The go a little easy on theists thread
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-02-2014, 03:34 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
Vosur, you should really be careful. I was actually quite intrigued by your thoughtful responses, until I read the insulting arrogance of your last paragraph. If it makes you feel good to insult others then great, but if you want to convince anyone that you have a valid point, then that is counter-productive.

The fallacy of composition would apply only if I was making an unreasonable jump in logic from the fact that things in the universe have a beginning to the fact that the universe has a beginning. I think it is fair to say that there are three alternatives there 1. The universe is ever-existent, 2. The universe spontaneously popped into existence without any cause, or 3. The universe had a beginning and a cause. The first option has no support and goes contrary to the scientific evidence that exists (ie. the universe's expansion), and I hope I don't have to explain why the second option is absurd and has no basis in anything of which I am aware. Accordingly, we are left with the third option, which is fits with everything that we know about the universe, and is internally consistent.

It is strange how you raise the fallacy of composition and then seem to fall into it yourself in your very next point. Allow me to demonstrate in the way you have:

P1: The atoms that make up the Mona Lisa have always existed.
P2: The Mona Lisa is made up entirely of atoms.
C1: Therefore, the Mona Lisa has always existed.

I guess our reverence for Leonardo Da Vinci was misplaced, as he has taken credit for a painting that was around long before he was.

Even if all the atoms of the universe existed before the birth of the universe (if that is possible), it wouldn't make a difference to the question of whether the universe had a birth. Those atoms only have meaning when they are combined into the much more complex structures that make up the universe. The question that would remain is: what prompted those atoms to form those structures? Atoms do not combine to create objects spontaneously, and they have no mind or will of their own. Why did those atoms form into the universe that we know today?

On your third point, if you can show me any scientific evidence to back up the idea of an oscillating universe then it would be the first. The oscillating universe is a model of the universe with nothing to back it up at all. It is an attempt to come up with a model that does not require the existence of a creator, no more, no less. There is no more reason to believe in it than there is to believe in the existence of Santa Clause (to use a phrase that atheists like to use).

You and several others on this page seem to be deluded into thinking that you can state things and make them so. Who showed the cosmological argument to be unsound? Who decided that they successfully found it to be unsound? Who gets to be the jury on that one? I think your responses are just as unsound as you consider my argument to be. Does that mean that I'm right? No, and the reverse is not true either. If you guys just want to preach to the choir, go for it, but don't delude yourself into thinking that the choir's agreement makes you right.

P.S. I have thoughtfully responded to as many responses as I could. The thing about being the only non-atheist on any of the threads that I have posted on is that I just don't have the time to respond to everything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes lookingforanswers's post
02-02-2014, 03:39 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(06-04-2013 09:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 09:04 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  The reason we're (TTA) are hard on theists is because they come to an atheist forum with pure intentions on converting us and truly believing they can do so. We simply ask them that if they want us to believe in God they better provide us with some proof.
Not one has done so. Not our fault.

Not even our pet Calvinist has given us anything plausible.Drinking Beverage

Yeah but he's a nice guy. So we don't mind him here Smile

Official ordained minister of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please pm me with prayer requests to his noodly goodness. Remember, he boiled for your sins and loves you. Carbo Diem! RAmen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2014, 04:07 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
Oh and Vosur, as far as regurgitating goes, I came up with the cosmological argument myself in undergrad before I ever knew the name of the argument or the names of all the thinkers from the past who have written on it. That's part of the beauty of the argument, it is so simple and self-evident.

You might want to consider the cosmological argument a little more seriously, because whether people have the ability to formulate the argument coherently or not, it really is the reason why most people believe in the existence of deities at all. It is an argument that is simple enough for a child to understand. If you've ever wondered why every ancient civilization has a supernatural creation myth it is because of that concept. They might have come up with different conceptions of that supernatural cause and ended up with different versions of belief systems from it, but the basic idea remains the same.

When I see atheists jump through hoops to provide complex and weak arguments to counter it, I think to myself: Methinks thou dost protest too much. The ultimate answer I have always come up with is that atheists don't want to believe in the existence of a creator, for whatever reason (ie. they are disenchanted by the abuse of modern religions, or they are turned off my the numerous internal flaws in those mythologies, etc). From the discussions that I have had on here with atheists it is clear that there are many intelligent atheists. That having been said, I have no illusions that I can convince any of you that I am right, because you are so resistant to the idea of a creator that you just aren't objectively considering the facts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes lookingforanswers's post
02-02-2014, 06:06 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
*Holds up hand*

Okay...so, I've been following the thread as best I can. (People post lots!)

As for the 'Cosmological argument'...Doesn't this put any such being something like 13.5 billion years away from us?

Since the postulation is that the what ever that kicked every thing off is effectively outside time and space.

Heck...looking at it like that, people may as well be worshiping Cthulhu and the Old Ones.

Very much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2014, 06:10 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(02-02-2014 06:06 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  *Holds up hand*

Okay...so, I've been following the thread as best I can. (People post lots!)

As for the 'Cosmological argument'...Doesn't this put any such being something like 13.5 billion years away from us?

Since the postulation is that the what ever that kicked every thing off is effectively outside time and space.

Heck...looking at it like that, people may as well be worshiping Cthulhu and the Old Ones.

Very much cheers to all.


I think when most people refer to something as "outside time and space" they mean it's "beyond our understanding" since it "can't physically be seen, heard, touched, etc" - I see what you mean though in terms of literally being outside of time and space.

However, we don't even know how far the universe goes... if there are other universes beyond our own, etc. It seems an unanswerable question to me.

Why would we assume there is a being outside time and space to start with though in the first place? Wouldn't that also be unanswerable? Seems like the best we can do is explain and observe with the information we have now, and sooner or later we'll have more data. But jumping to conclusions and filling gaps with things that we have no evidence for is... well.. a waste of time if it doesn't actually bring us any closer to actually knowing how things work.

Official ordained minister of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please pm me with prayer requests to his noodly goodness. Remember, he boiled for your sins and loves you. Carbo Diem! RAmen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2014, 06:31 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(02-02-2014 04:07 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  You might want to consider the cosmological argument a little more seriously...

Because your all-knowing ass knows all we've considered. Dodgy

It's craptastic, is what it is. Developed in an age where trees grew up and rain fell down and the locals had no idea it was all the same thing. They believed "things came into existence." Now, it's all conservation law and everything is merely energy changing form.

And how about you? Do you know what the second cause is?

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like houseofcantor's post
02-02-2014, 07:24 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
Logisch Wrote:Why would we assume there is a being outside time and space to start with though in the first place? Wouldn't that also be unanswerable? Seems like the best we can do is explain and observe with the information we have now, and sooner or later we'll have more data. But jumping to conclusions and filling gaps with things that we have no evidence for is... well.. a waste of time if it doesn't actually bring us any closer to actually knowing how things work.

I'm not assuming an entity outside of space and time. It's where such a critter has to be if it was around before everything actually was. Y'see?

It's where all the Apologetic folks claim their 'Person in the sky' is/was.

I'm quite happy with the "Science goes back to T=something+plank time" stuff...With anything further a simple "I/we don't know..." adding the caveat of "...Yet." onto the end. Smile

So....for there to be 'something' to have kicked things off, given that it's beyond space and time...well....

"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2014, 08:19 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(02-02-2014 08:51 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  (ok, well I didn't actually discuss it with you Taqiyya because I am too much of a disingenuous lying chickenshit and you quickly and soundly destroyed my bullshit "arguments" and I refuse to admit it and go the fuck away)...

Fixed that for ya.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2014, 09:11 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(02-02-2014 03:34 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Vosur, you should really be careful. I was actually quite intrigued by your thoughtful responses, until I read the insulting arrogance of your last paragraph. If it makes you feel good to insult others then great, but if you want to convince anyone that you have a valid point, then that is counter-productive.
It has little to do with insults or arrogance; it's an observation that is grounded in fact. It is a fact that you have been ignoring responses even when specifically pointed out to you after their initial posting. It's also a fact that you have yet to contribute a novel thought; virtually all of them originate from people that lived centuries before you were even born. With that said, I have no interest in convincing you of anything because you have demonstrated that you lack the intellectual integrity that is necessary to have a change of mind.

(02-02-2014 03:34 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  The fallacy of composition would apply only if I was making an unreasonable jump in logic from the fact that things in the universe have a beginning to the fact that the universe has a beginning.
No, that simply means that you don't understand what a fallacy is. It is a question of logical validity and has nothing to do with whether or not you consider it to be reasonable.

(02-02-2014 03:34 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  I think it is fair to say that there are three alternatives there 1. The universe is ever-existent, 2. The universe spontaneously popped into existence without any cause, or 3. The universe had a beginning and a cause. The first option has no support and goes contrary to the scientific evidence that exists (ie. the universe's expansion), and I hope I don't have to explain why the second option is absurd and has no basis in anything of which I am aware. Accordingly, we are left with the third option, which is fits with everything that we know about the universe, and is internally consistent.
Actually, the model of an oscillating universe not only predicts that the universe is expanding, it is entirely consistent with it, so there's that.

(02-02-2014 03:34 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  It is strange how you raise the fallacy of composition and then seem to fall into it yourself in your very next point. Allow me to demonstrate in the way you have:

P1: The atoms that make up the Mona Lisa have always existed.
P2: The Mona Lisa is made up entirely of atoms.
C1: Therefore, the Mona Lisa has always existed.

I guess our reverence for Leonardo Da Vinci was misplaced, as he has taken credit for a painting that was around long before he was.
No, that is not at all what I said; it's a textbook example of the 'straw man fallacy'. My actual argument is the following:

P1: All atoms have always existed.
P2: The Mona Lisa is made up entirely of atoms.
C1: Therefore, the atoms that make up the Mona Lisa have always existed.

(02-02-2014 03:34 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Even if all the atoms of the universe existed before the birth of the universe (if that is possible), it wouldn't make a difference to the question of whether the universe had a birth. Those atoms only have meaning when they are combined into the much more complex structures that make up the universe. The question that would remain is: what prompted those atoms to form those structures? Atoms do not combine to create objects spontaneously, and they have no mind or will of their own. Why did those atoms form into the universe that we know today?
While that is certainly an interesting question, it has little to do with the discussion at hand.

(02-02-2014 03:34 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  On your third point, if you can show me any scientific evidence to back up the idea of an oscillating universe then it would be the first. The oscillating universe is a model of the universe with nothing to back it up at all.
Aside from the fact that you are not at all qualified to make such an assessment, it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. All that matters is that it's a possibility - one of many.

(02-02-2014 03:34 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  It is an attempt to come up with a model that does not require the existence of a creator, no more, no less.
If you would be so kind as to offer your source for this assertion, that would be great.

(02-02-2014 03:34 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  There is no more reason to believe in it than there is to believe in the existence of Santa Clause (to use a phrase that atheists like to use).
According to whom, you, who has no expertise in any of the relevant natural sciences?

(02-02-2014 03:34 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  You and several others on this page seem to be deluded into thinking that you can state things and make them so. Who showed the cosmological argument to be unsound? Who decided that they successfully found it to be unsound? Who gets to be the jury on that one? I think your responses are just as unsound as you consider my argument to be. Does that mean that I'm right? No, and the reverse is not true either. If you guys just want to preach to the choir, go for it, but don't delude yourself into thinking that the choir's agreement makes you right.
I couldn't care less about your opinion.

(02-02-2014 03:34 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  P.S. I have thoughtfully responded to as many responses as I could. The thing about being the only non-atheist on any of the threads that I have posted on is that I just don't have the time to respond to everything.
I have addressed this excuse of yours before. You have, on several occasions, ignored posts that were made before other posts you responded to. Not only that, you have continued to ignore them when people made the effort of reminding you that you missed their posts.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vosur's post
02-02-2014, 09:56 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(02-02-2014 04:07 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Oh and Vosur, as far as regurgitating goes, I came up with the cosmological argument myself in undergrad before I ever knew the name of the argument or the names of all the thinkers from the past who have written on it. That's part of the beauty of the argument, it is so simple and self-evident.
I couldn't have said it better myself. It is so self-evident, in fact, that there are several hundred million non-believers out there.

(02-02-2014 04:07 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  You might want to consider the cosmological argument a little more seriously, because whether people have the ability to formulate the argument coherently or not, it really is the reason why most people believe in the existence of deities at all. It is an argument that is simple enough for a child to understand. If you've ever wondered why every ancient civilization has a supernatural creation myth it is because of that concept. They might have come up with different conceptions of that supernatural cause and ended up with different versions of belief systems from it, but the basic idea remains the same.
By Jehovah, you have convinced me; a belief held by so many people couldn't possibly be false! How could I have been so blind?

(02-02-2014 04:07 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  When I see atheists jump through hoops to provide complex and weak arguments to counter it, I think to myself: Methinks thou dost protest too much. The ultimate answer I have always come up with is that atheists don't want to believe in the existence of a creator, for whatever reason (ie. they are disenchanted by the abuse of modern religions, or they are turned off my the numerous internal flaws in those mythologies, etc). From the discussions that I have had on here with atheists it is clear that there are many intelligent atheists. That having been said, I have no illusions that I can convince any of you that I am right, because you are so resistant to the idea of a creator that you just aren't objectively considering the facts.
Amen, brother! All these atheists refuse to believe in God so they can continue to live their immoral lives sinning as much as they want. None of them have ever looked at all the facts with an open mind; they are blind to the truth of the almighty Lord!

Rolleyes

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vosur's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: