Debunking the cosmological argument

[Mythbuster]

We have all seen the famous cosmological argument at one time. I have written a comprehensive essay on it's rebuttals.


The Cosmological argument says this:

(P1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(P2) The universe began to exist.
(C1) Therefore, the universe has an uncaused cause.

Then the argument tries and proves that God is the only uncaused cause that could cause the universe.

Throught this debate, I will show how that argument is blatantly false.

Premises 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

This premises is false and blatently decitful. Let's take, for example, Quatum Fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations are completely random, uncaused events."...Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature. ..." ~~Victor Stenger [1]

Since the very first premises is false, the entire argument is invalid. "Whatever ebgins to exist has a cause." Well, I shown that is not 100% true using quantum fluctuations.

Premises 2: The universe began to exist.

At the end of the Cooke-Aijaz debate (1999), the debate moderator made a few good comments that I wish to share that should shed light on the second premesis.

"How sure are we of that? Not very. Though we have good evidence that the observable universe began about 14 billion years ago, we know nothing at all about what existed before then. For example, a leading contender to standard Big Bang theory today is Brane Theory, which posits that the Big Bang was just a Local Bang in a much larger metauniverse. On that theory, which is entirely consistent with all current scientific evidence, the universe could have been around for an eternity before that event occurred--and in fact, such events might happen all the time, like every few trillion years. Other theories posit that the Big Bang was a "bud" from another universe, and that in fact there are an infinity of interlocking and budding universes, stretching back endlessly. And so on. Not only are such theories consistent with empirical evidence, they are coherent. Therefore the proposition "the universe began to exist" is not necessary but only true to some measure of probability. How probable? The likelihood of it being true is inscrutable to us, because we lack the information we need to assess probability here. Therefore, any conclusion derived from this premise shares the same inscrutable probability. In short, it gets nowhere better than agnosticism: we just don't know. Aijaz never addresses this problem, because Cooke never raised it.' [2]




References
1. http://www.infidels.org...
2. http://www.infidels.org...

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

(1) Have you ever read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason? It give a fuller account of the debates for and against the argument and ultimately the limit of metaphysics on making an absolute claim for or against.

(2) Quantum physics is not a sufficient proof of something random. Just because it appears random and you can't see a cause, it doesn't mean that there is no cause.

(3) Where do the multiple universes come from? Where do the principles that govern the creation, maintenance and destruction of these many universes come from?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This video is a comprehensive takedown of the Kalam version of the argument:

baZUCc5m8sE


(1)
Have you ever read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason? It give a fuller account of the debates for and against the argument and ultimately the limit of metaphysics on making an absolute claim for or against.

We can never state anything with 100% certainty (except in mathematics), but we can assess the probability of a claim, based on empirical evidence.


(2) Quantum physics is not a sufficient proof of something random. Just because it appears random and you can't see a cause, it doesn't mean that there is no cause.

Bell's theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem) suggests that "hidden variables" are impossible. I have no idea why philosophers seem to dislike the idea of a statistical universe, especially since it's a potential escape from that other bugbear of modish philosophers, determinism.


(3) Where do the multiple universes come from? Where do the principles that govern the creation, maintenance and destruction of these many universes come from?

Why does the multiverse have to "come from" anything?

[Mythbuster]

Should we stick this thread in case someone wants to use the cosmological argument or needs to refute it?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

We can never state anything with 100% certainty (except in mathematics), but we can assess the probability of a claim, based on empirical evidence.


Er, you cannot by definition answer the question by empirical means. The whole point of the "first cause" is that it is where the entity which you know empirically comes from.



Bell's theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem) suggests that "hidden variables" are impossible. I have no idea why philosophers seem to dislike the idea of a statistical universe, especially since it's a potential escape from that other bugbear of modish philosophers, determinism.
I didn't say that quantum physics is not random and that there are necessarily hidden variables. However, I don't know if you can ever prove that there aren't hidden variables. Admittedly, I am not familiar with Bell's Theorem, however I haven't heard of conclusive proof that quantum mechanics is either determined or random. This is one of the interesting questions in quantum mechanics.



Why does the multiverse have to "come from" anything?If you don't believe in the need for existing things to have a cause, it sorts of defeats the purpose of talking about a "first cause" to begin with (or "causality" in general for that matter).

[gendoikari]

This premises is false and blatently decitful. Let's take, for example, Quatum Fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations are completely random, uncaused events."...Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature. ..." ~~Victor Stenger [1]



Wow, wrong. A) they are not completely random they are random determined by, B) they are "caused" by the wave nature of particles.


"How sure are we of that? Not very. Though we have good evidence that the observable universe began about 14 billion years ago, we know nothing at all about what existed before then. For example, a leading contender to standard Big Bang theory today is Brane Theory, which posits that the Big Bang was just a Local Bang in a much larger metauniverse. On that theory, which is entirely consistent with all current scientific evidence, the universe could have been around for an eternity before that event occurred--and in fact, such events might happen all the time, like every few trillion years. Other theories posit that the Big Bang was a "bud" from another universe, and that in fact there are an infinity of interlocking and budding universes, stretching back endlessly. And so on. Not only are such theories consistent with empirical evidence, they are coherent. Therefore the proposition "the universe began to exist" is not necessary but only true to some measure of probability. How probable? The likelihood of it being true is inscrutable to us, because we lack the information we need to assess probability here. Therefore, any conclusion derived from this premise shares the same inscrutable probability. In short, it gets nowhere better than agnosticism: we just don't know. Aijaz never addresses this problem, because Cooke never raised it.' [2]
He's got some misconceptions about brane theory but he's mostly right here. Universes or branes are created via collisions with other branes with the 11th dimension That is to say they exist within strings, which are the sub atomic particles which make up everything, and those particles exist within other universes ALA we exist within a matroska doll universe.

[TelevisionIncarnate]

Even if the universe has a cause, it doesn't necessarily have to be God...

[gendoikari]

Even if the universe has a cause, it doesn't necessarily have to be God...

Or it could be a god, but not a being.

[graymouser]

The classic cosmological argument in Aquinas is subject to an obvious vicious circularity: if God had to create the universe, God needs a creator C(God), and C(God) needs a creator C(C(God)) and so on ad infinitum. The modern Kalam argument is William Craig's attempt to formulate this in a way that is not subject to this type of circularity.

Unfortunately, I think it falls apart on "begins to exist" in both premises. We haven't observed the creation of matter/energy, outside of wave fluctuations in virtual particles, so we cannot say that the universe "begins to exist" in the same sense that, say, a tree begins to exist. A tree is pre-existing matter and energy in new configurations, nothing more. The premises rely upon a deliberate conflation of two meanings of "begin to exist."

What's really odd is that so much of the philosophical discussion of the question comes around actual and potential infinities. Craig has focused on this in order to talk about the "begin to exist" of the universe, and engaged in some fairly sophomoric attempts to do so. (Basically he says that if you started at 0 you could never reach infinity, which is illegitimate in and of itself.) I think more hammering away at "begins to exist" would bury this dead dog in the philosophical world.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Er, you cannot by definition answer the question by empirical means. The whole point of the "first cause" is that it is where the entity which you know empirically comes from.

Hang on, are you saying that there is no empirical difference between a caused and an uncaused universe? Because if so, then the question becomes irrelevant.


I didn't say that quantum physics is not random and that there are necessarily hidden variables. However, I don't know if you can ever prove that there aren't hidden variables.

The onus is on those who believe in "hidden variables" to show evidence for them.


Admittedly, I am not familiar with Bell's Theorem, however I haven't heard of conclusive proof that quantum mechanics is either determined or random. This is one of the interesting questions in quantum mechanics.

That's because as far as I can tell, QM is neither determined, nor random. It is statistical - we may not be able to predict the radioactive decay of a single atomic nucleus, but we can aggregate the general rate of decay in order to derive a half-life.


If you don't believe in the need for existing things to have a cause, it sorts of defeats the purpose of talking about a "first cause" to begin with (or "causality" in general for that matter).

I'm saying we don't know whether things ultimately need a cause or not. As for "causality", whether things have a cause or not doesn't change the direction of the arrow of time for most objects. The fact that subatomic particles pop in and out of existence seemingly without cause does not change the fact that attempting to "un-whisk" an egg is more trouble than it's worth.

[Zealot]

The Cosmological argument is not an argument in the first place since they exclude their god from the first premise and make a conclusion based on that. There isn't even a need to debunk it but yeah, good point about quantum fluctuations.

[graymouser]

The Cosmological argument is not an argument in the first place since they exclude their god from the first premise and make a conclusion based on that. There isn't even a need to debunk it but yeah, good point about quantum fluctuations.
William Lane Craig has argued extensively that God exists atemporally and eternally - and that it would require an atemporal being to "start" the universe.

Of course, he hasn't come up with a way to make atemporality a sensible concept (hint: what happened before God created the universe?) but that's actually been fairly well covered in the current debate in philosophy of religion.

One of the things you have to realize is that Anglo-American analytical philosophy actually doesn't have any good arguments for any position, they just have long debates over the minutiae of technical problems in various arguments.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Hang on, are you saying that there is no empirical difference between a caused and an uncaused universe? Because if so, then the question becomes irrelevant.


Not quite, I'm talking about the argument in Immanuel Kant's critique of pure reason. He argues that it is logically absurd to claim that there is proof for either infinite time or a first cause. You cannot discover such a thing by logic or by experience. Both claims rely on logical assumptions and any argument by experience is merely a logical regress (who created adam? who created yahweh? what caused the big bang? etc).



The onus is on those who believe in "hidden variables" to show evidence for them.
Except I'm not claiming that there are hidden variables, just that there is no way to prove either statement. Its random nature or its hidden nature are both equally speculative. It seems more like a black wall which we cannot see anything on the other side of.



That's because as far as I can tell, QM is neither determined, nor random. It is statistical - we may not be able to predict the radioactive decay of a single atomic nucleus, but we can aggregate the general rate of decay in order to derive a half-life.
So that tells us when something happens but it says nothing about the cause. Most phenomena have a statistical component, but science is not just concerned with the statistical distribution of events but the structures which underpin that statistical distribution. It could be determined or random, or something else which we cannot conceptualize, but either way it is not a phenomena which scientists seem to have a firm grasp of (yet, perhaps)



I'm saying we don't know whether things ultimately need a cause or not. As for "causality", whether things have a cause or not doesn't change the direction of the arrow of time for most objects. The fact that subatomic particles pop in and out of existence seemingly without cause does not change the fact that attempting to "un-whisk" an egg is more trouble than it's worth.I would agree with this. But it then defeats the purpose of either proving or disproving the "cosmological argument" as this thread claims to do by using QM or multiple universes.

[Demogorgon]

I was going to nitpick several things said here, but I am too tired too bother, so rather I will just say the most important point. The Cosmological Argument is junk because it essentially tries to talk about what happened before time which is completely and utterly meaningless. Talking about what happened "before" the Universe, that is to say, what caused it is like asking what lies at the end of a circle or where the fourth corner of a triangle is.

[tradeunionsupporter]

This is a good article.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Not quite, I'm talking about the argument in Immanuel Kant's critique of pure reason. He argues that it is logically absurd to claim that there is proof for either infinite time or a first cause. You cannot discover such a thing by logic or by experience. Both claims rely on logical assumptions and any argument by experience is merely a logical regress (who created adam? who created yahweh? what caused the big bang? etc).

"Pure reason" is a poor tool for actually finding out things about the universe. A strict adherence to Kantian rationalism would never have allowed us to discover the Big Bang - after all, we cannot reach such a conclusion using solely reason and experience.

So forgive if I express skepticism of such a long-dead luminary's methods. He hasn't been keeping up with the latest data.


Except I'm not claiming that there are hidden variables, just that there is no way to prove either statement. Its random nature or its hidden nature are both equally speculative. It seems more like a black wall which we cannot see anything on the other side of.

We've no reason to believe that causes are necessary for such quantum mechanical events. So why not just take them as they appear to us - random, uncaused events that can be statistically evaluated - at least until we recieve evidence that all is not as it appears...


So that tells us when something happens but it says nothing about the cause. Most phenomena have a statistical component, but science is not just concerned with the statistical distribution of events but the structures which underpin that statistical distribution. It could be determined or random, or something else which we cannot conceptualize, but either way it is not a phenomena which scientists seem to have a firm grasp of (yet, perhaps)

You have to establish that a cause is necessary in the first place. Just because a large number of objects and events in the universe as we currently understand it require a cause does not necessarily mean that all objects/processes require a cause.


I would agree with this. But it then defeats the purpose of either proving or disproving the "cosmological argument" as this thread claims to do by using QM or multiple universes.

Presenting an alternative hypothesis more in line with current opinion in the field of cosmology, or pointing out the flaws and errors in the Cosmological Argument, is not the same as attempting to "disprove it", which is clearly an exercise in futility.

Also, cosmology is the field that will provide useful answers if any are to be found. Philosophy and theology have too much of a preponderance of self-indulgent navel-gazing and obstinate delusion, respectively.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

"Pure reason" is a poor tool for actually finding out things about the universe. A strict adherence to Kantian rationalism would never have allowed us to discover the Big Bang - after all, we cannot reach such a conclusion using solely reason and experience.

So forgive if I express skepticism of such a long-dead luminary's methods. He hasn't been keeping up with the latest data.


Not at all, on the contrary Kant's ideas are in no way incompatible with the discovery of the big bang. The big bang has been established as a fact by a rational attempt to envision a theory which is consistent with the empirical data. Therefore rationality and experience were used to find the big bang, just like any complex scientific theory. The issue is that there is a temporal point beyond which it is impossible, or seemingly impossible, to see causal patterns behind.

What Kant would say is that there's no way one can rationally prove that the big bag itself is the creation of the Universe, and that there was therefore nothing before it.



We've no reason to believe that causes are necessary for such quantum mechanical events. So why not just take them as they appear to us - random, uncaused events that can be statistically evaluated - at least until we recieve evidence that all is not as it appears...
I'm not saying quantum mechanical events cannot be viewed as uncaused, but there is no reason to extrapolate any particular metaphysical claims based on that conclusion. We know that it's possible that there might be random phenomena, but we don't know that it is a material truth that there are, and it's questionable whether one can really, substantively prove either claim the way you could, say, prove that the earth is round.



You have to establish that a cause is necessary in the first place. Just because a large number of objects and events in the universe as we currently understand it require a cause does not necessarily mean that all objects/processes require a cause.
Of course it doesn't mean that there has to be a cause for all objects. But it is arrogant to think that just because we haven't found evidence of a causal chain that there isn't, and the fact that other phenomena do have causes means that we cannot assume that quantum particles are completely arbitrary.



Presenting an alternative hypothesis more in line with current opinion in the field of cosmology, or pointing out the flaws and errors in the Cosmological Argument, is not the same as attempting to "disprove it", which is clearly an exercise in futility.

Also, cosmology is the field that will provide useful answers if any are to be found. Philosophy and theology have too much of a preponderance of self-indulgent navel-gazing and obstinate delusion, respectively.You seem to think I'm minimizing the importance of cosmology. Not at all. Cosmology should be considered when asking these questions. However, you cannot ignore the limits of cosmological theories, as explained by philosophy and theology, as soon as you start using those cosmological theories to make metaphysical claims.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Not at all, on the contrary Kant's ideas are in no way incompatible with the discovery of the big bang. The big bang has been established as a fact by a rational attempt to envision a theory which is consistent with the empirical data. Therefore rationality and experience were used to find the big bang, just like any complex scientific theory. The issue is that there is a temporal point beyond which it is impossible, or seemingly impossible, to see causal patterns behind.

You're doing a little two-step here that I think is disingenuous - you're conflating "experience" and "empirical evidence", which are not necessarily the same thing. Forensic specialists hardly ever experience the crimes the investigate, but by gathering evidence from a scene they can give one a pretty good impression of what happened.


What Kant would say is that there's no way one can rationally prove that the big bag itself is the creation of the Universe, and that there was therefore nothing before it.

Who says it necessarily is? Physicists and cosmologists are generally agnostic on the issue. Besides, that still doesn't rule out discovering something about the big bang that gives us a clue as to its origins.


I'm not saying quantum mechanical events cannot be viewed as uncaused, but there is no reason to extrapolate any particular metaphysical claims based on that conclusion. We know that it's possible that there might be random phenomena, but we don't know that it is a material truth that there are, and it's questionable whether one can really, substantively prove either claim the way you could, say, prove that the earth is round.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, then unless evidence otherwise comes in, it is a duck.


Of course it doesn't mean that there has to be a cause for all objects. But it is arrogant to think that just because we haven't found evidence of a causal chain that there isn't, and the fact that other phenomena do have causes means that we cannot assume that quantum particles are completely arbitrary.

All scientific data are provisional. It's not "arrogant" to accept phenomena as described by science, because they are based on evidence that can change at any time.


You seem to think I'm minimizing the importance of cosmology. Not at all. Cosmology should be considered when asking these questions. However, you cannot ignore the limits of cosmological theories, as explained by philosophy and theology, as soon as you start using those cosmological theories to make metaphysical claims.

Those "limits" I consider little more than attempts by philosophers and theologians to justify their career choices. Science's domain is the study of nature, including the universe and its origins.

[ComradeMan]

A strict adherence to Kantian rationalism would never have allowed us to discover the Big Bang - after all, we cannot reach such a conclusion using solely reason and experience.

Counter factual argument to hypothesis.

Must suck for you to know that the Big Bang theory was developed by a Beligian priest of Jesuit education at a Catholic University. :lol:

But anyway, cosmological arguments debunk themselves on the basis of there is no consensus really as to what the first two books of Genesis refer to. There is a theory that Genesis basically describes the creation of the world as we know it and does not preclude other prior worlds in which humankind was not present- at least as far as scripture is concerned. On a wider philosophical debate it's trickier.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Counter factual argument to hypothesis.

Excuse me? You've experienced the Cosmic Microwave Background? Your eyes are discriminating enough to pick up the redshift of distant galaxy clusters unaided?


Must suck for you to know that the Big Bang theory was developed by a Beligian priest of Jesuit education at a Catholic University. :lol:

At least he was smart enough to recognise that his hypothesis had no special place for God:

"As far as I see, such a theory [of the primeval atom] remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being. He may keep, for the bottom of space-time, the same attitude of mind he has been able to adopt for events occurring in non-singular places in space-time. For the believer, it removes any attempt to familiarity with God, as were Laplace's chiquenaude or Jeans' finger. It is consonant with the wording of Isaiah speaking of the 'Hidden God' hidden even in the beginning of the universe ... Science has not to surrender in face of the Universe and when Pascal tries to infer the existence of God from the supposed infinitude of Nature, we may think that he is looking in the wrong direction."

Seems like Lemaître wasn't a fan of looking for God in the universe, and no wonder; with increasing scientific knowledge, God has fewer and fewer places to hide. Except perhaps as a curiously tenacious artefact of human mental architecture.


But anyway, cosmological arguments debunk themselves on the basis of there is no consensus really as to what the first two books of Genesis refer to. There is a theory that Genesis basically describes the creation of the world as we know it and does not preclude other prior worlds in which humankind was not present.

The Cosmological Argument doesn't even reference the Bible. Of course the Christians who advance the argument typically assume that the Uncaused Cause refers to their God, but the baselessness of that assertion doesn't seem to prevent them from repeating it.

[Rafiq]

I've debates a Muslim who used both the cosmological and ontological argument for the existence of god. His name was hassanayyin raajibali. He was also a moralist. Basically his main tactic was talking over you and speaking unnaturqlly fast to the point where you can't understand him.

[ComradeMan]

Excuse me? You've experienced the Cosmic Microwave Background? Your eyes are discriminating enough to pick up the redshift of distant galaxy clusters unaided?

Any arguments about the "what ifs" of history are counterfactual.


At least he was smart enough to recognise that his hypothesis had no special place for God...

Doesn't deny it either.


eems like Lemaître wasn't a fan of looking for God in the universe, and no wonder; with increasing scientific knowledge, God has fewer and fewer places to hide. Except perhaps as a curiously tenacious artefact of human mental architecture.

No devout person is a fan of looking for God in the universe. I'll leave you to figure out why.


The Cosmological Argument doesn't even reference the Bible. Of course the Christians who advance the argument typically assume that the Uncaused Cause refers to their God, but the baselessness of that assertion doesn't seem to prevent them from repeating it.

I thought it was because it was picked and used by Thomas Aquinas? :lol:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Any arguments about the "what ifs" of history are counterfactual.

Please demonstrate how we could have confirmed the Big Bang hypothesis, using only reason and data from naked eye observation. My point was that Kantian rationalism is insufficient as a tool for investigating nature.


Doesn't deny it either.

Indeed. It's the lack of evidence for the God hypothesis that does that.


No devout person is a fan of looking for God in the universe. I'll leave you to figure out why.

Sounds like a No True Scotsman fallacy to me. Who are you to doubt the religious sincerity of Christians who do seek the evidence for their God in the natural world?


I thought it was because it was picked and used by Thomas Aquinas? :lol:

Maybe, but considering the quality of the argument, it's a wonder why any Christian looks up to him...

[ComradeMan]

Please demonstrate how we could have confirmed the Big Bang hypothesis, using only reason and data from naked eye observation. My point was that Kantian rationalism is insufficient as a tool for investigating nature.

I don't have to demonstrate anything, in a counter-factual history of what ifs it would just as valid to argue that someone else would have come up with something else that would have explained it.


Indeed. It's the lack of evidence for the God hypothesis that does that.

Exactly how?



Sounds like a No True Scotsman fallacy to me. Who are you to doubt the religious sincerity of Christians who do seek the evidence for their God in the natural world?

Matthew 16:4 "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign". (Edit corrected reference).

Maimonides also deals with this problem too as found in Exodus 33:20

"And he said, You can not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live."


Maybe, but considering the quality of the argument, it's a wonder why any Christian looks up to him...

Aristotle was wrong on many things, it's a wonder why anyone looks up to him... etc etc etc...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't have to demonstrate anything, in a counter-factual history of what ifs it would just as valid to argue that someone else would have come up with something else that would have explained it.

So you're saying that the Big Bang hypothesis can be confirmed with little no more than pure reason and experience? Elaborate please.


Exactly how?

Same way the complete lack of evidence for a psychic spider in the centre of Mars means its probability for existence is low to the point of being trivial.


Luke 11: 39 "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign".

What version are you using? Because my KJV bible has under Luke 11:39 "And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness"


Maimonides also deals with this problem too as found in Exodus 33:20

"And he said, You can not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live."

We may not be able to see God's face, but we can definately get a good look at his arse: a little further along in the same chapter:

Exodus 33:23 "And I shall take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen"

Also noteworthy is the context of the passage - Yahweh is talking to Moses personally: Exodus 33:11 "And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."


Aristotle was wrong on many things, it's a wonder why anyone looks up to him... etc etc etc...

Aristotle had some worthwhile things to say, but I've yet to hear of anything comparable from Aquinas.

[ComradeMan]

So you're saying that the Big Bang hypothesis can be confirmed with little no more than pure reason and experience? Elaborate please.

Ah.... so whilst debunking some arguments as being philosophical/teleological and nonsense etc as you frequently do- other arguments are valid even though they may be only "confirmed" through reasoning.

I didn't realise that the Big Bang had been reduced to a hypothesis, I still thought it was the prevailing comsological theory.



Same way the complete lack of evidence for a psychic spider in the centre of Mars means its probability for existence is low to the point of being trivial.

Well there goes abiogenesis out of the window. Lack of evidence and ridiculously low probability.


What version are you using? Because my KJV bible has under Luke 11:39 "And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness"

Sorry, should read Matthew 16:4 - corrected accordingly.


We may not be able to see God's face, but we can definately get a good look at his arse: a little further along in the same chapter:

Exodus 33:23 "And I shall take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen"

See Maimonides, it's actually a Hebrew metaphor for the "absolute" unknowability of God in the sense that God may be know indirectly but not directly.


Also noteworthy is the context of the passage - Yahweh is talking to Moses personally: Exodus 33:11 "And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."

It's a Hebrew metaphor for speaking directly. It does not imply they were sitting have a chat over a coffee.


Aristotle had some worthwhile things to say, but I've yet to hear of anything comparable from Aquinas.

That's your subjective opinion. Aquinas may have been flawed but he certainly has an influence today.

http://sulcus.berkeley.edu/wjf/CR%20FreemanAquinas.pdf

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Ah.... so whilst debunking some arguments as being philosophical/teleological and nonsense etc as you frequently do- other arguments are valid even though they may be only "confirmed" through reasoning.

The only exception I made was for mathematics. This is because it can be demonstrated without reference to material objects.

2 + 2 = 4 is a logical proposition, not a statement on the physical universe.


I didn't realise that the Big Bang had been reduced to a hypothesis, I still thought it was the prevailing comsological theory.

Well if one disregards all evidence except what can be personally experienced, then yes in such a view the Big Bang would be a hypothesis.


Well there goes abiogenesis out of the window. Lack of evidence and ridiculously low probability.

Whatever the odds of abiogenesis, they are bound to be higher than the odds for God. There's an entire universe filled with potentially life-bearing planets out there.


Sorry, should read Matthew 16:4 - corrected accordingly.

Looking at the context of that passage, it seems that the Pharisees and the Sadducees, quite reasonably (considering the extraordinary nature of such claims), asked for evidence of Jesus' divinity after his landing at Magdala. He then gives them some guff about predicting the weather by the colour of the sky, calls them hypocrites, and basically said "look, it's obvious!" before delivering the line you quoted and then more importantly, scarpering.

It makes Jesus sound like a double-talking charlatan.


See Maimonides, it's actually a Hebrew metaphor for the "absolute" unknowability of God in the sense that God may be know indirectly but not directly.

It's a Hebrew metaphor for speaking directly. It does not imply they were sitting have a chat over a coffee.

Oh for fuck's sake, the old "metaphor" dodge. Bollocks, bollocks and bollocks all the way through.

In fact, why the fuck are we even discussing out-of-context passages from the Bible? We know it was written by humans, and that claims of divine inspiration rely on there being a divine in the first place, for which there is no positive evidence and plenty of evidence that the universe was not created by some benevolent anthropomorphic being.

Since there is no evidence for the Christian God, I fail to see how Bible passages have any more weight than quotations from The Lord of The Rings.


That's your subjective opinion. Aquinas may have been flawed but he certainly has an influence today.

http://sulcus.berkeley.edu/wjf/CR%20FreemanAquinas.pdf

"Influence" is not the same thing as "having something worthwhile to say".

[Revolution starts with U]

Thats the problem of arguing w thiests. I have yet to debate one that makes the explicit assumption that God exists, works from there, and thinks you are stupid for not accepting their bare assumption.
(On a side note: I have a friend who was on acid and swears God talked to him. I point out the flaws in the cosmology God related to him and he basically just replies w "no evidence could sway me, I talked to God." Theists are so damned frustrating its almost sickening.)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Thats the problem of arguing w thiests. I have yet to debate one that makes the explicit assumption that God exists, works from there, and thinks you are stupid for not accepting their bare assumption.
(On a side note: I have a friend who was on acid and swears God talked to him. I point out the flaws in the cosmology God related to him and he basically just replies w "no evidence could sway me, I talked to God." Theists are so damned frustrating its almost sickening.)

Wait, so he doesn't find it the least bit suspicious that his conversation with God was aided by a powerful psychedelic?

What's funny is that when I took acid I didn't see God, but I did experience some moments of what felt like pure, distilled understanding coursing through my whole being. It's the closest thing I've ever had to a spiritual experience with the bonus of not having to believe in any bullshit.

[Revolution starts with U]

Wait, so he doesn't find it the least bit suspicious that his conversation with God was aided by a powerful psychedelic?
No, he thinks that makes it stronger.. connects him w ancient knowledge or some shit.


What's funny is that when I took acid I didn't see God, but I did experience some moments of what felt like pure, distilled understanding coursing through my whole being. It's the closest thing I've ever had to a spiritual experience with the bonus of not having to believe in any bullshit.

Same here. I dont really see any need for some magical wizard in space to feel connected to and experience an understanding of the All.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No, he thinks that makes it stronger.. connects him w ancient knowledge or some shit.

He isn't one of those New Age types is he? Because as annoying and disgusting as Abrahamic fundamentalists can be, it takes a New Age True Believer to make me angry enough to feel like biting through brick walls. Grrr.

[Revolution starts with U]

He isn't one of those New Age types is he? Because as annoying and disgusting as Abrahamic fundamentalists can be, it takes a New Age True Believer to make me angry enough to feel like biting through brick walls. Grrr.
The short answer; yes. The long answer... He's so new age, I fear he may start/join a cult.
We're all, like, a symphony brah. We just need to, like, you know, uh, get in tune, or something. Totally :thumbup1:
Dont get me wrong, we agree on a lot of stuff... I just keep away from da voodoo.

[ComradeMan]

The only exception I made was for mathematics. This is because it can be demonstrated without reference to material objects.

2 + 2 = 4 is a logical proposition, not a statement on the physical universe..

That's a bad example then because 2 + 2 = 4 .... not always, depends what scale you are using. But anyway, for argument's sake - why does 2 + 2 = 4?

But now if you want to go down the avenue of self-evident truths we have a problem too.


Well if one disregards all evidence except what can be personally experienced, then yes in such a view the Big Bang would be a hypothesis..

It's agood hypothesis too.


Whatever the odds of abiogenesis, they are bound to be higher than the odds for God. There's an entire universe filled with potentially life-bearing planets out there.

Well there was a guy who calculated the probability of God to be 67% once, using standard probability calculations. :lol:

But leaving that aside, what you are saying is that despite not being able to speak of the probablilties involved, there is "bound" to be (sounds like a belief statement) more of a probablity for one than the other- when in actual fact calculating the probabilities for either is mathematically problematical and open to flawed calculations based on assumptions.


Looking at the context of that passage, it seems that the Pharisees and the Sadducees, quite reasonably (considering the extraordinary nature of such claims), asked for evidence of Jesus' divinity after his landing at Magdala. He then gives them some guff about predicting the weather by the colour of the sky, calls them hypocrites, and basically said "look, it's obvious!" before delivering the line you quoted and then more importantly, scarpering.

It makes Jesus sound like a double-talking charlatan.

No, it makes you sound like a close-minded person who has decided a priori. The whole point from a Christian perspective is the message of Christ, by asking for "magic tricks" they show a lack of faith in the message Jesus was teaching- bearing in mind of course that they were all basically within the same religious background and religious mindset.


Oh for fuck's sake, the old "metaphor" dodge. Bollocks, bollocks and bollocks all the way through.

More ignorance. If you don't want to understand why waste your time in discussion. Do you speak Hebrew? Have you bothered perhaps to look up what the original Greek and Aramaic words means or what might be another interpretation? Probably not. Well done, you're on the same level of religious fundamentalists who say stupid stuff because they don't understand the basics of science---- they don't need to because it's decided to be nonsense a priori.


plenty of evidence that the universe was not created by some benevolent anthropomorphic being.

Well, exclude your strawmanish own definition of god for a moment and show me exactly what evidence there is that no higher intelligence may have been at work. Show the evidence that absolutely refutes this.


"Influence" is not the same thing as "having something worthwhile to say".

Did you read the article? Hmmm.... for someone to have an influence they must have had something in which people were interested.

[ComradeMan]

Thats the problem of arguing w thiests. I have yet to debate one that makes the explicit assumption that God exists, works from there, and thinks you are stupid for not accepting their bare assumption.
(On a side note: I have a friend who was on acid and swears God talked to him. I point out the flaws in the cosmology God related to him and he basically just replies w "no evidence could sway me, I talked to God." Theists are so damned frustrating its almost sickening.)

It's a problem with atheists too- they make the explicit assumption that God or whatever does not exist and work from there and think people are stupid foot not accepting their assumption.

Logical "neutrality" is what's needed- a "0" point. God can either exist or not exist and each person should try to debate from that point without contaminating the argument with their own belief or assumptions and furthermore without fallacious argumentation.

[Revolution starts with U]

I think tho, Comrade, that if you paid attention to this thread.. most of these "atheists" are willing to leave open the possiblity of God, they just deny the probability.
Im not sure you are willing to take the same stance.

[ComradeMan]

I think tho, Comrade, that if you paid attention to this thread.. most of these "atheists" are willing to leave open the possiblity of God, they just deny the probability.
Im not sure you are willing to take the same stance.

Well some aren't and if they are they don't show much open-mindedness when they trash all the arguments with expletives. I think it's clear when we mean people here and when we don't.

I told you my stance already- it depends on what level and which way we debate things.