Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-01-2013, 09:53 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(29-01-2013 11:35 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  A wild THEIST appeared!

What will BUCKY do?

FIGHT
ITEM
POKEMON
RUN

BUCKY cast USE LOGIC!

USE LOGIC failed!


LION IRC cast JESUS!

[Image: Jesus+card.jpg]

A critical hit!

It's super effective!

BUCKY fainted!
Made my day, sir.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2013, 09:56 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(30-01-2013 04:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I don't suffer fools Pussy Cat IRC. You have proven yourself to be one....

You have proven with an abnormal degree of attention to my posts that you actually DO wish to suffer.

And your abusive ad homs prove something else to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2013, 10:08 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(30-01-2013 09:51 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(30-01-2013 09:14 PM)Julius Wrote:  ...Thus, we can't say that the Universe "Began to Exist" in an absolute sense or that the Universe's existence has a cause. As a result, all the Cosmological Arguments fail at Premise 1.

I hope this helps. Thanks.

Not really.
Is the universe 13.7 billion years old or not?
Because that is central to P1.

If you assert that the universe has always existed...that it never began to exist, THEN you can reject P1 and replace it with your own negation.

P1 No things ever come into existence.
P2 The universe is a thing
C. Therefore the universe has always existed.

But do you see how I am now going to attack this argument with evidence that the planet earth has not always existed and I'm going to start asking awkward questions about how you claim to know what happened before the big bang.

I'm going to assail your apparent certainty with questions about how long the stuff from which the universe is made, can perpetually expand before it ceases to exist.

And I'm going to ask whether there might be another universe somewhere that WAS created.
I did not say that the Universe has always existed, and I did not say that the Universe had an absolute beginning (i.e., the creation of the energy and space which make up out universe).

What I did say is that no one can know either of these things at this point because we haven't the Physics to know.

Sir, I suggest you read my post again - very carefully - and reconsider before you post again because you obviously failed to do so the first time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Julius's post
30-01-2013, 10:32 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(30-01-2013 10:08 PM)Julius Wrote:  
(30-01-2013 09:51 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Not really.
Is the universe 13.7 billion years old or not?
Because that is central to P1.

If you assert that the universe has always existed...that it never began to exist, THEN you can reject P1 and replace it with your own negation.

P1 No things ever come into existence.
P2 The universe is a thing
C. Therefore the universe has always existed.

But do you see how I am now going to attack this argument with evidence that the planet earth has not always existed and I'm going to start asking awkward questions about how you claim to know what happened before the big bang.

I'm going to assail your apparent certainty with questions about how long the stuff from which the universe is made, can perpetually expand before it ceases to exist.

And I'm going to ask whether there might be another universe somewhere that WAS created.
I did not say that the Universe has always existed, and I did not say that the Universe had an absolute beginning (i.e., the creation of the energy and space which make up out universe).

What I did say is that no one can know either of these things at this point because we haven't the Physics to know.

Sir, I suggest you read my post again - very carefully - and reconsider before you post again because you obviously failed to do so the first time.

Good luck with that, as he clearly doesn't understand the burden of proof, nor can he conceptualize anything in other than black and white dichotomies. The concepts of 'doubt' and 'we don't know' are completely lost on him...

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
30-01-2013, 10:37 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(30-01-2013 10:32 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Good luck with that, as he clearly doesn't understand the burden of proof, nor can he conceptualize anything in other than black and white dichotomies. The concepts of 'doubt' and 'we don't know' are completely lost on him...
Thanks for the heads up. The argument I posted disputing the Cosmological P1 Premise was actually intended for the Atheists on this board - I had no intent on arguing with a Christian. I hope someone finds the argument useful.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Julius's post
30-01-2013, 10:48 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(30-01-2013 10:37 PM)Julius Wrote:  
(30-01-2013 10:32 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Good luck with that, as he clearly doesn't understand the burden of proof, nor can he conceptualize anything in other than black and white dichotomies. The concepts of 'doubt' and 'we don't know' are completely lost on him...
Thanks for the heads up. The argument I posted disputing the Cosmological P1 Premise was actually intended for the Atheists on this board - I had no intent on arguing with a Christian. I hope someone finds the argument useful.

I liked your post, it was well thought out and logically valid. I tried the same thing earlier with him, trying to show that his assumptions were unfounded, and thus his conclusion was flawed. He didn't get it, assumed that I was trying to prove another claim, and insisted that I give evidence to prove him wrong. Because he thinks that just because science doesn't know for sure, that he can insert his ignorance and claim it as true by fiat. He doesn't understand what a skeptic is, or what they represent. All he can see is a counter-claim, not someone just showing the holes in his argument. It's a false dichotomy that he can't seem to get himself out of.

Figured I'd save yourself the trouble and give you a heads up now. Thumbsup

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
30-01-2013, 11:13 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(30-01-2013 10:48 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(30-01-2013 10:37 PM)Julius Wrote:  Thanks for the heads up. The argument I posted disputing the Cosmological P1 Premise was actually intended for the Atheists on this board - I had no intent on arguing with a Christian. I hope someone finds the argument useful.

I liked your post, it was well thought out and logically valid. I tried the same thing earlier with him, trying to show that his assumptions were unfounded, and thus his conclusion was flawed. He didn't get it, assumed that I was trying to prove another claim, and insisted that I give evidence to prove him wrong. Because he thinks that just because science doesn't know for sure, that he can insert his ignorance and claim it as true by fiat. He doesn't understand what a skeptic is, or what they represent. All he can see is a counter-claim, not someone just showing the holes in his argument. It's a false dichotomy that he can't seem to get himself out of.

Figured I'd save yourself the trouble and give you a heads up now. Thumbsup
Yeah...I see where you are coming from. Thanks.

I used to be a Christian, but I gave it up after I learned how to think skeptically. In fact, it amazes me how I took that journey (i.e., the Deconversion) alone, I was 19 at the time and it happened within a matter of weeks. But....the skeptical thinking that made it all possible took a full 19 years of my life to develop and had only bloomed just 6 weeks before the self-Deconversion! I guess advanced Math and Science classes does that to some people - forces (or at least encourages) them to begin thinking in a fully rational manner about all things. However, some people just never get it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Julius's post
31-01-2013, 12:02 AM (This post was last modified: 31-01-2013 12:08 AM by Lion IRC.)
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
I ''liked'' your post Buddy but that was because I wanted to bump you off the previous ''liked'' count you had #666

(30-01-2013 03:40 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  It appears we have derailed the derail thread!

Yes in the Resurrection thread Bucky Balls wants to talk about cosmology and when we get here he wants to talk about proof for the Resurrection.



(30-01-2013 03:40 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  First, like the others has said, the first premise IS flawed (everything that begins to exist has a cause). We are basing that premise on things we have observed - objects and items. The universe (which we are trying to make fit into the "everything" category) is not a physical thing.
It is a set of laws, in the way we refer to the Laws of Nature. Gravity, entropy, electromagnetism, thermodynamics...

OH.
OK, easy. Lets modify Kalam to accommodate your concept that the universe is not a physical thing."
P1. Non-physical things which come into existence do or dont have a cause.
P2. The universe is a non-physical thing (as opposed to objects and items we can see and empirically measure, etc)
P3. The existence of physical objects and things is contingent on the existence of a non-physical thing now called the universe.
Conclusion - The non-physical thing called Universe is the cause of what we see in existence...physical objects and things.

Now. Has the non-physical thing called universe (or... O Great and Mighty Law of Nature Universe by and from which all things are made) always existed?



(30-01-2013 03:40 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  ...not once have we ever observed a law of the universe being caused by something. The things within the system, governed by the laws, sure. But the laws themselves have always been, as long as we could observe.

This is a nice affirmation of transcendent fine tuning and a great inference that there may be some meaningful intent somewhere out there, as opposed to chaos and chance. These Laws arent laws at all if they are nothing but accidental happenstance mirages which we mistake as being permanent purely because we ourselves are so very very temporary in comparison. (In point of fact the speed of light is only apparently constant at this particular point in cosmic space/time.

However the idea of capital "L" Laws which have ALWAYS been, contradicts modern theories of cosmology. Non-theist cosmology is speculating about M theory precisely to escape the notion that there are necessary laws which must apply everywhere/everywhen in all universes, multiverses and megamultiuniverses. The idea that something non-physical or abstract like The Law or The Canon of Reason, or The Mathematics transcends physical, temporal reality of objects and things plays directly into the hands of theism because these point to objective truth and to God.

(30-01-2013 03:40 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  ... It's like a math formula. Addition has always been a system. YOU have to cause the numbers by pushing the calculator buttons, but YOU didn't create the laws of arithmetic.

Who did? Yes, thats begging the question. But what if the subject/object is changed from God made the Laws of Mathematics to...Bach's BWV 1060.
If a non-physical thing such as intellectual property - Bach's concerto is a non-physical thing which didnt exist. And yet it can become manifest in the form of that energy we call noise as the result of physical objects (violin and oboe) being DELIBERATELY CAUSED to create music.

(30-01-2013 03:40 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  ... And since time and existence were theorized to have started with the singularity and the Big Bang, God is a force that would have to exist outside of time and space since "before" is an application of time, making "before the Big Bang" a nonsensical term.

No it is not nonsensical. It is a term increasingly used by physicists when speculating about ways to overcome the idea that the universe started at a singularity 13.7B years ago. Nothing is non-sense when the laws of physics start to break down.


(30-01-2013 03:40 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  ...Like a square triangle.
[Image: rectangular-pyramid.jpg]

It's about terminology and perspective.
This is a square when viewed one way and a triangle when viewed another and a polygon when viewed from another and a pyramid when viewed from another.......

(30-01-2013 03:40 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  ...Here's a suggestion. Consider a black hole. It's so powerful, it sucks in all matter, including light and even time itself. No one knows what happens to all that matter, light, and time in the center of a black hole.


How do you know that no one knows. Did you ever go into a black hole to see what its like in another space/time dimension.
Change the words black hole for an event horizon called death. Are you sure its safe to say what happens after death?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2013, 12:11 AM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(31-01-2013 12:02 AM)Lion IRC Wrote:  I ''liked'' your post Buddy but that was because I wanted to bump you off the previous ''liked'' count you had #666

What, don't you like the number 666?

It's just an innocent little number after all. It has no power or meaning, just a way of describing an amount...

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
31-01-2013, 12:26 AM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(31-01-2013 12:02 AM)Lion IRC Wrote:  How do you know that no one knows. Did you ever go into a black hole to see what its like in another space/time dimension.
Change the words black hole for an event horizon called death. Are you sure its safe to say what happens after death?


Simple, we don't know. Why? Nobody has posited verifiable evidence in favor of actually knowing. Nobody has gone into a black hole, we have not actually tested this. Currently it is beyond our ability to test, so the default position is 'I don't know'. Math and physics points to spaghettification and the compression of our basest components into an infinitesimally small space, but this has not been proven. However until you have some positive evidence FOR what happens when you go through one, don't act like it's somehow proof of your assertion, because it is not. The same applies for death and your concept of heaven. Just because you're too ignorant to understand something, doesn't mean you get to just assert whatever you like by fiat.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: