The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I would have said that there is no evidence of a spirt at all and that everything we call personhood is a function of the brain. That said, while we can imagine a society without bodies it really would be nothing like the one we observe now. In any case I will wait for a demonstration that a being can exist without a body before I send too much time on the science fiction of imagining a body less society

Here is a source i found from Brittannica.com that may be useful of explaining the meaning of "being".

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Being

 

[Athée]

Wrong. If you can imagin a being greater...that being would be God. Nice try but i will dive into that further in another thread. Its going to be fun.

Maybe but it wouldn't be your God anymore so it's kind of self defeating isn't it. And of course still entirely subjective.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Maybe but it wouldn't be your God anymore so it's kind of self defeating isn't it. And of course still entirely subjective.

Perhaps, but just like this argument, the ontological argument neither proves or disproves the existance of the God of Abraham or any other God. It only attempts to prove that "a God" exists naturally.

 

[Athée]

Perhaps, but just like this argument, the ontological argument neither proves or disproves the existance of the God of Abraham or any other God. It only attempts to prove that "a God" exists naturally.

So even though it difinitivly disproves your particular god, that is OK because it can be used to argue for some undefined (and again still very subjective ) god?

 

[Athée]

Here is a source i found from Brittannica.com that may be useful of explaining the meaning of "being".

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Being

Didn't find this very helpful for our purposes. The only bit that really addressed the question was for Aristotle to equate being with the verb is, such that anything which can be described an acurate by as is statement is also a being. So when I say, that rock is hard, I am correct and therefore the rock is a being. I dot think this is the kind of being you have in mind as an explanation of the universe. So maybe we need to just come out and say that what you are proposing is a personal being and work from there?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Didn't find this very helpful for our purposes. The only bit that really addressed the question was for Aristotle to equate being with the verb is, such that anything which can be described an acurate by as is statement is also a being. So when I say, that rock is hard, I am correct and therefore the rock is a being. I dot think this is the kind of being you have in mind as an explanation of the universe. So maybe we need to just come out and say that what you are proposing is a personal being and work from there?

I apologize. The best definition I could find was "the nature of essence of a person".

 

[Athée]

I apologize. The best definition I could find was "the nature of essence of a person".

No need to apologize I didn't find much either. That is why I suggested attacking it from the personhood angle. In this definition you just gave it includes the word person, so what makes a person (ten billion bonus points if your answer includes something from Terry Pratchett''s "these are the things that make a man")?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

No need to apologize I didn't find much either. That is why I suggested attacking it from the personhood angle. In this definition you just gave it includes the word person, so what makes a person (ten billion bonus points if your answer includes something from Terry Pratchett''s "these are the things that make a man")?

...inside every old person is a young person wondering what happened"
Terry Pratchett

 

[Athée]

...inside every old person is a young person wondering what happened"
Terry Pratchett

Good effort, I will give you an even 1 million bonus points for that one

 

[Ed1wolf]

I answered this already: nobody knows.

At the earliest stages of the Big Bang we see inflation and quantum effects. I suspect that this it the fundamental aspect of reality, that there is a constantly inflating background reality with quantum fluctuations that occasionally create universes such as our own.

But nobody really knows.

While we cant know with absolute certainty we can make a rational inference. Just like scientists do everyday on other things like dark matter. We are pretty sure dark matter exists, so we can be pretty sure God exists. Quantum fluctuations could not have caused the BB because they require an interval of time, but there is no time at t=0.

 

[Ed1wolf]

No, it is not unreasonable to suggest the hypothesis that God created the universe.

But it is unreasonable to say we can deduce that the cause of the universe takes on the character of a personal God.

There is at least two strong evidences that the cause is Personal. First, we know purposes exist in the universe, ie such as ears are for hearing and eyes are for seeing. And we know that only personal beings can create purposes for things. Also, we know from all of human experience that only persons can create the personal. Persons exist in the universe, therefore their cause most likely is personal.

 

[Athée]

We are pretty sure dark matter exists, so we can be pretty sure God exists.

Dark matter makes predictions that can be verified. What predictions does the god hypothesis make that we can test. Please be sure that your explease is not a retroactive , just so, story.

First, we know purposes exist in the universe, ie such as ears are for hearing and eyes are for seeing. And we know that only personal beings can create purposes for things.

You are conflating purpose with function in a way that begs the question. There is a massive difference between, eyes see using light and eyes are for seeing using light. You are ascribing purpose to a function and of course purpose requires an intent and a designer as you rightly poin out. What you need to establish is that those things have actual purpose and not simply function...I will await your response

Also, we know from all of human experience that only persons can create the personal. Persons exist in the universe, therefore their cause most likely is personal.

We know from experience that the only kind of person that we have ever observed requires a physical body, therfore it makes no sense to posit a person as a causal agent outside of space and time.

 

[DogmaHunter]

In a nut shell....if there wasn't an uncaused creator...there would be nothing today.

You think you are providing an explanation / argument. But in reality, this is nothing but yet another assertion in need of supportive evidence.

Got any?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I thought I explained to you that stuff can't create itself from nothing.
This means, if there is stuff there had to have been a self existing external being.

And yet another assertion.

You didn't explain anything. You ASSERTED it (by use of a false dichotomy, even).

 

[DogmaHunter]

You claim to be an atheist...your wrong coming off the starting block.

Still no answer to the question that's been asked 4 times now, I see...

For stuff to exist there HAS to be a God. That's one argument YOU can't win.

That's not an argument. That's yet another claim.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
We are pretty sure dark matter exists, so we can be pretty sure God exists.

at: Dark matter makes predictions that can be verified. What predictions does the god hypothesis make that we can test. Please be sure that your explease is not a retroactive , just so, story.

The Christian God hypothesis makes predictions too, such as that the universe had a definite beginning from nothing detectable. This comes from Genesis 1 and Hebrews 11:3. Science has confirmed both of these predictions with the BB theory.

↑

ed: First, we know purposes exist in the universe, ie such as ears are for hearing and eyes are for seeing. And we know that only personal beings can create purposes for things.

at: You are conflating purpose with function in a way that begs the question. There is a massive difference between, eyes see using light and eyes are for seeing using light. You are ascribing purpose to a function and of course purpose requires an intent and a designer as you rightly poin out. What you need to establish is that those things have actual purpose and not simply function...I will await your response

Function is actually just accomplishing a thing's purpose. Functioning eyes accomplish the purpose of seeing. It is obvious that seeing is the purpose of eyes. What is your evidence that that is not their purpose?

↑

ed: Also, we know from all of human experience that only persons can create the personal. Persons exist in the universe, therefore their cause most likely is personal.

at: We know from experience that the only kind of person that we have ever observed requires a physical body, therfore it makes no sense to posit a person as a causal agent outside of space and time.

No, there is evidence that persons/minds can exist without physical bodies, such as how we can think according to the laws of logic and not laws of physics and certain unexplainable NDEs are evidence of this. Also, the placebo effect.

 

[Athée]

The Christian God hypothesis makes predictions too, such as that the universe had a definite beginning from nothing detectable. This comes from Genesis 1 and Hebrews 1. Science has confirmed both of these predictions with the BB theory.

This is a good example, well done. One problem of course is that the hypothesis has not been confirmed. The big bang was not the beginning of rhe universe, prior to the bang (which we cant get to yet) all of space time existed as a singularity (or that is what the best models suggest). So while that is a good hypithesis it has some work left. Maybe you could add a few more testable hypotheses.
On the other side of the equation there are the testable hypotheses that your worldview makes that don't turn out to be true. For example that prayer will be effective. Any time we have tested that hypothesis it turns out to work at exactlythe rate of chance. Or that thwte was a global flood which would predoct certian things in the geologival record, whichbifncourse don't appear. Do you count this as evidence against your worldview?

Function is actually just accomplishing a thing's purpose. Functioning eyes accomplish the purpose of seeing. It is obvious that seeing is the purpose of eyes. What is your evidence that that is not their purpose?

I can see why you would say this but again you are begging the question. You are assuming that there is a purpose and then defining function as an extension of that. A rock has the function of exerting pressure, equal to its mass, on the rocks below it. Is that it's purpose or is it simply something a rock does by virtue of being a rock. As for eyes it is the same argument. Yes eyes can see things and this confers a survival advantage, the function if the eye in the organism is to see. But purpose requires design by an intelligence, so when you say the eye has the purpose of seeing you are slipping in the premise that the eye was designed by an intelligence, you are assuming ineffective that God exists and designed the eye. While you may not have noticed that premise slip in because it is part of your worldview, it is present none the less and so you need, as always, to demonstrate that this is the case rather than simply assuming or asserting it to be so.

No, there is evidence that persons/minds can exist without physical bodies, such as how we can think according to the laws of logic and not laws of physics and certain unexplainable NDEs are evidence of this. Also, the placebo effect.

The only bit of this that I understood was the NDE claim. If you would like to provide one for our consideration? Something that you think would be good testable, verifiable evidence of that thinking can happen without a brain. Also I would appreciate if you could explain the other two because I am missing how they relate to our discussion about personhood and evidence for personhood absent bodies.
Thanks

 

[DogmaHunter]

The Christian God hypothesis makes predictions too, such as that the universe had a definite beginning from nothing detectable. This comes from Genesis 1 and Hebrews 11:3. Science has confirmed both of these predictions with the BB theory.

The problem with this "prediction", is two-fold:
- first, the actual origins of the universe remain unknown, so even assuming the prediction is sensible and straightforward, it has not be demonstrated to be correct to a satisfying degree...

- secondly, the prediction is incredibly vague and, most of all, not exclusive to the god-model. I can come up with any number of models, which would fit that prediction as well. When data can be used to support multiple, mutually exclusive, models... then either the models aren't detailed enough or the data is rather uninteresting.


Athée brings up a good point about other predictions that naturally flow from the biblical god-model. And there are PLENTY of those. Actual, detailed, straightforward predictions that are directly testable in the here and now.
One of the best examples probably being Noah's flood. Taken as written, it predicts a WHOLE BUNCH of things concerning geology and genetics, in particular.

For example, a global geological layer of flood sediments as well as a universal genetic bottleneck among most, if not all, species - especially land animals, dating to roughly the same period as the flood layer.

Neither of both, however, exist. There is no such layer. There are no such universal bottlenecks.

This means we can safely and rationally dissmiss this story as being literally accurate.

It is obvious that seeing is the purpose of eyes. What is your evidence that that is not their purpose?

Shifting the burden of proof are we?

No, there is evidence that persons/minds can exist without physical bodies, such as how we can think according to the laws of logic and not laws of physics and certain unexplainable NDEs are evidence of this. Also, the placebo effect.

So wich of the people that you speak of here, didn't have a physical body?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
The Christian God hypothesis makes predictions too, such as that the universe had a definite beginning from nothing detectable. This comes from Genesis 1 and Hebrews 1. Science has confirmed both of these predictions with the BB theory.

At: This is a good example, well done. One problem of course is that the hypothesis has not been confirmed. The big bang was not the beginning of rhe universe, prior to the bang (which we cant get to yet) all of space time existed as a singularity (or that is what the best models suggest). So while that is a good hypithesis it has some work left. Maybe you could add a few more testable hypotheses.

It has been confirmed more than almost any other theory. The BB theory is among the most confirmed scientific theories. It is based on relativity which is very strongly backed up with evidence. Dr. Donald Goldsmith in the Nov. 2007 issue of Natural History magazine states that the most cosmologists agree that space and time and matter all came into existence at the BB and relativity strongly points in that direction. They did not exist prior to the BB. Another testable hypothesis is that the bible teaches that the universe is expanding, this also has been confirmed by science.

at: On the other side of the equation there are the testable hypotheses that your worldview makes that don't turn out to be true. For example that prayer will be effective. Any time we have tested that hypothesis it turns out to work at exactlythe rate of chance.

No, actually there have been studies that have shown that people that are ill in a hospital recover more often if their friends and family pray for them than those whose friends and family don't pray for them. Also, people that attend church regularly generally are more happy with their marriages and lives than those that don't and also are more law abiding. Studies have shown this.

at: Or that thwte was a global flood which would predoct certian things in the geologival record, whichbifncourse don't appear. Do you count this as evidence against your worldview?

While I concede that there is not a great amount of evidence for a global flood, there is some evidence for the flood at the time I believe it occurred about 2 mya. There are large hydraulically caused fossil graveyards dated to that time and also since there is some evidence that ice ages are caused by perturbations of the earths axis, a large amount of water covering the earth at that time match up with an ice age also occurring at that time.
↑

ed: Function is actually just accomplishing a thing's purpose. Functioning eyes accomplish the purpose of seeing. It is obvious that seeing is the purpose of eyes. What is your evidence that that is not their purpose?

at: I can see why you would say this but again you are begging the question. You are assuming that there is a purpose and then defining function as an extension of that.

No, even atheist biologists agree that the purpose of eyes is to see and ears to hear. Even if they don't agree that purpose is caused by an intelligence in these cases which of course is an irrational position.

at: A rock has the function of exerting pressure, equal to its mass, on the rocks below it. Is that it's purpose or is it simply something a rock does by virtue of being a rock. As for eyes it is the same argument. Yes eyes can see things and this confers a survival advantage, the function if the eye in the organism is to see. But purpose requires design by an intelligence, so when you say the eye has the purpose of seeing you are slipping in the premise that the eye was designed by an intelligence, you are assuming ineffective that God exists and designed the eye. While you may not have noticed that premise slip in because it is part of your worldview, it is present none the less and so you need, as always, to demonstrate that this is the case rather than simply assuming or asserting it to be so.

No, the eye is obviously intricately designed specifically to produce an image on the retina and then the nervous system is made to receive and process that image and is therefore irreducibly complex totally unlike a rock which shows no evidence of being irreducibly complex.

↑

ed: No, there is evidence that persons/minds can exist without physical bodies, such as how we can think according to the laws of logic and not laws of physics and certain unexplainable NDEs are evidence of this. Also, the placebo effect.

at: The only bit of this that I understood was the NDE claim. If you would like to provide one for our consideration? Something that you think would be good ball, verifiable evidence of that thinking can happen without a brain. Also I would appreciate if you could explain the other two because I am missing how they relate to our discussion about personhood and evidence for personhood absent bodies.
Thanks

I will in my next post. But referring to the laws of logic vs. the laws of physics, if the mind is totally tied to the physical brain then it could only operate according to the laws of biochemistry in the brain, not on the laws of logic. But we know from experience that the mind has the ability to function according to the laws of logic which are metaphysical laws not tied to the laws of physics. The placebo effect demonstrates that the mind can cure physical diseases without relying on anything physical this is evidence that the mind is not limited to just physical abilities and powers. It is evidence that the mind is a nonphysical entity that can influence physical entities.

 

[Moral Orel]

Something that you think would be good

LOL please edit out the typo that immediately follows this quote before I die laughing because I'm apparently only 12 years old!