Impossibility of god. [Archive]

View Full Version : Impossibility of god.

newsocialism

30th January 2010, 09:59

There have been incessant questions that I've created in my mind since I was a kid. While I was growing up, questions became more and more complex. Now, some people's arguments are extremely idiotic and ridiculous to me. I will argue only one thing about philosophical impossibility of a creator. I have numerous questions and thoughts that would debunk a creator philosophically. Here we go;
If everything needs a creator, god must be created. The banalest answer to this question is; 'god is the only creator and he needs no creator to be existed'. Let's see if it is the case. Firstly, the statement is that everything requires a creator to come into existence. Everything that exists must be a thing. Otherwise, they must be nothing. If god existed, he would be a thing. According to this every part, subsistence, characteristic, matter, trait which god has must exist with him without a creator. You might include god's power, it's source, god's feelings, thoughts, sources of them all...etc. As much as god has something eternal with him, as much as those things needs no creator. This refutes the original statement and create an obscure, illogical condition. Ultimate conclusion must be that something requires no creator but something does. If it is so, why the matter needs to be created? Maybe it is something that needs no creator at all!

red cat

30th January 2010, 10:13

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

The arguments against theism might interest you.

newsocialism

30th January 2010, 11:35

Thanks. By the way, I am already an atheist. I just wanted to post my thoughts on that common argument.

Muzk

30th January 2010, 11:39

Hmm. Some might say that god created the universe, since one of the theories is the big bang theory where a timeless thing creates something with time... Whatever you believe in, whatever you interpret into this, it's still senseless to believe in god or even pray to him/her/it, since, obviously, it doesn't listen.

Havet

30th January 2010, 11:52

ComradeMan

30th January 2010, 16:30

Havet

30th January 2010, 16:57

I never understand why atheists spend so much time to disprove something they don't believe in anyway...:D

I never understood why theists spend so much time shoving their beliefs up our throats anyway...

Belisarius

30th January 2010, 17:22

how do we know that everything needs a cause?
- we can only know it from our material perceptions,
- and god isn't a perception. (i know some fundamentalist nutjobs won't agree with this, but, i think, most of us will agree that god has never appeared to old ladies)
-> so we can't know whether god needs a cause or not.

ComradeMan

30th January 2010, 20:11

I never understood why theists spend so much time shoving their beliefs up our throats anyway...

Neither do I, but most of the posts seem to be by anti-theists trying to tell everyone how they have yet again disproved the existence of something they don't believe in! :D

I don't see the religious/spiritual people here trying to proselytise....

newsocialism

30th January 2010, 20:29

Søren Kierkegaard argued that objective knowledge, such as 1+1=2, is unimportant to existence. If God could rationally be proven, his existence would be unimportant to humans. It is because God cannot rationally be proven that his existence is important to us.

The trouble with the materialistic approach is mathematical, 0 +/- 0=0

The rest are just futile chicken and egg arguments.

I never understand why atheists spend so much time trying to disprove something they don't believe in anyway...:D

I know and agree that statement from Søren Kierkegaard. However, I don't understand why you put it here. This example can be used against creationist arguments which are intended to prove the existence of god. Is it your intention? And any belief can be argued, because a belief is not always the fact.

There can be mathematical odds sometimes, but I don't know if your example fits the bill. I mean 0-0=0 means simply if you take nothing from nothing, you will have nothing. So?

Well, why we atheists spend so much time to show there is no god ? If you don't believe, you probably have your reasons not to believe. This is what we argue and why we argue. And, there was always continuous attacks on non-believers. If you look at the history of abrahamic religions, you will see. Wait a minute! You don't even need to look at the history. Watch news about conflicts, terrorist attacks, genocides...etc. I think it is worth arguing about existence of the imaginary masters.

Havet

30th January 2010, 20:33

I don't see the religious/spiritual people here trying to proselytise....

You should go out more xD

ComradeMan

30th January 2010, 22:18

I know and agree that statement from Søren Kierkegaard. However, I don't understand why you put it here. This example can be used against creationist arguments which are intended to prove the existence of god. Is it your intention? And any belief can be argued, because a belief is not always the fact.

There can be mathematical odds sometimes, but I don't know if your example fits the bill. I mean 0-0=0 means simply if you take nothing from nothing, you will have nothing. So?

Well, why we atheists spend so much time to show there is no god ? If you don't believe, you probably have your reasons not to believe. This is what we argue and why we argue. And, there was always continuous attacks on non-believers. If you look at the history of abrahamic religions, you will see. Wait a minute! You don't even need to look at the history. Watch news about conflicts, terrorist attacks, genocides...etc. I think it is worth arguing about existence of the imaginary masters.

My whole point and also Kierkegaard's point is that it is completely without point trying to prove or disprove God.

Any so-called creationist who tries to prove the existence of God is a fool, because in seeking proof they show they have no faith so trying to prove God's existence is an expression of an implicit doubt in that which they profess to be so sure of.

You also mix the concepts of God and religion too. The existence of God and the reactionary behaviour of man are not one in the same. You might as well argue that scientists are bad because of the atomic bomb...

As for arguing about belief it is futile. If someone truly believes you cannot convince them not to, likewise someone who truly disbelieves cannot be convinced to change his or her opinion either.

PS 0 + 0 = 0

newsocialism

31st January 2010, 00:54

My whole point and also Kierkegaard's point is that it is completely without point trying to prove or disprove God.

Any so-called creationist who tries to prove the existence of God is a fool, because in seeking proof they show they have no faith so trying to prove God's existence is an expression of an implicit doubt in that which they profess to be so sure of.

You also mix the concepts of God and religion too. The existence of God and the reactionary behaviour of man are not one in the same. You might as well argue that scientists are bad because of the atomic bomb...

As for arguing about belief it is futile. If someone truly believes you cannot convince them not to, likewise someone who truly disbelieves cannot be convinced to change his or her opinion either.

PS 0 + 0 = 0

Okay. I mostly agree with you. What creationists do is just contradicting themselves.
I don't know, if some of my points are misunderstood. I explained my ideas about a creator which does need no creator. I didn't want to go into religion, because it is a long matter to argue. Therefore, I didn't find it necessary to argue that religious faith is alive with oblivious facts about universe. If facts were known, there would be no belief, nor be faith. But, with every scientific discovery, gaps for this faith is narrowing. At the end, there may be no beliefs, but facts.

ComradeMan

31st January 2010, 10:02

Okay. I mostly agree with you. What creationists do is just contradicting themselves.
I don't know, if some of my points are misunderstood. I explained my ideas about a creator which does need no creator. I didn't want to go into religion, because it is a long matter to argue. Therefore, I didn't find it necessary to argue that religious faith is alive with oblivious facts about universe. If facts were known, there would be no belief, nor be faith. But, with every scientific discovery, gaps for this faith is narrowing. At the end, there may be no beliefs, but facts.

Well most of it just boils downs to arguments about semantics, on the other hand you could say that the scientific facts show how the universe was created by God. :)

Whatever, i do think that creationists and intelligent design people give religious belief a bad name. :(

Ironically it reminds of Marx and Engels' communications that stressed how their theories and philosophies were not to be taken to the extreme and did not necessarily have the answer for everything...! Not the same I know, but there is a parallel.

spiltteeth

31st January 2010, 13:28

Actually, the laws of thermodynamics, which are more concrete and certain than even the theory of gravity, state that “Whatever begins to exist requires a cause”
If the atheist denies this premise, then they are denying a fundamental law of natural science, namely, that matter can neither be created or destroyed. That is natural law.

So whatever caused the universe HAD to be causeless - and the Christian conception of God is exactly that - God never began to exist - He always was, is, and ever shall be.

according to David Hume:

"[a]n infinite number of real parts of time, passing in succession, and exhausted one after another, appears so evident a contradiction, that no man whose judgment is not corrupted, instead of being improved, by the sciences, would ever be able to admit of it."

Now if the possibility of an infinite causal sequence preceding the present moment is false, it is true that the causal chain must be finite, and it follows ipso facto that the universe had a beginning. This conclusion is, of course, supported by modern Big Bang cosmology

Following that great atheist Hume, my judgement not being corrupted, I am logically compelled to believe God created the universe :

From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

Moreover, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe?
This cause created the entire physical universe. The cause of this event is therefore supernatural, because it brings nature into being and is not inside of nature itself.

ComradeMan

31st January 2010, 13:39

Good points above...

But I still maintain that the whole exercise of trying to prove or disprove God are futile and stupid, and any "believer" who tries to prove God exists is foolish at best.

Ovi

31st January 2010, 13:54

I was wondering when you'll show up. What took you so long?

Actually, the laws of thermodynamics, which are more concrete and certain than even the theory of gravity, state that “Whatever begins to exist requires a cause”
If the atheist denies this premise, then they are denying a fundamental law of natural science, namely, that matter can neither be created or destroyed. That is natural law.

So whatever caused the universe HAD to be causeless - and the Christian conception of God is exactly that - God never began to exist - He always was, is, and ever shall be.

according to David Hume:

Now if the possibility of an infinite causal sequence preceding the present moment is false, it is true that the causal chain must be finite, and it follows ipso facto that the universe had a beginning. This conclusion is, of course, supported by modern Big Bang cosmology

Nope, nobody proved there are no other universes. Get over it. There's nothing in thermodynamics and the big bang theory that disproves that.

Following that great atheist Hume, my judgement not being corrupted, I am logically compelled to believe God created the universe :

From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe.

If everything that exists requires a cause so does your god. Now he's an exception? In that case it could be an uncaused timeless singularity which created the universe. A god doesn't make any more sense. You'll never prove god using physics because god is not part of any physical equation.

It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes.

No, you did not prove that there are no other universes. Premise false, conclusion most likely false.

Moreover, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe?
Yes, god must love us because birds fly.

It's boring but I'll respond to your trolling anytime.

ComradeMan

31st January 2010, 13:56

So if God needs a cause then what causes the cause for God? The argument goes on for ever in either direction- it's infinite.

Rousedruminations

31st January 2010, 14:31

ComradeMan

31st January 2010, 14:50

I'm an agnostic , but technically an atheist. The only big argument that most atheist struggle to repudiate is , godly or spiritual miracles that have the potential of healing an ailment. When the blind/deaf/ or people who have cancer come up to a spiritual leader or priest in front of a massive crowd, their ailment is extraordinarily cured, the cancer or sickness that was profoundly affecting them vanishes forever...to me it is unimaginable yet it happens .. anyone ? (perhaps science has an explanation, with the way people can use 'energy' to heal a malicious cancer)

How can you be technically an atheist? :)

Since the dawn of time what we don't understand is "magic" and we what discover becomes banal science- who knows? Perhaps all these far out ideas from quantum physics will seem like a,b,c in a couple of hundred years...

Rousedruminations

31st January 2010, 14:54

red cat

31st January 2010, 14:56

ComradeMan

31st January 2010, 15:07

Well technically meaning, i have the tendency towards atheism and push my way towards their beliefs, instead of just being on the fence , saying that it could go either way - Agnosticism... well as i had assumed, maybe in 100 years time science could have the right thoughts, theories, and proper rationale to disapprove such miracles as merely fallible on the presumption that it was NOT an 'act' of god , and that it was science at work..

I see what you mean.;)

But science wouldn't be disproving the "miracles" it would only be demonstrating their mechanisms so to speak. A spiritual person could argue that science in itself is a an act of God? :D

I think there is a great Freudian slip here when you say "disapprove", because that's what's at the bottom of it in my opinion. some scientists just can't stand the fact that they can't prove everything. :D

Rousedruminations

31st January 2010, 15:22

I would briefly see television shows (Christian shows) about 10 years back, where the crippled have been healed yes. The following happens, a crippled woman/man is brought up stage in front a huge audience of born again Christian's. The spiritual leader in all his sincerity looks up to the sky, says a prayer and says to the crippled " you have been healed " and in suspense the audience gasps and applauds cheerfully. However this evidence i do not have on me right now, however there are many Christian T.V shows out there...(plenty i would assume in the US) !.. However I tend to believe in the capacity of actualizing the human mind and SCIENCE, which is why philosophy has kept me interested for a few years. Albeit let me accentuate my atheism and the reasons for not believing in a god and my upbringing that did not shed light on an individual's capacity to reason but coerced me to believe in a religion with your EYES CLOSED (blind faith /brain washing). What i have stated above is an argument that i have had with many religious people i have come across...

" God or religion is a way for others to measure their pain "- John Lennon. Its a place of solace and comfort , nothing else as John Lennon explains to himself and others,... i think pure meditation can produce the same results, which i have tried. I believe that those who do follow religion are weak and delusional. Most would probably intuitively/emotionally respond to a higher being without using their mental faculties to reason the apparent contradictions in the nature of the many religions around the world. My whole family is very religious more so my mother more than anyone else. I believe that those who do follow religion or god(S) are narrow-minded folks, who have in them a faith that is blind and not objective. Those who are deeply religious do not value the immense reasoning powers of the human rationale to look at two sides of the coin instead of just one.

I was force fed ' Hinduism' as child, and from a very young age i thought to myself with a certain doubtfulness about the 'millions' of gods that they propose to exist at a certain time i.e ' the golden era'-Polytheism. I was then compelled and sent to a seventh day adventist Christian school and they force fed me their bullshit ! that deluded me immensely and i fell for their trap

Years later i realized how stupid i was ! Anyway bottom line is that i am atheist after dabbling a little while in agnosticism. The many reasons are, religion is the cause of countless wars to convert those of another religion to theirs- Evangelist commonly do this in the sake of preaching god's word as if to say it is their duty to do so. It breeds hate among Jews and Muslims. Countless catholic priests have been condemned for being pedophiles, and thus have the tendency and nerve in their movement to forgive those that do commit those immoral actions. Many religions affiliate themselves with governments to spread their own religions into the sovereignty of another country, something that does COST LIVES !. Some even are preposterous to follow the rules of religion so much that they contend that if a woman is raped by her husband, it would be better to NOT to press charges as it is better to forgive and stay married because it becomes a ' sin ' if she divorces.. i.e it supposedly breaks one of the commandments in the bible. The Hindu religion also speaks of and condones the caste system, which is horrendous in its display of segregation. Instead of unifying the people it separates them according to a person historical analysis. It lifts barriers for people who despite, being from a different caste system are limited to being totally free and emancipated.

The many big and famous churches/temples in the world spend millions of dollars for the house of god so it may look pretty to the petty bourgeoisie, yet remain helpless to assist the poverty stricken people outside their temples and churches who die from starvation and such. To me this can never be advocated as religion, further more the people who do attend a temple in India practice their own faith for themselves and their family, yet blindly ignore the overt pauperism that can be seen outside it, makes me want to puke in disgust, as their ignominious behavior doesn't warrant them to carry their own decorum and dignified status in society... the priests who chant daily sacred sayings to a lifeless idol ignore the poverty stricken people outside temples in India as they finish up with their daily routines ... if such a religion carries forth ' justice' in the name of the people i cannot ever accept any blind and absurd faith in a god or a religion !

Its superstitious, irrational, narrow-minded, it breeds hate on the earth, segregation, and advocates fascist thoughts and tendency's.. . ( the Hindu nationalist party only wants Hindus in INDIA and nothing else).. religion for the most part is a complete disgrace, this is why i tend to believe in science and the reasoning powers of human beings ... this is why i have a tendency towards atheism

red cat

31st January 2010, 15:30

Rousedruminations

31st January 2010, 15:33

I see what you mean when you say describing the mechanisms of how miracles function and not necessarily disapproving them ;).. yes indeed it is a source of vexation when scientists cannot explain the extraordinary and to some the impossible .. but perhaps the mechanism is once again the way nature evolves , the way matter evolves from generation to generation, and hence in all possibility it may not be an act of a ' higher power' that is GOD .. something that is beyond possible human recognition

Rousedruminations

31st January 2010, 15:44

Well the cancer, is probably not something that can be visibly be seen from the outset of a huge audience. Perhaps there is a way to youtube these miracles, i am not sure in all possibility there could be a youtube video. However from memory, i can say that the person was in a wheelchair. There were two people that helped him to stand up, and from that point while standing, the spiritual leader performed his blessing, looking up into the sky with all sincerity and asking GOD (jesus) that he be healed. After saying his prayer, he immediately got up and started standing and walking again not ever needing his wheelchair...

Being orientated towards atheism itself, many people have come up with these arguments, and i have awkwardly tried to rebut their reasoning by saying such miracles can be explain by human reasoning and thus science itself, and in the future science can probably be safe to say that it was not ACT by a supernatural power..

Another point ardent religious people make is , is when a person posses the ability to speak in tongues as if it is another way in which they are speaking to 'GOD'. It is not a language that can be recognized by any human in the world. They go into an immediate fit, almost as if they are speaking jibberish. After their dream-like experience they come back to earth and interpret what had been spoken to him/her in English by GOD or whatever. During their hallucination type of behavior no one has the potential to distract them in anyway until they are realistically awake in this world.

As far as i know i haven't not seen this in real life or on the television... but an acquaintance who i have lost contact with went to a church like that...

red cat

31st January 2010, 15:47

ComradeMan

31st January 2010, 15:50

I have attempted to answer your points in a rough order...

Well, those are not the miracles that I have in mind, was thinking more of Padre Pio of Pietrelcina to be honest or the stigmata and at least one documented case of a boy who was healed from a coma in which most of his major organs had collapsed- a healing that defies science. I was not thinking of some half-assed reality-religion on US network TV.

Perhaps it's a European thing, but there is no real problem with science and religion in Europe. The Vatican has it's moral problems of certain issues but it does not deny the science behind them.

Dare I say your belief or non-belief is more about the apalling treatment you seem to have had by some religionists.

" God or religion is a way for others to measure their pain "- John Lennon. Its a place of solace and comfort , nothing else as John Lennon explains to himself and others,...

Well, because John Lennon said it, it must be true.:)

i think pure meditation can produce the same results, which i have tried. I believe that those who do follow religion are weak and delusional.

People like Mother Teresa of Calcutta who dedicated her life to helping the most marginalised and poor? Or the people who saved Jews during WWII because of their belief and morals... Or perhaps some of the abolitionists who campaigned for the emancipation of slaves on Christian grounds? It's easy to focus on the bad...

Narrow-mindedness can be found in all fields and all religions and amongst non-religious people. I know plenty of atheists who are narrow-minded, racist bigots too.

Again, the problem is not necessarily with God, but with religious people. The same way that the problem wasn't communism so much as it was Stalin.

Religion never caused a war, just like a gun never killed anyone. It was man who did it.

If people hate then they are not true to their own religious/spiritual wisdom which tends to universally condemn hatred.

Well as much as I deplore the Catholic priest paedophiles, countless others are also paedophiles, teachers, workers, aristocrats... the list goes on. Are you saying it is religion that has made them paedophiles? Christians are obliged by their faith to forgive that does not mean that they condone the sin.

Religions do not affiliate themselves to governments. People affiliate themselves to governments and use religion as an excuse.

Nearly all of your other examples show the failings of man, not of God.

I bring you back to Mother Teresa and the Red Cross, Christian Aid and so forth...

My basic point is this. The failings are the failings of human beings, and it does not matter what philosophy, creed or ideology it can always turn bad. It's not necessarily religion in itself that is the problem. Should we condemn science and scientists for the atomic bomb...?

I am not trying to preach to you but I just think that the arguments being presented are very subjective and not carried through to their logical consequence.

I also find blaming religion in a way as a convenient method for shirking the blame for one's own actions. People must take responsibility for their own actions and not conveniently blame ideologies or "abstract" concepts.

newsocialism

31st January 2010, 15:59

Originally Posted by spiltteeth :
Actually, the laws of thermodynamics, which are more concrete and certain than even the theory of gravity, state that “Whatever begins to exist requires a cause”
If the atheist denies this premise, then they are denying a fundamental law of natural science, namely, that matter can neither be created or destroyed. That is natural law.

So whatever caused the universe HAD to be causeless - and the Christian conception of God is exactly that - God never began to exist - He always was, is, and ever shall be.

according to David Hume:

Now if the possibility of an infinite causal sequence preceding the present moment is false, it is true that the causal chain must be finite, and it follows ipso facto that the universe had a beginning. This conclusion is, of course, supported by modern Big Bang cosmologyLook at the phrases;“Whatever begins to exist requires a cause” and "whatever caused the universe HAD to be causeless"
Now, aren't these against your so called natural science law? If everything requires a cause, nothing can be exceptional. Including your god.

Secondly, big bang is not explaining the birth of the matter. Big bang, as it seems explains how glaxies, planets..etc were formed and expend. As we know, scientific law is certain about this fact that energy cannot be destroyed. Energy and matter were there long before the big bang. I see nothing that supports your point with big bang. Also, we are out of the main subject; If everything requires a creator, so does god.

From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical. Moreover, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe?
This cause created the entire physical universe. The cause of this event is therefore supernatural, because it brings nature into being and is not inside of nature itself. Why? Maybe matter, energy and laws of the nature are causeless. And there is one thing is changeless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, unshaped, NOTHING. God must be equal to nothing. Science demonstrates that everything interacts with matter is physical. Otherwise, science would not work on such a nothing which you call unphysical or supernatural. According to the belief, god always interacts with everything that existed. Science has never found such a magical hand of god. Therefore, there is no god which interacts with this universe. If he could interact, his interaction would be physical because this universe is physical. And if god exists, he must be a thing. If he is a thing, his existence can be proved by science. If he is not a thing, then god is nothing. Therefore god cannot interact with physical universe at all.

ComradeMan

31st January 2010, 16:52

Look at the phrases;“Whatever begins to exist requires a cause” and "whatever caused the universe HAD to be causeless"
Now, aren't these against your so called natural science law? If everything requires a cause, nothing can be exceptional. Including your god.

Secondly, big bang is not explaining the birth of the matter. Big bang, as it seems explains how glaxies, planets..etc were formed and expend. As we know, scientific law is certain about this fact that energy cannot be destroyed. Energy and matter were there long before the big bang. I see nothing that supports your point with big bang. Also, we are out of the main subject; If everything requires a creator, so does god.

Why? Maybe matter, energy and laws of the nature are causeless. And there is one thing is changeless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, unshaped, NOTHING. God must be equal to nothing. Science demonstrates that everything interacts with matter is physical. Otherwise, science would not work on such a nothing which you call unphysical or supernatural. According to the belief, god always interacts with everything that existed. Science has never found such a magical hand of god. Therefore, there is no god which interacts with this universe. If he could interact, his interaction would be physical because this universe is physical. And if god exists, he must be a thing. If he is a thing, his existence can be proved by science. If he is not a thing, then god is nothing. Therefore god cannot interact with physical universe at all.

Has science ever found love, anger or the human mind?
:D

Has science ever defined beauty?

Belisarius

31st January 2010, 17:55

Why? Maybe matter, energy and laws of the nature are causeless. And there is one thing is changeless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, unshaped, NOTHING. God must be equal to nothing. Science demonstrates that everything interacts with matter is physical. Otherwise, science would not work on such a nothing which you call unphysical or supernatural. According to the belief, god always interacts with everything that existed. Science has never found such a magical hand of god. Therefore, there is no god which interacts with this universe. If he could interact, his interaction would be physical because this universe is physical. And if god exists, he must be a thing. If he is a thing, his existence can be proved by science. If he is not a thing, then god is nothing. Therefore god cannot interact with physical universe at all.
lets take an example: a want to build a house, but i haven't done anything yet. so the house is nothing, except an idea in my mind, in other words the house does not have a material existence. the house ISN'T a thing. so your argument that god must be a (physical) thing is incorrect.

then you say that "science has never found such a magical hand of god". what you are actually doing here is creating a new god, namely science, because you presuppose that science is always right and that science thus is a system above reality, from which a purely objective standpoint is possible, in stead of thinking of science as a part of reality which explains onely the part of reality it gets in touch with. thus science is only a part of the explanation of reality, not the absolute one. i'm not saying that theology is an absolute one, on the contrary: both are steeped in reality and are thus determined by reality and thus relative to reality in stead of governing it.

newsocialism

31st January 2010, 19:37

Has science ever found love, anger or the human mind?
:D

Has science ever defined beauty?

Yes. Thoughts in human mind is nothing different than physical existences. If you have a little knowledge about neurology, you can know that thoughts are electrical phenomenon which are produced by electro-chemical reaction in and between neurons. Science can change one's character and personality by damaging or rearranging chemiecal reaction's in the brain(front part of the brain is responsible for this function)

Mind reading is scientifically proved by following electro-magnetic activity in specific brain parts.

Beauty is also chemical phenomenon in brain which gives you joy. Certain chemical are responsible for this such as dopamine, oxytocin..etc. This is why a depressive person cannot see the beauty in world. And this is why they use certain drugs.

Well, arguments which are like yours were rotten long time ago. In medieval times, people thought that thoughts in mind were completely unphysical.

Rousedruminations

31st January 2010, 19:39

okay redcat, you probably got me there ! lol :laugh:

" Well, those are not the miracles that I have in mind, was thinking more of Padre Pio of Pietrelcina to be honest or the stigmata and at least one documented case of a boy who was healed from a coma in which most of his major organs had collapsed- a healing that defies science "

This is a miracle i have not heard of, and it does defy science and this is what i may have been looking for.. why.. thank you !

" God or religion is a way for others to measure their pain "- John Lennon

.... well it probably isn't an exact description of what religion or GOD could be for the human race and it probably isn't true to a certain degree, but the way he summed up it up , makes it terse and concise for one to rationalize about therefore it makes perfect sense to me ... i am not sure what the others think though and their view may vary accordingly. Those who do not like such a description can neglect it.

Well of course all human beings regardless of who they are... are blemished as it is in our very nature to be individually imperfect even though almost everyone strives to be a perfectly good human being... well i hope so... :lol:. It therefore seems unlikely to achieve a mere perfect world, that is why we should constantly strive as human beings to minimizes the vices that plague it and thus our imperfections that cause it. You have suggested that it is not religion itself that exacerbates us to have 'religious cults' or ' holy wars' it is man's failings. It is our imperfections as human beings or more precisely it has to do with your individual differences and thus diversity that causes us to act like this.

Certain elements with in religion ask us, to 'preach the word of GOD' and that is our duty to do so. I believe this is true in Christianity. As part of the 10 commandments in the bible, ' though shall not kill ' is emphasized in the old testament, yet there have been countless holy wars in the middle ages between other religions ( Christianity/Islam.. Protestants/Catholics). The Jewish State is another prime example. I contend that having the urge or duty to preach for conversion feeds on the sensitivity of our imperfectness as human beings. In a similar way Islam follows the same concept as Christianity where it instructs its docile followers to preach the word of god among the masses. Again it feeds on our fragile imperfections already inherent in us. It then implodes in us and is hence exacerbated by religion itself ( the moderates become radicalized). So who is to really blame here ? .Religion or human failings as you had suggested ? or both... Hinduism does not have this aspect in its religion it primarily relies on the 'Vedas' which are holy scriptures. Those who do commit crimes in the name of a religion should be demeaned , or even labelled hypocrites for not practicing what they have preached, it is probably ignominious that a whole religion suffers because some do not properly practice it.

As for whether Science has found love or anger ? I would say no although this is probably an on going investigation for scientist who would like to explain it logically. When you say the human mind i assume you do mean ' Psychology'. In Psychology there are still many unexplored matters that beguile or astound many scientists- and who knows maybe in 50 -100 years all this could be explained by science and human reasoning itself

Belisarius

31st January 2010, 19:51

newsocialism

31st January 2010, 19:52

Originally Posted by Belisarius: lets take an example: a want to build a house, but i haven't done anything yet. so the house is nothing, except an idea in my mind, in other words the house does not have a material existence. the house ISN'T a thing. so your argument that god must be a (physical) thing is incorrect.

uh? So you think that if you imagine a house, it is a real house at the same time? Well, then....
Or you might think that thoughts are unphysical? You need to take a look at neurology and see human thoughts are electro-chemical existences.

then you say that "science has never found such a magical hand of god". what you are actually doing here is creating a new god, namely science, because you presuppose that science is always right and that science thus is a system above reality, from which a purely objective standpoint is possible, in stead of thinking of science as a part of reality which explains onely the part of reality it gets in touch with. thus science is only a part of the explanation of reality, not the absolute one. i'm not saying that theology is an absolute one, on the contrary: both are steeped in reality and are thus determined by reality and thus relative to reality in stead of governing it.

When I said 'science has never found' I thought it is clear enough to comprehend that science functions as a tool to reach the knowledge about universe. So does it make science a religion? I don't think so. Religion is a set of belief systems without judgments and not a tool which function as a tool to know about universe . If you still think that this makes science a religion, then listen here; Smoking is a habit, not smoking is another habit. I don't think that your points match well with the direction of argument.And theology manages beliefs. It's not a way to know, but to believe and to have faith.

ComradeMan

31st January 2010, 19:57

Yes. Thoughts in human mind is nothing different than physical existences. If you have a little knowledge about neurology, you can know that thoughts are electrical phenomenon which are produced by electro-chemical reaction in and between neurons. Science can change one's character and personality by damaging or rearranging chemiecal reaction's in the brain(front part of the brain is responsible for this function)

Err... not quite. I can't find the reference now but I recall reading about a neuroscientist who dedicated 40 years to the study of the human mind and came to no conclusion. All you can do is observe the outward physical effects but not the causes. You are looking at the violin but not the violinist.

Mind reading is scientifically proved by following electro-magnetic activity in specific brain parts.

You can no more read the mind effectively than anyone else can- at best you can detect the secondary effects but you cannot detect the why, the cause. Studies have failed repeatedly, especially in the area of linguistics where the electronic impulses and waves measured defied all attempts to be decoded.

Beauty is also chemical phenomenon in brain which gives you joy. Certain chemical are responsible for this such as dopamine, oxytocin..etc. This is why a depressive person cannot see the beauty in world. And this is why they use certain drugs.

Beauty is not a chemical phenonemon. What you describe is the effect of perceived beauty on the human brain which is not the same in any two subjects. The resulting pleasure can be measured by science but not the cause. You also make sweeping statements. As for recognising beauty, what is beauty and depressive people like who? Van Gogh? Modigliani? Yhey managed to see beauty did they not and attemt to recreate it through their own artistic truth. In fact some of the greatest artists, musicians and writers who have striven to portray beauty or capture it have been the most manic depressive and suicidal of all. :)

Well, arguments which are like yours were rotten long time ago. In medieval times, people thought that thoughts in mind were completely unphysical.

Well arguments like yours are actually based on a poor and superficial understanding of science.

I'll leave you with a quote (rough translation)-

"The universe started in one point of light/energy from nothing. The energy contracted in a concentrated point in primordial space. After contraction it emanated light/energy and expanded. All matter has its origin in this point".
Rabbi Isaac Luria 14th century.

newsocialism

31st January 2010, 20:01

this doens't explain beauty or love, it explains chemical phenomena in the brain associated with beauty or love. you can't honestly claim that beaut is nothing more than chemistry. it would be an insult to every artist to say that his art is actually just some hormone-generating stuff with no other meaning than "to get people high".

the question is whether chemistry causes emotion or the other way round.

it is not true that a depressive person can't see beauty. some of the best artworks are made by depressed artists (Munch, Van Gogh, Van Ostaijen, etc.). Beethoven even made his 2nd symphony as a musical version of the farts and burps caused by his depression.

It exactly explain the beauty and love. When you feel those feelings, it feels intensely good or bad because we are all humans. However, it does not mean they are more than chemicals in reality. Chemicals cause emotions. This is why a heroin addict can sell everything, including his/her body to get a little heroin to feel good. It's all chemical. No one can deny this.

Secondly, you made a vital mistake when you said 'it is not true that a depressive person can't see beauty.' Art only expresses beauty? Nay. It express all human sentiments including sadness, melancholy, pessimism, depression..etc

Publius

31st January 2010, 20:06

Actually, the laws of thermodynamics, which are more concrete and certain than even the theory of gravity, state that “Whatever begins to exist requires a cause”

Where do they state that?

That sounds like the Kalam cosmological argument to me.

If the atheist denies this premise, then they are denying a fundamental law of natural science, namely, that matter can neither be created or destroyed. That is natural law.

Yes. But the laws of physics only apply inside the universe. What created the matter that comprised the universe is an open question.

So whatever caused the universe HAD to be causeless - and the Christian conception of God is exactly that - God never began to exist - He always was, is, and ever shall be.

Or there could be an infinite regress of causes.

Now if the possibility of an infinite causal sequence preceding the present moment is false, it is true that the causal chain must be finite, and it follows ipso facto that the universe had a beginning. This conclusion is, of course, supported by modern Big Bang cosmology

There's no reason think, one way or another, that the causal chain ends or does not end at the Big Bang.

Science is silent on that issue, currently, and there are physical theories where this is not the case.

From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe.

It need not be any of those things.

The Big Bang could have been caused by something that was itself caused, changes, exists in time (albeit not in our spacetime) and which is 'material' in some sense.

It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes.

We've seen no such thing.

There's no contradiction in an infinite regress as long as it's a countable infinity.

It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

This assumes that the cause of the universe isn't some other universe in a multiverse.

Moreover, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe?

A timeless cause cannot give rise to a temporal effect, period.

If God is timeless, but at one point, rather than another, decided to do something, then God is not timeless.

It follows that the universe should be co-existant with God, and therefore eternal, and therefore not in need of a cause. Not the result you wanted, is it?

This cause created the entire physical universe. The cause of this event is therefore supernatural, because it brings nature into being and is not inside of nature itself.

Equivocating on 'natural'. The cause could be from outside our universe and our laws of physics and yet still be governed by some other natural laws, in some other universe or world.

Belisarius

31st January 2010, 20:10

uh? So you think that if you imagine a house, it is a real house at the same time? Well, then....
Or you might think that thoughts are unphysical? You need to take a look at neurology and see human thoughts are electro-chemical existences.

When I said 'science has never found' I thought it is clear enough to comprehend that science functions as a tool to reach the knowledge about universe. So does it make science a religion? I don't think so. Religion is a set of belief systems without judgments and not a tool which function as a tool to know about universe . If you still think that this makes science a religion, then listen here; Smoking is a habit, not smoking is another habit. I don't think that your points match well with the direction of argument.And theology manages beliefs. It's not a way to know, but to believe and to have faith.
an imagined house is real, since it exists as an idea. so does god exist as an idea. i don't think an imagined house equals functions of neurons. an imagined house is an imagined house and not a neurologic reduction of an imagined house.

Indeed using science as a tool to know something about the world doesn't make it a religion, but making it the only tool, as you are implying, is. if you only acknowledge science as a way of generating truth, than you are no better than priests who believe the bible is the only way to the truth.

the point is that consciousness doesn't equal reality. I can see the world in a totally different way than you and it would still be the same world. that is because conscious reality is a symbolification of objective reality. we see a chair as a chair and never as the real bunch of matter it REALLY is. an interesting phenomenon of this is when you stare long enough at an object, then it becomes meaningless and "shapeless". the consequence of this is that pure objectivity (as proclaimed by science) isn't possible. you will always see reality as its conscious representation and never as the thing in itself. (interesting reads ont this are Kant and Lacan.)

newsocialism

31st January 2010, 20:20

Err... not quite. I can't find the reference now but I recall reading about a neuroscientist who dedicated 40 years to the study of the human mind and came to no conclusion. All you can do is observe the outward physical effects but not the causes. You are looking at the violin but not the violinist.

Human brain is complex to reach a fully covered functions of it. But, science is a tool to reach the knowledge and it's progressive. If science has not solved all unknowns, it doesn't mean science is wrong. Science revealed a lot of secret about human brain and thoughts are no more than chemical reactions, you should know. Cause, cause, cause... what cause? You do not follow the line logically. You said thoughts are unphysical and I showed you they are exactly physical. Any daily event, can cause feel different. You have a sex with a girl and feel happy, I smoke weed and feel happy.. or so forth. Don't give meaningless examples like violin, violinist. Otherwise, I could not see the difference between fuck and fucker or weed or ganja man.. lol

You can no more read the mind effectively than anyone else can- at best you can detect the secondary effects but you cannot detect the why, the cause. Studies have failed repeatedly, especially in the area of linguistics where the electronic impulses and waves measured defied all attempts to be decoded.

Scientist can read some thought for just right know. However, as I said, science is progressive. Scientists can read more and more thoughts by expending their study on human brain and thoughts by the time. Once again. Cause? My example(above) is enough.

Beauty is not a chemical phenonemon. What you describe is the effect of perceived beauty on the human brain which is not the same in any two subjects. The resulting pleasure can be measured by science but not the cause. You also make sweeping statements. A depressive person like who? Van Gogh? Modigliani?

You are confused here. Beauty is a chemical phenomenon. What I see something as ugliness, you might see it as beauty. It demonstrate how beauty is subjective. It's only our description in our minds. Which makes this sensation purely personal and chemical in our brains.

Well arguments like yours are actually based on a poor and superficial understanding of science.

I can explain myself to you, as much as you understand me, but no more. However, your understanding has no effect on objective reality.

ComradeMan

31st January 2010, 20:36

An imagined house...hmmm....

The existentialists might argue that what you imagine, the "mountain of gold" etc, is actually yourself.

But anyway, I think all this arguing about God is a waste of time either way to be honest.

The way I look at it is this, quite simple.

Logical problems: - all humans have limited knowledge and finite minds and, therefore, cannot logically make absolute negative statements. If someone says that God does not exist in an absolute statement they would require absolute knowledge of the entire universe from beginning to end in order to say so. Seeing that no one can claim that honour as such, logically all we can really say justifiably is that with the finite degree of knowledge we posess we may or may not believe that God exists.

The way I like to look it from a personal point of view is this. If God is absolute and truth is absolute then God is truth. We should dedicate ourselves to the pursuit of truths and truthful pursuits accepting the truth that we as human cannot have absolute knowledge but it is our manifold destiny to work along the path of knowledge- like science seeks to do. That way everyone is happy. If we accept that as humans our perception of truth is subjective then we have no right to ram our truth down anyone else's throat.

If anyone says that absolute truth does not exist then they are on dodgy grounds too, because they cannot make such an absolute statement without possessing the absolute knowledge/truth they deny.:D

newsocialism

31st January 2010, 20:38

an imagined house is real, since it exists as an idea. so does god exist as an idea. i don't think an imagined house equals functions of neurons. an imagined house is an imagined house and not a neurologic reduction of an imagined house.

Indeed using science as a tool to know something about the world doesn't make it a religion, but making it the only tool, as you are implying, is. if you only acknowledge science as a way of generating truth, than you are no better than priests who believe the bible is the only way to the truth.

the point is that consciousness doesn't equal reality. I can see the world in a totally different way than you and it would still be the same world. that is because conscious reality is a symbolification of objective reality. we see a chair as a chair and never as the real bunch of matter it REALLY is. an interesting phenomenon of this is when you stare long enough at an object, then it becomes meaningless and "shapeless". the consequence of this is that pure objectivity (as proclaimed by science) isn't possible. you will always see reality as its conscious representation and never as the thing in itself. (interesting reads ont this are Kant and Lacan.)

Then first part is clear. If you can imagine god, it won't make it real.

Yes. That's right. Truth is a different concept though. I have never mentioned it in this forum. But, there is a difference between reality and truth.

Lastly, what you see is real. I am not a skeptical. Reality is reality. I don't know if you try to show thoughts different than solely chemical phenomenon with this argument. Everyone sees a table, if it is there and spectators are not blind. Some might find it beautiful, some may find it ugly. Their thoughts are physical reality within imaginative bounds. Different minds might have different values of beauty. However, subjectivity of beauty doesn't make this feeling more than a chemical phenomenon. Let me give you and example; some chemicals change colors, if they are exposed to light from different sides. Changing color of this chemical doesn't mean it is subjective or surreal. Whether you see it as green, or as red, elements of pigmentation are there for real.

Belisarius

31st January 2010, 20:47

i don't get your thing about the violin, violinist. can you explain?

i am not denying that science isn't progressive, but i want to stress that there is more to the world than just science. maybe i expressed it wronlgy but what i was pointing at is that the thought of something and the physical phenomenon that coincides that thought are not the same. the thought of a house is not a set of neurons, but the thought of a house. otherwise everything would be the same, namely a set of neurons. maybe those linguists who wanted to decode electronic waves failed, because there was nothing to decode. that is what i am saying.

in an earlier post you equalled the effect of heroin to beauty, becuase both generate dopamine, a hormone of joy. but the difference is that heroin is actually a chemical substance wich can react to other chemical substances, beauty isn't a chemical substance (nothing is taken into the body except light, which is in itself meaningless).

you are saying that the conception of art is subjective and chemical at the same time. but how is this possible? chemistry can't be subjective, since it reacts to universal laws, subjectivity is exactly the opposite.

of course my understanding has no effect on objective reality, since my thoughts can't reach it. but neither do yours, nor any of us. that was exactly the point that i was making: there is a fundamental difference between conscious symoblic reality and objective reality.

EDIT: this is a reaction to the first post on this page (to avoid misunderstandings)

newsocialism

31st January 2010, 20:52

ComradeMan

31st January 2010, 20:53

Human brain is complex to reach a fully covered functions of it. But, science is a tool to reach the knowledge and it's progressive. If science has not solved all unknowns, it doesn't mean science is wrong. Science revealed a lot of secret about human brain and thoughts are no more than chemical reactions, you should know. Cause, cause, cause... what cause? You do not follow the line logically. You said thoughts are unphysical and I showed you they are exactly physical. Any daily event, can cause feel different. You have a sex with a girl and feel happy, I smoke weed and feel happy.. or so forth. Don't give meaningless examples lie violin, violinist. Otherwise, I could not see the difference between fuck and fucker or weed or ganja man.. lol

How do you explain people who have had near death experiences then and have clear memories when they were clinically brain dead and as such scientifically cannot have been able to remember?

No one is saying science is wrong. I don't say that at least. I say that science does not have all the answers, one day it might. Sure, God could be a scientist too.

You have not showed that thoughts are physical at all. You have merely shown the physical effects of thoughts- there's a difference here.

The rest of your example is rather trite so I shall move on.

Scientist can read some thought for just right know. However, as I said, science is progressive. Scientists can read more and more thoughts by expending their study on human brain and thoughts by the time. Once again. Cause? My example(above) is enough.

Like what exactly? They can't- this is a false claim....

December 22 2009.
....the ability of fMRI, via pattern analysis, to make fascinating discoveries about the brain is flourishing, even if true mind-reading technology remains – largely – the realm of science fiction.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-mechanics-of-mind-rea

You are confused here. Beauty is a chemical phenomenon. What I see something as ugliness, you might see it as beauty. It demonstrate how beauty is subjective. It's only our description in our minds. Which makes this sensation purely personal and chemical in our brains.

Non-sensical argument and by your own admission non-empirical and subjective. What I see as beauty causes my brain to have a chemical reaction, but WHY do I see it as beauty if others don't? That's the difference.

Well arguments like yours are actually based on a poor and superficial understanding of science.

I can explain myself to you, as much as you understand me, but no more. However, your understanding has no effect on objective reality.

LOL!!! That old chestnut about objective reality. What is objective reality then if all observers are subjective? Seeing as the argument about the existence or inexistence of God is, in my opinion, probabilistic and not deterministic- as it cannot be, then your idea of objective reality is blown apart with the following two principles of quantum mechanics at proton level: the universe is non-deterministic, and that the concept of an objective reality is, strictly speaking, without meaning.

Sorry but two more logical flaws with your argument.

What you see is real? So is a dream real? Or is someone who hallucinates seeing reality? By your defintion. I cannot see electro-magnetic energy fields literally, does that mean they don't exist?

The statement about hobbits is easy, my knowledge of the world that I am in and of literature says enough to tell me that hobbits do not exist in my reality. But there is a difference between hobbits and the entire universe isn't there? Sophists argument I am afraid.

Belisarius

31st January 2010, 20:53

If anyone says that absolute truth does not exist then they are on dodgy grounds too, because they cannot make such an absolute statement without possessing the absolute knowledge/truth they deny.:D
i would say absolute truth does exist, but it is unattainable by man, since there is an essential gap between consciousness and the world, namely the symbol (as magritte said: ceci n'est pas une pipe). this argument is not in itself an absolute truth, since it is a combination of symbols and thus is actually the prove that i can't prove anything:D. as socrates said: i know that i don't know.

Belisarius

31st January 2010, 20:58

Lastly, what you see is real. I am not a skeptical. Reality is reality. I don't know if you try to show thoughts different than solely chemical phenomenon with this argument. Everyone sees a table, if it is there and spectators are not blind. Some might find it beautiful, some may find it ugly. Their thoughts are physical reality within imaginative bounds. Different minds might have different values of beauty. However, subjectivity of beauty doesn't make this feeling more than a chemical phenomenon. Let me give you and example; some chemicals change colors, if they are exposed to light from different sides. Changing color of this chemical doesn't mean it is subjective or surreal. Whether you see it as green, or as red, elements of pigmentation are there for real.

what i want to show is that science is only a perspective constituted by symbols and not by reality. i do not oppose your colour-argument, i am just saying that you can only see colour through consciousness and language and that vision is thus dominated by those two. so it depends on your system of symbols (for example language) what you see.

newsocialism

31st January 2010, 21:03

ComradeMan

31st January 2010, 21:05

At this moment, I am not sure who's replying to who any more!
:D

Basically my point-

1. We are not in a position to make absolute statements because we do not possess absolute knowledge.

2. Abosulte truth cannot be denied because it would be a negative absolute.

Discourses about God's existence are in my opinion, logically futile.

Re the violin and the violinist, just a crude analogy to say we are talking about the physical effect and not the cause, i.e. the music and not the musician if you like.

@newsocialism.

You keep saying that you've proven/explained/demonstrated something but you haven't- all you have done is provide some logically flawed explanations of so-called observable physical effects.

newsocialism

31st January 2010, 21:51

How do you explain people who have had near death experiences then and have clear memories when they were clinically brain dead and as such scientifically cannot have been able to remember?

No one is saying science is wrong. I don't say that at least. I say that science does not have all the answers, one day it might. Sure, God could be a scientist too.

You have not showed that thoughts are physical at all. You have merely shown the physical effects of thoughts- there's a difference here.

The rest of your example is rather trite so I shall move on.I don't know about those patiences. If they experience such a thing as you mentioned, then their brain cannot be entirely dead. If they can be awaken, it also demonstrates their brain was not entirely damaged. There are people who claim that they were taken as hostages by aliens. Well, it can be even a dream.

You contradict yourself then. If science can reach a little knowledge, it can be determined whether there is a god, or not.

You made a fundamental mistake. Thoughts do not cause chemicals. Contrary, they are the chemical activities which we call them as thoughts.

Like what exactly? They can't- this is a false claim....In a large scale, there are some science fictions. However, there are successful scientific researches. Once again, scientists cannot read all thoughts directly, but they are at the beginning and they can identify simple ones. It demonstrates that thoughts even have electro-magnetic signals. There is a video about fmri. You can watch it: youtube.com/watch?v=Cwda7YWK0WQ

Non-sensical argument and by your own admission non-empirical and subjective. What I see as beauty causes my brain to have a chemical reaction, but WHY do I see it as beauty if others don't? That's the difference.Why do you see something as beautiful? because of your own life experiments. Is is that difficult to match the lines?

LOL!!! That old chestnut about objective reality. What is objective reality then if all observers are subjective? Seeing as the argument about the existence or inexistence of God is, in my opinion, probabilistic and not deterministic- as it cannot be, then your idea of objective reality is blown apart with the following two principles of quantum mechanics at proton level: the universe is non-deterministic, and that the concept of an objective reality is, strictly speaking, without meaning.
If there is no objective reality, the knowledge is a phenomenon that we will never be able to reach. You think that I am contradicting myself, but who is really confused. Beauty is a concept which is accepted and described as subjective reality. But, it doesn't mean everything is understood subjectively. If it is the case, true knowledge is blown away. Probabilistic? If you aproach everything with probability, you block the path of certainty. I think it is no different than skepticism. There is a reality out of human mind. So of them cannot be received by our senses. Nonetheless, we develop paths to reach it. You should distinguish between the things that are subjective and things that are objective. If you draw a tree, you know it is no more then some ink on the paper. But, with your subjective understanding, it appears as a tree to you. So, does it mean material reality of ink is subjective to you?

Sorry but two more logical flaws with your argument.

What you see is real? So is a dream real? Or is someone who hallucinates seeing reality? By your defintion. I cannot see electro-magnetic energy fields literally, does that mean they don't exist?

The statement about hobbits is easy, my knowledge of the world that I am in and of literature says enough to tell me that hobbits do not exist in my reality. But there is a difference between hobbits and the entire universe isn't there? Sophists argument I am afraid.Fundamental mistake. What you see in your dreams are the things that you receive with your eyes? Aren't you conscious that you dream? Come on! It is too clear to answer. And you so badly go deeper and deeper without a necessity. You talked about objective and subjective reality. Now, you are talking about how reliable our senses and the difference between imagine and the reality out of human mind. I cannot argue all point over here but, one thing that I wanna mention is that imagines are physical reality as phenomenon. Some of them might lead to deception of reality in a conscious level if one is mentally ill. In a peaceful day, if I imagine, I know that I imagine. But, if you cannot know, it means there is a mental disorder.

Lastly, if you can judge the reality of hobbits, you can use your limited knowledge to come to a conclusion. If I don't believe in gods in the norse mythology, I can investigate the reality of them. Something can be done for the existence of god without knowing everything.

Dude, your arguments nothing more than creating more subjects than respond to the real points. While you you are accusing my comments with inconsistency, you are making fundamental mistakes and unnecessary reminds.

newsocialism

31st January 2010, 22:00

A brief of my ideas:
1-We can learn and reach to knowledge.
2-We can use our knowledge to make absolute decisions, as long as our knowledge is true. Otherwise, it is impossible to make any decisions and reach the true knowledge.
3-God's existence is full with logical flaws in my opinion. Any person with will and knowledge can make a decision.
Comrademan:
I don't think I made this serious mistakes. I can do though. But, not with this argument.
You made fundamental mistake by mentioning that we can reach knowledge without making some certain decision. It is so meaningless. Once again, if we cannot use our knowledge to make certain decision, we know nothing, or knowing is not important. It is like skepticism.

ComradeMan

31st January 2010, 22:07

I don't know about those patience. If they experience such a thing as you mentioned, then their brain cannot be entirely dead. If they can be awaken, it also demonstrates their brain was not entirely damaged. There are people who claim that they were taken as hostages by aliens. Well, it can be even a dream.

Typical, when you can't explain something you use a reductio ad absurdem argument. The people involved were pronounced clinically brain dead. If you don't know about the cases in hand I suggest you research them before making pronouncements, that would not be scientific.

You contradict yourself then. If science can reach a little knowledge, it can be determined whether there is a god, or not.

Eh? Knowledge of God would require absolute knowledge.

You made a fundamental mistake. Thoughts do not cause chemicals. Contrary, they are the chemical activities which we call them as thoughts.

No mistake, you can't argue your way out of this one. The chemical activities as a result of perception or inner thought are caused by what? The chemicals are not the cause they are the result.

In a large scale, there are some science fictions. However, there are successful scientific researches. Once again, scientists cannot read all thoughts directly, but they are at the beginning and they can identify simple ones. It demonstrates that thoughts even have electro-magnetic signals.

Again, all they are demonstrating is the physical result not the cause.

Why do you see something as beautiful? because of your own life experiments. Is is that difficult to match the lines?

But what is that which makes me recognise it is as beautiful and another not? For example two paintings I had never seen before. No, lame arguments. Sure, my own life experience checkers my view- but what about taste- some people like tastes and some people don't. What is the reason for that thought reaction?

If there is no objective reality, the knowledge is a phenomenon that we will never be able to reach.

Yep, but you make a mistake, not knowledge in itself- but professing to possess absolute knowledge. If we do not possess absolute knowledge we cannot make absolute statements.

You think that I am contradicting myself, but who is really confused. Beauty is a concept which is accepted and described as subjective reality.

By whom exactly? And beauty if not just a visual "quality" either- a concept is not a concrete objective reality then? To use your definitions...

Fundamental mistake. What you see in your dreams are the things that you receive with your eyes?

Your eyes don't see, they are merely the receptors. What you see is created in your mind from the receptors, more or less in the same place you see your dreams. We don't know yet. What about hallucinations?

Lastly, if you can judge the reality of hobbits, you can use your limited knowledge to come to a conclusion. If I don't believe in gods in the norse mythology, I can investigate the reality of them. Something can be done for the existence of god without knowing everything.

Not the same, because hobbits do not require absolute entire knowledge of the universe to be discussed objectively.

Dude, your arguments nothing more than creating more subjects than respond to the real points. While you you are accusing my comments with inconsistency, you are making fundamental mistakes and unnecessary reminds.

Go away and study some logical reasoning for a while and brush up on your science. As soon as someone starts using words like "accuse" and refusing to actually confront the points raised..... :laugh:

You can't scientifically argue against logic.
Anyway, it's late- this is my last post- touché monsieur and until our next duel.... buona notte.
:)

newsocialism

31st January 2010, 22:32

ComradeMan

31st January 2010, 23:57

All answers to your claims were given comrademan.
You repeatedly arguing the same thing. Am I the only person who thinks like this way? I don't think I am, when I see your reputation.
Anyways. My ideas were posted. I see no point to argue the same things again and again. It's also boring to go unnecessary subjects which are nothing to do with the main one.

No absolute knowledge, no conclusion in a universe of possibilities. It is no different then scepticism.

LOL!!! How much flawed logic can you pack into one statement?
:crying:

All answers to your claims were given comrademan.

Argument Ad Nauseam
Hypothesis Contrary To Fact
Am I the only person who thinks like this way? I don't think I am, when I see your reputation.

Galileo Argument
Ad Hominem
I see no point to argue the same things again and again.

Doggedness
No absolute knowledge, no conclusion in a universe of possibilities. It is no different then scepticism

Non sequitur
Logically fallacious statement.
To state that there is no absolute knowledge is to make an absolute statement that denies absoluteness.
:crying:

ComradeMan

1st February 2010, 00:00

i would say absolute truth does exist, but it is unattainable by man, since there is an essential gap between consciousness and the world, namely the symbol (as magritte said: ceci n'est pas une pipe). this argument is not in itself an absolute truth, since it is a combination of symbols and thus is actually the prove that i can't prove anything:D. as socrates said: i know that i don't know.

I agree. We cannot deny absolute truth.

Rousedruminations

1st February 2010, 01:43

Ah, we cannot deny absolute truth which is true. In other words, the absolute spirit is in every soul of this world. For those that contend that the soul does exist in us, it is an immaterial, immeasurable and intangible spirit that is distinguishable from the tangible body. Meditation is about focusing on this spot , and escaping oneself from ills of secularism. When two people are in supposed LOVE, there appears to be a soul connection, which the couple can genuine feel, a feeling without doubt that both cannot ever neglect, this in my view is termed spirituality- a dualist view. I would like to know the physicalist view on love.

However, can we also assume that the 'absolute truth' is in the form of a personal GOD, a 'white' man (Jesus) that we pray to, this for me is dubious ? To believe incredulously in the millions of GOD's is something that Hinduism proposes ? To believe in pantheism that 'the absolute spirit' is in everything, even material objects, the worshiping of millions of idols that man made himself, begets me to be a skeptic ?

- The absolute Spirit is something that we cannot deny, until science has a scientific reasoning for it -

spiltteeth

1st February 2010, 05:43

Publius;1663095]Where do they state that?

Right in the beginning.

That sounds like the Kalam cosmological argument to me.

yes.

Yes. But the laws of physics only apply inside the universe. What created the matter that comprised the universe is an open question.

Hence the deductive conclusion.

or there could be an infinite regress of causes.

There's no reason think, one way or another, that the causal chain ends or does not end at the Big Bang.

Science is silent on that issue, currently, and there are physical theories where this is not the case.

Both from science and simple logic.

1) From simple logic :

If the universe and never had a beginning, that means that the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the existence of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self-contradictory answers. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality. David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of the twentieth century, states,

The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.
But that entails that since past events are not just ideas, but are real, the number of past events must be finite. Therefore, the series of past events can't go back forever; rather the universe and time must have begun to exist.

according to that great atheist David Hume:

"[a]n infinite number of real parts of time, passing in succession, and exhausted one after another, appears so evident a contradiction, that no man whose judgment is not corrupted, instead of being improved, by the sciences, would ever be able to admit of it."

2) From science :

n fact, in 2003 Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning. Vilenkin pulls no punches:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.

The universe began from a state of infinite density. . . . Space and time were created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe. It is not meaningful to ask what happened before the Big Bang; it is like asking what is north of the North Pole. Similarly, it is not sensible to ask where the Big Bang took place. The point-universe was not an object isolated in space; it was the entire universe, and so the answer can only be that the Big Bang happened everywhere.

p. C. W. Davies comments,

An initial cosmological singularity . . . forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. . . . On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.

The standard Big Bang model thus describes a universe which is not eternal in the past, but which came into being a finite time ago. Moreover,--and this deserves underscoring--the origin it posits is an absolute origin ex nihilo. For not only all matter and energy, but space and time themselves come into being at the initial cosmological singularity.

As Barrow and Tipler emphasize,

"At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo."

This is pure assertion on your part - what is the evidence that there is such a thing as an "immaterial being"?

this is a deductive argument based on logic.
The form of the kalam argument is valid because it allows for a modus ponens inference. (Here’s a primer on logical reasoning)

if p is true, then q is true
p is true
therefore, q is true
That means that so long as premise 1 and 2 are true, the conclusion follows necessarily.

We have had a string of solid, recent scientific discoveries that point in a definite direction, as follows:

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars
So, insofar as atheists question these discoveries and the origin of the entire physical universe out of nothing, they are opposing the progress of science.

I can line up 6 scientific discoveries, based on experimental results. I am holding confirmed predictions of cosmic microwave background radiation temperatures in my left hand, and confirmed helium-hydrogen abundance predictions in my right. If you want to deny the premise, I need some reasons or some scientific data.

What have you got? Where is your evidence?

The current best theory of cosmology is the standard big bang model, which posits the origin of matter, energy, space and time OUT OF NOTHING. You need to deal with the data we have today, not imagine alternative realities where untested speculations preserve your belief in atheism from falsification by the progress of science.

The cause is could not be material. All the matter in the universe came into being at the first moment. Whatever caused the universe to begin to exist cannot have been matter, because there was no matter causally prior to the big bang.

So what could the cause be? We are only familiar with two kinds of non-material realities:

Abstract objects, like numbers, sets and mathematical relations
Minds, like your own mind
Now, abstract objects don’t cause of any effects in nature. so...

It need not be any of those things.

The Big Bang could have been caused by something that was itself caused, changes, exists in time (albeit not in our spacetime) and which is 'material' in some sense.

see above - the bug bang was the beginning of all matter and time so it could not etc

We've seen no such thing.

There's no contradiction in an infinite regress as long as it's a countable infinity.

This assumes that the cause of the universe isn't some other universe in a multiverse.

Then that multiverse would need a cause etc

In 1994, however, Arvind Borde and Alexander Vilenkin showed that a universe eternally inflating toward the future cannot be geodesically complete in the past, so that there must have existed at some point in the indefinite past an initial singularity. They write,

A model in which the inflationary phase has no end . . . naturally leads to this question: Can this model also be extended to the infinite past, avoiding in this way the problem of the initial singularity?

. . . this is in fact not possible in future-eternal inflationary spacetimes as long as they obey some reasonable physical conditions: such models must necessarily possess initial singularities.

. . . the fact that inflationary spacetimes are past incomplete forces one to address the question of what, if anything, came before.

In response, Linde reluctantly concurs with the conclusion of Borde and Vilenkin: there must have been a Big Bang singularity at some point in the past.

I presume yr referring to Vilenkins multiverse theory (which he tells people not to "take too seriously) but he admits that even his multiverse needs a singularity, a beginning of time and space etc.
Borde, Guth, Vilenkin Theorem” to see that Guth himself retracts his 2007 statement and now admits that any inflationary model of any universe requires a definitive space / time boundary, a singularity, a Big Bang or Creation event.

If in your fantasy you take your rejection of scientific evidence to yet another level and believe that there actually can be an infintie regress of cause, thereby stating that that THIS singularity isn’t the first, it makes no difference. Let’s go back a trillion universes ago.

Somewhere along the line there had to be a first universe and the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem proves that THAT universe required a definitive space / time boundary, a singularity, a Big Bang Creation event. Because of that, neither cyclical nor inflationary models, chaotic or otherwise are workable.

A timeless cause cannot give rise to a temporal effect, period.

If God is timeless, but at one point, rather than another, decided to do something, then God is not timeless.

It follows that the universe should be co-existant with God, and therefore eternal, and therefore not in need of a cause. Not the result you wanted, is it?

God was timeless pror the the universe, and co-exists with it afterwards.

He is timeless sans creation but temporal since creation

we must differentiate between God's timeless intention to create a temporal world and God's undertaking to create a temporal world. Once we make the distinction, we see that creation ex nihilo is not an instance of statestate causation and is therefore not susceptible to yr objection.

Equivocating on 'natural'. The cause could be from outside our universe and our laws of physics and yet still be governed by some other natural laws, in some other universe or world.

This imaginary fantasy of another universe or world, for which no evidence or deductive argument exists, would still themselves need a cause, so the problem is not solved.

Publius

1st February 2010, 16:26

Right in the beginning.

Where? Show me where this is stated in the laws of thermodynamics.

Hence the deductive conclusion.

The Kalam, even if valid, only shows that the universe must have had a cause.

As I demonstrated in my post, that cause could be almost anything. It need not be God.

Furthermore, there's plenty of room for doubting both premises. I don't think that everything that begins to exist requires a cause, and it can be disputed that the universe began to exist in the way required for the argument to work.

Clearly the Big Bang was a temporal event, but as to where the matter that comprised the universe came from, nothing can be said because physic's cannot speak to what happened before

Both from science and simple logic.

1) From simple logic :

If the universe and never had a beginning, that means that the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the existence of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions.

No it doesn't.

There is no formal contradiction in an actual infinity.

Read "Craig on the actual infinite" by Wes Morriston if you want some demonstration.

For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self-contradictory answers. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality. David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of the twentieth century, states,

But that entails that since past events are not just ideas, but are real, the number of past events must be finite. Therefore, the series of past events can't go back forever; rather the universe and time must have begun to exist.

Space is infinitely divisible, ergo an actual infinity already exists.

Actually, an infinity of actual infinities exist because any finite division of space is infinitely divisible.

You should tell the universe that it's impossible.

"[a]n infinite number of real parts of time, passing in succession, and exhausted one after another, appears so evident a contradiction, that no man whose judgment is not corrupted, instead of being improved, by the sciences, would ever be able to admit of it."

The great atheist David Hume also said that something coming from nothing was logically possible.

I'll trade an infinite past for creation ex nihilo, if you prefer that result.

2) From science :

n fact, in 2003 Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning. Vilenkin pulls no punches:

[quote]It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.

I think they mean the steady state theory. My position fully endorsed a cosmic begininng.

I know you've got these quotes lined up in advance, but at least pretend to read what I write before copy-pasting your favorite responses.

I fully agree that the Big Bang happened exactly as these physicists state. But they're talking about the Big Bang, not about what happened prior to the Big Bang, which is inaccessible to physics.

The universe began from a state of infinite density. . . . Space and time were created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe. It is not meaningful to ask what happened before the Big Bang; it is like asking what is north of the North Pole. Similarly, it is not sensible to ask where the Big Bang took place. The point-universe was not an object isolated in space; it was the entire universe, and so the answer can only be that the Big Bang happened everywhere.

Exactly.

What happened prior to the Big Bang is not in the realm of physics. It's pure metaphysical speculation.

But they're wrong: it's not contradictory to speak of 'before' the Big Bang, it's only contradictory to do it from the perspective of physics.

From our perspective, we can talk about it. Obviously we can, or else you'd take this quote as definitive proof of the non-existence of God.

The standard Big Bang model thus describes a universe which is not eternal in the past, but which came into being a finite time ago. Moreover,--and this deserves underscoring--the origin it posits is an absolute origin ex nihilo. For not only all matter and energy, but space and time themselves come into being at the initial cosmological singularity.

But of course Davies doesn't describe how or why the singularity came into existence.

Just because a famous (theistically inclined) physicist says something doesn't make it gospel.

He has absolutely no evidence that the singularity didn't exist eternally prior to the Big Bang. It's a constraint on physical epistemology. He's just lying if he says he knows better, or that his training in physics warrants such a conclusion.

"At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo."

There are quite a few physicists who believe, for example, that the Big Bang was caused by two interdimensional branes colliding. That's a consequence of some views of string theory.

So they're just wrong. It is not the case that "literally nothing" could have existed prior to the Big Bang. An infinitude of other universes could have existed prior to the Big Bang, an infinitude of possible worlds. A number of leading physicists believe just this. Don't tell me none believes it or that it's impossible. It might be wrong, but it's not impossible.

this is a deductive argument based on logic.
The form of the kalam argument is valid because it allows for a modus ponens inference. (Here’s a primer on logical reasoning)

:rolleyes:

We have had a string of solid, recent scientific discoveries that point in a definite direction, as follows:

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy

The theory of relativity is wrong in the same way Newtonian physics was.

It doesn't work at quantum levels.

the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars
So, insofar as atheists question these discoveries and the origin of the entire physical universe out of nothing, they are opposing the progress of science.

I accept all those results, I just doubt your interpretation.

I can line up 6 scientific discoveries, based on experimental results. I am holding confirmed predictions of cosmic microwave background radiation temperatures in my left hand, and confirmed helium-hydrogen abundance predictions in my right. If you want to deny the premise, I need some reasons or some scientific data.

What premise?

Physical results can only show you that the universe began to exist.

The Kalam is a METAPHYSICAL argument saying that EVERYTHING that begins to exist has a cause.

You don't even understand your argument.

The current best theory of cosmology is the standard big bang model, which posits the origin of matter, energy, space and time OUT OF NOTHING.

Wait, so modern physics can study phenomena outside of our universe now?

Also, if the universe came from nothing, it can't have come from God.

So you don't agree with that conclusion either.

You need to deal with the data we have today, not imagine alternative realities where untested speculations preserve your belief in atheism from falsification by the progress of science.

Rich coming from a theist. Tell me, how seriously is your cosmology taken? God did it?

The cause is could not be material. All the matter in the universe came into being at the first moment.

Matter outside the universe. Or a cause from some other universe. Or a transdimensional brane. Or a computer simulation on some alien's computer.

The latter's especially interesting: there's nothing preventing the universe from being a computer simulation.

I wouldn't say I believe that, but you certainly haven't refuted it.

Whatever caused the universe to begin to exist cannot have been matter, because there was no matter causally prior to the big bang.

How do you know that? How do physicists know that?

"Because all matter was created at the Big Bang!"

Yes. But how do they know that? Have they been outside the universe recently?

Just because some physicist says something he can't back up with evidence doesn't make it true.

So what could the cause be? We are only familiar with two kinds of non-material realities:

Abstract objects, like numbers, sets and mathematical relations
Minds, like your own mind
Now, abstract objects don’t cause of any effects in nature. so...

There are no kinds of non-material realities, so that's problematic.

Then that multiverse would need a cause etc

No it wouldn't.

In 1994, however, Arvind Borde and Alexander Vilenkin showed that a universe eternally inflating toward the future cannot be geodesically complete in the past, so that there must have existed at some point in the indefinite past an initial singularity. They write,

You don't even understand my position.

Stop with the nonsense quotes and actually think about what position I"m advocating.

I'm not a steady state theorist. I think the Big Bang happened. And I haven't hitched my wagon to any one theory of why or how, unlike you.

The truth is, there are as many possible causes for the Big Bang as the mind can speculate.

You can't have it both ways: you can't see defer to the physicists in an effort to prove my suggestions wrong and then ignore the physicists (because almost none of them are theists or even deists) when you reach your ultimate conclusion.

Borde and Vilenkin's reasoning doesn't speak against my position one bit, but actually goes along with it: the universe began in a Big Bang.

I believe that.

In response, Linde reluctantly concurs with the conclusion of Borde and Vilenkin: there must have been a Big Bang singularity at some point in the past.

I presume yr referring to Vilenkins multiverse theory (which he tells people not to "take too seriously) but he admits that even his multiverse needs a singularity, a beginning of time and space etc.
Borde, Guth, Vilenkin Theorem” to see that Guth himself retracts his 2007 statement and now admits that any inflationary model of any universe requires a definitive space / time boundary, a singularity, a Big Bang or Creation event.

There are lots of multiverse theories around.

I'm not hitching my wagon to any of them in particular, I'm just producing defeaters for your argument that God must be the cause.

Any other logical possibility works to preclude God as the cause of the universe. I fully admit that what I'm doing is speculating about possible causes. I wish you'd just concede the same.

If in your fantasy you take your rejection of scientific evidence to yet another level and believe that there actually can be an infintie regress of cause,

Even if the universe had a cause, nothing you've posted showed that EVERYTHING must have a cause.

Have you shown that? Has physics proven that?

Nope.

The first premise of the Kalam is that everything that begins to exist must have a cause.

But physics has actually shown to this to be false. Look at quantum mechanics. What's the cause of quantum indeterminacy? There's no determination there. What causes a wavefunction to collapse? What causes particles to pop in and out of existence?

Modern physics hasn't shown that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. It's shown the opposite.

You can't have it both ways here either: either everything that begins to exist has a cause (in which case you must conclude that QM is largely wrong) or not everything begins to exist has a cause (in which case you must drop the Kalam).

thereby stating that that THIS singularity isn’t the first, it makes no difference. Let’s go back a trillion universes ago.

Somewhere along the line there had to be a first universe and the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem proves that THAT universe required a definitive space / time boundary, a singularity, a Big Bang Creation event. Because of that, neither cyclical nor inflationary models, chaotic or otherwise are workable.

[quote]
God was timeless pror the the universe, and co-exists with it afterwards.

He is timeless sans creation but temporal since creation

Yeah, that's it, don't refute the contradiction, just embrace it.

"God was timeless prior to the universe"

Incoherent.

"He is timeless sans creation but temporal since creation"

Incoherent.

we must differentiate between God's timeless intention to create a temporal world and God's undertaking to create a temporal world. Once we make the distinction, we see that creation ex nihilo is not an instance of statestate causation and is therefore not susceptible to yr objection.

There is no distinction. God is unchanging, remember?

God cannot "undertake" anything.

My objection still stands, as does the one I just brought up. You're digging yourself deeper.

This imaginary fantasy of another universe or world, for which no evidence or deductive argument exists, would still themselves need a cause, so the problem is not solved.

I can have it either way: either the universe doesn't require a cause (which I believe) in which case God is unecessary, or the universe requires a cause and has one in some prior physical or metaphysical entity that isn't God.

You've done nothing to show either of these possibilities false, or to establish the truth of either of the premises of the standard Kalam argument.

You've ignored large parts of modern physics, including several theories which permit an infinite regress of causes prior to the universe, you've ignored the fact that something coming from nothing is perfectly coherent and physically possible, indeed, happens all the time, and that the vast majority of physicists are not theists, but subscribe to one of the several views I've mentioned in this post.

Further, you've missed the essential point which is that physics alone can't demonstrate truths in metaphysics.

Even if everything in the universe had a cause, that wouldn't license the conclusion that "everything that begins to exist requires" a cause.

Ovi

1st February 2010, 17:46

Splitteeth started copy pasting the same shit he posts all the time. Don't you ever get bored of so much trolling?

ComradeMan

1st February 2010, 19:54

The thing that is funny here is that people keep separating God from the universe. If God is omniscient then God is the universe too.

Understanding how the laws of the universe work are in a way understanding how God works.

Seeing as we cannot have absolute knowledge of the universe then we cannot have absolute knowledge of God and therefore we cannot deny God's existence nor prove it.

Publius

1st February 2010, 21:38

Splitteeth started copy pasting the same shit he posts all the time. Don't you ever get bored of so much trolling?

I just felt the need to fully state my views.

It's obvious he has several pre-made copy/paste responses, many of which don't have anything to do with what I actually said.

That'll be the last involved post I make, since I know the routine with apologists like splitteeth. That's the good thing about philosophy of religion: there are only so many arguments theists can make, and they've all been made before.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

1st February 2010, 21:48

newsocialism

1st February 2010, 22:19

LOL!!! How much flawed logic can you pack into one statement?
:crying:

All answers to your claims were given comrademan.

Argument Ad Nauseam
Hypothesis Contrary To Fact

Am I the only person who thinks like this way? I don't think I am, when I see your reputation.

Galileo Argument
Ad Hominem

I see no point to argue the same things again and again.

Doggedness

No absolute knowledge, no conclusion in a universe of possibilities. It is no different then scepticism

Non sequitur
Logically fallacious statement.

To state that there is no absolute knowledge is to make an absolute statement that denies absoluteness.
:crying:

Yes. Pointless response chains from comrademan.
You don't even know what are you talking about.

ComradeMan; 1. We are not in a position to make absolute statements because we do not possess absolute knowledge.It is your opinion about knowledge. It seems like you don't even know your position. My response:

1-We can learn and reach to knowledge.
2-We can use our knowledge to make absolute decisions, as long as our knowledge is true. Otherwise, it is impossible to make any decisions and reach the true knowledge.

And this one was for you. Where you stated that you can make decision without absolute knowledge. I don't know what you are talking about, with such a lunatic statement, but I responded.

No absolute knowledge, no conclusion in a universe of possibilities. It is no different then scepticismYour reputation is enough to comprehend that your arguments were lame in other arguments than this one. Before you respond, read what you have stated. In this position, where you are inconsistent, you cannot even talk about logic.

mastershake16

1st February 2010, 22:53

But I still maintain that the whole exercise of trying to prove or disprove God are futile and stupid, and any "believer" who tries to prove God exists is foolish at best.

I just don't really see the point in EITHER side trying to prove ANYTHING to the other side.
It will never end up in anything other than argument and there really is no point.
People will hold to their beliefs no matter what, so why can't people just accept the fact that people hold different beliefs.... Come on people! :D

ComradeMan

1st February 2010, 23:05

. Pointless response chains from comrademan.
You don't even know what are you talking about.

You haven't been able to answer one point, classic lawyer strategy of banging the table here. You didn't even know about one of my references and dismissed it without even checking.

It is your opinion about knowledge. It seems like you don't even know your position.

It's not my opinion about knowledge it's called having an ontological discussion.

And this one was for you. Where you stated that you can make decision without absolute knowledge. I don't know what you are talking about, with such a lunatic statement, but I responded.

I don't see why it's such a lunatic statement. It's quite logical, unless you possess absolute knowledge you cannot make absolute statements such as either asserting or denying God, which would require absolute knowledge to do so.

You have made yet another illogical statement. If you don't know what i am talking about then how can you deem it be a lunatic statement, respond and make further comment?

Sorry to burst your bubble and all that.

Your reputation is enough to comprehend that your arguments were lame in other arguments than this one. Before you respond, read what you have stated. In this position, where you are inconsistent, you cannot even talk about logic.

More ad hominem attack, there is nothing inconsistent or illogical about the line of argument. You have little to say and seem to be incapable of holding a logical-philosophical discussion without needling and being arrogant and your rather ungrammatical and as a result unclear outbursts render it all the more difficult. If we want to start ad hominems then I think the discussion with you is over.

newsocialism

2nd February 2010, 05:19

You haven't been able to answer one point, classic lawyer strategy of banging the table here. You didn't even know about one of my references and dismissed it without even checking.Your responses over there. Look for yourself. They are inconsistent. And, I gave my answers.

I don't see why it's such a lunatic statement. It's quite logical, unless you possess absolute knowledge you cannot make absolute statements such as either asserting or denying God, which would require absolute knowledge to do so.

You have made yet another illogical statement. If you don't know what i am talking about then how can you deem it be a lunatic statement, respond and make further comment?

Sorry to burst your bubble and all that.You don't understand buddy. Your answers were inconsistent. This is lunatic. Check them:

Søren Kierkegaard argued that objective knowledge, such as 1+1=2, is unimportant to existence. If God could rationally be proven, his existence would be unimportant to humans. It is because God cannot rationally be proven that his existence is important to us.According to you, god is not an objective reality. Therefore, he cannot be proved. Because god is not provable, he is important(?). I bet who believes in Asgard and Valhalla in Norse mythology, knows how important warfare and the gods and the great god Oden.

Logical problems: - all humans have limited knowledge and finite minds and, therefore, cannot logically make absolute negative statements. If someone says that God does not exist in an absolute statement they would require absolute knowledge of the entire universe from beginning to end in order to say so. Seeing that no one can claim that honour as such, logically all we can really say justifiably is that with the finite degree of knowledge we posess we may or may not believe that God exists.
Now you say we need to know everything about universe to investigate existence of god. According to you, It seems like we won't be able to know about universe because our capacity is not enough to reach the true knowledge. Very interesting claim though.

2. Absolute truth cannot be denied because it would be a negative absolute.Wow, you gave us a big mystery now.
And contradictions. According to you, humans cannot have absolute truth with limited knowledge, minds..etc. Then, you say that humans cannot make absolute negative statements. If humans cannot make absolute negative statements, they cannot make absolute positive statements either. Therefore, If you think atheism is bullshit because it claims there is no god, you must think the same thing for religions. Because, they claim there is a god. If you hold the idea something that(?) human mind and knowledge are completely subjective and the truth is objective and unreachable, denying absolute truth cannot have any effect to make it negative absolute.

While you can say there is no Greek god Zeus, or Eros, Hobbits...etc, how you cannot have any absolute knowledge or statement about Abrahamic god? Saying the same things again and again becomes boring for me. I think we can reach ABSOLUTE knowledge. Although we can make mistakes, there is a true knowledge. And, there is not any sight, or any evidence about God. You can use knowledge that you have to come to a conclusion. If it is not the case, we cannot grasp any truth and there will be no conclusion at all. Knowing existence of God does not require to know about entire universe. There are statements about god in all abrahamic religions. You can evaluate their statements about god to come to a conclusion. For example: god created universe in 7 days. Adam was created from dust, god can do anything and nothing is impossible for him, like destroying himself:rolleyes:...etc.

More ad hominem attack, there is nothing inconsistent or illogical about the line of argument. You have little to say and seem to be incapable of holding a logical-philosophical discussion without needling and being arrogant and your rather ungrammatical and as a result unclear outbursts render it all the more difficult. If we want to start ad hominems then I think the discussion with you is over. I don't care how I am incapable of holding an argument from your side. But, If I consider multiple people who lowered your reputation to think about the same thing for you, the conclusion can be more accurate in my opinion, because I don't know about you and I am new here. Anyways, let's end this meaningless insult like phrases then. Ungrammatical? Well, I catch some ungrammatical parts of your responses too. Ad hominems? This is mostly your way to argue too.

ComradeMan

2nd February 2010, 22:40

Your responses over there. Look for yourself. They are inconsistent. And, I gave my answers.You don't understand buddy. Your answers were inconsistent. This is lunatic. Check them:

Ad hominem attack- argumentum ad logicam.

Please show me where and state why? Avoiding the question perhaps?

According to you, god is not an objective reality. Therefore, he cannot be proved. Because god is not provable, he is important(?). I bet who believes in Asgard and Valhalla in Norse mythology, knows how important warfare and the gods and the great god Oden.

Where did I say God was important? Important is a qualitative and subjective value judgement based on human reasoning, I don't see how we can apply that to the absolute.

The Norse gods by their own mythology are not omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent (hereadter o-o-o)- the doom of the gods was ragnarok.

The rest is a non sequitur.

We are talking about the idea of God being o-o-o as expressed in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, Islam and also with the Eastern concept of the "Atman".

Now you say we need to know everything about universe to investigate existence of god. According to you, It seems like we won't be able to know about universe because our capacity is not enough to reach the true knowledge. Very interesting claim though.

This is not a claim at all. I don't think that it is unreasonable to use as an axiom the concept of an absolute universe requiring absolute knowledge in order to be able to make absolute assertions thereof.

What is the true knowledge? I fear your mixing up a logical truth with a fact. Could you define truth? Quod est veritas?

Wow, you gave us a big mystery now.
And contradictions. According to you, humans cannot have absolute truth with limited knowledge, minds..etc. Then, you say that humans cannot make absolute negative statements. If humans cannot make absolute negative statements, they cannot make absolute positive statements either.

Well, I did say- if you check, that the argument is unwinnable and unlosable- hence futile, because from a logical point of view all there is a negative proof fallacy. I am not trying to prove that God exists, you are trying to prove that God does not exist.

Therefore, If you think atheism is bullshit because it claims there is no god, you must think the same thing for religions. Because, they claim there is a god. If you hold the idea something that(?) human mind and knowledge are completely subjective and the truth is objective and unreachable, denying absolute truth cannot have any effect to make it negative absolute.

More strawmen here and a sweeping generalisation.

I do not make claims for anyone other than myself. My point is this, that there is a difference between religion and God and that God is subjective and non-empirical in that it is faith that determines whether someone believe or not and as such this cannot be measured objectively.

The point however is this. Can you logically demonstrate to me and others here that a being such as man without absolute knowledge can validly deny the absolute?

While you can say there is no Greek god Zeus, or Eros, Hobbits...etc, how you cannot have any absolute knowledge or statement about Abrahamic god?

I don't remember denying any Greek Gods, but then you cannot rationalise the Judaeo-Christian concept of God, the Muslim or the Hindu along the lines of ancient Greek mythology.

As for Hobbits- well, seeing as Hobbits are not o-o-o it does not require absolute knowledge of the universe to deny their existence in an objective framework, perhaps an absolute knowledge of Tolkein.... but not the universe.:D

Saying the same things again and again becomes boring for me.

This is a bad logical fallacy, argument to the future. You cannot base a logical argument now on what may or may not be possible in the future. Sorry, doesn't hold water here. If it's so boring why do you keep replying?

I think we can reach ABSOLUTE knowledge.

That's ironic. An avowed atheist using a Cartesian argument. Descartes, paradoxically in view of the line of thought here, argued that anything man can conceive must therefore exist and used it to "prove" the existence of God.

Although we can make mistakes, there is a true knowledge.

What is true knowledge? Seeing as you assert the existence of true knowledge, can you explain what it is? I fear you are mixing up the concepts of logical truths and facts. If we concede that our knowledge is flawed, i.e. making mistakes, we cannot assert that it is absolute can we?

And, there is not any sight, or any evidence about God.

Argumentum ex silentio. The lack of proof does not negate existence until one perhaps reaches a state of absolute knowledge. In the year 1200 there was no concrete proof of the existence of Australia in Europe, does that mean Australia did not exist- at least as far as European were concerned? Perhaps it didn't but then we are not being existentialists here are we?

You can use knowledge that you have to come to a conclusion.

Yes you can indeed but a conclusion is a conclusion, the possession of absolute knowledge is not a conclusion.

If it is not the case, we cannot grasp any truth and there will be no conclusion at all. Knowing existence of God does not require to know about entire universe.

Firstly, you seem to be mixing up the concept of a logical truth and a fact and perhaps an absolute truth which would be derived from absolute knowledge.

Secondly, I refer you back to the three o's, o-o-o. If God is absolute then absolute knowledge would be required to assert or negate the existence of God.

There are statements about god in all abrahamic religions. You can evaluate their statements about god to come to a conclusion. For example: god created universe in 7 days. Adam was created from dust, god can do anything and nothing is impossible for him, like destroying himself:rolleyes:...etc.
God created the world, allegorically, in seven "yamim" יָמִים
The word can mean day, age, aeon, season, year. I certainly don't believe it literally means that God started on Sunday and finished on Shabbat! :D

Adam is also held to be allegorical or metaphorical, "adom" meaning "red" or "earth" etc. Man is made of minerals and elements that are part of the earth and when man dies these elements go back to the earth. Literal interpretations of the Bible are fraught with risks.

As for the omnipotence paradox. I remember in that being explained to me as an example of how not to challenge the existence of God- by an atheist!!! If God is omnipotent God can do anything that is possible- paradox invalidated. It would be like asking God to make an apple that was a pear or water that was dry and so on. The paradox is in itself illogical. On the other hand, if God transcends logic then we can no longer apply logic to deny or assert anything.

I don't care how I am incapable of holding an argument from your side.

Are you admitting to saying you are incapable of holding an argument. I don't think that's really what you want to say is it? :)

But, If I consider multiple people who lowered your reputation to think about the same thing for you, the conclusion can be more accurate in my opinion, because I don't know about you and I am new here.

This is the best ad hominem yet, also with a veiled argument to consensus. Two for the price of one.

Anyways, let's end this meaningless insult like phrases then. Ungrammatical? Well, I catch some ungrammatical parts of your responses too. Ad hominems? This is mostly your way to argue too.

Tu quoque! Seriously, I may not be Milton or Pope and we all make typos but when we are trying to have a logical debate based on "verbal" exchanges your lack of clarity and grammatical inaccuracies don't help.

I suggest you work on your logical argumentation.

I suggest you find out what is meant by God by different people.

I suggest you give up on trying to disprove that which can neither be proven nor disproven and thus transcends our concept of being in an objective manner.

Just to keep this lighthearted:-

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Douglas Adams.

Now, it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some have chosen to see it as the final proof of the NON-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. QED" "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Publius

3rd February 2010, 04:08

Hey, stick around. We need more intelligent OIers.

I do what I can.

:)

newsocialism

3rd February 2010, 14:20

Ad hominem attack- argumentum ad logicam.

Please show me where and state why? Avoiding the question perhaps? Meaningless word chains. I stated your point below in that response. By the way, you spent a little time to recite latin names. Congratulations! However, using them here won't give you any extra point.

Where did I say God was important? Important is a qualitative and subjective value judgement based on human reasoning, I don't see how we can apply that to the absolute.

The Norse gods by their own mythology are not omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent (hereadter o-o-o)- the doom of the gods was ragnarok.

The rest is a non sequitur.

We are talking about the idea of God being o-o-o as expressed in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, Islam and also with the Eastern concept of the "Atman".Right in the beginning. You mentioned that in the 6th post. I don't care because your response for yourself.

Norse mythology was just an example. Even it might not match with the clasical abrahamic story line, in norse mythology, there are multiple gods and their hierarchy which you won't be able to find in abrahamic religions. There are more than 10,000 major, local gods. In ancient times, there were stories like big flood in Mesopotamia. You can find similary stories to your ideal descriptopn of god in those regions.

This is not a claim at all. I don't think that it is unreasonable to use as an axiom the concept of an absolute universe requiring absolute knowledge in order to be able to make absolute assertions thereof.

What is the true knowledge? I fear your mixing up a logical truth with a fact. Could you define truth? Quod est veritas?It is your statement and what you've said is there. You clearly say that we have to know every single thing about universe in order to find if there is a god, or not.

Well, I did say- if you check, that the argument is unwinnable and unlosable- hence futile, because from a logical point of view all there is a negative proof fallacy. I am not trying to prove that God exists, you are trying to prove that God does not exist.The package of god (this is what I call) come with some norms via religions. Concept of god is clear in religions and religions provide some traits and knowledge about god. As I stated, we can evaluate this norms to prove or disprove the existence of god. Just like a theory. If you call any unknown in universe as god, namely anything can be god, even dark matter, or energy. But, I think we know what god we are arguing.

More strawmen here and a sweeping generalisation.

I do not make claims for anyone other than myself. My point is this, that there is a difference between religion and God and that God is subjective and non-empirical in that it is faith that determines whether someone believe or not and as such this cannot be measured objectively.

The point however is this. Can you logically demonstrate to me and others here that a being such as man without absolute knowledge can validly deny the absolute?Strawman? It can be bogyman. Anyways, I just responded to your post. Well, finally, god is subjective. And any subjective can be imaginary. What I argue, is abrahamic point of view. God as a supernatural, objective, undeniable truth. If you great a god in your mind, you won't make it objective reality. If god is nothing, it is not possible to bring an evidence from him. It can mean that there is no god, because such an existence like god must come with certain evidences. But, if you say without an evidence you cannot say that god doesn't exist, you make a logical mistake. As I said, you can bring no evidence from nothing. Contrary, deficiency of any fundamental evidence, uncertainty, and logical flaws can refute any so called real phenomenon.

I don't remember denying any Greek Gods, but then you cannot rationalise the Judaeo-Christian concept of God, the Muslim or the Hindu along the lines of ancient Greek mythology.

As for Hobbits- well, seeing as Hobbits are not o-o-o it does not require absolute knowledge of the universe to deny their existence in an objective framework, perhaps an absolute knowledge of Tolkein.... but not the universe.:DConcept of god differ from religion to religion, even sect to sect. What I am talking about a divine creator. Therefore, I see no mistake by doing this.

Hobits were just an example. There are hundreds of thousands of supernatural concepts. Secondly, if you think that god is subjective and cannot be defined by anything rather than faith, with absolute knowledge of universe, existence of god cannot be detected.

This is a bad logical fallacy, argument to the future. You cannot base a logical argument now on what may or may not be possible in the future. Sorry, doesn't hold water here. If it's so boring why do you keep replying?
I wonder, how subjective feelings of mine can be used to logically judge the way I express them. Therefore, you cannot dictate me what to say. I didn't get your point about future.

That's ironic. An avowed atheist using a Cartesian argument. Descartes, paradoxically in view of the line of thought here, argued that anything man can conceive must therefore exist and used it to "prove" the existence of God.
This is response to my idea about knowledge? Yes I believe we can reach to true knowledge. If we could not, humanity would not be here, even with a capacity to destroy the planet by using the law of physics in a certain way. To many unnecessary mass in your response with Rene Descartes...etc. Also it is not Rene Descartes' ideas what you mentioned. It's basically deism. Rene Descartes believed that everything except god is illusion. After that, he came to conculusion that he exist by saying 'I think, therefore I am'. I assume you wanted to show how much you know, but it was a bad attempt.

What is true knowledge? Seeing as you assert the existence of true knowledge, can you explain what it is? I fear you are mixing up the concepts of logical truths and facts. If we concede that our knowledge is flawed, i.e. making mistakes, we cannot assert that it is absolute can we?If true knowledge did not exist, you would not be here with a electrical line between me and you to discuss. Making mistakes does not mean we cannot reach to truth. Contrary, if there were no incorrect knowledge, we would not talk about true knowledge. You use latin names, I hope you know where does word science came from. Making science, means reaching the knowledge even though some mistakes can be made on the way.

Argumentum ex silentio. The lack of proof does not negate existence until one perhaps reaches a state of absolute knowledge. In the year 1200 there was no concrete proof of the existence of Australia in Europe, does that mean Australia did not exist- at least as far as European were concerned? Perhaps it didn't but then we are not being existentialists here are we?Oh latin. Argūmentum ex silentiō. However, it doesn't fit the bill. God is not a thing which is oblivious. Concept of god is clear in religions and religions provide some traits and knowledge about god. As I stated, we can evaluate this norms to prove or disprove the existence of god. Just like a theory. If you call any unknown in universe as god, namely anything can be god, even dark matter, or energy. But, I think we know what god we are arguing. In 1200, there we no concept of Australia. No one mentioned or claim there was a continent. No one argued about it's geographical characteristic. It's not like god which was described with pages of information in so called holy books.

Yes you can indeed but a conclusion is a conclusion, the possession of absolute knowledge is not a conclusion.
Without knowledge, it is not possible to come to a conclusion.

Firstly, you seem to be mixing up the concept of a logical truth and a fact and perhaps an absolute truth which would be derived from absolute knowledge.Nope, I am not talking about logical truth. It would be weird if I did. Because, logic can be tool to reach the truth. Logic is not a part of truth.

Secondly, I refer you back to the three o's, o-o-o. If God is absolute then absolute knowledge would be required to assert or negate the existence of God.
If god is absolute truth which absolutely exists or absolutely does not exist, god become objective reality which can be evaluated with knowledge that is provided in holy books. As I said, religions provide enough info about him. This statement also contradicts with your idea that god is subjective and only faithful hearths can reach it.

God created the world, allegorically, in seven "yamim" יָמִים
The word can mean day, age, aeon, season, year. I certainly don't believe it literally means that God started on Sunday and finished on Shabbat! :DNice legendary creationist arguments. So sad that bible doesn't mention only the seventh day. So all your search time is spent for nothing. All abrahamic religions mentions the days(movements of eath around sun) as a measurement of the time that god spent to create the universe.
Genesis 1:2
5.God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
8. God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
13. There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
19. There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day
23. There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
31.God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Similar things can be found in quran as well.

Adam is also held to be allegorical or metaphorical, "adom" meaning "red" or "earth" etc. Man is made of minerals and elements that are part of the earth and when man dies these elements go back to the earth. Literal interpretations of the Bible are fraught with risks.
Human body grows and nourishes with foods which are provided from earth. Therefore, it is not surprising to find some materials on earth's surface in human body too. Scientists can find where you are from by using your body's isotopes which you gain by food that you've eaten. However, there are great problems with assuming that human body is made from soil, dust etc. There is a fundamental compound in soil which human body doesn't have. Silicon. It makes up the greatest part of earth crust. It would be interesting to see that human body doesn't have silicon, even though it has heavy metals like copper, zinc..etc. Another irony is carbon. Carbon is one of the main elements that living organisms have in their bodies. Carbon is not found that much in soil. It can be found as coal. But, coal is made of body remnants of old living things.
Also bible clearly mention that at the beginning, adam is created from dust.
Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
and eve was made from adam's rib.
Genesis 2:21-22
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

As for the omnipotence paradox. I remember in that being explained to me as an example of how not to challenge the existence of God- by an atheist!!! If God is omnipotent God can do anything that is possible- paradox invalidated. It would be like asking God to make an apple that was a pear or water that was dry and so on. The paradox is in itself illogical. On the other hand, if God transcends logic then we can no longer apply logic to deny or assert anything.Poor explanation of god. Namely, god is the thing who can do anything impossible or possible, logical or illogical. Definition of omnipotence cannot be limited by anything including your logical borders(you say this too). If god makes apple that was pear, then all pears are apple now. If god makes water dry, the new dry subsistence can be called water. Don't forget, from your side, this so called god is an existence who can create things from nothing. It would not be a problem to change the things in a way which against your logic. No problem at all! I am sorry, but your examples are nothing to do with paradoxes. Doing a paradox, we use characteristics of god to show how they clash each other. And Paradoxes are a lot, and non of them are invalid. Also you admit that concept of god is transcends logic to a believer. Therefore, no paradoxes cannot be used in a parallel line with the belief in god. Because first things first, god himself is against logic. As atheist like us, god does not exist because of it against science, logic..etc. It can be expected for us to use paradoxes. It cannot be expected from a person who believes that god is unphysical, above science, logic..etc. And, of course Paradox is illogical to believers. Because their understanding of logical is illogical.

Are you admitting to saying you are incapable of holding an argument. I don't think that's really what you want to say is it? :)

But, If I consider multiple people who lowered your reputation to think about the same thing for you, the conclusion can be more accurate in my opinion, because I don't know about you and I am new here.
It is what you said. And what I said that I don't care what you think of my responses. Misunderstanding of you doesn't have an effect in what I said.

This is the best ad hominem yet, also with a veiled argument to consensus. Two for the price of one. Whatever you call it, your reputation is on the bottom.

Tu quoque! Seriously, I may not be Milton or Pope and we all make typos but when we are trying to have a logical debate based on "verbal" exchanges your lack of clarity and grammatical inaccuracies don't help.
Yes, anyone can make typos. However, it's interesting that you are interested grammatical tuition in an argument is about god. Ad hominems. lol

I suggest you work on your logical argumentation.
I suggest you find out what is meant by God by different people.
I suggest you give up on trying to disprove that which can neither be proven nor disproven and thus transcends our concept of being in an objective manner.
Just to keep this lightheartedThank you for your suggestions. I really appreciate them. However, some suggestions appear as dictation. I suggest you find out what is meant by God from different people's aspects. Some can thing that god is a piece of shit on the grass. who know? And, I think we enough enough about god from holy books to make up our minds. If you think you cannot, good, no problem for me. We shall keep us enlightened.

Now, it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some have chosen to see it as the final proof of the NON-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. QED" "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.Nice story, but universe doesn't work with changes, but with its laws.

ComradeMan

3rd February 2010, 22:31

Meaningless word chains. I stated your point below in that response. By the way, you spent a little time to recite latin names. Congratulations! However, using them here won't give you any extra point.

Not meaningless word chains- phrases you can easily look up. No one is trying to score points here. Those phrases are what the logical fallacies are known as and seeing as people here don't all speak English as a mother tongue it might be better to use the Latin phrase as opposed to the English idiomatic one- the same way as Latin is used in zoology, nothing more nothing less.

Right in the beginning. You mentioned that in the 6th post. I don't care because your response for yourself.

Where did I mention God was important? You are now being dishonest about the discussion- pious fraud I think that's called. If you are going to deny or change what is said then your argumentation is going to become laughable. I have always said it is impossible to give God human attributes.

Norse mythology was just an example. Even it might not match with the clasical abrahamic story line, in norse mythology, there are multiple gods and their hierarchy which you won't be able to find in abrahamic religions. There are more than 10,000 major, local gods. In ancient times, there were stories like big flood in Mesopotamia. You can find similary stories to your ideal descriptopn of god in those regions.

Right, firstly you can't suddenly change, add or take away things at your own whim. Norse mythology is not an example that fits. The rest of your comment is not valid here because it is not we are talking about. It may have failed you, but no one here was arguing about a particular religion being right or wrong but on the impossibility of God. I am against religion, I have always said that. This whole post sets out to disprove the existence of God which, from a logical point of view, cannot be done and is thus futile- that is my point. It is not about my belief, your belief or any other subjective argument.

It is your statement and what you've said is there. You clearly say that we have to know every single thing about universe in order to find if there is a god, or not.

Yes, an absolute knowledge of absoluteness. Now, disprove this logically. This is the problem, our knowledge is limited. Within its limits our knowledge can be applied, naturally, but we cannot make absolute statements about what we do not yet know. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that, I don't think any scientist would say that either. Do we know everything that there could possibly be to know?

The package of god (this is what I call) come with some norms via religions. Concept of god is clear in religions and religions provide some traits and knowledge about god. As I stated, we can evaluate this norms to prove or disprove the existence of god.

No we can't. What are these norms by the way? I have presented you with Judaeo-Christian concepts and an allusion to Hinduism. The concept is far from clear, so this is a false axiom! What is clear by the way? You cannot prove or disprove the absolute. As for evaluating why religion is false using religious doctrines (which we claim as false)- well isn't that a bit like using science to disprove science?

Just like a theory. If you call any unknown in universe as god, namely anything can be god, even dark matter, or energy. But, I think we know what god we are arguing.

No they can't, because if God is absolute then God cannot be deemed to be one inasbsolute part of the absolute. To use a crude analogy; a fish is part of the sea but the sea is not a fish nor a fish the sea. The parts are not equal to the whole. The concept of an absolute God would not have God in the universe rather the universe as part o, i.e. "in" God.

Strawman? It can be bogyman. Anyways, I just responded to your post. Well, finally, god is subjective. And any subjective can be imaginary. What I argue, is abrahamic point of view. God as a supernatural, objective, undeniable truth. If you great a god in your mind, you won't make it objective reality.

From what I manage to understand of your last comment, no one is really saying that here, furthermore this Cartesian hypothesis has long been rejected as a circular argument.

If god is nothing, it is not possible to bring an evidence from him. It can mean that there is no god, because such an existence like god must come with certain evidences. But, if you say without an evidence you cannot say that god doesn't exist, you make a logical mistake. As I said, you can bring no evidence from nothing. Contrary, deficiency of any fundamental evidence, uncertainty, and logical flaws can refute any so called real phenomenon.

No, you cannot prove something because of a lack of proofs- argument from silence again. That is the logical mistake you are making. There are no logical flaws- sorry to burst your bubble, but you are relying on flawed logic to prove your point. Again you don't seem to have grasped the difference between a logical truth and a fact. The rest of your comment doesn't make sense. I have said all along that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God so it is a futile argument.

Concept of god differ from religion to religion, even sect to sect. What I am talking about a divine creator. Therefore, I see no mistake by doing this.

Hobbits were just an example. There are hundreds of thousands of supernatural concepts. Secondly, if you think that god is subjective and cannot be defined by anything rather than faith, with absolute knowledge of universe, existence of god cannot be detected.

You seem to be defining God more than anyone else here, is it perhaps because that without your definition you cannot disprove it? Hmmm.... seems like your strawmanning God!!! Strawman forbid! :)

The main problem here is that hobbits are not a supernatural concept, hobbits are fictitious characters in a book and they do not require absolute knowledge in order to prove or disprove their existence. You cannot mix objective with subjective as I have been trying to inform you. Your comments are becoming more incoherent.

I wonder, how subjective feelings of mine can be used to logically judge the way I express them. Therefore, you cannot dictate me what to say. I didn't get your point about future.

They can't. You cannot use subjective feelings to express logical truths. No one is dictating anything to you. You are just being shown that your logical argument can be torn apart by anyone with a sophomoric knowledge of analytical logic.

This is response to my idea about knowledge? Yes I believe we can reach to true knowledge. If we could not, humanity would not be here, even with a capacity to destroy the planet by using the law of physics in a certain way.

More logical fallacies. What you believe is irrelevant here. Many people believe in God yet they cannot present their belief as part of a logical argument. The second fallacy here is the argument to the future. You cannot base a logically sound theory on what might be possible in the future- it won't stand up here, it won't stand up in court either. LOL!!! I kidnapped him because he might have murdered someone in the future, your honour...! LOL!!! Yeah sure... try again.

Humanity would not be here? Why? Where was humanity before we even knew about physics? Scientific theories are based on what we know, not what we might know in the future- although it is interesting you choose this future line because it is quite a Kabbalistic idea. So knowledge exists but we just haven't discovered it yet? Interesting, very Lurian indeed, but not a sound basis for a logical argument here and now.

To many unnecessary mass in your response with Rene Descartes...etc. Also it is not Rene Descartes' ideas what you mentioned. It's basically deism. Rene Descartes believed that everything except god is illusion.

I suggest you read your Cartesian philosophies again. Descartes basic line was that because man can perceive of, or imagine God if you like then God must exist. Whether deists use those ideas or not is of no concern here. Descartes ontological proof boils down to this:-
Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.
Therefore, God exists
After that, he came to conculusion that he exist by saying 'I think, therefore I am'. I assume you wanted to show how much you know, but it was a bad attempt.

Apart from your incessant ad hominems and appeals to pity besides, I think your confusing Descartes' works and statements. As far as I know cogito ergo sum was not used to prove the existence of God, but rather was a meditation on existence in the sense of man. I may be mistaken but I was also under the impression that the ontological arguments come from Descartes' work of 1641, i.e. "Meditationes de prima philosophia, in qua Dei existentia et animae immortalitas demonstratur"- whereas the emblematic quote cogito ergo sum comes from the Discourse on Method (1637) and which he later expanded in Latin in Principles of Philosophy (1644), Part I- art. VII: "Ac proinde haec cognitio, ego cogito, ergo sum, est omnium prima et certissima, quae cuilibet ordine philosophanti occurrat."

If true knowledge did not exist, you would not be here with a electrical line between me and you to discuss.

Again you are confusing a fact and a logical truth. The "knowledge" required to provide the technology being used here is not absolute knowledge- no conflict here I am afraid.

Making mistakes does not mean we cannot reach to truth. Contrary, if there were no incorrect knowledge, we would not talk about true knowledge. You use latin names, I hope you know where does word science came from. Making science, means reaching the knowledge even though some mistakes can be made on the way.

Well, if your argument is flawed then it is no longer valid. Your theory may or may not be correct but your argument is flawed all the same. As for talking about true knowledge, well, I for one wasn't under the impression that people do go around talking about "true knowledge". In fact, the only references to your phrase "true knowledge" I can find come from religious websites, ironically.

What has the use of academical Latin expressions got to do with where science came from? Can you say science came from anything in such a way? Surely the first man who made the first tool or perhaps struck two pieces of flint together to make a fire was a scientist. I am sorry but that comment is completely trite.

No one is denying science here by the way. In fact it is "scientific" logic that is pulling your argument to bits so far.

Oh latin. Argūmentum ex silentiō. However, it doesn't fit the bill. God is not a thing which is oblivious. Concept of god is clear in religions and religions provide some traits and knowledge about god. As I stated, we can evaluate this norms to prove or disprove the existence of god. Just like a theory. If you call any unknown in universe as god, namely anything can be god, even dark matter, or energy. But, I think we know what god we are arguing. In 1200, there we no concept of Australia. No one mentioned or claim there was a continent. No one argued about it's geographical characteristic. It's not like god which was described with pages of information in so called holy books.

You said that the lack of proof meant there was no God. Lack of proof is not a proof. This is the argumentum ex silentio. Secondly, no one is arguing from a theological and thus transcendental position here. The rest of your comment is just silly I am afraid. You are creating strawmen to dig yourself out of this one. No one here said God was this or God was that other than the axiom of the three o's, or the absolute.

Re Australia, Aristotle and then Ptolemy speculated about the Terra Australis Incognita based on an odd idea about balancing the planet- to put it briefly. Their theoretical bases were wrong but when Australia was discovered it took its name from this. Gerardus Mercator 1569 and Alexander Dalrymple as late as 1767 also continued this speculation.

So the idea of Australia or the "southern continent" had been around for quite a while.

I am afraid you are wrong again!!!!!!!!

Re God- I defy you to find me a single definitive description of God in the Old Testament. God is referred to, allegorised and speaks but he is never described- in fact, you ought to know that ancient Judaism forbade this outright and most of the terms used to describe God are allusions, metaphors and the like.

Without knowledge, it is not possible to come to a conclusion.

Right, so without absolute knowledge it is impossible to come to an absolute conclusion. QED!

Nope, I am not talking about logical truth. It would be weird if I did. Because, logic can be tool to reach the truth. Logic is not a part of truth.

Well if your argumentation is not logical then what is it? Illogical? Transcendental. For goodness sake look up the difference between a synthetic fact and a logical truth. But if logic is not part of truth-- okay. What is truth then according to you? (there's a trap here- watch out! )

If god is absolute truth which absolutely exists or absolutely does not exist, god become objective reality which can be evaluated with knowledge that is provided in holy books.

Your adding words here.... sneaky.... caught you! :D The holy books are subjective not objective, they cannot be used to provide an objective valuation nor are they absolute- by their own admission often.

As I said, religions provide enough info about him. This statement also contradicts with your idea that god is subjective and only faithful hearths can reach it.

So the books of the various religions are absolute? By the way, I said that I wanted to avoid a theological argument, I am not arguing here about what I believe or I don't believe. I am using a logical line. I see you are attributing "him" to God... interesting.

Nice legendary creationist arguments. So sad that bible doesn't mention only the seventh day.

No, I am not a creationist. I was pointing out that the word that is interpreted as day, i.e. "yom" pl. "yamim" actually does not only mean day at all. I also stated that it doesn't mean that God literally made everything in a week- that was the ironic comment. Because some religionists take it to mean that and are perhaps woefully ignorant of their own scriptures does not mean that you can attack their interpretation as opposed to the scriptures themselves. That's like saying football is bad because there are football hooligans...

So all your search time is spent for nothing. All abrahamic religions mentions the days(movements of eath around sun) as a measurement of the time that god spent to create the universe.

i suggest you look up the Hebrew meaning "yom"- If you can't be bothered to look into the critique of your points and just dismiss perfectly valid comments and sourced statements whilst at the same time tailoring the facts to your own argument it does not say much for your powers of reasoning in this field.

Genesis 1:2
etc....

So what? This was not a discussion about the validity of the Bible, Qu'ran or any other Holy Book. For the seventh day, see below.

Human body grows and nourishes with foods which are provided from earth. Therefore, it is not surprising to find some materials on earth's surface in human body too. Scientists can find where you are from by using your body's isotopes which you gain by food that you've eaten. However, there are great problems with assuming that human body is made from soil, dust etc.

LOL!!! Do you know what a metaphor is?... continued below.

There is a fundamental compound in soil which human body doesn't have. Silicon. It makes up the greatest part of earth crust. It would be interesting to see that human body doesn't have silicon, even though it has heavy metals like copper, zinc..etc. Another irony is carbon. Carbon is one of the main elements that living organisms have in their bodies. Carbon is not found that much in soil. It can be found as coal. But, coal is made of body remnants of old living things.

Silicon is found as an ultratrace mineral in the human body. I think you'll find H4SiO4 othosilicic acid is absorbed by humans and is found in numerous tissues including bone, tendons, aorta, liver and kidney. Compelling data suggest that silica is essential for health although no RDI has been established. However, deficiency induces deformities in the skull and peripheral bones, poorly formed joints, reduced contents of cartilage, collagen, and disruption of mineral balance in the femur and vertebrae.

Re carbon, well according to my quick check over 2700 gigatonnes of carbon are calculated to be held in the soils of the world. Now I freely admit I do not know what percentage of total world soil this is- sorry I don't happen to have that fact at my fingertips but 2700 gigatonnes suggests that this is hardly a trace element.

Martin KR (2007). "The chemistry of silica and its potential health benefits". J Nutr Health Aging 11 (2): 94–7. PMID (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 17435951 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17435951).
Lal, Rattan (2008). "Sequestration of atmospheric CO2 in global carbon pools". Energy and Environmental Science 1: 86-100.
Thanks for the Bible lesson... but.... oh dear..... your basing your argument on one of those darn literal interpretations of the Bible again... very dangerous for an argument.

By the way, the Jewish narrative is that there were six days of creation, i.e. six days in which creation occurred. The seventh day was the day of rest, "shabbat", שבת, literally the cessation of creation. Oops... perhaps you should have read a bit more than Genesis 1.... :)

Genesis 2:2-3 2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

Poor explanation of god. Namely, god is the thing who can do anything impossible or possible, logical or illogical.

Was that in the original axiom? You haven't seemed to grasp the concept that if God is omnipotent, absolute, then de facto any definition of God is imperfect other than perhaps the "absolute".

How can you argue logically that God is not omnipotent because God cannot do that which is impossible? By its very nature not possible?

Omnipotent- ie. omni (all) potent, from potens the present participle from the verb posse "can, be able to"-from Latin potis- able. A more apt translation would be "all-being-possible". Therefore to argue the omipotent-impossible line actually flies in the face of the meaning of the word, and is a logical fallacy.

Definition of omnipotence cannot be limited by anything including your logical borders(you say this too).

This is one of your better points. But the absolute, like the infinite is per se unlimited.

If god makes apple that was pear, then all pears are apple now. If god makes water dry, the new dry subsistence can be called water.

Well, you are flying in the face of any possibility of "winning" your argument. Because if you take logic out of the debate then there is no more debate. You cannot make apples into pears and thus your statement fails logically again.... You cannot make an illogical statement logical inasmuch as you cannot say that black is white unless you take a metaphysical argument which is de facto not an analytical logical one. If you start taking metaphysical arguments into account then you have no hope of disproving God.

Don't forget, from your side, this so called god is an existence who can create things from nothing. It would not be a problem to change the things in a way which against your logic. No problem at all! I am sorry, but your examples are nothing to do with paradoxes.

Well seeing as you have alluded to one incredibly famous paradox as one of the reasons why God cannot exist I think you are guilty of shifting the goalposts here. This logic is not my logic, it is logic.

Doing a paradox, we use characteristics of god to show how they clash each other. And Paradoxes are a lot, and non of them are invalid. Also you admit that concept of god is transcends logic to a believer.

Your shifting the goalposts yet again. If we want a logical debate then we can have one, but if you are going to throw in odds and ends of various arguments all over the place, many based on incorrect assertions then it does not make for any debate at all. A transcendental argument cannot be reasoned logically or empircally and seeing as you seem to be taking an atheist and materialist position I don't see why you would want to go there to be honest. A paradox is neither valid nor invalid in that it is a paradox. Your mentioning of belief has nothing to do with this debate, because if we enter the realms of belief it's quite simple, for some who believe God exists, and similarly for some who do not believe he does not- end of story.

Therefore, no paradoxes cannot be used in a parallel line with the belief in god. Because first things first, god himself is against logic. As atheist like us, god does not exist because of it against science, logic..etc. It can be expected for us to use paradoxes. It cannot be expected from a person who believes that god is unphysical, above science, logic..etc. And, of course Paradox is illogical to believers. Because their understanding of logical is illogical.

No paradoxes cannot be used- double negative. God is not against logic, you have a rather clumsy tendency of reification of concepts.

God does not exist because it is against science.

LOL!!! Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the absolute until science itself is absolute which it is not. The rest of your comment seems to make no sense. At one point you seem to say that God is an atheist like us.... LOL!!! The rest is meaningless. Well, perhaps God could be an atheist because if God is God then God has no God for "godself" :).... Well done, I think we have proven that God is an atheist. LOL!!!! Come off it!

It is what you said. And what I said that I don't care what you think of my responses. Misunderstanding of you doesn't have an effect in what I said.

Another logical fallacy. I have not misunderstood anything, you cannot hold a logical line of reasoning yet when it seems to get uncomfortable for you, either dismiss things or throw in a weird concoction of facts and references in order to digress- this page is so full of red herrings I could make a nice fish pasta.

Whatever you call it, your reputation is on the bottom.

What has that got to do with the logical arguments for and against God? Appeal to consensus and ad hominem- two for the price of one here- I detect a challenge to authority too, so in fact it's three for the price of one! :D

Yes, anyone can make typos. However, it's interesting that you are interested grammatical tuition in an argument is about god. Ad hominems. lol

Typos, well seeing as a couple of your paragraphs are so ungrammatical as to be incoherent it does effect the outcome of the discussion. More strawmen here.

Thank you for your suggestions. I really appreciate them. However, some suggestions appear as dictation.

I think you mean didactic.

I suggest you find out what is meant by God from different people's aspects.

Using my argument back on me---- please. You are the one who seems to be mixing up a hocus-pocus concoction of ideas leaping from one belief system and/or mythology to another when it suits- even throwing Tolkien into the mix- love the logical fallacy here, hobbits don't exist so God doesn't exist either? Does that mean there is no Santa Claus too.... oh no....! :) I suggest you find out what people mean by God...

Some can thing that god is a piece of shit on the grass. who know?

You are scraping the barrel here.... some can think what they are want. Hell, some institutions have people who think they are Cleopatra and Napoleon in them... what's that got to do with anything? To use your rather vulgar example- Does it require absolute knowledge of the entire universe to see that a piece of shit on the grass is nothing more than an accumulation of faecal matter deposited on a small patch of plant life? :)

And, I think we enough enough about god from holy books to make up our minds. If you think you cannot, good, no problem for me. We shall keep us enlightened.

My personal opinion here- if you make up your mind on such matters based on the subjective writings of a few selected holy books written thousands of years ago then you are perhaps guilty of a cognitive bias too, as bad as the religious fanatics but in the other extreme.

Dismissing the argument here.... cowardly if I may say so.

Nice story, but universe doesn't work with changes, but with its laws.

The universe doesn't work with changes does it? So what is evolution, a chemical reaction or the life-cycle of a cell if it is not a change?

I think you are guilty of some very bad physics here. What is the law of conservation of energy? I thought it was an empirical law of physics, a consequence of which being that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed from one state to another. What does transformed mean if it does not mean "change" from one state into another?

Seems like your change theory just bit the dust.:thumbup1:

So far we have

1. So many logical fallacies I have lost count.
2. Jumping from logical, to transcendental to metaphysical arguments.
3. Flawed historico-cultural facts (Australia)
4. A minor flaw with biology (silicon)
5. A major flaw with physics (law of conservation)
6. Using literal interpretations of the Bible to show that literal interpretations are not valid when I for one would say that literal interpretations are a waste of time.
7. A flawed knowledge of scripture then quoted as some kind of proof or other.

Dude, give up...... Why don't you just say....?

"I don't believe in God based on my own subjective experience and perception of reality."

..... because that would have been fine, irrefutable and would have saved a lot of bandwidth and your making a mockery of atheism (sorry about the needling :)).... Hell, anyone would think I were the atheist and you the theist, ironic eh?

ComradeMan

3rd February 2010, 22:32

Ouch... my fingers are hurting after that...!

PS- In an earlier post I believe I may have used a dharmic term incorrectly. Instead of atman, I should have said "Ishvara".

Sorry.

:)

spiltteeth

5th February 2010, 15:54

I just felt the need to fully state my views.

It's obvious he has several pre-made copy/paste responses, many of which don't have anything to do with what I actually said.

That'll be the last involved post I make, since I know the routine with apologists like splitteeth. That's the good thing about philosophy of religion: there are only so many arguments theists can make, and they've all been made before.

I consider about 30 arguments for the existence of God relevant, this is but one.

Incidentally no one has ever given a good reason for believing atheism is true...

Most of the argument I fully constructed and put right here in the religion section, it is gone now, people say the same things, usually i try to respond 4 or 5 different ways, but how many times can I say the same thing differently? Or need to?

All my responses were specific to what you asked.

Publius

5th February 2010, 16:20

I consider about 30 arguments for the existence of God relevant, this is but one.

30 arguments for the existence of God?

There aren't 5 good ones and there aren't 10 original ones. Most are just restatements of one another, or variations (every ontological argument is essentially the same, every cosmological is the same, teleological arguments are essentially cosmological arguments, etc.)

Incidentally no one has ever given a good reason for believing atheism is true...

The problem of evil.

Plantinga's free will defense does not solve it, as JL Mackie demonstrated in The Miracle of Theism.

The explanatory adequacy of the sciences.

There's no need for God, for any explanation of anything.

The inadequacy of all arguments for the existence of God. You have a strong case you need to make, but you can't make it because the arguments for God's existence are mostly bad.

Contradictory evidence from religious belief.

There are dozens and dozens of religions out there, most of which hold that they're exclusively true. By any count, the vast majority of the world's population is wrong about religion. A little odd if God exists and wants us to believe in him and has provided sufficient reason for belief in him.

And so on.

Most of the argument I fully constructed and put right here in the religion section, it is gone now, people say the same things, usually i try to respond 4 or 5 different ways, but how many times can I say the same thing differently? Or need to?

All my responses were specific to what you asked.

Not really.

Several of those were physcists talking about the Big Bang as opposed to the solid state theory.

There are multiverse models that are perfectly consistent with all of Big Bang cosmology.

http://blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2008/08/12/the-multi-universes/

Brian Greene, for example, is a proponent of the multiverse theory.

So a lot of your quotes were tendentious -- you posted disputed and disputable opinions as if they were gospel, when well respected and brilliant physicists have wide disagreement on the issues, and almost none of them (approaching zero, I'd imagine) are theists.

red cat

5th February 2010, 16:33

This.

I just don't really see the point in EITHER side trying to prove ANYTHING to the other side.
It will never end up in anything other than argument and there really is no point.
People will hold to their beliefs no matter what, so why can't people just accept the fact that people hold different beliefs.... Come on people! :D

spiltteeth

5th February 2010, 16:54

Publius;1663671]Where? Show me where this is stated in the laws of thermodynamics.

The second law asserts that the universe is irreversibly running out of usable energy toward a state of equilibrium (or heat death) in a closed system. Yet if the universe, being a closed system, is eternal, then all usable energy would have already dissipated and equilibrium would have been reached, because it would have had an infinite amount of time to do just that. The necessary conclusion, therefore, is that the universe began. As scientist Fred Heeren puts it,

[W]e know that the universe cannot be eternal; it could not have been dissipating forever. If it had been eternally dissipating, it would have run down long ago…..Working backwards, [the second law of thermodynamics] clearly points to a beginning.

The Kalam, even if valid, only shows that the universe must have had a cause.

As I demonstrated in my post, that cause could be almost anything. It need not be God.

Uh, aliens? Again - then what caused the aliens to exist etc
And, if you have evidence for these beings I'll take a look, otherwise I deal in reality.

So, space, time, and matter began to exist. What could have caused them to begin to exist?

Whatever causes the universe to appear is not inside of space, because there was no space causally prior to the creation event. The cause must therefore be non-physical, because physical things exist in space.
Whatever causes the universe to appear is not bound by time (temporal). It never began to exist. There was no passage of time causally prior to the big bang, so the cause of the universe did not come into being. The cause existed eternally.
And the cause is not material. All the matter in the universe came into being at the first moment. Whatever caused the universe to begin to exist cannot have been matter, because there was no matter causally prior to the big bang.

Furthermore, there's plenty of room for doubting both premises. I don't think that everything that begins to exist requires a cause, and it can be disputed that the universe began to exist in the way required for the argument to work.

Uh, the reason for doubting the premises is you "don't think that everything that begins to exist requires a cause"
A very compelling reason I will admit...

Clearly the Big Bang was a temporal event, but as to where the matter that comprised the universe came from, nothing can be said because physic's cannot speak to what happened before

I have quoted numerous physicist to show why this is not true, if you have some reason to disbelieve them let me know there was no before and no matter.

No it doesn't.

you got me. devastating refutation.

There is no formal contradiction in an actual infinity.

again. you got me.

Read "Craig on the actual infinite" by Wes Morriston if you want some demonstration.

Space is infinitely divisible, ergo an actual infinity already exists.

Actually, an infinity of actual infinities exist because any finite division of space is infinitely divisible.

You should tell the universe that it's impossible.

The great atheist David Hume also said that something coming from nothing was logically possible.

I'll trade an infinite past for creation ex nihilo, if you prefer that result.

[quote]
2) From science :

n fact, in 2003 Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning. Vilenkin pulls no punches:

I think they mean the steady state theory. My position fully endorsed a cosmic begininng.

I know you've got these quotes lined up in advance, but at least pretend to read what I write before copy-pasting your favorite responses.

I fully agree that the Big Bang happened exactly as these physicists state. But they're talking about the Big Bang, not about what happened prior to the Big Bang, which is inaccessible to physics.

Listen, if you fully agree the universe had a beginning then the argument on infinity is irrelevant.

Exactly.

What happened prior to the Big Bang is not in the realm of physics. It's pure metaphysical speculation.

But they're wrong: it's not contradictory to speak of 'before' the Big Bang, it's only contradictory to do it from the perspective of physics.

What perspective are you viewing things from? If time begins to exist there can be no prior
again, I need r e a s o n s to think all these physicist are wrong and yr right.

From our perspective, we can talk about it. Obviously we can, or else you'd take this quote as definitive proof of the non-existence of God.

But of course Davies doesn't describe how or why the singularity came into existence.

yea, physics deals with the physical...

Just because a famous (theistically inclined) physicist says something doesn't make it gospel.

He has absolutely no evidence that the singularity didn't exist eternally prior to the Big Bang. It's a constraint on physical epistemology. He's just lying if he says he knows better, or that his training in physics warrants such a conclusion.

OK. So how does something exist prior to matter and time...>? unless its nonmaterial....

There are quite a few physicists who believe, for example, that the Big Bang was caused by two interdimensional branes colliding. That's a consequence of some views of string theory.

Ok, state yr case. As I have already quoted those branes need a beginning too....

So they're just wrong. It is not the case that "literally nothing" could have existed prior to the Big Bang. An infinitude of other universes could have existed prior to the Big Bang, an infinitude of possible worlds. A number of leading physicists believe just this. Don't tell me none believes it or that it's impossible. It might be wrong, but it's not impossible.

if yr referring to Valenkins multi verse theory I already delt with that. I have no knowledge of any physicist who posit an infinite world model.
But state yr case I mean, maybe there's a universe with a giant pink unicorn and were all in the matrix! Its possible!

If you wish to believe in a theory with LESS evidence then the bigbang to protect yr prejudices...go ahead.

:rolleyes:

The theory of relativity is wrong in the same way Newtonian physics was.

It doesn't work at quantum levels.

That doesn't make it wrong, just incomplete.

I accept all those results, I just doubt your interpretation.

These are the interpretations of the greatest scientific minds in physics in the last 60 yrs - not as great as your mind obviously, but these are not my interpretations.

“Today almost everyone believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang.”
- Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose

Physical results can only show you that the universe began to exist.

The Kalam is a METAPHYSICAL argument saying that EVERYTHING that begins to exist has a cause.

You don't even understand your argument.

As Dr. Norman Geisler observes,

The idea that nothing can cause something is logically incoherent, since “nothing” has no power to do anything - it does not even exist. As the Latin axiom put it: Ex nihilo nihil fit: from nothing comes nothing.

So, to make sense of the data, one need positf rom the very nature of the case, a cause uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

Wait, so modern physics can study phenomena outside of our universe now?

Also, if the universe came from nothing, it can't have come from God.

So you don't agree with that conclusion either.

They don't say the universe came from "nothingness" - a philosophical/ontological term - but there was no matter, no vacum, no energy etc...the Kalam argument is that the cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

Rich coming from a theist. Tell me, how seriously is your cosmology taken? God did it?

Matter outside the universe. Or a cause from some other universe. Or a transdimensional brane. Or a computer simulation on some alien's computer.

The latter's especially interesting: there's nothing preventing the universe from being a computer simulation.

I wouldn't say I believe that, but you certainly haven't refuted it.

There is no outside the universe, there is no matter "outside" the universe, the aliens would also need a cause and also there is no evidence or argument from logic or otherwise to support any of yr assertions so....If you wish to believe in a theory with LESS evidence then the bigbang to protect yr prejudices...go ahead.

How do you know that? How do physicists know that?

"Because all matter was created at the Big Bang!"

Yes. But how do they know that? Have they been outside the universe recently?

Just because some physicist says something he can't back up with evidence doesn't make it true.

Hmmmm How do I know there was no matter prior to the creation of matter? That IS a toughie....Well...lemme think....um...theres no evidence of it?
The argument is based on reality, like all science, is based on what we actually know, not on the matrix trilogy...

There are no kinds of non-material realities, so that's problematic.

Theres no such thing as beliefs? As the experience of pain? etc OOOOOoooook...

No it wouldn't.

any reason you have or.....

You don't even understand my position.

Stop with the nonsense quotes and actually think about what position I"m advocating.

I'm not a steady state theorist. I think the Big Bang happened. And I haven't hitched my wagon to any one theory of why or how, unlike you.

The truth is, there are as many possible causes for the Big Bang as the mind can speculate.

You can't have it both ways: you can't see defer to the physicists in an effort to prove my suggestions wrong and then ignore the physicists (because almost none of them are theists or even deists) when you reach your ultimate conclusion.

Borde and Vilenkin's reasoning doesn't speak against my position one bit, but actually goes along with it: the universe began in a Big Bang.

I believe that.

So do I. IF you believe it the conclusion necessarily follows.

There are lots of multiverse theories around.

I'm not hitching my wagon to any of them in particular, I'm just producing defeaters for your argument that God must be the cause.

Any other logical possibility works to preclude God as the cause of the universe. I fully admit that what I'm doing is speculating about possible causes. I wish you'd just concede the same.

They are not speculations though - you can say the premises are wrong of course. It is simple deductive logic, as i keep showing.

Even if the universe had a cause, nothing you've posted showed that EVERYTHING must have a cause.

Have you shown that? Has physics proven that?

Nope.

The first premise of the Kalam is that everything that begins to exist must have a cause.

But physics has actually shown to this to be false. Look at quantum mechanics. What's the cause of quantum indeterminacy? There's no determination there. What causes a wavefunction to collapse? What causes particles to pop in and out of existence?

Modern physics hasn't shown that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. It's shown the opposite.

You can't have it both ways here either: either everything that begins to exist has a cause (in which case you must conclude that QM is largely wrong) or not everything begins to exist has a cause (in which case you must drop the Kalam).

for a third time - In QM, virtual particles come into being in a vacuum. The vacuum is sparked by a scientist. The particles exist for a period of time inversely proportional to their mass. But in the case of the big bang, there is no vacuum – there’s nothing. There is no scientist – there’s nothing. And the universe is far too massive to last 14 billion years as a virtual particle.

You can regard it as uncaused, so long as you think things pop into existence from nothing and by the power of nothing. For myself, I don’t think that’s rational.

1) QM events that we observe in a laboratory take place a vacuum that is there, not absolute nothing as was the case with the big bang. 2) QM events could not occur without a field present, they are not uncaused. 3) Virtual particles exist only temporarily, inversely proportional to their mass. The universe has been here for 13.7 billion years, not a fraction of a second.

[quote]
thereby stating that that THIS singularity isn’t the first, it makes no difference. Let’s go back a trillion universes ago.

Somewhere along the line there had to be a first universe and the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem proves that THAT universe required a definitive space / time boundary, a singularity, a Big Bang Creation event. Because of that, neither cyclical nor inflationary models, chaotic or otherwise are workable.

Yeah, that's it, don't refute the contradiction, just embrace it.

"God was timeless prior to the universe"

Incoherent.

"He is timeless sans creation but temporal since creation"

Incoherent.

Oh...any r e a s o n s these are incoherent? or....

There is no distinction. God is unchanging, remember?

God cannot "undertake" anything.

My objection still stands, as does the one I just brought up. You're digging yourself deeper.

Of course, if a timeless being changed, it would no longer be timeless; but that’s not to say that it cannot change. There’s a logically fallacy lurking here:

1. Not-possibly (God is timeless & God changes)
2. God is timeless
3. Therefore, not-possibly (God changes)
(3) does not follow logically from (1) and (2). All that follows is

3. Therefore, God is unchanging.
So if God is timeless, he is also unchanging, but it does not follow that He cannot change. I’d say that He can change and if He were to do so, He would cease to be timeless. And that’s exactly what I think He did. Whether God is timeless or temporal is a contingent property of God, dependent upon His will. What is impossible is changing while remaining timeless. But it seems to me that a timeless being can change and thereby cease to be timeless.

I can have it either way: either the universe doesn't require a cause (which I believe) in which case God is unecessary, or the universe requires a cause and has one in some prior physical or metaphysical entity that isn't God.

You've done nothing to show either of these possibilities false, or to establish the truth of either of the premises of the standard Kalam argument.

You've ignored large parts of modern physics, including several theories which permit an infinite regress of causes prior to the universe, you've ignored the fact that something coming from nothing is perfectly coherent and physically possible, indeed, happens all the time, and that the vast majority of physicists are not theists, but subscribe to one of the several views I've mentioned in this post.

Further, you've missed the essential point which is that physics alone can't demonstrate truths in metaphysics.

Even if everything in the universe had a cause, that wouldn't license the conclusion that "everything that begins to exist requires" a cause.

I am claiming that things don’t pop into being out of nothing without a cause. And you’re saying they do. Now I want to know where I can go experience these violations of the physical law of conservation of mass. Do you have any evidence that the premise is false? I have appealing to a scientific law and universal human experience. Do you have a counter-example based in objective reality, not in flights of fancy?

I do not mind if a supernatural agent can suspend physical laws, but how is it done on atheism?

Do you sincerely think that things can pop into existence uncaused out of nothing? Do you believe that it is really possible that, say, a raging tiger should suddenly come into existence uncaused out of nothing in the room in which you are now reading this? How much the same would this seem to apply to the entire universe!

I can line up 6 scientific discoveries, based on experimental results. I am holding confirmed predictions of cosmic microwave background radiation temperatures in my left hand, and confirmed helium-hydrogen abundance predictions in my right. If you want to deny the premise, I need some reasons or some scientific data.

What have you got? Where is your evidence?

The current best theory of cosmology is the standard big bang model, which posits the origin of matter, energy, space and time OUT OF NOTHING. You need to deal with the data we have today, not imagine alternative realities where untested speculations preserve your belief in atheism from falsification by the progress of science.

If you can name a counter-example to the premise, do so. Otherwise, the deductive argument goes through on modus ponens, backed by the science.

Publius

5th February 2010, 17:10

spiltteeth

5th February 2010, 17:18

=Publius;1666321]30 arguments for the existence of God?

There aren't 5 good ones and there aren't 10 original ones. Most are just restatements of one another, or variations (every ontological argument is essentially the same, every cosmological is the same, teleological arguments are essentially cosmological arguments, etc.)

The problem of evil.

Plantinga's free will defense does not solve it, as JL Mackie demonstrated in The Miracle of Theism.

And yet he admits it DOES IF God cannot do ther logically impossible, which has been a basic Christian definition in christian philosophy for well over one thousand yrs....

The explanatory adequacy of the sciences.

How does this say anything about God?

There's no need for God, for any explanation of anything.

How does this say anything about God?

The inadequacy of all arguments for the existence of God. You have a strong case you need to make, but you can't make it because the arguments for God's existence are mostly bad.

There quite adequate.

Contradictory evidence from religious belief.

such as....

There are dozens and dozens of religions out there, most of which hold that they're exclusively true. By any count, the vast majority of the world's population is wrong about religion. A little odd if God exists and wants us to believe in him and has provided sufficient reason for belief in him.

this is an argument for the errancy of religion, and an argument FOR God in that there are so many people believing in Him without evidence,,,

And so on.

Not really.

Several of those were physcists talking about the Big Bang as opposed to the solid state theory.

There are multiverse models that are perfectly consistent with all of Big Bang cosmology.

http://blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2008/08/12/the-multi-universes/

Brian Greene, for example, is a proponent of the multiverse theory.

So a lot of your quotes were tendentious -- you posted disputed and disputable opinions as if they were gospel, when well respected and brilliant physicists have wide disagreement on the issues, and almost none of them (approaching zero, I'd imagine) are theists.

First, the steady-state model was disproved by recent empirical observations of radio galaxy distributions, as well as red-shifting of light from distant galaxies moving away from us at increasing speeds; none were referencing that AT ALL.

AS i alreasy said of the multiverse somewhere along the line there had to be a first universe and the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem proves that THAT universe required a definitive space / time boundary, a singularity, a Big Bang Creation event.
And so then we would just say the multiverse had a beginning etc

spiltteeth

5th February 2010, 17:38

Listen to talk Brian Greene gave in the link I previously posted. It should clear up a lot of the trivial misunderstandings you have about the multiverse hypothesis.

I would respond in depth to your points but it would serve no purpose for most of your responses rest on simple misunderstandings which Brian Greene, a famous and noted physicist, can easily clear up for you, eg. how there could be multiple universe or matter outside of our universe.

As for 'ex nihilo nihilo fit', I stand by my assertion that it's perfectly possible. All of your statements about it are hopelessly confused. For example, the quote you quoted from Norman Gesiler:

Something coming from nothing isn't a case of something being CAUSED by nothing which is indeed nonsensical, but rather the idea is that something could have no cause whatsoever.

Hume discussed this in his Treatise on Human Nature, and it's pretty elementary confusion.

There is no contradiction in saying, for example, that a frog could pop into being my desk in the next instant, for no reason and with no cause.

QED.

An infinite regress does not produce a logical, formal contradiction, ergo it's possible.

QED.

These are both simple logical principles that you ignored: if something isn't IMPOSSIBLE then it's possible, no proof necessary. If something is not contradictory then it's logically possible.

I think that about covers it.

You really beleive a frog could just pop into existence on yr desk? Honestly.
The whole law of thermodynamics thing of matter neither being created nor destroyed or the conservation of energy simply doesn't impress you...
Ok...

Also, saying somthing is logically possible does not defeat or deny a premise.
Its like saying "Its possible we are living in the matrix, so I will simply disbelive all of science."
Ok.

I disagree with yr blind statement about infinite regression, and have provided 3 reasons why, but as I say, if you agree the universe had a beginning its irrelevant.

The mukltiverse...I can say quite alot on this...for simplicities sake, I'll just point out that Vilenkin's whole multiverse scenario depends, it will be recalled, on the hypothesis of eternal inflation, which in turn is based upon the existence of certain primordial scalar fields which govern inflation.

Although Vilenkin observes that
"Inflation is eternal in practically all models suggested so far" he also admits,
"Another important question is whether or not such scalar fields really exist in nature. Unfortunately, we don't know. There is no direct evidence for their existence"

PLUS if our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller orderly universe. The odds of our solar system's being formed instantly by random collisions of particles is, according to Penrose, about 1:1010(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1010(123).

Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses' popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all the constants and quantities of nature's falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those are much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but one member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis.

Vilenkin later asserts that his own favored theory of quantum creation presupposes as a necessary condition the Many Worlds Interpretation:

I
f the Copenhagen interpretation is adopted, then the creation was a one-shot event, with a single universe popping out of nothing. This, however, leads to a problem. The most likely thing to pop out of nothing is a tiny Planck-sized universe, which would not tunnel, but would instantly collapse and disappear. Tunneling to a larger size has a small probability and therefore requires a large number of trials. It appears to be consistent only with the Everett interpretation

Vilenkin had better hope that such is not the case... most physicists would regard it as the reductio ad absurdum of his creation account.

Finally, although I could go on and on, Vilenkin himself actually realizes that he has not really described the tunneling of the universe from literally nothing, for he allows,
"And yet, the state of 'nothing' cannot be identified with absolute nothingness. The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus 'nothing' should be subjected to these laws"
It follows that the universe described by those laws is not nothing. Unfortunately, Vilenkin draws the mistaken inference that
"The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe" !
Even if one takes a Platonistic view of the laws of nature, they are at most either mathematical objects or propositions, abstract entities that have no effect on anything. (ACTUALLY, Vilenkin entertains a conceptualist view according to which the laws exist in a mind which predates the universe the closest Vilenkin comes to theism).
If these laws are truly descriptive, then obviously it cannot be true that "there was no universe." Of course, the laws could have existed and been false, in which case they are non-descriptive; but then Vilenkin's theory will be false.

ComradeMan

5th February 2010, 20:18

Well, well, well- It seems so the so-called religious "idiots" might have caught up with the modernist materialists! :D LOL!!!

I am not so familiar with Christian philosophy post-New Testament but from the more Jewish and Qabbalistic side of things I see no problem with science, spirituality and the existence of God being side by side.

Publius

5th February 2010, 21:25

I didn't say a frog popping into existence was a physically possible, I said it was logically possible.

Logic and physics are not the same thing.

It's logically possible to move faster than the speed of light, but not physically possible. And so on.

The multiverse hypothesis does NOT require a first universe. And even if it did, there's nothing securing how that first universe came into being such that it must have been God.

Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses' popping into and out of existence by random collisions,

You were just yelling at me saying such things are physically impossible.

Which is it?

If they're physically impossible they won't happen in a universe governed by laws of physics like ours. You've already expended a great deal of effort arguing that this sort of thing is impossible.

No turning back now that it's convenient for you to say otherwise.

or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all the constants and quantities of nature's falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range.

We're the lucky few.

And actually, the possible universe are probably constrained by the laws of physics. Every individual universe must accord with physics, so we can label a great many of the random ones as just physically impossible.

Observable universes like those are much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but one member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis.

It depends.

Even if things can appear by random chance in the physical world, the odds that happening might even much lower than 10^10^23, such that worlds where things pop into existence at any regularity are just stupifyingly rare.

You've talked about infinite regress, but as I said, there's no formal contradiction. I know deductive logic. IF there were a contradiction in the idea you could demonstrate it in first order logic. Someone would have done so by now, in fact.

But as the paper I cited earlier shows, it just IS NOT logically contradictory.

There's more I have to defend about the idea of infinite regression. It's logically possible.

spiltteeth

6th February 2010, 05:03

=Publius;1666501]I didn't say a frog popping into existence was a physically possible, I said it was logically possible.

Logic and physics are not the same thing.

It's logically possible to move faster than the speed of light, but not physically possible. And so on.

I don't understand how this refutes premise one or two. I'm speaking of actual reality - I want to know what actually caused the universe, I don't see what yr frog popping into existence being logically possible has anything to do with reality or the kalam argument.

The multiverse hypothesis does NOT require a first universe. And even if it did, there's nothing securing how that first universe came into being such that it must have been God.

As Valenkin himself says, it needs an initial singularity, the reason the cause of it must be immaterial, causeless etc etyc have been repeated as nausea, if you have any actual r e a s o n for positing a counterexample, please do so other wise etc

You were just yelling at me saying such things are physically impossible.

Which is it?

If they're physically impossible they won't happen in a universe governed by laws of physics like ours. You've already expended a great deal of effort arguing that this sort of thing is impossible.

No turning back now that it's convenient for you to say otherwise.

uh, as I say, they don't pop into existence - do frogs often randomly materialize on yr desk? No? Well, this is a string reason to disbelieve the multiuniverse theory...

We're the lucky few.

And actually, the possible universe are probably constrained by the laws of physics. Every individual universe must accord with physics, so we can label a great many of the random ones as just physically impossible.

so now you things don't pop into existence in reality? I thought this was yr counter example to premise one - the multiverse? Regardless, the whole point of Valenkins theory is that such things can happen (not from nothingness, but from based upon the existence of certain primordial scalar fields which govern inflation, which, as I've already quoted, he himself says theres no actual evidence for existing. It's speculative, but people desperate to hold onto there predjudeses will seek out speculation...

It depends.

Even if things can appear by random chance in the physical world, the odds that happening might even much lower than 10^10^23, such that worlds where things pop into existence at any regularity are just stupifyingly rare.

As I say, his theory states the exact opposite, but.....whatever.

You've talked about infinite regress, but as I said, there's no formal contradiction. I know deductive logic. IF there were a contradiction in the idea you could demonstrate it in first order logic. Someone would have done so by now, in fact.

But as the paper I cited earlier shows, it just IS NOT logically contradictory.

There's more I have to defend about the idea of infinite regression. It's logically possible.

I am not interested in theory, of what is logically possible, but in reality, not science-fiction but actual science.
Its logical possible that frogs pop into existence? Therefore lets forget about what ACTUALLY happens? Is that it?

Oh infinite regress, since this has zero bearing on the argument if you agree all the science posits an actual beginning I''l only say that I never denied it was logically possible - indeed I even quoted David Hilbert to show that it exists - but only in theory remember? :

David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of this century, states,
"The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought.... The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea...."

You need to understand the difference between a potential infinite and an actual infinite.
Crudely put, a potential infinite is a collection which is increasing toward infinity as a limit, but never gets there. Such a collection is really indefinite, not infinite. The sign of this sort of infinity, which is used in calculus, is ¥. An actual infinite is a collection in which the number of members really is infinite. The collection is not growing toward infinity; it is infinite, it is "complete." The sign of this sort of infinity, which is used in set theory to designate sets which have an infinite number of members, such as {1, 2, 3, . . .}, is À0. Now (2.11) maintains, not that a potentially infinite number of things cannot exist, but that an actually infinite number of things cannot exist. For if an actually infinite number of things could exist, this would spawn all sorts of absurdities.

2. The universe began to exist.

2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an
actual infinite.

2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of
events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal
regress of events cannot exist.

2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of
the formation of an actual infinite by
successive addition.

2.21 A collection formed by successive
addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events
is a collection formed by successive
addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of
past events cannot be actually
infinite.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its
existence.

What the premiss expresses is the real or factual impossibility of an actual infinite.
To illustrate the difference between real and logical possibility: there is no logical impossibility in something's coming to exist without a cause, but such a circumstance may well be really or metaphysically impossible. In the same way, (2.11) asserts that the absurdities entailed in the real existence of an actual infinite show that such an existence is metaphysically impossible. Hence, one could grant that in the conceptual realm of mathematics one can, given certain conventions and axioms, speak consistently about infinite sets of numbers, but this in no way implies that an actually infinite number of things is really possible. One might also note that the mathematical school of intuitionism denies that even the number series is actually infinite (they take it to be potentially infinite only), so that appeal to number series as examples of actual infinites is a moot procedure.

The future is potentially infinite, since it does not exist; but the past is actual in a way the future is not, as evidenced by the fact that we have traces of the past in the present, but no traces of the future. Hence, if the series of past events never began to exist, there must have been an actually infinite number of past events.

newsocialism

8th February 2010, 08:42

When I use words like, meaningless, lunatic, inconsistent for your responses, I might be able to demonstrate why I do that with previous response of you. Interestingly, you tend to see minor details by not digesting the overall idea of my responses, but merely focusing on minor details, examples. Sometimes, you cut my responses, and bring only one or two sentence from it, and they are mostly minor, or supporting details of my response. Moreover, you try to use them against me by your point of view. As a result, responses which are consist of 40000-5000 words that can fit 10-11 pages with load of crap show up in front of my face. You can save yourself from this arduous and worthless burden. Make two things clear. What is your position? and what is mine? If you don't understand and don't have a position, it is not a logical argument with you my friend. Let me make this more clear. So, mark my word well. As you expressed yourself, you think that you don't believe we can perceive, or reach true knowledge with our limited minds. I think of the opposite. You also think that, you won't be able to reach absolute knowledge to come to an absolute conclusion. Once again I think the opposite. There are different thoughts that I detected from your answers about position of god to humans. Some of them are given. According to you, it is not an objective and provable reality which can be grasped by faith. I think the opposite. Now, I think our positions are more clear. Let me make clear one more thing. We can make mistakes as well. Everyone can do so. But, our overall ideas are understandable And I think I have expressed my opinions clearly. It is probably the last response to you about your unrelated subjects. It is time consuming and boring thing to argue against your misleading lines.I will make my point clear with this response. So, any reader can grasp what I want to say. Here we go:

Not meaningless word chains- phrases you can easily look up. No one is trying to score points here. Those phrases are what the logical fallacies are known as and seeing as people here don't all speak English as a mother tongue it might be better to use the Latin phrase as opposed to the English idiomatic one- the same way as Latin is used in zoology, nothing more nothing less.
No. You got me wrong here. I meant, I listed your opinions below in my response. And you said that I should show where you state them. Secondly, I have some Latin knowledge, nearly intermediate. I know that everyone does not speak English; however a few people speak Latin fluently on this planet. It's a completely extinct language. Why is Latin used in scholars? Because, in ancient and middle ages, scholars were using this language. Tradition may remain in some cases. English is widely spoken and universal language. And, I am sure, all of the your terms can be relatively expressed in English as well.

Where did I mention God was important? You are now being dishonest about the discussion- pious fraud I think that's called. If you are going to deny or change what is said then your argumentation is going to become laughable. I have always said it is impossible to give God human attributes.Again, meaningless arguments about what you've posted. Secondly, I don't think I will lie here about the things that you've posted. Here is your very first response(6th):

Søren Kierkegaard argued that objective knowledge, such as 1+1=2, is unimportant to existence. If God could rationally be proven, his existence would be unimportant to humans. It is because God cannot rationally be proven that his existence is important to us.

The trouble with the materialistic approach is mathematical, 0 +/- 0=0

The rest are just futile chicken and egg arguments.

I never understand why atheists spend so much time trying to disprove something they don't believe in anyway...:DLastly, I haven't seen such a phrase that you mentioned in your responses about god and human attributes that has been given to him.

Right, firstly you can't suddenly change, add or take away things at your own whim. Norse mythology is not an example that fits. The rest of your comment is not valid here because it is not we are talking about. It may have failed you, but no one here was arguing about a particular religion being right or wrong but on the impossibility of God. I am against religion, I have always said that. This whole post sets out to disprove the existence of God which, from a logical point of view, cannot be done and is thus futile- that is my point. It is not about my belief, your belief or any other subjective argument.
I know. But, you don't know that I solely gave Norse mythology and hobbits as two concepts of supernatural and imaginary existences. I don't know why you keep telling that I cannot talk about them. I did not specifically argue about elements of Norse mythology, or characteristics of hobbits. They were given as examples in an appropriate subject about religion, god and supernatural. This is what we call supporting details. Once again, they are not my main points. You might have doubts about validity of my arguments. I certainly have doubts about consistency of your arguments. How there is a place for god, out of religion? Isn't religion the place where you learn about god, his abilities, his power, his characteristics? Even, some terms you have used has been developed by theology scholars. Talk no more about a god which is independent from religions. God, itself is a concept that was developed by religious doctrines. Otherwise, you don't even have a description of an existence you think that exists. Inevitable question would appear to you as, what is god?
Answer could be something like: who talks about an omnipotent existence? My god is a human.
Moreover, anyone can create any fictitious being in his mind and approach that being as it is god. As a consequence, god certainly gain imaginary character in human mind rather than a reality outside of human mind. I can say that my shit is maybe the shadow of and as a representation of him. It does not require to know everything to decide if this god exist. It demonstrates that god exists merely in minds. The real question is, could we decide if he certainly exists or certainly does not exists. Yes. As I said, everything you put in front of us must have a description and characteristics. Otherwise, you cannot explained it to us which is the think even you don't know. So, called divine creator has characteristic like he is omnipotent, omnipresent...etc. This facts, all together can be use to evaluate and come to a decision.

Yes, an absolute knowledge of absoluteness. Now, disprove this logically. This is the problem, our knowledge is limited. Within its limits our knowledge can be applied, naturally, but we cannot make absolute statements about what we do not yet know. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that, I don't think any scientist would say that either. Do we know everything that there could possibly be to know?
Unfortunately, maybe as a joke or something, you can tell this during this argument."Yes, an absolute knowledge of absoluteness." This sentence is too absolute statement for a person who thinks humans with limited minds cannot have an absolute knowledge. The certain question would be definitely; how do you know exactly? Let me expend the width of your argument. You should have nothing to argue here both, positive and negative sides. Namely, you cannot even argue if your knowledge is limited or not. Because, it requires absolute knowledge. With the abyss of questions, any question can come to you like, how do you know that absolute knowledge exists? How do you know that logic exists? How do you know that truth exits? Even how do you know that you exist? The answer must be nothing. Just silence. Why? You cannot even say that you don't know. Question can be asked again; how do you know that you don't know. Your opinion is completely out of logic or anything but inconsistent abyss of thought nebula. If you heard me saying that holding an idea like yours is no more than skepticism, we won't have to argue about crappy things like that.
Secondly, you ,also, created a vague condition over here. You talk about absolute knowledge, a subject that has been argued by some philosophers about what we know is vague. And then, you mention that there are things we don't know rather than we know to come to a conclusion about existence of god. If we know nothing for sure, things we know and things we don't know are no different terms because we know nothing at the end. My opinion is clear, like scientists, or philosophers who think like I do; yes we can reach absolute knowledge. If knowledge is not true, it has no value. If knowledge has no value, learning is worthless. And, yes. There are certainly things we don't know yet; but science is progressive, and we can learn about them. Finally, the things we know is enough to enlighten us. Science, logic, senses, knowledge, all we have and all our mind capacity can be used for reaching the truth. They make us capable of make some certain statements about everything that we know, every problem that we encounter, and of course, universe.

No we can't. What are these norms by the way? I have presented you with Judaeo-Christian concepts and an allusion to Hinduism. The concept is far from clear, so this is a false axiom! What is clear by the way? You cannot prove or disprove the absolute. As for evaluating why religion is false using religious doctrines (which we claim as false)- well isn't that a bit like using science to disprove science?
Romans:1:20
"Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely his eternal power and deity, have been clearly perceived in the things that have been made."
Bible mentions these certain evidences. Wait a minute? Bible is just a book of literature right? Screw the god then. It's just the main character of it. ;)
"No we can't. What are these norms by the way?" You can't. How, so? Norms? Poor you. Without a description or a shape, you can argue and describe nothing.
Even, if god is imaginary, it must have some characteristics.
Let me give you some of the norms about god. God is the creator of universe. God is eventually creator of everything. God is eternal. God is omnipotent. God is omnipresent. God is creator of good and evil. God loves us. God cares us. God will send us to heaven or hell...etc. If it is not god, what is god then? anything? You gave another unfortunate, statement:"You cannot prove or disprove the absolute." It is not the case of course; because, we can prove absolute things , and we can refute things by disproving them. As a result, we can come to a conclusion if a thing is absolute or not. Therefore, things those are absolute have been already proven. Moreover, a person who thinks that our limited minds block us to reach the truth, like yourself, cannot argue if I can prove or disprove the absolute. Because, you think that you don't know for sure. maybe there is not any absolute. Maybe I can prove , or I cannot. And there is this final blundering: " As for evaluating why religion is false using religious doctrines (which we claim as false)- well isn't that a bit like using science to disprove science?" I recommend you to learn what doctrine means. Religion is not progressive. It has it's doctrines and that's it. Science doesn't work with doctrines. It is progressive. Theories can be validated, or invalidated in science. It doesn't make science invalid. However, same thing cannot be done for religions. You can agree and take religious doctrine, or leave it. Religious, doctrines cannot be changed. Moreover, religious doctrines can be judged because their source is not knowledge but assumption blindly about everything regardless to learning more and more and replace belief with knowledge.

No they can't, because if God is absolute then God cannot be deemed to be one inasbsolute part of the absolute.
I want to talk no more about logic... According to this description, god is an absolute existence, and rest of the universe is a part this absolute thing. However, most of your arguments, even though your ideas are not clear, built around of a concept of god which is not an objective, but a subjective reality. So, in this case, it's meaningless to argue, because your description regards god as of a final chain of the universe. Giving this function to god, making it physical. Secondly, in your absoluteness sense, any part that is not absolute of an absolute will make this absolute an unabsolute at the end.

From what I manage to understand of your last comment, no one is really saying that here, furthermore this Cartesian hypothesis has long been rejected as a circular argument.Hmm. It seems like first I typed create wrongly. When spellchecker is active, it can change word slightly different than what I intended. I meant create instead of great. And, as you know, if your thoughts or beliefs is not parallel with objective reality, it is subjective and does not exist out of human mind.

No, you cannot prove something because of a lack of proofs- argument from silence again. That is the logical mistake you are making. There are no logical flaws- sorry to burst your bubble, but you are relying on flawed logic to prove your point. Again you don't seem to have grasped the difference between a logical truth and a fact. The rest of your comment doesn't make sense. I have said all along that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God so it is a futile argument.Sorry but I will have to burst your bubble too. You did not understand anything about my main ideas. Normally, I have no obligation to explain them all. Now, firstly, you gave an example about Australia. Here it is: The lack of proof does not negate existence until one perhaps reaches a state of absolute knowledge. In the year 1200 there was no concrete proof of the existence of Australia in Europe, does that mean Australia did not exist- at least as far as European were concerned? The problem is that your example has too many misconceptions. Lack of proof does not mean one thing doesn't exist, if this unproven thing is a continent ,let's say, a physical existence. You can discover and prove it. If you talk about an existence that only survives in human minds, you will never be able to find and bring any evidence. You said it by yourself too. God is subjective and faith is only way to conceive it. Moreover, we don't even use the word discover for god, which we normally use for things that has been revealed by humans. I don't know if it means something to you. I don't care either. There is another important fact that I would like to point out. Lets assume that god is in a similar category with Australia. All vague, small things give their clues about their existence while your God, the most absolute, the greatest, the most powerful, the omnipresent, the thing which is full of love for human has no evidence to reveal? It would be the most illogical thing to think about wouldn't it be? Therefore, there is no logical flaw to think that a greatest being cannot exist without a greatest evidence among the smallest ones. There is also further argument which is called "The problem of divine hiddennes".

You seem to be defining God more than anyone else here, is it perhaps because that without your definition you cannot disprove it? Hmmm.... seems like your strawmanning God!!! Strawman forbid! :)
God is known as creator of everything. It is not my definition but definition of those who claims there is a god. It seems like you are confused by my intentions to give hobbits, or oden as an example. Concept of god, can change sect to sect, religion to religion. You have no way to deny it. However, god is simply the creator of everything in religions that has a god to worship.

The main problem here is that hobbits are not a supernatural concept, hobbits are fictitious characters in a book and they do not require absolute knowledge in order to prove or disprove their existence. You cannot mix objective with subjective as I have been trying to inform you. Your comments are becoming more incoherent.The one minor example stands as a major point among true major points of mine? Wow. And yeah, so is God. God is the main fictitious character in the stories and some books. If god is supernatural, so hobbits, unicorns, fairies...etc. Damn, I said unicorns. It must be the major point of this argument to you. Blah...I do not mix subjective reality with objective reality. Moreover, it is the common mistake that you do by declaring god as an absolute existence, believing we cannot conceive absolute knowledge, and thinking it is subjective.

They can't. You cannot use subjective feelings to express logical truths. No one is dictating anything to you. You are just being shown that your logical argument can be torn apart by anyone with a sophomoric knowledge of analytical logic.
Then you should have not talked about logic as a respond to my reply about my boredom. And, you don't need to classify my arguments with your false identifiers.

More logical fallacies. What you believe is irrelevant here. Many people believe in God yet they cannot present their belief as part of a logical argument. Aha! If I vote this blundering, it would get 8 out of 10 from me. Man! What you believe is not like believing in god. Shallow point of view. There are two possibilities for beliefs or thoughts. They can be true, or false. If a belief is true, it can proven and become objective reality. If it is false, it can be debunked. Remember! It is my thoughts. Don't judge with your own thoughts. Your response may become ridiculous. Otherwise, every thing, that is rendered in your mind, must be subjective(thoughts, knowledge..etc). It can be true for you, as a holder of some sort of skeptical idea, but not for me. What we call objective reality is reality that has parallel lines with our thoughts. What is subjective, is things that we imagine, but find no supporting evidence or logic in reality. Scientists can believe. They can prove or this disprove it, and they will go on to the next level. You except again and again that god is unphysical and cannot be proven. It is certainly subjective. I try to be humble by saying I believe; but it went completely wrong direction from your side. What I mean is literally what I think. If you have a little unbiased side to recognize this, you could understand this is different than belief and faith in a god. And, it has literally the same meaning with I think in this position. We are arguing about knowledge itself, rather than a specific scientific knowledge. Both me and you give our thoughts about it. If you believe irrelevant thoughts cannot be talked in this way, then you should have not responded to my post at the very beginning with your subjective mind. Even the knowledge we have is composed by our thoughts. Therefore, not misunderstand that each belief or thought must be subjective.

You cannot base a logically sound theory on what might be possible in the future- it won't stand up here, it won't stand up in court either. LOL!!! I kidnapped him because he might have murdered someone in the future, your honour...! LOL!!! Yeah sure... try again.Another response which is given regardless to its irrelevant consequences. Humanity already has a capacity to destroy the place where they live. The weapons that we call them as mighty weapons of mass destruction. And a cooperative work along with whole countries can produce massive destructive weapons. It is possible with modern technology. And please, don't use word logic to refute my points, because it became a cliche. Court? It is not a court. There is no verdict. There is no sentence because of a guilt to express myself. Don't bring such dull examples like this one.

Humanity would not be here? Why? Where was humanity before we even knew about physics? Scientific theories are based on what we know, not what we might know in the future- although it is interesting you choose this future line because it is quite a Kabbalistic idea. So knowledge exists but we just haven't discovered it yet? Interesting, very Lurian indeed, but not a sound basis for a logical argument here and now.Firstly, learn the difference between now, and the future. I was talking about current condition of humanity. "Where was humanity before we even knew about physics?" Humanity was to busy to surf on the internet, using touch screen mobile phones, using nuclear power to divide parts of atoms, to send discovery teams to moon, to prepare suitable tools to discover planets and universe in the stone age. Damn jackasses, they didn't give any of their knowledge to the next generations By the way, knowledge is path to the matter to enlighten some oblivious parts of it. Do not try to speak my mind. You can do no more than suck at it.

I suggest you read your Cartesian philosophies again. Descartes basic line was that because man can perceive of, or imagine God if you like then God must exist. Whether deists use those ideas or not is of no concern here. Descartes ontological proof boils down to this:-

Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.

Therefore, God exists

Apart from your incessant ad hominems and appeals to pity besides, I think your confusing Descartes' works and statements. As far as I know cogito ergo sum was not used to prove the existence of God, but rather was a meditation on existence in the sense of man. I may be mistaken but I was also under the impression that the ontological arguments come from Descartes' work of 1641, i.e. "Meditationes de prima philosophia, in qua Dei existentia et animae immortalitas demonstratur"- whereas the emblematic quote cogito ergo sum comes from the Discourse on Method (1637) and which he later expanded in Latin in Principles of Philosophy (1644), Part I- art. VII: "Ac proinde haec cognitio, ego cogito, ergo sum, est omnium prima et certissima, quae cuilibet ordine philosophanti occurrat." Your previous response:

That's ironic. An avowed atheist using a Cartesian argument. Descartes, paradoxically in view of the line of thought here, argued that anything man can conceive must therefore exist and used it to "prove" the existence of God. I never used this kind of argument or any kind of Descartes' philosophy.
You brought Descartes example, when I mentioned that we can reach true knowledge. Simply, your example is nothing to do with my explanation.
Secondly, you forgot to mention that, Descartes used his philosophy to disprove reality of outside word. By doing this, he claimed that senses can fail to provide valid information from outside word. Therefore, they cannot be trusted. He thought only thoughts can bring us the truth. After this stage, he said; cōgitō ergō sum. He thought if he can think and suspect about his existence, he must exist. He didn't use this philosophy to serve deism, or to be deist. "Apart from your incessant ad hominems and appeals to pity besides, I think your confusing Descartes' works and statements. As far as I know cogito ergo sum was not used to prove the existence of God, but rather was a meditation on existence in the sense of man." Well, I see no ad hominems here. You keep bringing examples which are nothing to do with my major ideas. I simply said”After that, he came to conculusion that he exists by saying 'I think, therefore I am'.” How the hell you can bring such a meaning like “As far as I know cogito ergo sum was not used to prove the existence of God, but rather was a meditation on existence in the sense of man.”

You are not wrong about Descartes' arguments about god. He thought that thinking capability, and that invalid world must be created by something. But, scholars think he may not be a believer.
According to some scholar, there were some religious authorities who though that Descartes was serving secret religious groups, even atheists. There are arguments about his position to religion, but I don't know if he was a believer, or not.

Again you are confusing a fact and a logical truth. The "knowledge" required to provide the technology being used here is not absolute knowledge- no conflict here I am afraid. No confusion here. Technology, without any doubt, is the fruit of knowledge. If true knowledge did not exist, we would not be able to use the law of nature to improve our living standards, or destroy it with our technology. Science is the tool to reach true knowledge. Technology is application of knowledge on some concepts to serve various purposes in our use.Shallow investigating leads you misunderstanding. It seems like you only focus on names of the terms, rather than seeing them as a whole in a sentence to bring the meaning.

Well, if your argument is flawed then it is no longer valid. Your theory may or may not be correct but your argument is flawed all the same. As for talking about true knowledge, well, I for one wasn't under the impression that people do go around talking about "true knowledge". In fact, the only references to your phrase "true knowledge" I can find come from religious websites, ironically.

What has the use of academical Latin expressions got to do with where science came from? Can you say science came from anything in such a way? Surely the first man who made the first tool or perhaps struck two pieces of flint together to make a fire was a scientist. I am sorry but that comment is completely trite.

No one is denying science here by the way. In fact it is "scientific" logic that is pulling your argument to bits so far. I can proudly say, a person who things he doesn't have absolute knowledge, cannot have absolute knowledge to show that my arguments are flawed. Therefore, do not contradict yourself by trying to refute my arguments. Another thing is certain that, some ideas are not only my ideas to refute. As it appears, I think and approve scientific method and think we can have true knowledge. You can see any body who thinks science cannot bring us truth, or scientific method is invalid. I will make no comment on this.
Secondly, science, and scientific method is not that old. And word science came from latin scientia which means knowledge. I try to gave you a message, but you didn't get it.

You said that the lack of proof meant there was no God. Lack of proof is not a proof. This is the argumentum ex silentio. Secondly, no one is arguing from a theological and thus transcendental position here. The rest of your comment is just silly I am afraid. You are creating strawmen to dig yourself out of this one. No one here said God was this or God was that other than the axiom of the three o's, or the absolute.

Re Australia, Aristotle and then Ptolemy speculated about the Terra Australis Incognita based on an odd idea about balancing the planet- to put it briefly. Their theoretical bases were wrong but when Australia was discovered it took its name from this. Gerardus Mercator 1569 and Alexander Dalrymple as late as 1767 also continued this speculation.

So the idea of Australia or the "southern continent" had been around for quite a while. I am sorry but your pathetic situation is too entertaining. I mean what kind of person, can contrast himself that much. Lets take a look at your previous response.

Argumentum ex silentio. The lack of proof does not negate existence until one perhaps reaches a state of absolute knowledge. In the year 1200 there was no concrete proof of the existence of Australia in Europe, does that mean Australia did not exist- at least as far as European were concerned? Perhaps it didn't but then we are not being existentialists here are we? Now, see how miserably pathetic you are. Two contrasting statements from our own responses. Firstly, Aristotle's and Ptolemy's calculations were inaccurate. Their entire conception about geographical maps(except known world) were inaccurate. Terra Australis Ignota was not based on any documented knowledge of the continent. According to Ptolemy, Indian Ocean was enclosed on the south by land, and that the lands of the Northern Hemisphere should be balanced by land in the south. His map doesn't depict any continent which is surrounded by the ocean, but they did show an Africa which had no southern oceanic boundary (and which therefore might extend all the way to the South Pole), and also raised the possibility that the Indian Ocean was entirely enclosed by land. Simply, Terra Australis Ignota was a myth and it is mostly used in the renaissance Europe. If this name is given to newly discovered continent, it doesn't mean that Terra Australis Ignota was actually Australia. For source, you can check his map. And, do not embarrass yourself with contrasting posts and inaccurate information.

Also, I didn't say that only lack of a proof meant god does not exist. I said, god is not a thing which is oblivious. Simply, god is not an unknown. Idea of god is like a hypothesis which gives us some knowledge about god. I said by evaluating these information, we can disprove existence of god. Along side with that, I mentioned that Australia was not know in medieval times. It was discovered. But, god is not a physical thing which can be used alongside with your example. Let's make it clear. Deficiency of proof cannot mean a physical existence doesn't exist. However, according to belief, god is not a physical existence. As a consequence, you cannot use both proofs, or lack of proofs, briefly concept of proof, to come to a conclusion that lack of proof to disprove existence of god can mean there may be a god that waits for us to discover it. There are characteristics of god to evaluate his existence. Just a simple example (as a paradox);
1.God is both omnipotent and omniscience.
2.God knows about past, present and future.
3.God can set things in any order, in any way he wish.
4.God certainly know what his settings will be in future.
5.By using his omnipotence, god can change what he will be arrenging in future.
6.If god can change anything, anytime, it's certainly not possible to know for god what things that he will arrange for future, or how he will arrange.
7.Therefore, god doesn't exist.
Do not give a lame example like apple and pea. This is what god is, both omnipotent and omniscience. No atheist invented this.

Re God- I defy you to find me a single definitive description of God in the Old Testament. God is referred to, allegorised and speaks but he is never described- in fact, you ought to know that ancient Judaism forbade this outright and most of the terms used to describe God are allusions, metaphors and the like. It does not matter, whether you describe god from description of a narrative, or by making god speak to tell about himself in holly books. Without a description, you don't have any thing to argue, or believe in. Simply, in bible, christian god is eternal, has a personality, has feelings, has a sense of aesthetic, can judge and has justice, has holiness, has omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, omnipresence and immortality. And I don't think you can create another conception of god regardless to christian tradition and what authorities think.
Also, other abrahamic religions have similar description for their god. Some of them are slightly different such as trinity concept in Christianity. Especially, Islamic theologists evaluate this concept by using different philosophies and examples. Jewish conception can be different to. This may explain why Jews did not recognize Jesus as a messiah.

Right, so without absolute knowledge it is impossible to come to an absolute conclusion. Absolute conclusion cannot be made without absolute knowledge. According to you, we are not in a position to have absolute knowledge, namely truth. Therefore, you cannot say “without absolute knowledge it is impossible to come to an absolute conclusion.” Because, it is an absolute statement.

Well if your argumentation is not logical then what is it? Illogical? Transcendental. For goodness sake look up the difference between a synthetic fact and a logical truth. But if logic is not part of truth-- okay. What is truth then according to you? (there's a trap here- watch out! ) You don't have to mention this again. I have never seen that you think my arguments are logical. But, as it appears, it can be quite the opposite from my side. Firstly, logic is not a magical word that one can use that frequently. While, I argue, I give my opinions, and so do you. I think most of my arguments are logical. I agree, I can make mistakes. Err to human. But, it doesn't mean each thing I say, or major points of my arguments are wrong. What is truth to me? Lol Truth is truth. Truth is true, reliable information, knowledge, sense(grammatically)... shortly anything which leads us cross the bridge of unknown, vague, wrong ..etc

Your adding words here.... sneaky.... caught you! :D The holy books are subjective not objective, they cannot be used to provide an objective valuation nor are they absolute- by their own admission often. Hmm. Holly books only place where we learn about the god we know. According to you, they are subjective. Therefore, we cannot talk about an objective existence of god. Therefore, there is no god out of human mind and people's understanding or imagination.

So the books of the various religions are absolute? By the way, I said that I wanted to avoid a theological argument, I am not arguing here about what I believe or I don't believe. I am using a logical line. I see you are attributing "him" to God... interesting. If they are not absolute, god is not absolute. God is the main character of books, and books where we learn his characteristics. I argue about god which is in theology. I don't know anybody cares about a god which is nothing to do with theology. And, even from your vague position, I can tell you are an agnostic.I am not the only one. And, there are many philosophers who think that existence of god is philosophically refutable: "Philosophers Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier have assembled a volume of essays on the logical arguments claiming to show the impossibility of gods with various attributes. Here is how they classify these types of disproofs:
• definitional disproofs based on an inconsistency in the definition of God
• deductive evil disproofs based on the inconsistency between the existence of God who has certain attributes and the existence of evil
• doctrinal disproofs based on an inconsistency between the attributes of God and a particular religious doctrine, story, or teaching about God
• multiple-attribute disproofs based on an inconsistency between two or more divine attributes
• single-attribute disproofs based on an inconsistency within just one attribute"

No, I am not a creationist. I was pointing out that the word that is interpreted as day, i.e. "yom" pl. "yamim" actually does not only mean day at all. I also stated that it doesn't mean that God literally made everything in a week- that was the ironic comment. Because some religionists take it to mean that and are perhaps woefully ignorant of their own scriptures does not mean that you can attack their interpretation as opposed to the scriptures themselves. That's like saying football is bad because there are football hooligans... I didn't mention that you were a creationist. But, the arguments you use are creationist arguments. I got your thoughts about "yamim". However, I did not argue about it. Abrahamic books, simply, measure creation by using days. You cannot deny this by saying it's just literature. If you say it is just some literature, then we should evaluate other characters in literature differently, such as hobbits. By the way, I don't say religions are bad because of their inconsistencies and wrongly informative parts.

i suggest you look up the Hebrew meaning "yom"- If you can't be bothered to look into the critique of your points and just dismiss perfectly valid comments and sourced statements whilst at the same time tailoring the facts to your own argument it does not say much for your powers of reasoning in this field. Simply, bullshit. But, okay. Let's assume, 'yom' doesn't only mean 'day' in hebrew. However, in bible, days are mentioned with mornings, and evenings. It certainly means days. Second and most important point is yom is means day in "hebrew". It is the main meaning of the word. It can be seasons, time..etc. But, english day also can mean seasons, time. For example, the day will come, when we learn about dark matter. Day can be used as a particular period of time. For example: in QueenVictoria's days..etc. So when we referred to day in an english sentence, do we create a vague sentence? I don't think so. Same arguments are going on for hebrew word "yom". It seems like even religious people can have to change their theology against scientific data.

So what? This was not a discussion about the validity of the Bible, Qu'ran or any other Holy Book. For the seventh day, see below. Darn, again and again. Holy books are the sources where we learn characteristics and existence of God. If they are invalid, it is almost certain that their so called creator is invalid too. No creator can do basic mistakes about life and the universe.

LOL!!! Do you know what a metaphor is?... continued below. Do you know what confusion is? ... continued below.

Silicon is found as an ultratrace mineral in the human body. I think you'll find H4SiO4 othosilicic acid is absorbed by humans and is found in numerous tissues including bone, tendons, aorta, liver and kidney. Compelling data suggest that silica is essential for health although no RDI has been established. However, deficiency induces deformities in the skull and peripheral bones, poorly formed joints, reduced contents of cartilage, collagen, and disruption of mineral balance in the femur and vertebrae.
Silicon, itself, cannot be found that much in living organisms. I mean, silicon itself is too inert to be biologically active. With in the form of aqueous oxygen compound, it can be found in some food which we eat. It doesn't mean human body needs silicon. When two or more elements become compound by a chemical reaction, they lost thier formal characteristics. For example, hydrogen is inflammable, oxygen is necessary for burning. Contrary, H2O has a potential to extinguish. There are various compounds of the element, silicon, oxygen and hydrogen, such as;
metasilicic acid, orthosilicic acid, disilicic acid, pyrosilicic acid ...etc. I don't know if only H4SiO4 can be found in human body. As you mentioned, it's ultra-trace. Many elements can be found in human body in the same amount or more. For example; mercury, some unnecessary metals, even radiative ones. They often didn't count something as main, and necessary compounds of human body. Some of them can be beneficial for body, though. Nonetheless, the rate of this compound in human body clearly demonstrate that there is a distinct difference between components of human body and components of soil. There is another scientific fact that life started in the water.

Re carbon, well according to my quick check over 2700 gigatonnes of carbon are calculated to be held in the soils of the world. Now I freely admit I do not know what percentage of total world soil this is- sorry I don't happen to have that fact at my fingertips but 2700 gigatonnes suggests that this is hardly a trace element. I don't know the exact number. I don't think anybody knows, but the estimate that you found can be correct. It's not a trace element. I have never said it is a trace element. It mostly exist in soil from living organism, as a part of organic compounds, or from their remnants. It is mostly found in fossil fuels. It can count something in soil; however, it is not a main component which can be found in soil. And, soil does not have similar carbon compounds which is essential for human body. Even plants use carbon-dioxide in the air which is a rare gas in a comparison with, nitrogen and oxygen. Carbon is very important for living organisms. We gain our energy from it(carbohydrates from plants). Carbon compounds are very important parts of our body structure. It can be found in proteins, amino-acids, fats and various parts of body cells. Soil, simply, doesn't have an active role in production of carbon compound. It can be essential for organic recycle though. But, from the remnants of living organisms. A claim that human body is made from soil, dust..etc, is an unfortunate assumption.

Thanks for the Bible lesson... but.... oh dear..... your basing your argument on one of those darn literal interpretations of the Bible again... very dangerous for an argument.
Bible is not a literal source? Therefore, we should not look at literally? I think bible can be a movie. We should just watch it.

By the way, ton occurrehe Jewish narrative is that there were six days of creation, i.e. six days in which creatid. The seventh day was the day of rest, "shabbat", שבת, literally the cessation of creation. Oops... perhaps you should have read a bit more than Genesis 1.... :)

Genesis 2:2-3 2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
Yeah, I know. I though saying 7 instead of 6 would be more general for other abrahamic religions.(especially one of the major religions). I might have been used number 6. Nonetheless, 6 or 7 is just an entertaining number which stands against scientific data.

Was that in the original axiom? You haven't seemed to grasp the concept that if God is omnipotent, absolute, then de facto any definition of God is imperfect other than perhaps the "absolute".

How can you argue logically that God is not omnipotent because God cannot do that which is impossible? By its very nature not possible?
If you invent any new definition or characteristics, you will have to deal with the original axiom about god. You might don't know how you sound like. Without a definition, you cannot talk about an existence. Secondly, I don't care what definition you invent for the concept of god, I argue about general, accepted, traditional, original concepts which depict an image in our minds, that we call `'god`'. If you claim there can be another existence rather than this one, it is not this god that I argue. You still have too many trouble with absoluteness. So, if god is absolute, attributions like, creator of universe, benevolent existence, omnipotent, omnipresent thing are imperfect and unabsolute? Well, the god you argue and I argue is different then. I argue about the god which is mentioned in holy books, various ancient religions etc. This god's definition is absolute to those religions without any doubt. By the way, if any definition of god is imperfect, absoluteness must be another imperfect definition. Absoluteness is another term that we create in our minds to describe something. If all of our description is imperfect, definition of absoluteness in imperfect as well. Then god will have no specific characteristic or a description. Every existence has a description. An existence like god, must have specific characteristics that can answer to questions which it is supposed to answer. But, still, there are various problems with your point of view about absoluteness.I don't wont to repeat. Briefly, check my response about your response about absolute knowledge.

Omnipotent- ie. omni (all) potent, from potens the present participle from the verb posse "can, be able to"-from Latin potis- able. A more apt translation would be "all-being-possible". Therefore to argue the omipotent-impossible line actually flies in the face of the meaning of the word, and is a logical fallacy.I know Latin(intermediate) You almost hit the meaning by those two words, but it is screwed by your final interpretation. Omni comes from omnia means all in Latin. Potent is an english word, and its Latin equivalent is potentia. Potentia means power. It also means ability. omnipotent simply means power or ability to do all. It doesn't limited by any possibility. Do not disturb the facts.

This is one of your better points. But the absolute, like the infinite is per se unlimited. So, your explanation has a potential to create another paradox. Firstly, it is not logical at all. I guess religious stand point is something like; god cannot be grasped by logic, but faith. Yeah, anyone can approach this matter through this way. But, it is bullshit to me. Everything exists has a regular patterns. If god exists, he must have some too. By observing this patterns, we use our logic to evaluate it's characteristics. If sun rise in 6 pm, you can calculate sun set. It is logical. You are doing here the same. It inevitable. You are bounding your imaginary god to logical laws by attributing characteristics like absoluteness, infinity, omnipotence. Otherwise, you can expect from your god to be omnipotent one day, limited another day. If you don't expect this, you use the laws of logic.

Well, you are flying in the face of any possibility of "winning" your argument. Because if you take logic out of the debate then there is no more debate. You cannot make apples into pears and thus your statement fails logically again.... You cannot make an illogical statement logical inasmuch as you cannot say that black is white unless you take a metaphysical argument which is de facto not an analytical logical one. If you start taking metaphysical arguments into account then you have no hope of disproving God. Well I have never been in an expectation of winning an argument. I think arguments are sharing ideas, maybe exchanging them. Both, sides can benefit from it. But, there is a serious problem with your explanation. You are not debunking the paradoxes that I post, but concept of god. If apple cannot be pear, god cannot be both omnipotent and omniscience. I gave another paradox in this response series. You can check it out. And I have no intention to make metaphysical arguments here, in this argument.

Well seeing as you have alluded to one incredibly famous paradox as one of the reasons why God cannot exist I think you are guilty of shifting the goalposts here. This logic is not my logic, it is logic. Paradoxes are logical arguments. Declaring them illogical ,as you do, doesn't represent too much meaning to me. And, I do not shift anything. And logic is nothing to do with your comment about paradoxes.

Your shifting the goalposts yet again. If we want a logical debate then we can have one, but if you are going to throw in odds and ends of various arguments all over the place, many based on incorrect assertions then it does not make for any debate at all. A transcendental argument cannot be reasoned logically or empircally and seeing as you seem to be taking an atheist and materialist position I don't see why you would want to go there to be honest. A paradox is neither valid nor invalid in that it is a paradox. Your mentioning of belief has nothing to do with this debate, because if we enter the realms of belief it's quite simple, for some who believe God exists, and similarly for some who do not believe he does not- end of story. Once again, declaring paradoxes illogical doesn't represent any value. If you think that is throwing odds and ends, I can think the same for your comments about paradoxes. And, you can even forget what you've mentioned by saying:" If we want a logical debate then we can have one" and " A transcendental argument cannot be reasoned logically or empirically and seeing as you seem to be taking an atheist and materialist position". What an irony! I will make no comment about this. You can figure out inconsistency of your arguments. Secondly, I am sure, as you know, I do not argue about beliefs or agnosticism, but debunking claims about existence of god by various books and religions. Take a look at the tittle of this post for a minute.

No paradoxes cannot be used- double negative. God is not against logic, you have a rather clumsy tendency of reification of concepts. Worthless attempts. What is double negative? Paradoxes can be used in any philosophical arguments. And, it's an interesting name for them. Hmm, double negatives?

LOL!!! Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the absolute until science itself is absolute which it is not. The rest of your comment seems to make no sense. At one point you seem to say that God is an atheist like us.... LOL!!! The rest is meaningless. Well, perhaps God could be an atheist because if God is God then God has no God for "godself" :).... Well done, I think we have proven that God is an atheist. LOL!!!! Come off it! Another meaningless argument line too. I said; "As atheist like us, god does not exist because of it against science, logic..etc." and you confirm this by saying god cannot be known, and logic cannot be used to find him, but faith. It's clear like day light, your description of gos is against scientific method. Therefore, I see no reason not to say these kind of arguments are against science. "At one point you seem to say that God is an atheist like us.... LOL", "Well, perhaps God could be an atheist because if God is God then God has no God for "godself" If this is not a joke, it is a such a poor observation about my responses.

Another logical fallacy. I have not misunderstood anything, you cannot hold a logical line of reasoning yet when it seems to get uncomfortable for you, either dismiss things or throw in a weird concoction of facts and references in order to digress- this page is so full of red herrings I could make a nice fish pasta. I don't want to use words like "logical fallacy" for the sake of not making it cliche. I, well hold my arguments. I pointed out all inconsistent parts of your arguments. Still, it's easy to say that my arguments are illogical, poorly reasoned..etc. By the way, sure you can make a nice fish pasta. If it is not tasty, fault is only yours by not cooking it properly.

What has that got to do with the logical arguments for and against God? Appeal to consensus and ad hominem- two for the price of one here- I detect a challenge to authority too, so in fact it's three for the price of one! :D Well, by your arguments, we are already argued about many things. Let us argue this one as well.

Typos, well seeing as a couple of your paragraphs are so ungrammatical as to be incoherent it does effect the outcome of the discussion. More strawmen here. Yeah. Ad hominem. And, I am sorry to say this, but while you post this, you made a couple of grammatical mistakes. "The pot calling the kettle black"

I think you mean didactic. Nope. Sometimes, they appear to be dictations which I am obligated to learn.

Using my argument back on me---- please. You are the one who seems to be mixing up a hocus-pocus concoction of ideas leaping from one belief system and/or mythology to another when it suits- even throwing Tolkien into the mix- love the logical fallacy here, hobbits don't exist so God doesn't exist either? Does that mean there is no Santa Claus too.... oh no....! :) I suggest you find out what people mean by God... I was just trying to show that I take your arguments serious. If you don't understand this, shame on you. And, Christianity can be mythology as well. Maybe for some people. And in mythologies, there are gods and other crap. So, you call it logical fallacy? I call your evaluation "bullshit". Look at this: "hobbits don't exist so God doesn't exist either? Does that mean there is no Santa Claus too.... oh no....!" How, a person like you, can think that hobbit does not exist without proving their non-existence? I sometimes think that you think like me, but try to play stupid games. It's not impressive at all. Come on!

You are scraping the barrel here.... some can think what they are want. Hell, some institutions have people who think they are Cleopatra and Napoleon in them... what's that got to do with anything? To use your rather vulgar example- Does it require absolute knowledge of the entire universe to see that a piece of shit on the grass is nothing more than an accumulation of faecal matter deposited on a small patch of plant life? :) Unfortunate words. I did not scrap any barrel there. Thoughts which does not have a parallel line with out of mind, does not exist in real world. So, anyone can think anything, and call it "god". It's clear that god is imaginary. You keep hunting down yourself with your own inconsistencies. If god is non-empirical, even the entire knowledge about universe won't give you any clue about existence of god. And, about piece of shit on the grass. Well, how the hack our lovely savior, jesus the freaking christ, as a human being, can be god of the millions? Damn, a piece holly shit can be your god. Do not dare to deny it. I think he can be more pitiful than any abramic god. As an agnostic, you can go to heaven. May the holy shit, only true god bless you. Amen!

My personal opinion here- if you make up your mind on such matters based on the subjective writings of a few selected holy books written thousands of years ago then you are perhaps guilty of a cognitive bias too, as bad as the religious fanatics but in the other extreme.

Dismissing the argument here.... cowardly if I may say so. Take a look at the arguments that I typed from the essays of Philosophers Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier. I think it summarize some points that I argued.

The universe doesn't work with changes does it? So what is evolution, a chemical reaction or the life-cycle of a cell if it is not a change?

I think you are guilty of some very bad physics here. What is the law of conservation of energy? I thought it was an empirical law of physics, a consequence of which being that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be
transformed from one state to another. What does transformed mean if it does not mean "change" from one state into another?
Oh this one is my fault. I probably misspell the word, unfortunately text editor's spellchecker's one of the alternative words pasted there.
I meant: Nice story, but universe doesn't work with chances, but with its laws.

So far we have

1. So many logical fallacies I have lost count.
2. Jumping from logical, to transcendental to metaphysical arguments.
3. Flawed historico-cultural facts (Australia)
4. A minor flaw with biology (silicon)
5. A major flaw with physics (law of conservation)
6. Using literal interpretations of the Bible to show that literal interpretations are not valid when I for one would say that literal interpretations are a waste of time.
7. A flawed knowledge of scripture then quoted as some kind of proof or other.
1.It's very easy phrase to type. Soo maannyy loggicalll fallacies..... woooohh!!! Really?
2.Yeah. If you mention god cannot be grasped by logic, you push the line to supernatural arguments. Lameness? Here it is.
3.Ha ha ha. Your screwed history lesson really sucked. Cultural facts? lol no comment on this.
4. No mistake. There is almost no silicon in human body, which can be found in soil. Silicon compounds are not element silicon. Simple chemistry ignorance.
5.Physics, where? Oh it must be about my misspelling? Go ahead.
6.I wonder if bible is photographic, viral, or cinematic. It is literal. It seems like bible is not different than the book of hobbits. It was literal too.
7. Scripture. wow? Don't use the word, which you have no idea about their meanings.

So far you made
So many inconsistent statements.
1.So many inconsistent statements.
2.Forgetting your side, and assuming that your points of views belong to me led you arguing meaningless sub-topics.
3.Unnecessarily and wrong philosophical information or examples(about determinism- and Rene Descartes)
3.Giving examples which does not suit my fact.
4.Seeing only minor points and supporting details as if they are the major points that I argue.
5.Assuming something that is literal cannot exist. And assuming some of other literal characteristics can be existed.
6.Frequent use of word "logic", "logical flaw". And making them cliches.
7.Giving misleading historical lectures.
8.Denial of philosophical arguments such as paradoxes, and assuming they are illogical.
8.Thinking existence of god can be know only by knowing about entire universe while assuming god is un-empirical, out of logic and subjective.

Dude, give up...... Why don't you just say....?

"I don't believe in God based on my own subjective experience and perception of reality."

..... because that would have been fine, irrefutable and would have saved a lot of bandwidth and your making a mockery of atheism (sorry about the needling :)).... Hell, anyone would think I were the atheist and you the theist, ironic eh? Lame...! One word is enough in my opinion.
Why don't you just say:
"I do not know what is god, even though he has some characteristics to be called god. I overlook all religious doctrines and assume they are literal. Therefore I don't want to evaluate his existence. An I am comfortable with appearing as an agnostic rather than infidel."?
If you think my arguments are lame, keep thinking. Your thoughts doesn't have any effect on their status. Any believer, or agnostic can think that atheist arguments are easy to refute. So, we think the same think for you. And, bandwidth. Sorry, but you are the last person to talk about bandwidth with one of the lowest reputation on this website. "Hell, anyone would think I were the atheist and you the theist, ironic eh? " Made a joke, let's laugh, hahahaha :D I am sure, anyone would think that you are a believer who defends arguments about god and me as an atheist who try to respond your broken points with your own words.

ComradeMan

8th February 2010, 11:57

@Newsocialism

Well, before I start- let me say that your posts are rather long, incoherent and jump from one argument to the next, to then quote and reply would trash the thread with about ten pages of interpretation. But let's have a look at some of the points you raise.

As you expressed yourself, you think that you don't believe we can perceive, or reach true knowledge with our limited minds. I think of the opposite. .......

What was said was clear enough.

If God is absolute then in order to have the knowledge needed to affirm or deny God we would have to possess absolute knowledge now.

Do we possess absolute knowledge? No. Can we prove or disprove God? No.

Simple as that.

God's being important...
God's importance was a brief summary of Soren Kierkegaard's position....

Post-religion arguments...
Well, you keep jumping from scripture to science to theology to one idea and another. I told you that it was not a debate about theology. Your jumping from one theological framework to another just blurs the issue. The existence of God is not tied here to any one particular theological school.

I want to talk no more about logic...

Perhaps because your arguments are so full of flawed logic it renders them completely illogical. If you don't want to apply logic to an argument then it's a waste of time. It's like a lawyer disregarding principles of law in a legal case...

Aha! If I vote this blundering, it would get 8 out of 10 from me. Man! What you believe is not like believing in god. Shallow point of view. There are two possibilities for beliefs or thoughts. They can be true, or false. If a belief is true, it can proven and become objective reality. If it is false, it can be debunked. Remember! It is my thoughts. Don't judge with your own thoughts. Your response may become ridiculous. Otherwise, every thing, that is rendered

You don't seem to understand that a belief is entirely subjective, existentiial if you like and has no place in a logical argument. That's why politicians use sneaky phrases like "I believe it was the right thing to do.." etc. There is nothing shallow about this at all. We have to base our arguments on logic. If you want to bring subjective issues like belief into the matter then you might as well argue that you as far as most 4 year old children are concerned Father Christmas is real. Prove he isn't....:D

A thought is not a truth and cannot be proven true or false. You seem to have no conception of this. Objective realities cannot be deemed true objectively based on subjective perceptions. I suggest you look up the meaning of (synthetic) fact, truth, belief and thought.

Australia...

Well, apart from the fact that you made a historical statement that was completely inaccurate and wrong you seem not to grasp the slight detail of "concrete" proof- or one of your so-called "true knowledge" ideas. In 1200 in Europe there was theoretical speculation of a "southern continent" but none of your true knowledge that it existed. By your argument it did or did not exist then?

Absolute conclusion cannot be made without absolute knowledge. According to you, we are not in a position to have absolute knowledge, namely truth. Therefore, you cannot say “without absolute knowledge it is impossible to come to an absolute conclusion.” Because, it is an absolute statement.

Nice try, good bit of sophistry..... I suggest you have a read through Hegel or perhaps remember this from Robiner "What is absolutely true is always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. An entity's ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth."

You keep switching from relativist to absolutist positions in your attack on absolutism.

I found a nice little piece here too...

"The statement, ‘Absolute truths do not exist.’, reveals the characteristic of absolute truth. Absolute truth does not apply to reality, existence, belief, or to human intelligence. In the logic of dichotomy of true-not true, application is without respect to what is absolutely true. Certainly, absolute truth does not define material existence, but supports material existence, position, and state of being. Absolute truth is as applicable to ‘not true’ as it is to ‘true’. The double negative reveals this monistic status of absolute truth. The non-existence of absolute truth would, if true, be as true as the existence of absolute truth in an absolute sense. To postulate the non-existence of truth; however, is to violate the most fundamental capacity of mind. It is as though a snake could swallow itself by starting at the tail. Therein lies the value of absolute truth for thought. Violation of truth value in an absolute sense, validates the truth value of existence versus non-existence. Some say, “If I see it I believe it.” Others say, “I believe it if I know it.” If the sense of knowing is little better than the sense of sight, little can be made of the analogy. The acuity of the sense of absolute truth may not be good enough for most to clearly distinguish the difference between what is true and truth itself."
http://www.myswizard.com/2005/12/31/absolute-truth-definition:

Truth is truth. Truth is true, reliable information, knowledge, sense(grammatically)... shortly anything which leads us cross the bridge of unknown, vague, wrong ..etc

Truth is truth... another logically flawed definition here. If I said, ipso facto, God is God- would that hold water in this argument? What is the bridge of the unknown? Who do you define vague and wrong? Very subjective interpretations here.

Hmm. Holly books only place where we learn about the god we know. According to you, they are subjective. Therefore, we cannot talk about an objective existence of god. Therefore, there is no god out of human mind and people's understanding or imagination.

Because all conceptions of God have been linked exclusively to Holy Books.... false premise here. Anywhere, we are not arguing about the Holy Books, let's call this a post-religious argument shall we?

If they are not absolute, god is not absolute. God is the main character of books, and books where we learn his characteristics. I argue about god which is in theology. I don't know anybody cares about a god which is nothing to do with theology.

God is not defined absolutely by the Holy Books in which God is described- frequently in such a way as to concede to God's being "unknowable"... I suggest you read them more carefully.

By the way, this is not a theological argument. Seeing as most, if not all, of theology relies on personal and divine revelation which cannot be proven either way it is completely pointless bringing theology into it. If you want to wander into the realms of theodicies and metaphysical arguments fine... but then this is no longer a logical argument.

And, even from your vague position, I can tell you are an agnostic.I am not the only one. And, there are many philosophers who think that existence of god is philosophically refutable:

More logically flawed argumentation. I might as well say there are many philosophers who do think that God's existence is possible, like the many 4 year olds who think Father Christmas exists too....:) Appeals to hifger knowledge here....

Why is my position vague? I have stated the axiom if you like- it's quite clear. Stop using weasel words to define my position etc. You can tell I am an agnostic, couldn't be more wrong--- pop goes one of your true knowledges!! LOL!!!

deductive evil disproofs based on the inconsistency between the existence of God who has certain attributes and the existence of evil

The existence of evil. Hmmm.... good one. But good and evil are human constructions, a post-religious argument would posit such lines as they are subjective and qualitative values defined by society and period, nothing more. Slavery is evil now, was slavery evil to an Ancient Roman? Difficult argument here. Nevertheless, the "free will" argument also resolves the problem of evil.

Show me logically what is good and what is evil.

"yamim". However, I did not argue about it. Abrahamic books, simply, measure creation by using days. You cannot deny this by saying it's just literature.

You are completely ignoring the interpretation of the word throughout the Old Testament and basing one of your rants on one particular literal translation that is not taken ad letteram by most today.

I don't know if only H4SiO4 can be found in human body.

Right, you don't know. I do- because I check my facts before I make comments. You were wrong, you had no idea of what you were talking about but you used the fact anyway, arrogantly, to support your argument. :( As someone who seems so concerned with "the true knowledge" it's quite poor you post scientific nonsense....

I know Latin(intermediate) You almost hit the meaning by those two words, but it is screwed by your final interpretation. Omni comes from omnia means all in Latin. Potent is an english word, and its Latin equivalent is potentia. Potentia means power. It also means ability. omnipotent simply means power or ability to do all. It doesn't limited by any possibility. Do not disturthe facts.

LOL!!!!!!!!!! :D:D:D Well, I know Latin too, and my other language, Italian, derives directly from the silver tongue.

"Omnipotent"- the word is basically identical in Italian- "omnipotente", potente- gerundio di potere "essere abile, capace di ecc". Potent(e) is not an English word, it is a word in English derived from Latin. "potentia" does not mean power- it means the "ability to do" which is transferred to "power" in that someone who has power "can do"- it's also where we get the word "potential". My interpretation of the Latin is not off the mark by any means, so I suggest you "don't limit" the possibilities by a poor understanding of the etymology of words.