Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.11 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-02-2015, 02:42 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(03-02-2015 02:37 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(03-02-2015 02:17 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  And once you conceive an absolutely necessary supernatural being that is the First Cause and Creator of everything that was made, you don't need to go any further than that.

[Image: odin-delivers1.jpg]

Though perhaps this YHWH chap is god, (my second choice) but I would just believe in YHWH, not this false prophet Jesus:

Mashiach: The Messiah

It's turtles all the way down.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2015, 04:32 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(03-02-2015 12:58 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-02-2015 06:49 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Except that there is no evidence of a mind existing without a brain so there is no reason I can find to think that minds are not products of brains.

I think there is evidence of the mind being independent of the brain, and second, just for arguments sake, there is also no evidence that the brain is the origin of the mind...at best you can show that there is correlation, but correlation is not necessarily the same as causation.

If you have evidence of a mind that is not dependent on a functioning brain please present it. As far as I know there is no such evidence. Correlation does not prove causation but it sure provides grounds for a working hypothesis, especially in the absence of ANY contradictory examples.

Quote:
(03-02-2015 06:49 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Methodological naturalism is the only method we have that consistently increases our knowledge. When some other method is shown to work reliably I will incorporate it into my reasoning.

Well, consider other methods of knowledge...you know, like mathematical proofs, moral proofs, philosophical proofs, proof from experience, etc. Science is only one method amongst many.

I have no idea what a "moral proof" is. The others all depend on the axioms and premises selected and if those aren't grounded in anything that is demonstrably real then they may be interesting, and potentially even useful, but they aren't knowledge in the same sense that methodological naturalism provides.

Quote:
(03-02-2015 06:49 AM)unfogged Wrote:  There is a difference between hypothesizing and faith. Krauss is not saying he can demonstrate his speculations to be true, just that they are avenues for investigation.

The God Hypothesis is also an avenue for investigation, but if you are only using empirical methods for this avenue, then you won't get far.

Without empirical methods all you have is supposition. I agree that you don't get far without them but what I don't understand is why anybody thinks they actually get anywhere with anything else. It is all just different fantasies.

Quote:
(03-02-2015 06:49 AM)unfogged Wrote:  He's also showing that there are options to consider other than "magic man did it". I will say that it is good to see that you recognize that faith is unreliable.

Well, until science can give a naturalistic explanation for the orgin of the universe, the origin of consciousness, and the origin of life, then I am perfectly rational to postulate a transcendent cause for all three of these things.

It is rational to say "I don't know". It is rational to hypothesize, or postulate, but those guesses only have value if you can come up with ways to test them to see if they work. That's what Krauss is doing. Just saying "must be god" is not answering the questions, it is giving up on them.

Quote:
(03-02-2015 06:49 AM)unfogged Wrote:  I'm not a physicist and don't pretend to understand all of what Krauss is saying but I don't see that he is pre-supposing space-time. He is proposing that space-time came from nothing and was not "placed in" anything.

If the universe popped in to being out of nothing, then there had to be preexisting space for it to exist in...if there was no space, then where would you put it??? If you are moving furniture into a house, you are moving it in to preexisting space, right? Well, how much more is this the case for an entire universe?

No, no pre-existing space. The idea is that space itself is being created. I agree it is a strange concept and I'm not saying that I think Krauss is correct because it is beyond my education in the field so I am in no position to hold a position about it.

If you believe that a god existed somehow "outside" our universe in order to create it then you have only backed the question up a level. That god must exist in some sort of spacetime and the immediate question is where did that come from. Postulating an eternal god because the idea of an eternal universe seems absurd just obfuscates that absurdity so that it isn't as uncomfortable to think about. Claiming a god doesn't resolve anything.

Quote:
(03-02-2015 06:49 AM)unfogged Wrote:  It is definitely a mind-bending concept but no more so than a universe being created by a deity that pre-existed in some other space-time that didn't have to be created because it always existed. Krauss' proposal is certainly simpler since it doesn't start with an incredibly complex and powerful being.

So saying that the universe popped in to being out of nothing is more simplier than a causal agent?? Okkkk.

Yes, a causal agent is a complex thing which is by definition more complicated than just a quantity of mass/energy. I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm just saying that the idea of a universe from nothing IS simpler than starting with a god because you don't then have to explain the god.

Quote:
(03-02-2015 06:49 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Please elaborate on the defined properties of the state of nothingness and how you know what can and can't come into existence ex-nihilo.

So if I asked you what did you have for lunch, and you say "nothing", what do you mean by nothing? If you don't mind, I'd like to answer your statement with a question of my own.

The terminology is difficult and easy to equivocate on. "Nothing" for lunch is just saying that there is no object to which I gave the label "lunch". That's not quite the same as the "nothing" that the universe may have come from. We're talking no space, no time, no energy, no matter, no dimensions, no vacuum, ... nothing.

This is all kind of a red herring though, as whether the universe came from "nothing", or there is a multiverse of some kind, or something else we haven't conceived of, or even if there is something that could be labelled a god, is completely irrelevant to my atheism. I do not know what came before the big bang or if "before" even makes sense in that context. I'm not going to jump to "god" to make me feel like I've answered the question because I have zero evidence for that hypothesis. If positive evidence for a god ever turns up and it is compelling then, and only then, will I treat it as a reasonable belief to hold.

Quote:
(03-02-2015 06:49 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Speculating that energy could appear seems to me to be the simplest option and the minimum requirement; from that the rest follows given time.

So you find the concept that energy could apear from a state of nothingness more plausible than a causal agent??? Is that the price of non-belief? And as I said before, the state of nothingness doesn't have any pre-conditions or rules that will allow only universes or particles to exist and not other things like cars, money, or horses...so why just universes? What is the rule which state that only universes can come in to being? And what kind of rule would this be? A natural law?

You keep saying that but you don't know what can possibly be created from a state of nothingness. We don't have a state of nothingness that we can investigate to determine what limits may or may not exist. We know that we have a universe. We do not know what preceded the form it is currently in or what possibilities there are. Physicists are working on it. Until they make more progress my answer is "I don't know" and I am quite comfortable that that is the best answer available to me right now.

Quote:
(03-02-2015 06:49 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Subjective morals and moral relativism are not the same thing.

Actually, both terms mean the same thing...and if you think otherwise, please define both.

Moral Relativism is a philosophy under which all moral systems are considered equally valid. That is a subjective position which some people maintain. I do not. For example, in many Islamic areas it is immoral for a women to venture out unescorted by a male relative. If I were a moral relativist I would have to say that that restriction is moral within their culture. Under my evaluation of what is and is not moral I find that to be an immoral practice.

Quote:
(03-02-2015 06:49 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Given a defined goal, various subjective moral beliefs can be evaluated and accepted or rejected based on how well they advance you towards the goal.

And who is to say whether the goal itself is a morally benevolent goal? What determines this? The individual? The society? Right back to the world of subjectivity.

Yes, morality is subjective. As individuals we bring our opinions to the table and as societies we create rules that we agree to abide by. Morality is a social construct. The only thing objective about it is that it operates within a physical reality that defines limits.

Quote:
(03-02-2015 06:49 AM)unfogged Wrote:  According to Christianity, one man committed suicide by cop in order to be a blood sacrifice of himself to himself in order to allow himself to forgive the people he created because they didn't make the choices that he wanted them to despite being omniscient and omnipotent. It is a house of cards that doesn't stand up to the smallest amount of scrutiny. Hmmmm indeed.

And according to naturalism or any other "I don't believe in God" worldview, inanimate either suddenly or gradually came to life and began talking, thinking, and having sex. To me, that is a house of cards that doesn't stand up to the smallest amount of scrutiny either.

Then you haven't studied it sufficiently.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
03-02-2015, 06:14 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(03-02-2015 02:42 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Though perhaps this YHWH chap is god, (my second choice) but I would just believe in YHWH, not this false prophet Jesus:

Mashiach: The Messiah

It's turtles all the way down.

Jesus Christ was/is the greatest man that ever lived.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2015, 06:18 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(02-02-2015 06:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(16-05-2012 05:42 AM)Zephony Wrote:  Recently, I was re-watching QualiaSoup's The burden of proof video when at one point several common arguments for god appeared on the screen and I realized I didn't know a single one off the top of my head. In order to better educate myself and others who may not know them as well, I'll try to explain some of the common debate arguments and how each is countered. Please add any arguments you feel us under-informed people should know about.

I had to lol at the "countered" part.

(16-05-2012 05:42 AM)Zephony Wrote:  Ontological Argument
Ontology - The branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being as such.

One of, if not, the first ontological arguments came from Anselm of Canterbury. He defined God as the greatest possible being we can conceive and argued that this being could exist in the mind. He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible - one which exists in the mind and in reality. In more layman terms, God is a perfect being. A perfect being must have all perfections. Existence is a perfection. Therefore, God must have existence. God must exist. To deny this is self-contradictory.

This was first refuted by Gaunilo of Marmoutiers using The Perfect Island argument. If we were to name this perfect island Serenity, and simply inject Serenity in place of God and replace being with island, we'd come to the conclusion that Serenity must exist, which it doesn't. It's a false conclusion and therefore Anselm's reasoning is flawed.

Everyone knows St. Anslem's version of the ontological argument is flawed, that is why we have the up-to-date Plantiga version...the Modal Ontological version.

(16-05-2012 05:42 AM)Zephony Wrote:  Argument from Beauty
Coming from the writings of St Augustine, beauty is something that transcends its physical manifestations. Since it transcends the physical and natural world, it must come from the supernatural, God's realm. Thus, beauty comes from the supernatural, God is supernatural, God must exist.

There's the saying "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." If beauty was created by God, wouldn't it be universal? Not everyone finds the same things to be beautiful, and beauty is constantly redefined by each generation (models for example). If every beautiful thing is not considered beautiful by everyone, it couldn't have come from God.

The argument from Beauty is not one that I would tote as an apologists.

(16-05-2012 05:42 AM)Zephony Wrote:  Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG)
Transcendental arguments start from some accepted aspect of experience, and then deduces what must be true for that experience to be possible.

In the case of TAG, we start with logic, reason, and knowledge. It's argued that our logic is inherently circular (we use logic to create a hypothesis and then (dis)prove that hypothesis with logic). Therefore, we must conclude God is the source of our logic in order to avoid an infinite regress.

An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, the truth of proposition P2 requires the support of proposition P3, ... , and the truth of proposition Pn-1 requires the support of proposition Pn and n approaches infinity.

The main response to TAG revolves around the premise: "without a god, knowledge cannot exist." If the premise is indeed accepted, it can lead to the conclusion a god does exist, but the argument provides no demonstrated necessity to accept this premise. A transcendental argument for the non-existence of God has been put forward that uses the same unsubstantiated premise that "the existence of knowledge presupposes the non-existence of God."

I don't get it.

(16-05-2012 05:42 AM)Zephony Wrote:  Argument from Complexity
This is also known as irreducible complexity (IC), which was first coined by Michael Behe. It is used by supporters of intelligent design. If something is IC it must have a creator, and that creator being God. IC posits that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from natural selection. Behe defines an IC system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

Evolutionary biologists have shown that such systems can evolve, and that Behe's examples constitute an argument from ignorance. In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."

For a specific example, Behe mentioned the flagella of bacteria, which functions as a type of motor, requiring the interaction of about 40 protein parts. He asserts that if any of these 40 parts were taken away, the flagella would be unable to function. It has been shown that the base of the flagella is similar to the Type III secretion system of pathogenic germs. This TTSS is used by germs to inject toxins into cells. the TTSS shows that the flagella is not IC.

We don't necessarily need to postulate fine tuning or complexity before we can answer the questions regarding the origins of life or the origins of the universe. Cart before the horse fallacy.

(16-05-2012 05:42 AM)Zephony Wrote:  Mind-Body Problem Argument
The mind-body problem concerns how, if at all, the mind and body interact. There are two main schools of thought on the problem.

Monists believe only one type of substance makes up existence (matter: electrons, neutrons, protons, quirks... etc) They believe there is no problem because the mind is part of the body and interacts as any other body part would.

Dualists believe that the mind and body are two completely separate things made of separate substances. The body is made of matter while the mind is made of something else. Theists believe that the mind may be in fact your soul. If one's personal soul exists, then the Bible is correct in that your soul either ascends to Heaven or descends into Hell when one dies. This then proves the existence of God.

One way to argue against this and the dualists is by stating that the soul has not been scientifically proven to exist and it may be impossible even it if did exist because the soul is said to be metaphysical. Also, if a soul does exist, it does not automatically lead to the conclusion that a God exists and created it.

If we are using the mind to be synonymous with the soul in this case, then for you to say "the soul has not been scientifically proven to exist", well, science has also not been able to explain the natural origins of consciousness either. The question is, what is the best explanation? I would make the case that mind-body dualism is the best explanation to explain the origin of consciousness.

(16-05-2012 05:42 AM)Zephony Wrote:  Cosmological Argument
The cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of a First Cause to the universe. This First Cause is claimed by theists to be their God. The argument is usually stated as such:
  1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
  2. A causal loop cannot exist.
  3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
  4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.
A causal loop or chain is a type of causality or causation. Causality is the relationship between an event and a second event where the second is a consequence of the first.

One variation of this argument is William Lane Craig's (WLC) Kalam Cosmological Argument. It states that:
  1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
  2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;
  3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
Of course WLC concludes that since the universe has a cause, it must have been God.

During the Scholastic era (1100-1500) St Thomas Aquinas created a predecessor to the cosmological argument; the Argument from Contingency. This argument builds on Aristotle's idea that "There must be something to explain why the Universe exists. Since the Universe could, under different circumstances, conceivably not exist (contingency), its existence must have a cause – not merely another contingent thing, but something that exists by necessity." In other words, even if the Universe has always existed, it still owes its existence to an Uncaused Cause,

This is by far one of the more difficult arguments to counter. I guess the best response would be that we currently don't have the answer, but that doesn't mean science won't figure it out, and just because it's currently unknown doesn't mean God did it. There was a time when we didn't understand what caused lightening, so we attributed it to Thor, Jupiter, and many other gods.

You are advocating naturalism, by implying that we should only believe what can be scientifically proven and all other methodologies and ways of knowledge is insufficient, which is circular reasoning. You will wait on science to figure it out, and I will wait on Jesus to return..and we shall see which one happens first.

(16-05-2012 05:42 AM)Zephony Wrote:  Lawrence Krauss has been publicizing the idea of "A Universe From Nothing." Basically, quantum fluctuations which pop in and out of existence account for most of the mass and energy, and yes, scientifically, something can come from nothing. A good video to help explain this idea can be seen here .

1. This is all speculation on Krauss' part. We have no knowledge of any universe out there besides our own...we cannot see beyond the observable universe and to postulate such is to rely on the unseen, the unobservable, which is...faith.

2. Krauss has already been called out on equivocating the word "nothing", by making it mean "something". For a universe to pop in to existence out of nothing, one will have to presuppose a pre-existing space-time for it to be placed in...so then the question would become where did the pre-existing space come from?

3. The "infinity problem" is a philosophical problem that is independent from physics, which means that no matter what cosmological model one postulates, it will be subject to "infinite duration", which is irrational on its own merits.

4. If something can come from nothing, then the question will become why doesn't anything and everything pop in to being from nothing? The state of "nothingness" doesn't have any pre-conditions or rules that will only allow particles or universes to come into being and not other things like money, cars, horses, etc.

(16-05-2012 05:42 AM)Zephony Wrote:  Moral Argument
While there are many variations of this argument, they all follow the basic outline:
  1. Either moral objectivity exists or there must be a moral order in the universe
  2. God is the best explanation for this
  3. Therefore, God exists.
The problem with this is that not everyone finds the same actions or in-actions to be moral or immoral. Some cultures still find it morally just to chop the hands off a thief while others find this to be immoral. Some find homosexuality to be immoral based on their religious beliefs while others with similar or completely different beliefs find nothing wrong with it.

Well, the argument is basically if you believe that moral values DO exist, then a transcendent lawgiver is necessary. Now, if you reject the concept of objective moral values, then that implies that all moral values are subjective and we are living in a world of moral relativism.

(16-05-2012 05:42 AM)Zephony Wrote:  One scenario I find fascinating is The Trolley Problem. This states: You see a trolley flying down the track and is about to run over five people. There's a switch that can be thrown to divert the trolley, but instead of killing the five people, it'll kill one person. Would you throw the switch to kill the one person and save the five? An overwhelming majority of people say that yes they would. A variation of this is The Fat Man: You're standing on a bridge and see a trolley flying down the track and is about to run over five people. A large enough mass would stop the train and save the five people. A very fat person happens to be standing near by. Would you push this fat person onto the tracks and kill him to stop the trolley in order to save the five? Nearly all who answered yes to the original problem answered no to this variation. But what's the difference? Isn't the outcome still the same? Sacrifice one to save five? It's still a "net gain" of four lives.

I would save the five and kill the one, you know why, because according to Christianity, one man died to save the entire WORLD. Hmmmm.
How certain are you that the five will be killed? You are assuming an outcome because you think you know all the elements of a situation, but maybe one of the five will push one or more of the others out of the way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2015, 06:32 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(03-02-2015 06:14 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Jesus Christ was/is the greatest man that ever lived.

Hello! Big Grin

Sorry I missed you in the introduction thread. Smile

Also, citation for the above comment needed.

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
03-02-2015, 06:56 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(03-02-2015 06:14 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-02-2015 02:42 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Though perhaps this YHWH chap is god, (my second choice) but I would just believe in YHWH, not this false prophet Jesus:

Mashiach: The Messiah

It's turtles all the way down.

Jesus Christ was/is the greatest man that ever lived.

But he wasn't the messiah, that's just silly.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2015, 07:14 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  If you have evidence of a mind that is not dependent on a functioning brain please present it. As far as I know there is no such evidence.

That is easy, we can start off by the Law of Identity, which state that if you have two entities (or whatever), A and B, if there is something true of A that isn't true of B, then A and B are not identical. If they were identical, then what is true of A should also be true of B.

So when we talk about the mind and the brain, mental states such as happiness, anger, joy, sadness...these are mental states, not physical states....so when you are happy, your brain isn't happy...nor is the neurons in your brain happy...YOU are happy, not your brain. That distinction alone is enough to say that the brain and the mind are two separate entities.

Second, our brain is made up of matter, no one will argue that...but I can conceive of a scientist taking the cartilage that the brain is made up and going to a lab and proceeding to shape and mold the cartilage into a brain...but where would the consciousness come from?

Thoughts are immaterial, you cannot weigh or touch the thought of a cat...so if the scientist wanted to make the brain think of a cat, how will he do it? It isn't as if he can pull the thought of a cat out of a deep freezer and carry it over to the brain and place the thought on top of the brain and watch the thought sink into the brain, and now suddenly the brain is thinking of a cat.

So where would consciousness come from, even if you shaped a fresh and brand new brain from preexisting material???

Can't happen...and you can try all you want, but you are unable to conceive of how on earth could consciousness originate from preexisting material, can you? Because it didn't happen.

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Correlation does not prove causation but it sure provides grounds for a working hypothesis, especially in the absence of ANY contradictory examples.

And what hypothesis would that be, and what is the framework to test it?

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  I have no idea what a "moral proof" is.

Moral proof shouldn't have been on the list.

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  The others all depend on the axioms and premises selected and if those aren't grounded in anything that is demonstrably real then they may be interesting, and potentially even useful, but they aren't knowledge in the same sense that methodological naturalism provides.

Ok, so the statement "We should only believe things that can be scientifically proven", the truth value of that statement itself cannot be scientifically proven, so methodological naturalism is a self defeating concept.

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Without empirical methods all you have is supposition. I agree that you don't get far without them but what I don't understand is why anybody thinks they actually get anywhere with anything else. It is all just different fantasies.

Well, if empirical methods is incapable of answering my questions, I shouldn't look elsewhere for answers?

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  It is rational to say "I don't know". It is rational to hypothesize, or postulate, but those guesses only have value if you can come up with ways to test them to see if they work. That's what Krauss is doing. Just saying "must be god" is not answering the questions, it is giving up on them.

Actually, it is the Law of Excluded Middle...I have only two options: Goddidit, or Naturedidit...If I can prove that nature couldn't have done it (which I can), then the God hypothesis wins by default...there is no middle ground here. The origin of the universe, life, and consciousness will always be sciences' biggest problems.

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  No, no pre-existing space. The idea is that space itself is being created. I agree it is a strange concept and I'm not saying that I think Krauss is correct because it is beyond my education in the field so I am in no position to hold a position about it.

Makes no sense. If we were sitting in the living room watching the SuperBowl and we heard a loud POP coming from the room, and you asked me "What the hell was that" or "Where did that POP come from", and I respond "Oh, nothing"...would you accept that?

I mean seriously, be honest.

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  If you believe that a god existed somehow "outside" our universe in order to create it then you have only backed the question up a level. That god must exist in some sort of spacetime and the immediate question is where did that come from.

Not at all, God is a spirit...a mind...which would make him immaterial, and something that is immaterial does not occupy space. And since I believe that God was in a timeless state (stationary state) from eternity, there was no time...time began only when God began to create.

The universe on the other hand, that does occupy space, and that does exist in time..and there is no way out of it either.


(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Postulating an eternal god because the idea of an eternal universe seems absurd just obfuscates that absurdity so that it isn't as uncomfortable to think about. Claiming a god doesn't resolve anything.

Actually, God resolves everything. If you can go in a lab and demonstrate how a universe could have originated from nothing, how life could have arisen from nonliving material, and how the brain can be the origin of consciousness...if you can demonstrate these things, then I would become a naturalist. Until then, I will stick to my theism.

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Yes, a causal agent is a complex thing which is by definition more complicated than just a quantity of mass/energy. I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm just saying that the idea of a universe from nothing IS simpler than starting with a god because you don't then have to explain the god.

Ok, so explain what is it about the universe that will allow only universes to pop in to being out of nothing...instead of cars, money, or horses?? So basically, what you are saying that you find the idea that a horse can just pop into your room out of nothing...you find that idea rational?? Okkkk. That is the price of atheism right there....belief in absurdities all because you don't want to believe in the Almighty.

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  The terminology is difficult and easy to equivocate on. "Nothing" for lunch is just saying that there is no object to which I gave the label "lunch". That's not quite the same as the "nothing" that the universe may have come from. We're talking no space, no time, no energy, no matter, no dimensions, no vacuum, ... nothing.

Well, lets put it in the same light that the universe is in...suppose your stomach was empty and then suddenly it became full with food, despite the fact that you didn't eat anything...the food came from nothing. Now as absurd as that may seem, how can that be any less absurd than an entire universe??Big Grin

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  This is all kind of a red herring though, as whether the universe came from "nothing", or there is a multiverse of some kind, or something else we haven't conceived of, or even if there is something that could be labelled a god, is completely irrelevant to my atheism. I do not know what came before the big bang or if "before" even makes sense in that context. I'm not going to jump to "god" to make me feel like I've answered the question because I have zero evidence for that hypothesis. If positive evidence for a god ever turns up and it is compelling then, and only then, will I treat it as a reasonable belief to hold.

Well, you don't have to worry about labeling it as a god, because there is no evidence of Krauss' universe, nor is there evidence of a multiverse...so there isn't even any evidence of the natural stuff...all we know is that our universe had a beginning. As mentioned previously, the philosophical problem of infinite duration in time is a independent problem...independent of the physics of the universe, and neither Krauss or anyone else can help you there.

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  You keep saying that but you don't know what can possibly be created from a state of nothingness. We don't have a state of nothingness that we can investigate to determine what limits may or may not exist.

Wait a minute, we don't have a state of nothingness that we can investigate yet you are advocating Krauss' model which imply a universe from nothing? Undecided

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  We know that we have a universe. We do not know what preceded the form it is currently in or what possibilities there are. Physicists are working on it. Until they make more progress my answer is "I don't know" and I am quite comfortable that that is the best answer available to me right now.

Well, you can wait for physicists to figure it out, and while you are waiting for that, I will be waiting on Jesus' return. Thumbsup

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Then you haven't studied it sufficiently.

LMAO
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Call_of_the_Wild's post
03-02-2015, 07:17 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(03-02-2015 06:14 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-02-2015 02:42 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Though perhaps this YHWH chap is god, (my second choice) but I would just believe in YHWH, not this false prophet Jesus:

Mashiach: The Messiah

It's turtles all the way down.

Jesus Christ was/is the greatest man that ever lived.

Not even a contender.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2015, 07:17 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(03-02-2015 06:18 PM)wadehthomson Wrote:  How certain are you that the five will be killed?

Call it a hunch lol
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2015, 07:20 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(03-02-2015 06:32 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Hello! Big Grin

Sorry I missed you in the introduction thread. Smile

For the first time in my life, I was missed Big Grin

(03-02-2015 06:32 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Also, citation for the above comment needed.

Much cheers to all.

I cite the entire New Testament Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: