I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-05-2014, 12:36 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(31-05-2014 12:28 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(31-05-2014 12:22 PM)catgoblin Wrote:  Thanks for the response, but as I understand it, this only addresses the Cosmological Argument, not the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which states that everything that ends had a beginning and everything with a beginning had a creator. It relies on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the usable energy in the universe is depleting, therefore the universe will eventually end/die (according to the book).

So, God, who exists outside of time and has no beginning or ending, needed no creator.

But the universe, which will end, had a beginning, so had to have been created.

Yes that is called special pleading and is fallacious. BTW the term "outside of time" is meaningless as acting requires time.

I realize this can technically be called special pleading, but since so little is known about the beginning of the universe, that seems like a weak argument to me. (I could be wrong...?)

And, sure, "outside of time" is scientifically meaningless, since we cannot observe/study this state, but surely it has theoretical merit?

And acting as we know it requires time...but a Christian might say that only acting as we know it requires time and God acts in ways we cannot understand. Obviously, this is ridiculous, but I wonder what the best response to this is?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2014, 12:39 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(31-05-2014 12:33 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(31-05-2014 12:28 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Yes that is called special pleading and is fallacious. BTW the term "outside of time" is meaningless as acting requires time.

it cannot be special pleading if you claim the universe is eternal and needs no creator.

no apologist has to claims God acted "outside of time" when creating the universe. this is a strawman.


The authors of "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" claim that God exists outside of time, since the universe is inextricably linked to time, and God exist/s/ed outside of the universe. So, if I were debating with you, it might be a strawman, but I'm addressing the argument made in the book.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like catgoblin's post
31-05-2014, 12:43 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(31-05-2014 12:39 PM)catgoblin Wrote:  
(31-05-2014 12:33 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  it cannot be special pleading if you claim the universe is eternal and needs no creator.

no apologist has to claims God acted "outside of time" when creating the universe. this is a strawman.


The authors of "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" claim that God exists outside of time, since the universe is inextricably linked to time, and God exist/s/ed outside of the universe. So, if I were debating with you, it might be a strawman, but I'm addressing the argument made in the book.

they say he is timeless, they do not say He created the universe outside of time though. the distinction is clear.

God creates the universe i.e the space-time manifold and this creative act is simultaneous with the coming into existence of time itself. the same way an indentation is made on a pillow when a basketball is placed on it. when the ball contacts the pillow the indentation is made simultaneously, not before and not after, but simultaneously.

the cause of the universe coming to be would have to be a personal agent who could exist timelessly and yet choose to create the universe i.e. the space-time manifold and therefore time itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2014, 12:46 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(31-05-2014 12:36 PM)catgoblin Wrote:  
(31-05-2014 12:28 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Yes that is called special pleading and is fallacious. BTW the term "outside of time" is meaningless as acting requires time.

I realize this can technically be called special pleading, but since so little is known about the beginning of the universe, that seems like a weak argument to me. (I could be wrong...?)

Here is the thing we don't know the universe is not eternal. We know that in this form it had a beginning but there is no way to tell what happened before the Big Bang and whether there is a cycle to it.

(31-05-2014 12:36 PM)catgoblin Wrote:  And, sure, "outside of time" is scientifically meaningless, since we cannot observe/study this state, but surely it has theoretical merit?

And acting as we know it requires time...but a Christian might say that only acting as we know it requires time and God acts in ways we cannot understand. Obviously, this is ridiculous, but I wonder what the best response to this is?

That is definitely special pleading. But the simple mechanics of "Act" require spacetime to be coherent and as spacetime is a phenomenon contained within the universe someone outside it could not interact without being inside the universe. Once inside the universe that subject would become bound by all the laws of said universe.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Revenant77x's post
31-05-2014, 12:47 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(31-05-2014 12:39 PM)catgoblin Wrote:  
(31-05-2014 12:33 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  it cannot be special pleading if you claim the universe is eternal and needs no creator.

no apologist has to claims God acted "outside of time" when creating the universe. this is a strawman.


The authors of "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" claim that God exists outside of time, since the universe is inextricably linked to time, and God exist/s/ed outside of the universe. So, if I were debating with you, it might be a strawman, but I'm addressing the argument made in the book.

As a side note just go ahead and ignore Jeremy he is a most dishonest fellow and is only useful as an example of failure to understand simple concepts.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Revenant77x's post
31-05-2014, 12:49 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(31-05-2014 12:32 PM)catgoblin Wrote:  
(31-05-2014 12:16 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  The KCA has been utterly destroyed many many times by examining it's presuppositions. The first place it fails is in it's lack of definitions because it changes them from 1 statement to the next to try and squeeze God into the gap. At the start require a precise definition of all the terminology and then hold them to that.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...l-Argument

There is a debate on this very subject where the KCA advocate fled in terror from the arena. He was unable to give even baseline definitions to his phrases because KLA requires you to flip meanings halfway through.

It is also subject to the infinite regression problem. All things that exist (a meaningless statement) must have a creator. God exists therefore must have a creator and that creator must have a creator. They try and get by this with the special pleading fallacy that says "No god is exempt from the rule" which of course means the universe itself could be exempt and thus renders the entire argument moot.

(31-05-2014 12:22 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  



Hey thanks!

As I said, I don't think the infinite regress problem applies to the KCA, but I will definitely watch this video series. Big Grin

You're awesome.

Of course it does - they just try to hand wave it away. Drinking Beverage

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
31-05-2014, 12:50 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
I'm not familiar with the book or the video, but I can say that many atheists (myself included) have entertained thoughts such as this and still came to the conclusion that they were faulty.

Believing in something really, really hard doesn't make it plausible.

THIS USER IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. THANK YOU, AND HAVE A GREAT DAY! http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...a-few-days
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2014, 12:56 PM (This post was last modified: 31-05-2014 01:00 PM by Mathilda.)
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(31-05-2014 12:22 PM)catgoblin Wrote:  Thanks for the response, but as I understand it, this only addresses the Cosmological Argument, not the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which states that everything that ends had a beginning and everything with a beginning had a creator. It relies on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the usable energy in the universe is depleting, therefore the universe will eventually end/die (according to the book).


The second law of thermodynamics only discusses whether the energy that is in existence can be put to use. A heat-death does not mean to say that the universe pops out of existence, it just means that there is no thermodynamic pressure gradient to produce work anywhere in the universe and nothing changes. The use of the second law of thermodynamics here is equivocation.


I'm not going to repeat myself because this subject comes up again and again but I discusses the Kalam Cosmological Argument in the following thread. It has been debunked so many times in so many threads on this forum before, mainly because Jeremy E. Walker keeps bringing it up. Use the forum search function if you want to find out more.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...-not-exist

(29-05-2014 03:05 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
  • Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
  • We know that energy cannot be created or destroyed so therefore must have always existed.
  • The universe does not have a beginning of its existence and therefore there is no cause for it



Also "beginning to exist".

(29-05-2014 05:49 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  If something exists then it is just a persistent pattern of atoms and energy flow that has somehow come about, whether because it has self organised or because something else made it so. There was no beginning. When exactly does a hammer begin to exist? When the handle and head are joined together? When the handle is crafted and the head is cast? When the seedling first starts growing into a tree to make the wood for the handle? Even the simplest steel of is still made from iron and carbon and so was the hammer first created in a sun that went super nova? If you can't point to a beginning then you can't point to a cause.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
31-05-2014, 01:00 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(31-05-2014 12:56 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(31-05-2014 12:22 PM)catgoblin Wrote:  Thanks for the response, but as I understand it, this only addresses the Cosmological Argument, not the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which states that everything that ends had a beginning and everything with a beginning had a creator. It relies on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the usable energy in the universe is depleting, therefore the universe will eventually end/die (according to the book).


The second law of thermodynamics only discusses whether the energy that is in existence can be put to use. A heat-death does not mean to say that the universe pops out of existence, it just means that there is no thermodynamic pressure gradient to produce work anywhere in the universe and nothing changes. The use of the second law of thermodynamics here is equivocation.


I'm not going to repeat myself because this subject comes up again and again but I discusses the Kalam Cosmological Argument in the following thread. It has been debunked so many times in so many threads on this forum before, manily because Jeremy E. Walker keeps bringing it up. Use the forum search function if you want to find out more.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...-not-exist

(29-05-2014 03:05 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
  • Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
  • We know that energy cannot be created or destroyed so therefore must have always existed.
  • The universe does not have a beginning of its existence and therefore there is no cause for it



Also "beginning to exist".

(29-05-2014 05:49 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  If something exists then it is just a persistent pattern of atoms and energy flow that has somehow come about, whether because it has self organised or because something else made it so. There was no beginning. When exactly does a hammer begin to exist? When the handle and head are joined together? When the handle is crafted and the head is cast? When the seedling first starts growing into a tree to make the wood for the handle? Even the simplest steel of is still made from iron and carbon and so was the hammer first created in a sun that went super nova? If you can't point to a beginning then you can't point to a cause.

big bang.

check into it sometime.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2014, 01:00 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(31-05-2014 01:00 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  big bang.

check into it sometime.

What about it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: