Teaser question...

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Then why are you on a Christian forum?

This may shock you, but there are other people to have discussions with on here, besides you specifically.

 

[All Becomes New]

This may shock you, but there are other people to have discussions with on here, besides you specifically.

That's not what I was getting at at all. Why a Christian forum of all places? Why not an atheist forum, or a tech forum, why a Christian forum? Makes no sense why you are here since you don't share an interest with the subject matter.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

That's not what I was getting at at all. Why a Christian forum of all places? Why not an atheist forum, or a tech forum, why a Christian forum? Makes no sense why you are here since you don't share an interest with the subject matter.

I don’t have to literally believe something is true to have an interest in it.

Reasons for being here,

1. I don't want to live in an echo chamber. Almost everyone I know and interact with regularly is either atheist, irreligious, or very liberal in their religion. The internet is the most convenient resource for exposure to opposing viewpoints. I consume conservative religious radio, podcasts and youtube videos, and talk to street preachers, for the same reason.

2. It's interesting.

3. I consider the public scrutiny of ideas and the reasoning behind them to be a civic duty.

4. On rare occasions, I like to peruse the 'Christians Only' sections and see what believers say about atheists when they know we can't respond.

In that order.

 

[All Becomes New]

3. I consider the public scrutiny of ideas and the reasoning behind them to be a civic duty.

Debate is largely destructive.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Debate is largely destructive.

What a bizarre, naked assertion.

 

[All Becomes New]

What a bizarre, naked assertion.

I've seen very few people change their mind because of a debate. And debate usually comes loaded with a bunch of animosity. The cons for debate outweigh the pros IMO.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I've seen very few people change their mind because of a debate.

I have, but that's irrelevant because it's not the object.

And debate usually comes loaded with a bunch of animosity.

No it doesn't.

The cons for debate outweigh the pros IMO.

I believe you believe that.

 

[All Becomes New]

No it doesn't.

If you are doing it for fun, sure.

Here's my thought process behind this:
Let's TALK about debate!

 

[InterestedAtheist]

You don't have proof for lots of things you believe. You don't need 100% certainty to believe something.

Please don't waste our time with sophistry.
Do you have evidence that God exists? If so, present it.

 

[All Becomes New]

Please don't waste our time with sophistry.
Do you have evidence that God exists? If so, present it.

Even if I offered you some, you would reject it.

Kalam.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Even if I offered you some, you would reject it.
Kalam.

Ah. You've tried this before, have you, and found that your "logical arguments" don't work very well?
Are you not aware that Kalam has been exposed as being a flawed argument?
Also - seriously, that's your argument that the Christian God exists? A deist argument?

 

[All Becomes New]

Ah. You've tried this before, have you, and found that your "logical arguments" don't work very well?
Are you not aware that Kalam has been exposed as being a flawed argument?
Also - seriously, that's your argument that the Christian God exists? A deist argument?

You're annoying.

Due tell how the Kalam has been debunked.
You asked for evidence on God existing. I provided evidence. You rejected it, just as I said you would.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Due tell how the Kalam has been debunked.
You asked for evidence on God existing. I provided evidence.

There are many responses to Kalam, both philosophical and scientific, which are very easy to find if you care to look for them.

The simplest response is that it pulls a bait and switch. "Everything which begins has a cause" is a strong inductive inference, if we're talking about creation ex materia, because it constitutes every instance of something "beginning to exist" we have ever observed.

But we're not talking about that kind of creation. Yahweh's supposed creation was ex nihilo, which constitutes zero observed instances of something "beginning to exist", and so it has zero inductive strength.

I'd be happy to also talk about some reasons why it's scientifically bunk, but you better be prepared. I'm by no means an expert, but I know enough to tell when someone else knows very little, or nothing at all.

You rejected it, just as I said you would.

You're supposed to reject crappy arguments.

 

[All Becomes New]

But we're not talking about that kind of creation. Yahweh's supposed creation was ex nihilo, which constitutes zero observed instances of something "beginning to exist", and so it has zero inductive strength.

"If something begins to exist, it has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause."

What is wrong with this scientifically exactly?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

"If something begins to exist, it has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause."

What is wrong with this scientifically exactly?

When talking about Yahweh's "creation", you're not merely referring to the observable universe, but the totality of existence itself.

While it is true that the observable universe can be said to have "begun" at the Big Bang, we have no means of telling whether existence itself ever "began to exist". Nor can we tell if our universe represents all of existence. Our current physics breaks down, pre-Planck time.

So, premise 2 is a naked assertion, which wrongfully equates the universe with the totality of existence.

 

[All Becomes New]

When talking about Yahweh's "creation", you're not merely referring to the observable universe, but the totality of existence itself.

While it is true that the observable universe can be said to have "begun" at the Big Bang, we have no means of telling whether existence itself ever "began to exist". Nor can we tell if our universe represents all of existence. Our current physics breaks down, pre-Planck time.

So, premise 2 is a naked assertion, which wrongfully equates the universe with the totality of existence.

Physics clearly began to exist is what you are saying then. So practically speaking, the known universe began to exist at a specific time.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Physics clearly began to exist is what you are saying then.

Um. No.

Physics did begin to exist, when humans invented it, as is the case with all descriptive laws (in science, math, logic, etc). But that's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about the fact that our current physics are incapable of addressing anything pre-Planck time.

So practically speaking, the known universe began to exist at a specific time.

Yes, but that's not what you're arguing for. You're arguing that Yahweh is responsible for the creation of the totality of existence itself, ex nihilo. Science is currently incapable of ascertaining whether or not the observable universe represents the totality of existence, or that its beginning was an "ex nihilo" event. As such, you are necessarily making an unscientific argument.

Also, do you have anything to say about the fact that there is zero precedent for creation ex nihilo, and therefor no inductive argument can be predicated on it?

 

[All Becomes New]

Yes, but that's not what you're arguing for.

Pardon?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Pardon?

When asked to present evidence for the Christian god, your answer was "Kalam". You don't seem to be aware of what that entails.

Let's try this,

Did Yahweh create the universe out of nothing, or did he simply arrange it out of pre-existing material, the way a carpenter might build a table out of a pile of wood?

Does the known universe represent the totality of existence, or is there anything outside of it (besides Yahweh himself)?

 

[All Becomes New]

Did Yahweh create the universe out of nothing, or did he simply arrange it out of pre-existing material, the way a carpenter might build a table out of a pile of wood?

God became temporal at t=1. God's temporalness aside, it's impossible to get around infinite regress if there was nothing known about point t=0 unless there is a timeless, spaceless, non-temporal cause of the universe. Notice I am talking about time and not the universe as an exclusive thing at this point.

Does the known universe represent the totality of existence, or is there anything outside of it (besides Yahweh himself)?

I don't know of any evidence that there is anything outside of the universe and God. Pick your poison: Either the universe was caused by God, or you have to believe something else that doesn't have any evidence for it.