually believe this response follows from what I said. It doesn't and it's clear that it doesn't.

Every-single-reply you make to a quoteblock is essentially a gish-gallop. I don't really even believe gish-gallop is anything official, as "internet rules" go. What's next, you gonna claim Godwin's law is a law of physics?

Right, so you've got no proof, I've got no proof, and we'll just leave it as "unknown".

It was never my claim. An "eternally contingent thing" or a "non-finite beginning" or WHATEVER contradicted you floated was all you, buddy.

I know. I know what you're trying to do, and I already stated as much. I'm telling you what I'll contribute if you ever actually contribute anything yourself as the OP.

Good, we agree.

But I'm not running on inductive possibilities here. Sorry.

I'm not making a knowledge claim, so this is all bunk.

Oh, but you ARE! You said, "As an atheist, I don't believe in such a being, so I don't believe it's actually possible for this logically possible thing to occur." That's appeal to ignorance. If you're not arguing from not viewing cats and dogs raining from the sky, then you're simply making a circular argument based on your own incredulity, "I don't believe 'X,' therefore 'X' is not possible in reality."

It could very well be an argument from personal incredulity as well.

So you don't believe that God is omnipotent?

God can perform any rationally possible act. Just because God did not do the one thing you demanded of Him, doesn't mean He doesn't exist.

 

[Paulomycin]

How does being finite follow from being materialistic?

Are you making the positive claim that evidence of infinite materialism exists?

finite
[ˈfīnīt]
ADJECTIVE

1. having limits or bounds.

materialism
[məˈtirēəˌlizəm]
NOUN

1. philosophy
   the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.

All empirical matter is finite.

 

[PloverWing]

Are you making the positive claim that evidence of infinite materialism exists?

I claim that it is theoretically possible that the material universe is infinite in size.

The current best scientific observations and theories, as I understand it, lead us to believe that the universe is finite in size. But that's not a logical necessity; it's just the way the universe happens to be. It could have been otherwise.

 

[Freodin]

You don't believe the universe exists? Well, that is a problem, isn't it?

Oh, sorry, I thought you were serious.

The "all" we know here is purely materialistic. Thus, finite. Therefore, "effect" begging the question of cause.

If it's an effect, there is a cause. But you haven't done anything to show that it is an effect.

The statement, "The universe is self-caused, or uncaused," is double circular reasoning. It's Baron Munchausen pulling himself out of a swamp by his own hair.

That depends on what we are talking about when mentioning "the universe". But we have already established that you don't take the issue serious... so there. (And it's Münchhausen.)

Verified empirically. "God" is not an empirical claim.

Is it now? Now that solves all problems, doesn't it!
But the problem is: "The universe is an effect" is also not a claim that can be empirically verified.

Big Bang theory falsifies Steady State, therefore "the omni" i.e. the cosmos is an effect.

And that is wrong... the point where your argument fails.
Big Bang only "falsifies" the hypothesis that the universe always existed in this current state in some way. And nothing more.

An omnipotent being, by definition, is never a contingent effect.

An all-encompassing entity is also, by definition, never a contingent effect.

Sorry, but the argument succeeds on further examination.

Trying to define your conclusion into existence is never a good approach at an argument.

 

[Paulomycin]

If it's an effect, there is a cause. But you haven't done anything to show that it is an effect.

My bad.

Quote: "All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted." - Stephen Hawking

Therefore, on even the most secular scientific grounds, it is safe to conclude that the universe is an effect.

That depends on what we are talking about when mentioning "the universe". But we have already established that you don't take the issue serious... so there.

Just because I point to objective absurdities doesn't mean I'm not taking it seriously.

(And it's Münchhausen.)

This thread's going to get tedious real quick. Good thing I'm patient.

Is it now? Now that solves all problems, doesn't it!

It's a very significant part of the solution that any atheist should rationally agree to.

Big Bang only "falsifies" the hypothesis that the universe always existed in this current state in some way. And nothing more.

Which means you can't re-introduce Steady State theory from outside of this current state, because that would be literally a supernatural claim. You don't know what happened before the Big Bang, nor can we scientifically, because "before the Big Bang" is itself a metaphysical claim.

An all-encompassing entity is also, by definition, never a contingent effect.

^ Painfully and awkwardly vague. Vagueness tends to be a bad form of reasoning altogether.

Trying to define your conclusion into existence is never a good approach at an argument.

No. I'm starting from nature ---> to God here. In that very order. Forcing motive fallacies and other suspicious plots upon me is not helpful here.

 

[tampasteve]

ADMIN HAT ON

This thread had a hefty and heavy handed cleaning of several pages. If goading or flaming posts continue it will be closed. Don't make it personal, keep it about the content, don't call out other members.

ADMIN HAT OFF

 

[PloverWing]

To add a bit of levity to your morning:

I was looking up philosophersimprint.org, the site at which the article in post #15 was published, and I mistyped the web site name. My browser helpfully offered this:

I think we should all go order a couple of philosophers on eBay, and they can settle the argument.

 

[HitchSlap]

5. Empiricism is not a dogma unto itself.

Empiricism has its own problems, as Empiricism itself is very limited:

a.) Empiricism cannot resolve Is/Ought dilemma.
b.) Empiricism reduces law of causality to a question-begging fallacy.
c.) Empiricism cannot be accounted for empirically.
d.) Empiricism cannot resolve Problem of Induction.

Empiricism doesn't leave room for supernatural, so I see why you have a problem with it.

 

[Paulomycin]

Empiricism doesn't leave room for supernatural, so I see why you have a problem with it.

Your motive fallacy notwithstanding, I noticed you completely overlooked 5(b.) and 5(c.) in-particular. Yet you claim to value reason. Again, empiricism isn't scientifically demonstrable.

 

[Pommer]

Have you ever seen a thread actually get outright deleted before? That's a new one for me.

This happens much more frequently in the political forums.

 

[Bradskii]

Only direct citations with book name, page, and quote(s), please.

Any specific font that you'd prefer?

Yeah, I know. That brings nothing to the conversation but it seems like I might now be able to post in this section. So I thought I'd check to see if I actually can. As you were, Paul.

 

[Paulomycin]

Any specific font that you'd prefer?

Why the sarcasm? I'm being fair. It's no more than what atheists expect out of me.

Yeah, I know. That brings nothing to the conversation but it seems like I might now be able to post in this section. So I thought I'd check to see if I actually can. As you were, Paul.

Forgiven.

 

[Bradskii]

Why the sarcasm? I'm being fair. It's no more than what atheists expect out of me.

Personally I always prefer someone's own point of view. Backed up if necessary with a citation or two. I must admit I don't get your continued demand for book, chapter and verse. You can Google that yourself.

And if you find you disagree with an argument then you can tell us why YOU disagree with it. Othewise it's Link Wars. And although you don't appear to be guilty of this to a great extent, please, no blocks of scripture. Just a heads up - I will not be reading them if they are used as an argument.