- Feb 22, 2021
- 1,482
- 376
- 52
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Reformed
Please do me a huge favor and just re-word your point as a statement. Please? I'll owe you one. How's that?
Upvote
0
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.
There were only two negatives in total. I still refuse to believe you can't read a simply constructed sentence. Maybe-the dashes confused-you...
Please do me a huge favor and just re-word your point as a statement. Please? I'll owe you one. How's that?
This ain't a primary school lesson in basic comprehension. Thanks for making the effort (but I'm giving you an F-).
Strike 2.
This discussion is on two completely different threads, you know.
I don't care which thread you are batting on. Two strike rule is now current. You're out!
Does your fake rule mean you've sworn off communicating altogether?
No. You are only called out on any further posts that you deliberately misconstrue, feign ignorance, refuse to answer or answer with nonsensical non sequitors (I may add further compliant requirements as I see fit without notice).
Why would I want to explain anything to you? My posting is really for other people’s benefit."Basic logic" is either an inductive or deductive process. Not vague intuition. Can you further illustrate that process to demonstrate that you actually know what you're talking about?
Or. . .you could just stall some more, and make this look even more awkward.
Why would I want to explain anything to you?
My posting is really for other people’s benefit.
So you're appealing to an academic institution like a secular papacy? You believe them because they said so.
I'm fairly certain there's no need to read-into my OP any further than what I am certain I stated word-for-word.
Actually, I'm asking if you've asked the folks whom have a much more rigorous and narrow scope of study in this direct field, because I doubt most here have.
Some cosmologists may very well suppose that,"materialism is all that exists." Have you challenged their ideas?
How did that go for you?
Getting in somewhat late here. I believe matter/energy and the fundamental forces of nature are all that exist. I accept it by Ockham’s directive not to multiply entities unnecessarily.
Matter that has continually multiplied on and on for eternity past would violate Occam's razor. As would any infinitely regressing causal loops. You can't avoid it. Therefore, a prime mover is necessary and would more accurately fit the rule of parsimony. Why? Because it puts a stop to theorizing eternally and unnecessarily regressive entities.
As I stated, there may be a force which initiates the conversion of energy to matter and acts as a substrate for all further activity,
But why would it be anything more than an as yet unrecognized force of nature?
Why should I believe it’s a supernatural diety? And more specifically, considering the thousands of supernatural creator gods which human societies have imagined, why would I believe yours is true and correct?
Which you have no evidence of. "May be a force" acting as a substrate is, in-fact, so vague that you can't even specify exactly what it is you're even referring to.
This only proves that you're more than willing to rush towards a wholly non-existent speculation on blind-faith, as long as that alternative gets you as far away from "God" as possible.
Belief in a supra-natural creator is necessary, because it's a scientific fact that our omni is finite and had a beginning.
Of course, it’s a speculation. Just as is your assertion of a supernatural “God” as a first cause.
Not everyone working in the field accepts that a supra-natural creator is necessary.
My training was in medicine. I’m not a physicist or cosmologist I can’t comment on their plausibility, but I know that alternative theories of cosmogony exist.
God is a speculation,
as are models of both a finite and infinite universe.
We’re all entitled to believe whatever seems most tenable.
[2] These are three bald assertions. I would ask you to prove them if they weren't off topic.My points don't make something illogical. They are or they are not illogical on their own. You have a strange way of seeing reality. (1) A thing cannot cause itself to exist. It is self-contradictory, because a non-existent thing cannot cause. It cannot spontaneously begin to exist. That is nonsense.[2] (2) A thing that exists, is either first cause, or was caused. The 'infinitesimal speck' from which the BB proceeded was mechanical fact, and on top of everything else one might say about it, bears the evidences of being acted upon or produced (created) with purpose/ design since it obviously resulted in specificity and not homogeneity.[3] There is no more reason to say specificity results by chance or randomness, than there is to say that chance or randomness can cause anything. This too is self-contradictory.Amoranemix 25 said:[1] I doubt it is illogical in even one way. How are these points you present supposed to make something creating itself be illogical ?
[4] In that case, there would be many gods. The one that exists and those people believe in. The real one would be unlikely to conform to what you will accept or to what (s)he/it has to be according to you.Mark Quayle 26 said:If God exists, God is not an opinion.[4] Are you one of those who likes the foggy notion that there are many truths?[5]Amoranemix 25 said:Indeed. It is humans who decide the nature of God. God is an opinion.
But I thought atheists are not supposed to believe there is no God, but rather to fail to believe there is a God. Here you are positing the notion that there is no actual God.[6]
Reality does not care about your aversions.Mark Quayle 28 said:You are describing infinite regression of cause. Difficult to imagine? Difficult to swallow. In fact, a bit indigestible. 'Repugnant', one might say.Bradskii said:I think that what you mean is that we have no examples of something spontaneously begining to exist. And the universe could be eternal and cyclic and so woukdn't require a begining. Kinda difficult to imagine. But then, so are so many things in physics and cosmology.
[7] He may have done so, but not in this thread, which is what matters. He did on the other hand deny to presuppose them being the same.HitchSlap claimed they are the same.[7] I'm claiming an exclusively theistic reality.[8] Yours is exclusively secular. And what's worse is that you presuppose it without evidence.[9]Amoranemix 25 said:You are mistaken. You assumed that reality and atheist reality are the same.
[10] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?Paulomycin 36 said:Because your confirmation bias won't allow it.[10] I understand. Proof is objective; persuasion is subjective.Amoranemix 25 said:I have heard rumours of the existence of such proof and have witnessed attempts at presenting such proof, but I have yet to observe such proof.
Has ontological naturalism ever been objectively refuted ?Paulomycin 53 said:I've never been objectively refuted, so I'd say pretty well. Remember, "I'm not convinced" alone and of-itself is never an objective argument.cvanwey said:Actually, I'm asking if you've asked the folks whom have a much more rigorous and narrow scope of study in this direct field, because I doubt most here have.
[11] I haven't noticed anyone suggesting that matter has continuously multiplied on and on for eternity past.Paulomycin 55 said:Matter that has continually multiplied on and on for eternity past would violate Occam's razor.[11] As would any infinitely regressing causal loops.[12] You can't avoid it. Therefore, a prime mover is necessary and would more accurately fit the rule of parsimony. Why? Because it puts a stop to theorizing eternally and unnecessarily regressive entities.[13]jayem said:Getting in somewhat late here. I believe matter/energy and the fundamental forces of nature are all that exist. I accept it by Ockham’s directive not to multiply entities unnecessarily.
Claims of possibility (speculation) require less evidence than claims of fact. The vaguer a claim, the less evidence it requires. If that speculation already requires evidence, then most of your unevidenced claims of fact are woefully undersupported.Paulomycin 57 said:Which you have no evidence of. "May be a force" acting as a substrate is, in-fact, so vague that you can't even specify exactly what it is you're even referring to.jayem said:As I stated, there may be a force which initiates the conversion of energy to matter and acts as a substrate for all further activity,
If I understand correctly, your argument is the following :Paulomycin 57 said:Because I only exclusively define "god" as an omnipotent being. I agree with igtheists and ignostics that, "without clear and consistent definitions of what we're discussing, we end up talking past one another incoherently."jayem said:Why should I believe it’s a supernatural diety? And more specifically, considering the thousands of supernatural creator gods which human societies have imagined, why would I believe yours is true and correct?
I assume with omni you mean universe.Paulomycin 57 to jayem said:Belief in a supra-natural creator is necessary, because it's a scientific fact that our omni is finite and had a beginning.
"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
Obviously I don't buy your alleged proofs, but criticizing them here would probably lead to too long an off topic discussion. If you post one in its own thread I may find time to challenge it there.Paulomycin 57 said:The universe begging the question of its own existence is irrational. Therefore, a rational explanation is necessary.
Proof #1.
Proof #2.
I'm also a fan of the simulation argument as empirical evidence. But evidence and proof are very different. Proof is never subject to the classical Problem of Induction.
Strange. There is no mention of God in those articles about the beginning of the universe.Paulomycin 59 said:2015? Wow, you are late to the party.jayem said:
Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning | Quanta Magazine
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?