Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-02-2013, 10:11 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
It astounds me how much thought and work one will put in to arguments and debates about their opinion in favour of something which we do not even know to exist, but that they want to exist. Sounds like an epic waste of time.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adenosis's post
07-02-2013, 11:49 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(07-02-2013 08:36 PM)Julius Wrote:  Lion IRC,

Fuck yourself. Fuck you, and everyone who thinks like you.

You suck Dick. You have nothing useful to say.

Once Again....Fuck you.

Thanks.

Julius

PS. Go the Fuck Away....and stay there.

Even a skilled formal debater like Atothetheist could have said that
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2013, 08:55 AM (This post was last modified: 08-02-2013 11:14 AM by Vosur.)
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(07-02-2013 08:07 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Of course I Censored well have a different view!!!
And I dont have to answer for the imaginary theist strawman you conjur up.
If you want to argue with theists who think God is always immaterial (whatever that means) off you go....run along.
If you want to claim that he is or was material at some point in history, you need to substantiate this claim with empirical evidence because you then have the burden of proof. While it is true that one cannot possibly bring forth empirical evidence for the existence of an immaterial being, proving the existence of a material being using empirical evidence is but a trivial task. It's precisely because meeting the aforementioned burden of proof is impossible that WLC, along with any other apologist I've ever listened to, argues that god is and has always been immaterial.

(07-02-2013 08:07 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  No. I do not HAVE TO do that.
I have the free will right to decide for myself if I want to. (Volition - a real word. Look it up)
In that case, I have no reason to accept your assertion that we possess free will.

(07-02-2013 08:07 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Good. There goes your argument. Bye.
You just conceded that you cant actually tell whether God is conscious because you arent aware of what He is doing at any given time. Your whole case fails because;

* You cant ever be sure if what you are looking at is actually God.
* You dont know if what you are looking at is God working or resting on the 7th day.
* And you admit that your argument (unlike Kalam) relies on your own personal belief about the nature of God's consciousness and materiality.

The Kalam argument does NOT depend on yours or my personal ideas about God. In fact, unlike your argument, Kalam doesnt assert any necessary qualities of God.
I think it's safe to say that you're intentionally constructing straw man versions of my argument by now. You even went as far as asserting that I have admitted something which I actually didn't do.

Again, it is a simple logical deduction that is based on the observed fact that an organism can only be conscious if it is made out of matter (material). As a being that is imagined to be not made out of matter (immaterial), god cannot be conscious. I'd greatly appreciate it if you took the time to address my actual argument for once. Furthermore, I have neither admitted that my argument relies on my personal beliefs about the nature of god's consciousness and materiality, nor is it true that I need to assert any qualities of god. I'm simply arguing against the popular view of god as an immaterial and conscious being.

With that said, you now have three options to choose from. You can either show that beings which possess no material substance can be conscious, thereby refuting the first premise of my argument, or you can reject the first premise because its validity is dependent on human intuition and experience, thereby also rejecting the first premise of the cosmological argument, or you can continue being intellectually dishonest, in which case I don't see any reason to talk to you any further. The choice is yours.

(07-02-2013 08:07 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
The universe has a cause.
I almost forgot to mention that there is another reason why the first premise of the above argument is flawed. It's because we have never observed the beginning of the existence of anything. If you build a car, for example, you do not create it out of nothing, you simply rearrange certain materials which have already been in existence before you started your construction. Everything that humans and nature create is merely a combination of things that were already there to begin with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
08-02-2013, 09:29 AM (This post was last modified: 08-02-2013 09:37 AM by Vosur.)
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(07-02-2013 08:18 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  P1: Consciousness requires material substance. (Define consciousness. Define material. Define substance.)
In a previous post, I have already told you that you can substitute "material substance" with "matter" or "complex neural systems" in case you don't understand the meaning of the first two of terms.

As for consciousness, I am using the following definition from Oxford Dictionaries:

consciousness
Syllabification: (con·scious·ness)
Pronunciation: /ˈkänCHəsnəs/
noun
the state of being awake and aware of one’s surroundings

(07-02-2013 08:18 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  P2: The hypothesized god is immaterial. (Not until/unless you define God and can empirically observe Him in a conscious, immaterial state
It appears that you do not know what a hypothesis is. I suggest you look up the term.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vosur's post
08-02-2013, 01:23 PM (This post was last modified: 08-02-2013 02:07 PM by Lion IRC.)
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(08-02-2013 08:55 AM)Vosur Wrote:  ...WLC, along with any other apologist I've ever listened to, argues that god is and has always been immaterial.

Then you werent listening very closely because Scripture states;
"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us...''
(See John 1:14)

"...If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body..."

1st Corinthians 15:35-44 is a tour de force in Christian doctrine about the physical Resurrection and the conflation of soul and body.
Written 2000 years ago, Paul is giving an insight into quantum weirdness of how some ''thing'' can be material and yet immaterial.
And I cant believe that in the year AD2013 some atheist (who presumably thinks quantum foam, quarks and leptons and dark energy exist,) is still insisting
that a ''thing'' has to - by nature - be EITHER material or immaterial and that it's metaphysically impossible to be both.

(08-02-2013 08:55 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(07-02-2013 08:07 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  No. I do not HAVE TO do that.
I have the free will right to decide for myself if I want to. (Volition - a real word. Look it up)
In that case, I have no reason to accept your assertion that we possess free will.


Why do you need reason? Without free will you have no option to accept or reject what is put before you. Without free will you would have no choice in the matter.
Whether you accept or reject would be beyond your control.

Maybe, between the two of us, I'm the one with free will. Consider
Perhaps there ARE some people who lack the ability to decide.


(08-02-2013 08:55 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I almost forgot to mention that there is another reason why the first premise of the above argument is flawed. It's because we have never observed the beginning of the existence of anything. If you build a car, for example, you do not create it out of nothing, you simply rearrange certain materials which have already been in existence before you started your construction. Everything that humans and nature create is merely a combination of things that were already there to begin with.

No.
God can create something new out of existing things AND He can also create new ''ingredients".

When someone writes a new song no one can deny they have intellectual property rights. The have created something new that did not previously exist.

The Kalam works equally well with any contingent ''thing''. It just so happens to be a good argument for the theist cosmologist in relation to a 13.7 billion year old ''thing'' we call the universe. But you could use the Kalam in relation to a house or a cake or a pop song.

A song which comes into existence has a cause.
The song Highway To Hell, came into existence in July 1979
The song didnt cause itself to come into existence.
Therefore it had a cause called Atlantic Records.

And the cause had free will. And Bon Scott and Angus Young had free will. And people are not deterministic automatons. They are not monkeys with typewriters who mindlessly write unintelligible poetry and music because they have nothing better to do with their time.

And, like Bon Scott, who died 6 months after Highway To Hell was released, we dont have much time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2013, 01:56 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(08-02-2013 01:23 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  They are not monkeys with typewriters who mindlessly write unintelligible poetry and music because they have nothing better to do with their time.
You have obviously never attended a rock band songwriting session. The finished album is a highlight reel.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2013, 02:03 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(08-02-2013 01:23 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(08-02-2013 08:55 AM)Vosur Wrote:  ...WLC, along with any other apologist I've ever listened to, argues that god is and has always been immaterial.

1) Then you werent listening very closely because Scripture states;
"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us...''
(See John 1:14)

"...If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body..."

1st Corinthians 15:35-44 is a tour de force in Christian doctrine about the physical Resurrection and the conflation of soul and body.
Written 2000 years ago, Paul is giving an insight into quantum weirdness of how some ''thing'' can be material and yet immaterial.
And I cant believe that in the year AD2013 some atheist (who presumably thinks quantum foam, quarks and leptons and dark energy exist,) is still insisting
that a ''thing'' has to - by nature - be EITHER material or immaterial and that it's metaphysically impossible to be both.

(08-02-2013 08:55 AM)Vosur Wrote:  In that case, I have no reason to accept your assertion that we possess free will.


2) Why do you need reason? Without free will you have no option to accept or reject what is put before you. Without free will you would have no choice in the matter.
Whether you accept or reject would be beyond your control.

Maybe, between the two of us, I'm the one with free will. Consider
Perhaps there ARE some people who lack the ability to decide.


(08-02-2013 08:55 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I almost forgot to mention that there is another reason why the first premise of the above argument is flawed. It's because we have never observed the beginning of the existence of anything. If you build a car, for example, you do not create it out of nothing, you simply rearrange certain materials which have already been in existence before you started your construction. Everything that humans and nature create is merely a combination of things that were already there to begin with.

3) No.
God can create something new out of existing things AND He can also create new ''ingredients".

When someone writes a new song no one can deny they have intellectual property rights. The have created something new that did not previously exist.

The Kalam works equally well with any contingent ''thing''. It just so happens to be a good argument used by theist cosmologist in relation to a 13.7 billion year old ''thing'' we call the universe. But you could use the Kalam in relation to a house or a cake or a pop song.

A song which comes into existence has a cause.
The song Highway To Hell, came into existence in July 1979
The song didnt cause itself to come into existence.
Therefore it had a cause called Atlantic Records.

And the cause had free will. And Bon Scott and Angus Young had free will. And people are not deterministic automatons. They are not monkeys with typewriters who mindlessly write unintelligible poetry and music because they have nothing better to do with their time.

And, like Bon Scott, who died 6 months after Highway To Hell was released, we dont have much time.
1) Never mind what bloody scripture says - can you provide a single case of a Christian apologist arguing that God is material and not immaterial? Scripture is irrelevant to Vosur's statement.

2) Exactly. And this is a good reason not to accept the existence of free will, because we genuinely don't have a choice as to whether or not we accept it given the arguments we come across. We see the arguments, and our mind is made up either one way or the other. There is no choice involved, no possibility of picking the other option and actually believing it.

3) Yes the song came into existence in 1979. No, it was not created out of entirely new ingredients. The notes, the instruments, the words that make up the lyrics all existed prior to the song. The song was made by rearranging these components. Just like (for example) making a table out of a bunch of pre-existing wood.

Unless you are suggesting there was never a single sound before that song o.0

Nice to see you asserting the free will thing again without any evidence. Same old same old with you isn't it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes hedgehog648's post
08-02-2013, 02:49 PM (This post was last modified: 08-02-2013 02:53 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(08-02-2013 01:23 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Then you werent listening very closely [...]
I've been listening just fine, thank you very much.

(08-02-2013 01:23 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  because Scripture states;
"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us...''
(See John 1:14)

"...If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body..."

1st Corinthians 15:35-44 is a tour de force in Christian doctrine about the physical Resurrection and the conflation of soul and body.
Written 2000 years ago, Paul is giving an insight into quantum weirdness of how some ''thing'' can be material and yet immaterial.
What was the point of posting these two citations? Neither of them have anything to do with the topic at hand.

The first verse does not comment on whether god is material or immaterial (in fact, the verse doesn't even mention god unless you interpret it that way) while the second verse doesn't state whether this "spiritual body" is material or immaterial.

I hate to have to point out the obvious, but there is a reason why no popular Christian apologist, all of whom have studied the Bible for several years, has been arguing in favor of your image of god. Now that I have pondered on this a little more, I noticed that there are actually at least two reasons why they don't do it. Firstly, as I've said previously, meeting the burden of proof that you put upon yourself when you claim that god is or has been material is impossible and secondly, by saying that god has changed from immaterial (ex. "before" he created the universe) to material (ex. "after" he created the universe) contradicts several Bible verses, such as Malachi 3:6. Even apologists argue that the formerly mentioned verse applies to his nature and character.

(08-02-2013 01:23 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  And I cant believe that in the year AD2013 some atheist (who presumably thinks quantum foam, quarks and leptons and dark energy exist,) is still insisting
that a ''thing'' has to - by nature - be EITHER material or immaterial and that it's metaphysically impossible to be both.
No offense intended, but I'd prefer it if you'd keep your presumptions about my beliefs to yourself and instead focused on showing that the notion that something has to be either material or immaterial is incorrect other than by asserting that it simply is.

(08-02-2013 01:23 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Why do you need reason? Without free will you have no option to accept or reject what is put before you. Without free will you would have no choice in the matter.
Whether you accept or reject would be beyond your control.

Maybe, between the two of us, I'm the one with free will. Consider
Perhaps there ARE some people who lack the ability to decide.
I can't help but notice that it seems like you have never looked into the numerous different philosophical positions concerning the existence of free will. It's not a black-and-white choice between the two extremes "free will" and "determinism". It's precisely the reason why I asked you to define what you mean by free will and how you go about proving its existence.

(08-02-2013 01:23 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  No.

God can create something new out of existing things AND He can also create new ''ingredients".
How is god's ability to do X relevant to man's and nature's inability to do X? Your response has little to do with my critique of the cosmological argument's first premise. Aside from that, don't expect me to buy your blanket assertion that god can create new ingredients unless you are able to demonstrate this with hard facts. How about you, let's say, show me an example of god creating "new ingredients"?

(08-02-2013 01:23 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  When someone writes a new song no one can deny they have intellectual property rights. The have created something new that did not previously exist.
Actually, a song, much like a car, is just a combination of pre-existing things; in this case: notes with which you can express the melody of your song on a sheet of paper (and letters that you use to write down your lyrics). Or, expressed alternatively, a combination of different tones to form a melody.

(08-02-2013 01:23 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  The Kalam works equally well with any contingent ''thing''. It just so happens to be a good argument used by theist cosmologist in relation to a 13.7 billion year old ''thing'' we call the universe. But you could use the Kalam in relation to a house or a cake or a pop song.

A song which comes into existence has a cause.
The song Highway To Hell, came into existence in July 1979
The song didnt cause itself to come into existence.
Therefore it had a cause called Atlantic Records.

And the cause had free will. And Bon Scott and Angus Young had free will. And people are not deterministic automatons. They are not monkeys with typewriters who mindlessly write unintelligible poetry and music because they have nothing better to do with their time.

And, like Bon Scott, who died 6 months after Highway To Hell was released, we dont have much time.
See above. The song didn't come into existence from nothing, it was also created using things that were already in existence. And again, the notion that there are only two views, namely "free will" and "determinism", has been outdated for thousands of years.

I think that I should also remind you that you have failed to accomplish either of the things which I have asked you to do in my last post. You have neither provided me with empirical evidence for your claim that god has been material at some point in history, nor have you shown that a being that is not made out of matter can be conscious. I take it that you chose the third option. I will give you this last chance to substantiate your arguments.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vosur's post
08-02-2013, 07:35 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(08-02-2013 01:23 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(08-02-2013 08:55 AM)Vosur Wrote:  ...WLC, along with any other apologist I've ever listened to, argues that god is and has always been immaterial.

Then you werent listening very closely because Scripture states;
"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us...''
(See John 1:14)

"...If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body..."

1st Corinthians 15:35-44 is a tour de force in Christian doctrine about the physical Resurrection and the conflation of soul and body.
Written 2000 years ago, Paul is giving an insight into quantum weirdness of how some ''thing'' can be material and yet immaterial.
And I cant believe that in the year AD2013 some atheist (who presumably thinks quantum foam, quarks and leptons and dark energy exist,) is still insisting
that a ''thing'' has to - by nature - be EITHER material or immaterial and that it's metaphysically impossible to be both.

(08-02-2013 08:55 AM)Vosur Wrote:  In that case, I have no reason to accept your assertion that we possess free will.


Why do you need reason? Without free will you have no option to accept or reject what is put before you. Without free will you would have no choice in the matter.
Whether you accept or reject would be beyond your control.

Maybe, between the two of us, I'm the one with free will. Consider
Perhaps there ARE some people who lack the ability to decide.


(08-02-2013 08:55 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I almost forgot to mention that there is another reason why the first premise of the above argument is flawed. It's because we have never observed the beginning of the existence of anything. If you build a car, for example, you do not create it out of nothing, you simply rearrange certain materials which have already been in existence before you started your construction. Everything that humans and nature create is merely a combination of things that were already there to begin with.

No.
God can create something new out of existing things AND He can also create new ''ingredients".

When someone writes a new song no one can deny they have intellectual property rights. The have created something new that did not previously exist.

The Kalam works equally well with any contingent ''thing''. It just so happens to be a good argument for the theist cosmologist in relation to a 13.7 billion year old ''thing'' we call the universe. But you could use the Kalam in relation to a house or a cake or a pop song.

A song which comes into existence has a cause.
The song Highway To Hell, came into existence in July 1979
The song didnt cause itself to come into existence.
Therefore it had a cause called Atlantic Records.

And the cause had free will. And Bon Scott and Angus Young had free will. And people are not deterministic automatons. They are not monkeys with typewriters who mindlessly write unintelligible poetry and music because they have nothing better to do with their time.

And, like Bon Scott, who died 6 months after Highway To Hell was released, we dont have much time.



Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
09-02-2013, 02:07 AM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
I just love that vid
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: