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, 01:21 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
It takes faith to not believe in fairies


...................................


Book already debunked because it is stupid to think lack of belief requires faith. Drinking Beverage

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Metazoa Zeke's post
31-05-2014, 01:23 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(31-05-2014 01:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(31-05-2014 01:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Oh, you poor child.

We both know that that is not how you define the term.

lol, i just defined it that way.

There he goes again, moving the goal posts whenever it suits him. Facepalm

If bullshit were music some people would be a brass band.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes War Horse's post
31-05-2014, 01:26 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(31-05-2014 01:21 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  It takes faith to not believe in fairies


...................................


Book already debunked because it is stupid to think lack of belief requires faith. Drinking Beverage

maybe some can believe that the universe just popped into existence literally without a cause and literally from nothing.

i cannot believe that. it is not rationally or intellectually defensible, nor is it scientific.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2014, 01:30 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(31-05-2014 01:15 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(31-05-2014 01:06 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  Oh scientists have proved it have they?

[Citation required]

In 2003, three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.

http://arxiv.org/abs/grqc/0110012


You are just repeating what William Lane Craig writes who we know willfully and deliberately misrepresents scientific papers.

http://www.theaunicornist.com/2012/10/ho...sents.html

Quote:First, let's take a look at the paper generally cited by Craig, entitled Inflationary Spacetimes are not Past-Complete (full PDF available here). The abstract is as follows:

Many inflating spacetimes are likely to violate the weak energy condition, a key assumption of singularity theorems. Here we offer a simple kinematical argument, requiring no energy condition, that a cosmological model which is inflating -- or just expanding sufficiently fast -- must be incomplete in null and timelike past directions. Specifically, we obtain a bound on the integral of the Hubble parameter over a past-directed timelike or null geodesic. Thus inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime.

The key phrase here is the last sentence:

Thus inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime.

I'm going to lay the cards on the table: what the BGV Theorem is saying is not "the universe had a beginning", but that inflationary models cannot go infinitely into the past, and require physics other than inflationary models to describe the boundary condition. This paper is a direct response to physicists who attempt to use inflationary models to describe an eternal universe. In case that's not completely clear, the authors elaborate in the paper itself (emphasis mine):

What can lie beyond this boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event [12]. The boundary is then a closed spacelike hypersurface which can be determined from the appropriate instanton.

Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary [20]. This is the chief result of our paper.

How has Craig made the leap from "inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the universe" to suggesting that the BGV Theorem has proved "the universe began to exist"? Even Borde, Guth and Vilenkin clearly suggest that a "beginning" is merely one possibility that might correspond to the boundary condition. - See more at: http://www.theaunicornist.com/2012/10/ho...o2vU6.dpuf
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Mathilda's post
31-05-2014, 01:33 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(31-05-2014 12:43 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(31-05-2014 12:39 PM)catgoblin Wrote:  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.

I may have to revisit the wording used in the book, but even if I misquoted, what's the difference between existing outside of time and being timeless?

(31-05-2014 12:46 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(31-05-2014 12:36 PM)catgoblin Wrote:  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.

(31-05-2014 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, 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.

Ok, so what I'm getting from you guys is that the biggest problem with the KCA is that there's no evidence that the universe will end.

Thanks for the link, Mathilda, I'll check that thread out.

(31-05-2014 01:07 PM)Free Thought 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.

From your description, I fail to see the difference between Kal and non-Kal Cosmological arguments. It just adds an 'ends' to the premise and conclusion... The basic idea is still the same: The need of a creator at the beginning.

I find the addition of god being outside of time and space and therefore having no begging or ended to be flawed: In so far as we can reasonably guess, to be outside of time and space is to effectively be outside of all causality from the off-set. Which begs the question of how something outside of it caused anything.
Additionally, to exist, a thing must occupy a bit of space and time, again, at least as far as we understand it now. God is, by the argument, an existing entity capable of acting, as shown through it's pre-supposed creation of the universe.

Because it is supposed to exist, and have acted, we know that it does occupy a space within time, and thus is not exempt from having a beginning or end and needing a creator (by the argument).

Either the hypothetical deity doesn't exist, or it it turtles all the way down.

The distinction between the two arguments is important because the KCA isn't vulnerable to the problem of infinite regress, meaning that it's set up in such a way that, logically, God needs no creator.

And about acting, as I said earlier, I think the Christian rebuttal is that God can act outside of space and time because he is God, and we can't fathom him.

But, at this point, it seems to break down to "Magic, that's why. God is magic."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2014, 01:34 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
Pro tip for the new guy...Jeremy isn't representative of the forum here...he is a fluke...fake...fuckwit....pick any one or combination of two or all three.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat

Are my Chakras on straight?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Anjele's post
31-05-2014, 01:35 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
Steve Shives has a decent analysis of the whole damn thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoTt0-IA...tAAUjC7rkZ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
31-05-2014, 01:35 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(31-05-2014 01:34 PM)Anjele Wrote:  Pro tip for the new guy...Jeremy isn't representative of the forum here...he is a fluke...fake...fuckwit....pick any one or combination of two or all three.

And more than anything he is intellectually dishonest.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
31-05-2014, 01:35 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(31-05-2014 01:35 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(31-05-2014 01:34 PM)Anjele Wrote:  Pro tip for the new guy...Jeremy isn't representative of the forum here...he is a fluke...fake...fuckwit....pick any one or combination of two or all three.

And more than anything he is intellectually dishonest.

Yeah, that too. Thumbsup

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat

Are my Chakras on straight?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
31-05-2014, 01:36 PM (This post was last modified: 31-05-2014 01:39 PM by Free Thought.)
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(31-05-2014 01:17 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(31-05-2014 01:07 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  From your description, I fail to see the difference between Kal and non-Kal Cosmological arguments. It just adds an 'ends' to the premise and conclusion... The basic idea is still the same: The need of a creator at the beginning.

I find the addition of god being outside of time and space and therefore having no begging or ended to be flawed: In so far as we can reasonably guess, to be outside of time and space is to effectively be outside of all causality from the off-set. Which begs the question of how something outside of it caused anything.
Additionally, to exist, a thing must occupy a bit of space and time, again, at least as far as we understand it now. God is, by the argument, an existing entity capable of acting, as shown through it's pre-supposed creation of the universe.

Because it is supposed to exist, and have acted, we know that it does occupy a space within time, and thus is not exempt from having a beginning or end and needing a creator (by the argument).

Either the hypothetical deity doesn't exist, or it it turtles all the way down.

ok

either something outside the universe brought it into existence

or

the universe just popped into existence uncaused out of nothing.


take your pick and no it is not a false dichotomy because the universe is not eternal in the past.

The second seems more likely than the first: last I read, it has been established in quantum mechanics that things can seemingly pop into existence and then back out again. It is entirely possible that the singularity was a similar event. Or it could be the same event but interpreted as the first, but without any sort of deity involved, just a stray virtual particle setting things off.
(Of course, I'd ask CJLR on that, for he's rather more well informed on quantum physics than I am...)

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: