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.
I don't know what you hope to achieve with that reasoning.No, your argument is completely wrong. Those who believe in God , creator of all that exists, see all that is as God's creation.
All the atheist is doing is disagreeing with that. And when they side with science as cause that's even less credible. Because science posits theory as to the source of all that came to exist. But they have no proof, nor do they posit fact, as to what it was that created all things.
When they argued it was the Big Bang, they couldn't answer what it was that was created to go "BANG" in the first place.
It's logic. For atheists to argue there's no such thing as God they'd have to prove no thing could possible be God anywhere at all. Their denial and refusal to believe isn't proof God isn't there. It's proof they believe God isn't there.
Like the scenario about gold in Alaska. Someone says, there's no gold in Alaska.
They'd have to prove that. Because we know Alaska exists. We know that gold exists. The doubter about gold in Alaska would have to prove there is no gold in Alaska.
(Like the atheist claims there is no God at all).
To prove the proclamation that there is no gold in Alaska the doubter would have to excavate all of Alaska to prove their point.
Proving there is gold in Alaska isn't incumbent on the one that says to that skeptic, no, you're wrong, there is Gold in Alaska.
Proof falls on the one that makes the impossible declaration of, "no such thing".
All that exists is proof of God. The skeptic that claims God doesn't exist has to prove that while there is proof of existence, that there is no thing called God responsible for that. Because the proof of existence is in their face. Their contention that God isn't responsible , when they argue against cause of existence, makes the onus on the atheist to prove it.
Simply saying, uhuh it isn't God, isn't proof.
That's the best an atheist's got?That you exist is proof of God. God having created everything that included creating your parents.
Prove God isn't there when you and your parents are.
Science can't prove God isn't real. Science can't prove something other than God created all that exists.
But you go ahead and believe God doesn't exist.
You do. When you argue God didn't make that possible. And Science can't prove something else is absolute as first cause, you're left in quite the quandary.
"No God" is an untenable belief system. Looking at all that exists and saying, yeah, but it isn't due to God, makes the onus on the one that argues against reality.
Go ahead.
No, your argument is completely wrong. Those who believe in God , creator of all that exists, see all that is as God's creation.
All the atheist is doing is disagreeing with that. And when they side with science as cause that's even less credible. Because science posits theory as to the source of all that came to exist. But they have no proof, nor do they posit fact, as to what it was that created all things.
When they argued it was the Big Bang, they couldn't answer what it was that was created to go "BANG" in the first place.
It's logic. For atheists to argue there's no such thing as God they'd have to prove no thing could possible be God anywhere at all. Their denial and refusal to believe isn't proof God isn't there. It's proof they believe God isn't there.
Like the scenario about gold in Alaska. Someone says, there's no gold in Alaska.
They'd have to prove that. Because we know Alaska exists. We know that gold exists. The doubter about gold in Alaska would have to prove there is no gold in Alaska.
(Like the atheist claims there is no God at all).
To prove the proclamation that there is no gold in Alaska the doubter would have to excavate all of Alaska to prove their point.
Proving there is gold in Alaska isn't incumbent on the one that says to that skeptic, no, you're wrong, there is Gold in Alaska.
Proof falls on the one that makes the impossible declaration of, "no such thing".
All that exists is proof of God. The skeptic that claims God doesn't exist has to prove that while there is proof of existence, that there is no thing called God responsible for that. Because the proof of existence is in their face. Their contention that God isn't responsible , when they argue against cause of existence, makes the onus on the atheist to prove it.
Simply saying, uhuh it isn't God, isn't proof.
That's the best an atheist's got?
Prove God isn't there when you and your parents are.
Science can't prove God isn't real. Science can't prove something other than God created all that exists.
But you go ahead and believe God doesn't exist.
You do. When you argue God didn't make that possible. And Science can't prove something else is absolute as first cause, you're left in quite the quandary.
"No God" is an untenable belief system. Looking at all that exists and saying, yeah, but it isn't due to God, makes the onus on the one that argues against reality.
Go ahead.
Bless you! I never thought I'd see an atheist acknowledge that atheism is an argument born of ignorance.
No, ignorance declares there is no thing responsible for all that exists.
Regurgitating under your own name my original remarks appears to be the best you can do.
if there WAS to be some sort of "moral compass", where should it come from?
)
Much of our moral compass is cultural - it is learned from other people. But the codified rules that make up the consensus moralities of successful cultures are influenced by basic behavioural tendencies with an evolutionary origin in intra-group co-operation and inter-group competition; for example, forager groups whose individuals co-operate in competition with other groups tend to be more successful, so these traits are selectively reinforced (at least, until agriculture allows larger, settled groups and more complex social structures). We still see this powerful group loyalty at all levels today, from families and small teams (e.g. in sports), to the hierarchy of geographic groups from neighborhoods to states and superstates (which tend to be increasingly fragile with scale).
Why? because you can't imagine how else it could happen?
They don't think so, and might well think that you are immoral for the things you do.
Perhaps the old saw, 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter', covers it. They can acknowledge that what they do is immoral under someone else's code without necessarily feeling that it is immoral themselves. However, if they live within a culture in which what they do is considered immoral, people - being complex contradictory creatures - may find themselves conflicted between the desire to be part of the group, and the desire to gratify other personal desires in ways considered immoral. There are those can suppress any sense of conscience & guilt, and also sociopaths who feel no such qualms - no conscience, no guilt; true parasites.
I see two ways to approach the Kalam cosmological argument; I can challenge the first part, which is along the lines of:
P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause;
P2: The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
C: The universe has a cause. [wikipedia]
by denying the premises:
1 - everything in the universe consists of re-arrangements of the 'stuff' (matter/energy) that was around at the big bang. We do make arbitrary distinctions of convenience about transitions from one pattern of stuff to another pattern as 'beginnings' and 'endings', but the underlying stuff isn't created or destroyed - this is formalised in the conservation laws of physics. What we call cause (Hume's 'constant conjunction') is our observation of the interactions of patterns of the stuff of the universe resulting in new patterns according to consistent rules. As far back as we can extrapolate (the big bang), no new 'stuff' has come into existence; so in terms of the stuff itself, we don't know if it can begin to exist or what that would even mean.
2. Contrary to what some people have said here, the standard model of cosmology doesn't say the universe was created at the big bang, or that there was a singularity, or an infinitely small and dense point. It says that from our observations, we can extrapolate back a very hot dense state that expanded extremely rapidly. Extrapolating back continuously ends with a 'singularity', a bunch of infinities doesn't make sense and is meaningless to physics, so that's not thought to be right (some recent calculations suggest that there would necessarily be a 'bounce' at a certain minimum size). We have no indication of the size of the universe prior to inflation, so it is taken, by default, to be infinite - until we know otherwise (the size of the currently observable part of the universe would have been finite but probably sub-atomic). We don't know what preceded this expansion, but there are plenty of hypotheses based on the maths.
So, we have no reason to believe the 'stuff' of the universe began to exist at all; by 1 (above) we can only say it had a major reorganisation at the big bang when it started expanding. IOW, for all we know it's always been there and what we see is just a change of state. It might also be worth pointing out that the rules that apply to the contents of the universe don't necessarily apply to the universe itself, so the Kalam conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premises without an equivocation of 'begin'. The causal 'beginnings' we talk about, i.e. the interactions of stuff that rearrange it into new patterns, don't apply at the meta-level of the universe; it's all there is, there's nothing to interact with. The set of all interactions of stuff is not itself an interaction of stuff (or the set of all stuff that interacts is not itself stuff that interacts).
The second part of the Kalam cosmological argument can also be challenged - it goes something like:
P1: The universe has a cause;
P2: If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
Therefore:
C: An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful. [wikipedia]
That's more obvious, seeing as P1 is not a given, and P2 is a non-sequitur, so I'll leave it for now, except to say P2 involves special pleading, and Ockham's Razor (avoid unnecessary multiplication of entities) can apply.
I'd be interested to hear any variations on the Kalam cosmological argument - perhaps in another thread.
For myself, I'm anti-Theist in the sense that I think Theism is mistaken. I take Theists as I find them; they're just people (I do find the misuse of science in the arguments of some theists to be annoying though
