Can You Prove that God(s) Do Not Exist?
Atheists do not believe in any gods. An atheist does not claim to have proof that gods don't exist, although they do claim that most of the evidence for god(s) is wrong.
I really like the way Hemant Mehta explains this on his blog Friendly Atheist.
322 comments :
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 322 of 3221. Ignor: how come you know how to spell "asshole" and "moron" but can't spell "hylomorphic" or "Leibniz"? And you're one who brought them up.
You misspelled hylomorphic twice and Leibniz 11 times, 3 times as "Lebnitz".
Three strikes rule in effect:
1. Aristotle's First Way was presented by you as pretty damned important just yesterday. It proved God's existence. Now today, you act like it's trivial and unimportant and irrelevant. Not so important anymore? What changed, Smegnor?
Ignor refuses to defend even ONE premise in Aristotle's First Way. He's not smart enough to understand it's been refuted. If you can't answer simple, simple questions about your beliefs, why should anyone think these are your real beliefs?
"He prefers nothing to be true than admitting defeat."
It's true. It's that bizarre assertion that without the Heavens we're 'only' left with the universe and everything in it. Oh no, how will we cope? Wherever will we live? What shall we do for food? How are we to pass the time on this desert island when its library merely contains every book that's ever been written or will ever be written?
Einstein was a Jew, and Egnor says Jews can't be great scientists: "Essentially all great scientists were Christians" says Egnor. Religious bigotry and discrimination is his entire worldview.
Jem: "Can anyone think of a scientific formula that states, say, that there's some kind of ... ooh, I don't know ... fixed relationship between the matter and energy in any given object or system?"
So by coming up with E = Mc^2, the Jews murdered Jesus... twice.
"God... is metaphysically simple".
So is Michael Egnor!
"God... does not have existence-- He is existence."
If Hell exists, then Hell has God, and separation from God is impossible. If separation from God is impossible, then Hell is impossible. But you assume Hell exists. Thus your Christianity is self-contradictory and refutes itself.
Egnor denies the Trinity!
"God is not a thing. He is not a composite"
Ever heard of father, son and holy ghost? You're denying the Trinity. 300 years ago you'd be executed for that.
How about massless particles (pure "morphe", no "hyle") being little godlets?
Egnor started out by saying he had irrefutable "proofs" of God's existence. We refuted all of them; then Egnor told us all his beliefs depend on faith-- "to hold any belief requires many acts of faith"-- so he admitted he had no proofs.
By invoking "faith", he admitted he gave up on all proofs like Aristotle's First Way, which we refuted and which Egnor cannot defend even a little bit-- not even one premise in it.
So then Egnor tried Leibniz's PSR, and misspelled Leibniz 11 times, but he can't even answer the simplest possible question about it: "If the PSR says everything that exists has a cause, what caused the PSR to be true, when was it caused and by what?" His inability to answer even the most simple question about the PSR shows his assertions are self-contradictory and self-refuting.
Then as Jem pointed out, Egnor said the universe was all existence, and the universe was caused by God, so Egnor admitted that his God was outside all that exists; thus god does not exist. As Jem aptly described it: "Kill shot." Egnor admitted his god doesn't exist. That was Egnor's admission #1 that his god does not exist.
Now Egnor is back to claiming he's got proofs again, contradicting his previous claim that it all depends on faith. What proofs? Presumably not Aristotle's First Way nor PSR; he's conceded those are DEAD.
Now his proof is "hylomorphism", which he misspelled twice. Let's take a look.
Egnor: "God is not a thing."
We agree. Your god is no thing. Again, you're conceding the debate to us, but you're not smart enough to know that. You have blind faith in no thing. That was Egnor's admission #2 that his god does not exist.
Egnor: "He... is not a part of the universe."
Yes. Since you defined the universe as all existence, you conceded that your god does not exist. That was Egnor's admission #3 that his god does not exist.
Egnor: "God... does not have existence"
That was Egnor's admission #4 that his god does not exist.
Egnor: "God... is existence."
Oh, now that's just circular logic. I can prove the identity that sqrt(x^2) == x; how can you possible prove that "God is existence"? You haven't defined existence and you haven't defined God. How can you know they're identical?
Still, Egnor has again conceded defeat, because Egnor said a while back:
Egnor: "The cause for the existence of the universe must be a supernatural being"
So if that being is god, and God == existence, then this is mathematically identical to:
"The cause for the existence of the universe must be EXISTENCE"
So you're saying the universe is self-existing, which is a typical atheist point of view. That was Egnor's admission #5 that his god does not exist.
It's simple Mikey:
Egnor: God is existence.
Egnor: The cause for the existence of the universe must be God
==> "The cause for the existence of the universe must be EXISTENCE"
So you're conceding that the universe is self-existing, God is not metaphysically necessary, and since your theology says God is metaphysically necessary, Christianity contradicts itself and is self-refuting.
If Hell exists, it has existence, and existence == God; so Hell has God, and separation from God is impossible even in Hell. If separation from God is impossible, then Hell is impossible, because Hell is defined as separation from God. But you assume Hell exists. Thus your Christianity is self-contradictory and refutes itself.
Egnor: "God... is not a composite"
Christianity says God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost, so you deny Christianity.
Egnor: "He is metaphysically simple"
Yes, and so are you. You conceded five times that your god doesn't exist; could you be any simpler?
That's exactly what Aristotle's First Way leads to, as I pointed out above. In the First Way, causation is defined in terms of mechanism, to the hand swinging the harm is caused by tissues in the hand, the motion of tissues by contraction of cells, contraction of cells caused by molecules, molecular motion caused by atoms, and so on, down to the Prime Mover.
The problem is that the progress is toward the tinier, the more numerous, the more machine-like, with fewer and fewer emergent properties, and no consciousness and no intelligence. So Aristotle proves god is trillions of unintelligent, unconscious, machine-like godicles.
You have misspelt "Aquinas" as "Aristotle", Diogenes.
To quote Egnor: "it's an alternate spelling"
If you want to see something really nutty, here's a professor of physics from my university, former head of the Department of Quantum Physics (and a conservative politician) and his theological "metacosmology". The same man is also the author of an axiomatic theory of the Holy Trinity, which shows that the number of the flavours of God must be exactly three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three (as the Book of Armaments puts it).
Don't ask me why he's allowed to keep this stuff on the official university server.
Egnor, could you invite some more famous DI fellows over here to prove God exists to we poor dumb atheists? We're getting a bit bored making you look foolish. Please invite Dembski, Luskin, Behe, Dr. Cornelius, Reverend Jonathan Wells, etc. over here to prove to us God exists. The sharks are hungry.
Mr Surgeon is actually at his best responding to deleted comments.
Anything with actual content tends to confuse and upset him.
Then again, Jonathan Wells is extremely underwhelming in blog exchanges when he deigns to take part, preferring to focus on his own martyrdom. Luskin refuses to be honest and prefers to shut down comments rather than discuss anything in detail. And Hunter... he just repeats his catchphrase over and over and allows but ignores most comments on his blog. He appears to be immune to any sort of information, preferring to reproduce the same, single argument in every blog post.
They all equally boring.
Yep. At least this Mike "clowning for Jesus" Egnor is so arrogant in his stupidity that he becomes a very entertaining weird comedy.
This thread has been fun to read, The existence of God can not be proven or dis-proven that statement holds true, but here is the issue that atheists seem to willfully ignore, You are using immaterial constructs to try and prove that the immaterial does not exist. Logic which some of you constantly refer to is one such thing. I don't have to delve too much into the issue, because logic will exist even if you don't.
You do understand the cosmological arguments but it is clear you reject them not on their arguments but on their conclusions. That is fine because right there you invoke another immaterial construct called liberty.
So to use the immaterial to argue against the immaterial is a conundrum for you. You constantly contradict your position that only the material exist but you use the immaterial to state your case. You may bash away and call me names as much as you like, it matters not, so fire away.
Lastly almost everything we do is based on faith, I have faith that the laws of physics will always remain constant and I won't suddenly fall of the planet, I also have faith that the millions of chemical reaction happening inside my body won't go unstable and blow me up.
Gross: "almost everything we do is based on faith"
If true, then this claim is based on faith, so Gross admits he can't prove it, so why should we accept it? Gross has gone nuclear.
We reject the proofs of God based on the logical fallacies that we described in detail, NOT based on the conclusion. Rather, YOU reject our refutations based only on the conclusion which you don't want. You give no indication of understanding what logical fallacies are; and you believe your side may not be criticized when its bizarre self-contradictory claims are full of them.
As for "using the immaterial to prove the immaterial does not exist", you equivocate both in the use of the word immaterial and the word exist. For us, certain immaterial CONCEPTS are useful, like math and logic. But by "immaterial", you mean spooks and you mean spooks are objects that exist in the same sense as a table. You use the word "immaterial" to conflate math and spooks.
Logicand spooks are not the same.
They are both immaterial.
But firstly where does logic come from? The laws of physics? The laws of quantum mechanics..... where do these immaterial things come from?
Unless you can show that these things are in fact made of matter, your assertions that the great spook can't exist is baseless.
BTW take note, your supposed refutations have refuted zip. As for me I'm what's called a weak atheist, in other words not all gods exist.
No matter how deep you would like to go, the conclusion that an unmoved mover is true is not anything a angry atheist keyboard jockey is going to refute....
Face the facts......
Everything that begins to exist has a cause
the universe began to exist
therefore the universe has a cause.
Nobody knows the cause of course but that cause is real and no amount of angry ranting can remove that fact. You see if things could cause themselves as you believe then its very reasonable to expect a mountain to come into existence at anytime and at any place I have not seen evidence of self causation have you?
Try harder!
But firstly where does logic come from? The laws of physics? The laws of quantum mechanics..... where do these immaterial things come from?
From us. We humans make them. The universe has signed no obligation to observe what we call "the laws of nature". It just does its thing no matter if it contains any inhabitants intelligent enough to formulate its "laws". Stones will fall in exactly the same way no matter if we "have faith" in Aristotelean, Galilean, Newtonian, Einsteinian or any other physics, or for that matter in some religious/magical explanation of gravity. It's we who have to adjust our laws if they fail to describe the universe as precisely and adequately as we would like them to. The universe contains lots and lots of identical elements interacting in identical ways, so identical patterns of emergent complexity can be observed everywhere. In order to capture them somehow, we have developed a way of doing abstract mental experiments in which strict consistency is required. We model the behaviour of various imaginable systems to see what kinds of patterns emerge given various initial assumptions. We call it mathematics. We have invented it, it wasn't given to us by God. Some of the mathematical models we have can be made to fit the regularities seen in nature. We call them laws of physics. They are always provisional, and sooner or later we run into the limits of their applicability. We either adjust them or discard them and build a better model from scratch. What's so difficult to understand here?
Everything that begins to exist has a cause
How the fuck do you know? Prove it, pretty please.
the universe began to exist
therefore the universe has a cause.
If you say ergo instead of therefore it will sound still more pompous (although it will not make any more sense).
This thread has been fun to read, The existence of God can not be proven or dis-proven that statement holds true, but here is the issue that atheists seem to willfully ignore, You are using immaterial constructs to try and prove that the immaterial does not exist. Logic which some of you constantly refer to is one such thing. I don't have to delve too much into the issue, because logic will exist even if you don't.
If anyone here has claimed that abstract concepts, like logic and math, do not exist because they are immaterial, please point it out.
When theists attempt to prove the "existence" of God thru metaphysical argument, they are not claiming to merely demonstrate that God "exists" as an abstract concept. If that were the case, then no atheists would exist, since there is no way to deny the existence of God in the abstract, anymore than one could deny the existence of Santa Claus as a mythological figure.
Piotr
You began to exist, you were caused by your parents. That is how the fuck I know, we live in a cause and effect universe, every cause has an affect. That is how the fuck I know, science is based on cause and effect. Matter of fact that is what science is the study of a cause and its effects! That is how the fuck I know!
Luitsuite
The point is this; The immaterial exist, to accept some but not all is a contradiction in term especially if you use specific immaterial things to convey that others don't exist. That's having your cake and eating it as the saying goes.
Andre,
You have a lot of work to do if you want to pursue this cause/effect thing to prove that there's gods. Let's check it:
«Everything that begins to exist has a cause»
The problem with this premise starts by the use of the word "exist" and it's use in "begin to exist." Think about this: is it the same to say that something "begins to exist" if we just turn some materials into the shape of an elephant. Then the statue of the elephant begins to exist. If that's acceptable, then we, as humans, also *begin to exist* in that way, as matter/energy transformations.
The second problem is that no matter how much we see cause/effect relationships, the most we could say is that most stuff has cause/effect relationships, not that everything has cause/effects relationships.
The third problem is that every instance of "beginning to exist" with or without cause/effect relationships would be transformations happening within our universe, not without, not besides, but transformations internal to our universe.
«the universe began to exist»
OK, if we are going for the item above, we could have two scenarios:
1. The universe began to exist in the way explained above, as transformations of whatever it was into whatever it is today. Since every such transformations at the small scale that we know about is within the universe, and cause/effect relationships that we can think about are within our universe, we could therefore claim that if the universe began to exist, it did so because of internal causes/effects relationships.
2. The something from nothing thing: since we have no experience with cause/effect relationships from nothing to something, then we cannot say that such event required a cause. It might, but we cannot link the beginning to exist you were talking about in premise 1, with beginning to exist in this one. So, if you are concluding a cause for the universe to begin to exist, but begin to exist has a different definition than in premise one, you are engaged in equivocation.
«therefore the universe has a cause.»
As we saw above, you are not here yet. not by a far stretch. Therefore, the most you could say is that the beginning of the universe had a cause, that if so it could easily have been internal, and that even if it was not internal it does not need to be a god.
I doubt that you can go beyond premise one. But there you have it. Understanding the explanation is up to you.
Now for that immaterial thing ...
Andre,
«The point is this; The immaterial exist, to accept some but not all is a contradiction in term especially if you use specific immaterial things to convey that others don't exist. That's having your cake and eating it as the saying goes.»
This is a very equivocal point. For one, logic, the laws of physics, those things are conceptual. Concepts are not immaterial in the way you imagine your god to be immaterial, and therefore you are engaging in equivocation. Instead of trying to paint every "immaterial" into a single category, it helps defining things with a bit more precision. However, we could still present a purely physicalist position against your claims. Gravitation is very physical. We conceptualize it as laws, different laws depending on how accurately we want to represent the way gravitation works, but gravitation and it's behaviour are still physical. You would want then, to move your goal posts and say that then concepts are immaterial. Well, we would not be able to conceptualize without those brains and cells, and physical-chemical reactions. So, concepts might appear to be immaterial but they are not. If you pushed the issue to dictionaries misdefining "abstractions" and such, then I can still tell you that even if we accepted concepts to be immaterial, the most we could claim is that concepts exists, not that gods or spirits could exist other than as concepts. After all, concepts can refer to existing and non-existing stuff. Therefore this line of argument won't lead you too far in terms of gods, other than showing them to be conceptual. Though the proper word is for what gods are is imaginary.
Therefore it is not a contradiction of terms to accept that concepts exist and use them to reject your preferred immaterial stuff, namely your gods.
Again, understanding this is up to you.
Andre,
«You see if things could cause themselves as you believe then its very reasonable to expect a mountain to come into existence at anytime and at any place I have not seen evidence of self causation have you?»
Well, we don't know if that's what Diogenes believes. You should be careful before claiming that anybody here believes one way or another.
Anyway, we saw above that cause/effect relationships happen within the universe. If we took the whole thing into account, we could easily conclude that the universe transforms constantly because of its own properties, and thus "causes" its own "effects." Therefore we do know of things that cause themselves: the universe causes it's own transformations.
From what I explained you should be able to understand all by yourself why your mountain example would be logically flawed.
See ya.
"Therefore, the most you could say is that the beginning of the universe had a cause"
Should say; Therefore, the most you could say is that the beginning of the universe *might have had* a cause
Nobody can prove that life arouse spontaneously.
Better yet, nobody can create life that many believe arouse spontaneously.
I have read once, that unless creationist prove that life absolutely could not have arisen by chance, atheists win.
Well, with this kind of blind faith, nobody can win, right?
Hi Vashti,
«Nobody can prove that life arouse spontaneously.»
Well, the research field has advanced a lot since I started following it. I think that this will be a solved problem sometime soon. But better yet, the thing is this Vashti: there's no reason to doubt that life could arise naturally. No reason at all. Natural laws actually seem to support the idea that life can arise naturally. Yes, not done a complete model of how it can happen, but that's the state of affairs.
«I have read once, that unless creationist prove that life absolutely could not have arisen by chance, atheists win.»
I would not think so. Well, for one, I don't buy into the either chance or gods false dichotomy. Nature does not work purely by chance.
To me, what's required for creationists to win is to first prove that gods, their god preferably, do exist. What's required for atheists to win ... it's not about winning in the first place. I care about reality. If gods were part of reality I would just accept it so. The problem with creationism is that gods are, as far as anybody can tell and/or demonstrate, imaginary. Most of those believed in are also nonsensical. Therefore I don't believe in gods. So, you see? It's not "oh I want to win this one that there's no gods," it's more like "in order for me to accept that your god exists you have to demonstrate so, not just believe so." In the meantime, that life arose naturally (note that "naturally" does not mean "by chance") is a given. No options other than that are available. It's only logical. No faith required.
Vashti: "I have read once, that unless creationist prove that life absolutely could not have arisen by chance, atheists win."
Straw man argument, and a poor one. You can't cite that to any scientific paper. There's a vast literature on the topic of OOL. You can't cite that to any peer-reviewed scientific paper on OOL. You either made it up wholecloth, or else you misrepresented your source.
No. In fact, it's the creationists who invoke "God of the Gaps" and say that if there is ANY phenomena that scientists can't explain-- or (to be more realistic) any phenomena that creationists can lie about and trick church audiences into believing that it can't be explained by scientists, then that proves all the Bible stories about Jonah swallowed by the whale etc. are 100% true. No. That's your hocus pocus logic.
Vashti's straw man is a creationist "tu quoque" argument of the type Casey Luskin calls "materialism of the gaps", the gaps being between Casey's ears.
If you could have refuted our real argument, you would have. You attacked a straw man because you can't refute our real argument. You concede defeat. We accept your surrender.
"God is not a thing. He is not a composite, and is not a part of the universe. He is metaphysically simple, and his essense is existence. Loosely speaking, He does not have existence-- He is existence. He is Being.
Classical cosmological proofs and classical theology depend on these metaphysical concepts."
Your arguments are about as useful to Cosmology as Ornithology is for birds.
Andre: If you could have refuted our real argument, you would have. You attacked a straw man because you can't refute our real argument. You conceded defeat. We accept your surrender.
Andre says: "Unless you can show that these things [math, logic] are in fact made of matter, your assertions that the great spook can't exist is [sic] baseless."
Straw man, and a pathetic one. I never claimed spooks CANNOT exist. Rather, I claimed that
1. Every logical "proof" of god's existence contains multiple fallacies-- never just one
2. No Christian apologist is intelligent enough to understand what "fallacy" means or that their proofs have many fallacies and have been refuted.
The behavior of Michael Egnor, Andre Gross, William Lane Craig etc. demonstrate this.
Andre beats up a straw man:
3. God cannot exist
No. 1 is not equal to 3. I have substantiated 1. I never claimed to prove 3.
This type of straw man is insufferable because creationists DELIBERATELY invoke fraudulent evidence, which can be refuted trivially easily, in order to draw us into this, so that they can replace our trivially easy refutations (which are child's play to us) with their straw-man. It's so common I call it the "It's not that easy, mister!" [INTEM] argument. It goes like this, typically:
Creationist: Evolution is impossible because the Second Law of Thermondynamics says the entropy of a closed system must decrease!
Scientist: No. 2LOT does not say that. 2LOT says the entropy of an ISOLATED system must decrease, and the biosphere is not an isolated system. Heat is radiated out of the system, and energy comes in from sunlight.
Creationist: Oh! You atheists think that just because the sun shines, that proves God doesn't exist! Well it's not that easy, mister! [INTEM]
We know it's not that easy. Proving evolution is true was hard work and took many scientists. But proving you're an idiot is easy.
All of this guy's "arguments" have already been debunked in this thread. I guess if you repeat them enough times maybe they will turn true.
Hei Vashti, how's that ground-breaking new article coming along?
Andre says: "The point is this; The immaterial exist, to accept some but not all is a contradiction in term [sic]"
We can imagine an infinite number of immaterial things. Andre says that if ANY of them exist, then ALL of them must exist! IDIOTIC.
Andre is insisting that all immaterial things be conflated in a large mushy ball, containing math, logic, Caspar the Friendly Ghost, Tolkien's Middle Earth, Allah, Krishna, etc.
The fact that math, logic, Caspar the Friendly Ghost, Tolkien's Middle Earth, Allah, Krishna, God etc. are all immaterial does not mean that all exist. Andre is pathetically shrieking that math and logic MUST be lumped in a ball with Caspar the Friendly Ghost and all other spooks. Why is that, little Andre? Why is it that, either Caspar the Friendly Ghost exists, or else we're not allowed to invoke math equations that have been proven?
Moreover, spooks, by definition, cannot be modeled mathematically! There's a mathematical description of calculus, without which it would not be useful. But there are no mathematical descriptions of spooks-- no way to measure their intelligence, to know how they interact with matter, no independent way to deduce their purposes.
Even within math, some things are true and some aren't. Some math theorems can be DISPROVEN. Andre would have you believe that if SOME math theorems are true, then ALL math theorems are true!
Andre: especially if you use specific immaterial things to convey that others don't exist.
Jesus tapdancing Christ that's stupid! What the hell do you think mathematicians DO every single day!? They use certain mathematical concepts to DISPROVE theorems! Mathematicians use specific conceptual things to disprove others!
If Andre's logic were valid, then if you accept 2+2 =4, you're forced to accept 2+3= purple frazazzle, and that Caspar the Friendly Ghost exists. No. Some conceptual things are useful and some aren't.
We can imagine an infinite number of immaterial things. I can imagine a carrot that's orange but invisible, and has no vegetable matter. I can imagine a salt crystal that has no Na atoms, and no Cl atoms, and no other atoms, but tastes salty. Do they exist, Andre? Should we take seriously the claim that it's "immaterial" salt that makes kung pow chicken taste salty?
Again: Andre is equivocating about the meaning of the word "immaterial" and also the word "exist". Mathematical concepts or equations do NOT exist in the same sense that a table exists. But Andre means that spooks really do exist, in exactly the same sense that a table exists. Math equations exist in a different sense that a table, or a spook, is said to exist.
We can conceive of a number googol + 29.34782. That does not mean that ANYTHING in the entire history of the universe has ever had a number or property that can be counted as googol + 29.34782, just because we can imagine it. It's conceptual; that doesn't mean it exists in the sense that a table exists.
To put it more formally, Andre is trying to pull a fast one:
1. Some conceptual things are useful.
2. Therefore, all conceptual things exist in the same sense that a table exists.
Gee Andre, are you smart enough to figure out where your logic went wrong? Nah.
Andre, how do you define the word "universe"? You say the universe must have a cause. What's the definition of "Universe"?
1. Three strikes law is in effect. Andre has three chances to answer the question; third strike is conceding defeat.
The most bizarre thing I find about most atheists is that they get really angry when they are cornered with the possibility of the First Cause, or that their theories are next to impossible or virtually impossible to prove, etc.
When faced with such realities, one would think that most, if not all of open minded people, not only atheists, would be relieved. For some unexplained reason atheists feel quite contrary.
Why?
If I were an atheist, I would be relieved if I found out that there is even a slight possibility of an existence of the First Cause.
They feel the opposite and ever swear and verbally abuse those who even dare to mention such possibilities.
Why? I'm clueless.
BTW,
Atheist even look for ways of explaining the beginning without the beginning. Is that wicked?
2LOT says the entropy of an ISOLATED system must decrease, ...
Ahem!... increase.
@Andre: You began to exist, you were caused by your parents. That is how the fuck I know, we live in a cause and effect universe, every cause has an affect.
Quite a leap: from one example to "everything". I suppose you really mean that every event must have a cause, not that every cause has an effect (which would be tautological: a hypothetical event without any effects would not be called a cause). Hom many more times in this thread shall we give examples of physical events that happen without a cause (in the sense that B has to be triggered by an earlier occurrence of A in order to happen)?
That is how the fuck I know, science is based on cause and effect. Matter of fact that is what science is the study of a cause and its effects! That is how the fuck I know!
Then you know too little. Science is not only about causality. In particular, in quantum mechanic you can't ascribe a cause to many things that really happen, and "the same" causes may produce unpredictably different effects. We don't live in a clockwork universe in which nothing can move unless something else (or God's finger) pushes it.
Andre has deployed William Lane Craig's pathetic Kalam cosmolologic argument. Refuting this is child's play for us.
Andre: "Face the facts......
[1] Everything that begins to exist has a cause
[2] the universe began to exist
[3] therefore the universe has a cause."
[I added the numbers]. But neither Andre nor WLC have the guts to describe in detail the crucial fourth step,
[4] The cause of the universe is a Middle Eastern war deity who gave himself a body so he could murder himself and come back as a zombie, and he's three people but they're really just one.
They don't go into detail about the crucial step [4], because they know it's ridiculous. So let's refute this WLC shit in reverse order. Too many atheists start chomping on the wide end of the carrot. Let's start by biting off the narrow end, [4], and work back to [1].
I will number my refutations with primes, [1'] to [4'].
[4'] You have no evidence that a cause of the universe must be a spook, or any intelligent being, or anything with purpose, anything immaterial, or anything outside of space and time. Indeed, by your own logic the cause of the universe cannot be immaterial nor outside of space and time, because your alleged "universal law" [1] refers always to causes that are material and that are inside space and time. Your "universal law" [1] is allegedly derived from a set of observations in which causes are always material things that interact by material means with other matter; and all of the causes are within space-time, and all occur before or simultaneously to the effect that "begins to exist". To put it in physics terms, the cause is always within the light-cone of the effect-- this means that the time interval t2-t1 must be long enough to permit a signal traveling at lightspeed to go from cause to effect. Causes are always material, interact by material means, and are always within the light cone of the effect.
The above principle is always true within the set of observations from which Kalam's alleged "universal law" [1] is derived, so this principle must be valid if [1] is valid, but it contradicts step [4]'s assertion that the cause of the universe is immaterial and outside space-time.
I call this an "inductive slice", a fallacy in which the theist takes a set of observations, and derives from them not one, but two principles, the first of which is a generalization of the data ("everything that begins to exist has a cause") and that second of which is actually the opposite of an equally valid inference from exactly the same set of observations. The theist had invented wholecloth a "principle" that goes against induction from the very set of observations he uses to derive his "universal law" of causality! Why is causality a "universal law" with no conceivable exceptions; whereas "causes must be material things within space-time that interact by material means" is somehow NOT a universal law now, but instead a rule that the theist simply assumes is violated on a universal scale?
As for the assumption in [4] that the cause must be an intelligent being, this is ridiculous, and one may not appeal to fine-tuning arguments, or assertions that only "intelligence" creates order, or that only "intelligence" creates low-probability structures.
The idea that the universe is "ordered" so the cause of it must be intelligent is ridiculous: we know that non-random natural laws also produce order, so one cannot ascribe intelligence to the cause of the universe, just because it has some order, even if we were to grant that the universe really is ordered (the universe is not actually ordered at all scales, because of quantum mechanics and chaos theory.)
To be continued.
[Continuing with refutation 4']
The fine-tuning argument that the universe must be produced by intelligence because it is an allegedly "low-probability" structure is simply a hoax we should view with contempt. Probabilities do not attach to structures; only processes have computable probabilities. To say that the universe has such-and-such a "probability", you must assume a mathematical model of the process by which universes are formed-- and this is exactly what we're arguing about, so you can't assume a universe-producing process or it's question-begging.
When creationists blather about "probability", they always compute probabilities by computing the "tornado probability", that is, the probability of formation by random scrambling of all parts in the structure. "Tornado probability" does not correspond to any real process, and it gives a fake "probability" that is astronomically inaccurate if it is applied erroneously to structures that were in fact produced by non-random natural laws.
I will say again: we know for a fact, that when a structure is produced by non-random natural laws, and a creationist computes its "probability" erroneously as the tornado probability, the fake creationist "probability" is incorrect by an ASTRONOMICALLY large factor. In fact, most structures in the universe which have an astronomically small tornado probability were in fact produced by non-random natural laws, so by default we should assume non-random natural laws create such structures, unless other evidence suggests otherwise.
Thus, if the creationist invokes the "fine-tuning" hoax and says that the universe has an astronomically small "tornado probability", we should point out that:
1. ANY probability computation for a universe is invalid unless you know the process of universe formation, which is what we're arguing about,
2. Most structures in the universe which have an astronomically small tornado probability were in fact produced by non-random natural laws, so by default we should assume non-random natural laws create such structures, unless other evidence suggests otherwise. If the creationist says the universe has a tiny "tornado probability", we should assume by default that the universe was produced by non-random natural laws, unless there is some additional evidence.
To sum up: if the universe had a cause, we should assume by default that it was not intelligent. Moreover, "universal laws" that are as valid as the alleged "universal law" of causality require the cause of the universe to be material, within space-time, and interacting by material means.
Larry wrote:"An atheist does not claim to have proof that gods don't exist, although they do claim that most of the evidence for god(s) is wrong."
If most evidence for god (s) is wrong, it is logical to conclude from such a statement that at least some evidence for god (s) must be right. Which evidence for god (s) is right then?
I like this one:
Heb 3:4 "For every house is built by some man; but he that built all things is God."
And
Rom 1:20 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.
I think the key words here are: "...they are without excuse..." whoever this applies to..
What's even more bizarre is those creationists like Vashti that would not even try and understand the answers provided to them. My answer to you was not insulting Vashti. Do you care about answers at all?
Vashti: "They [atheists] feel the opposite and ever swear and verbally abuse those who even dare to mention such possibilities. Why?"
Your "question" is based on a false premise, so you're lying. We don't "verbally abuse those who even dare to mention such possibilities." That never happened.
Do you remember what happened on this thread, Vashti? We remember: Egnor showed up insisting he had proof of God's existence, and that atheists were too stupid to understand it. Egnor never raised the "possibility" that God existed; he made no mention of "possibility"; he said he had proof. He said atheists were too stupid to understand his proof. We refuted his "proof" easily; it was child's play for us. We had fun doing it.
Do you think you can neuralyze us and make us forget what happened on this thread? You're lying. Lying makes us angry.
Vashi: "The most bizarre thing I find about most atheists is that they get really angry when they are cornered with the possibility of the First Cause"
No. We're laughing at you because you're clownish. Sometimes we're angry because your leaders, from Casey Luskin to William Lane Craig, are pathological liars, and because they control right wing politicians.
Vashti: When faced with such realities, one would think that most, if not all of open minded people, not only atheists, would be relieved. For some unexplained reason atheists feel quite contrary.
This is a lie; you can point to NO examples. This thread, indeed, proves the opposite. Valid logic NEVER makes us angry. When we are angry, it's because your leaders, from Casey Luskin to William Lane Craig, are pathological liars, and because they control right wing politicians.
On the contrary, it's the leadership of conservative Christianity that are bitter and angry. They're now claiming that the USA will have a "Christian revolution" because some states legalized gay marriage. You're so angry you threaten violence because two gays get married, and you're pathetic.
Piotr: "Then you know too little. Science is not only about causality. In particular, in quantum mechanic you can't ascribe a cause to many things that really happen, and "the same" causes may produce unpredictably different effects."
What he said. Science is about finding explanations, where "explanation" means NOT necessarily an allegation of cause, but rather a testable prediction that can be compared against observable quantities, and that is computed from independent observable quantities.
Hypothesizing causes for effects has many times been a productive research program for deriving explanations, but an explanation is not necessarily an allegation of cause.
When religionists say explanation they mean an allegation of cause, often a magical cause. Why did Snow White come back to life after eating a poisoned apple? A prince kissed her. That's not an explanation in the scientific sense, it's an explanation in the religious sense: allegation of magical cause.
Andre: You see if things could cause themselves as you believe then its very reasonable to expect a mountain to come into existence at anytime and at any place I have not seen evidence of self causation have you?
As I have repeated 50 goddamn times on this thread, religionists believe that god is self-caused, so by your logic, religionists cannot believe in science. You are the ones who believe in self-causation. I have repeated this point 50 goddamn times on this thread and you geniuses never learn. Religionists think they're immune to the laws they claim as "universal."
Religionists believe in miracles, the supernatural, spooks, breaks in natural laws. Thus, believing that "its very reasonable to expect a mountain to come into existence at anytime" is a problem for those who believe in spooks, the supernatural, and miracles, not our problem.
Vashti: "the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen"
Sure, they're invisible, but they're seen. And clearly seen. Why that makes perfect sense.
But note here that modern Christianity is enslaved by its crusade to rehabilitate the ad hominem attack, as we see above by citing 1:20. Every idiot creationist cites Rom 1:20 and Psalm 14 and Psalm 53. Ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies, so you're conceding you have no logical arguments, and no proof. You're conceding defeat. We accept your surrender.
"You are using immaterial constructs to try and prove that the immaterial does not exist."
I'm not trying to prove a general point that the 'immaterial' doesn't exist, just that one argument said to prove the existence of one particular 'immaterial' being doesn't work.
I can't 'disprove the existence of gods', because I face the intractable problem that the concepts 'disprove', 'existence' and 'gods' are all too broad. I can take Mregnor's garbled, incomplete version of Aquinas' First Way and demonstrate that it does not accomplish what Mregnor says it does.
'Immaterial' is another problem term. There's a grassroots abstraction possible where I, a being evolved to locate food and eat it, can go 'oh, a sandwich'. You don't need to invoke the Platonic realm to account for that. I've evolved to spot patterns. I can see another sandwich next to it and come up with the concepts of 'two' and 'identical', again without needing divine intervention or some kind of eternal absolute '2' out there.
None of that *rules* out any philosophy of form or what have you, but I think there's at least a simple, purely material evolutionary answer available. I think that kind of pattern spotting can be self-organising.
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause"
Define 'begins to exist', in the context of a universe like ours where the conservation of energy and matter-energy equivalence hold.
@ Andre Gross
The point is this; The immaterial exist, to accept some but not all is a contradiction in term especially if you use specific immaterial things to convey that others don't exist. That's having your cake and eating it as the saying goes.
Let me get this straight: So if someone accepts the existence of something that is "immaterial" such as, for instance, trigonometry, then he has to accept the existence of everything that is said to be immaterial? Even an invisible immaterial spook that, despite being immaterial, can go about doing material things like impregnating virgins and turning turning wine into blood?
Or, looked at another way: You believe in the existence of material things like horses. So I guess that means you also have to believe in unicorns, since they are also material.
You've really outdone yourself here, Andre. Learn how to think, dude. That would be a good start.
"When theists attempt to prove the "existence" of God thru metaphysical argument, they are not claiming to merely demonstrate that God "exists" as an abstract concept."
No atheists are able to speak on behalf of any other, but I feel confident that many of my fellow god-frees would be happy to take a deal that concedes God 'exists' only in the same sense that Daffy Duck does, and that if Pope Francis wishes to sign an accord with Richard Dawkins on that basis, that could be arranged.
His eminence might also offer to paint Daffy and an equals sign on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, next to God, to reflect this.
I'm guessing, though, that all the actual theists do not believe they worship a fictional character.
Diogenes,
Are physical laws material or immaterial?
Is fine tuning of them material or immaterial? In other words; can material beings like humans adjust them even a bit? Yes or no? If no, what or who fine-tuned them if the most intelligent beings we know can't do a thing about them? Don't tell me that you don't know and therefore you can still make the point.
[2'] Here I will refute Kalam's proposition [2]
"[2] the universe began to exist."
The universe cannot "begin to exist" in the same sense that things within it "begin to exist". If by "begin to exist" we mean that the time component of space-time is finite backwards, and even if we grant that supposedly happened-- that the time component of space-time WERE finite (which is not conclusively proven by the theory or observations related to the Big Bang), time itself cannot "begin to exist" in the same sense that things within the universe, like a volcano or a salt crystal, "begins to exist."
The assertion that "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is allegedly derived from a set of observations, within which, in every case, the things that "begin to exist" are objects within the universe, not a universe itself; and in every case, there is a time t1 within the universe when the thing doesn't exist, and a later time t2 > t1 within the universe when the thing does exist.
The universe cannot "begin to exist" in the same sense as the set of observations, within the universe, from which this alleged "universal law" [2] was derived. If by "begin to exist" we mean that the time component of space-time is finite backwards, and even if we grant that supposedly happened (which is not conclusively proven, scientifically), then there would be a time t2 = zero within the universe when the universe exists, but there would be no time t1 < t2 when the universe doesn't exist.
Thus, the analogy between "begins to exist" as applied to things within time, is invalid when applied to time itself.
Again the theist attempts an inductive slice: a fallacy in which the theist takes a set of observations, and derives from them not one, but two principles, the first of which is a generalization of the data ("everything that begins to exist has a cause") and the second of which is actually the opposite of an equally valid inference from exactly the same set of observations. The theist has invented wholecloth a "principle" that goes against an equally valid induction from the very set of observations he uses to derive his "universal law" of causality! Why is causality a "universal law" with no conceivable exceptions; whereas "in all cases of creation by causality, there MUST be a time t1 < t2 when the thing does not exist, and there MUST be a later time t2 when the thing does exist" is somehow NOT a universal law now, but instead is a rule that the theist simply assumes to be violated on a universal scale?
To be continued...
Continuing with refutation of Kalam Step 2':
As far as the science goes: we don't know if the universe began to exist or not. The Big Bang process is different than the Big Bang event. The Big Bang process is the a sequence of events like the expansion outward of space and time, the decrease in density of energy, decoupling of matter and radiant energy, etc. The Big Bang event is a hypothetical singularity where all space-time contracts to a point.
We know from much observational evidence that the Big Bang process happened at least as far back as cosmic inflation. However, physics does not permit us to extrapolate back past the time when the energy density of the universe exceeded the Planck scale, the energy scale at which quantum field theory and general relativity come into conflict. Beyond the time, we have no physics to tell us what happened, but we know for sure that Lorentzian [relativistic] space-time cannot exist at times earlier than the time when the energy density of the universe exceeded the Planck scale.
William Lane Craig has lied through is teeth on this issue. He searches through papers on cosmology, which he does not understand (he's an idiot) and he looks for quotes that he can take out of context to make it appear that Lorentzian space-time cannot existed at times early than the time when the energy density of the universe exceeded the Planck scale, so he can tell church audiences that it's a "fact" that the universe started with a singularity when space-time was a single point. We don't know that at all-- maybe true, maybe not--but WLC lies and tells church audiences we know that.
The one thing all physicists agree on is this: we know for sure that Lorentzian space-time cannot exist at times earlier than the time when the energy density of the universe exceeded the Planck scale.
To sum up:
1. We do not know if the universe "began to exist" in the sense that there was a singularity when space-time was a single point.
2. We do know, for sure, that if time is finite backwards, then the universe did not "begin to exist" in the same sense that things within the universe "begin to exist", so this is equivocation on the meaning of "begin to exist." It's an invalid analogy. Thus causality principles derived from things within the universe can't be applied to the universe as a whole. Fallacy of composition.
Fallacies of Kalam Step 2: Invalid analogy; inductive slice; fallacy of composition; and outright lying about scientific facts on William Lane Craig's part where the Big Bang is concerned.
[1']: Refuting Kalam Step 1:
"[1] Everything that begins to exist has a cause"
Obviously, this is factually false. In quantum mechanics some events happen with no known cause. This is also true in chaos theory. This has been discussed at great length on this thread.
Theists often hypothesize that there are an uncountably infinite number of invisible, undetectable "hidden variables" which the causes behind quantum uncertainty. So theists believe in infinite, invisible, undetectable causes. As we have discussed above, hidden variables theory has been disproven experimentally by tests of Bell's inequality, a theorem in quantum mechanics.
Nevertheless, the theist, to save his assertion that "everything that begins to exist has a cause", adopts blind faith not just in gods, but also in an uncountably infinite number of invisible, undetectable causes.
The theist would be more honest if he would express his true belief:
"[1] Because I can imagine an infinite number of invisible undetectable causes, all of them must be real, therefore everything that begins to exist has a cause, probably an invisible and undetectable cause but believed in by faith."
Fallacy of Kalam Step 1: outright deception of the audience.
"I find about most atheists is that they get really angry when they are cornered with the possibility of the First Cause"
You are misinterpreting a mood of slightly weary eyerolling with anger.
The 'first cause' argument is a tired one. It doesn't fully work. It's not just some 'angry guys on the internet' who think that. Aquinas himself says that.
The basic point is this: there's no one 'irrefutable' argument that goes 'logic, logic, logic, (double check there's no conflict with empirical data) therefore God exists and my religious tradition is true'.
What you have are various priesthoods arguing with various degrees of conviction that's the case. But *none* of them can get there without 'an act of faith'.
The only countermove is to say 'yes, but atheists have to have faith, too'. It's a slippery move, though, because it confuses 'faith' with 'trust'. If Larry Moran tells me something about DNA's structure I will trust it for a variety of reasons I probably don't need to rehearse, but - it's his job, he's steered me right in the past, he's written books about it, most of the people who think he's wrong clearly belong in an asylum, he's admitted his errors in the past ... and so on.
Trusting Larry to explain DNA in a way consistent with the modern scientific consensus is not the same 'ask' religious faith makes.
LS: You've really outdone yourself here, Andre. Learn how to think, dude. That would be a good start.
Agreed. That one from Andre was a new level of stupid. Theists just get dumber and dumber.
Vashti: "Are physical laws material or immaterial?"
They're conceptual. They don't exist in the same sense that a table exists.
Vashti: "Is fine tuning of them material or immaterial?"
There isn't any fine tuning. I discussed this at length in my refutation of William Lane Craig's Kalam cosmological argument, step 4.
Vashit: "In other words; can material beings like humans adjust them even a bit?"
"In other words"? You're kidding me! Those two statements are not equal at all! What a non sequitur!
Human beings may be able to adjust some physical laws, e.g. through vacuum engineering. Look it up.
"If no, what or who fine-tuned them if the most intelligent beings we know can't do a thing about them?"
Fine tuning is a hoax, as I already refuted in my discussion of Kalam Step 4.
"Don't tell me that you don't know"
I do know. Fine tuning is a hoax.
Now it's my turn. Vashti, how do you define the universe?
Three strikes law in effect.
Andre says: "the conclusion that an unmoved mover is true is not anything a angry atheist keyboard jockey is going to refute."
But we did just refute it, and it was child's play for us. Trivially easy, in fact. You're just pretending that you're deaf and you can't HEAR our refutations.
If there were a flaw in our refutions, you would have pointed it out. You didn't-- not even one! not one!-- because our refutations have NO flaws. So you're bluffing and think you can "neuralyze" us and make us forget we crushed William Lane Craig, Kalam, Aquinas, Leibniz, Egnor, yourself, etc. No, we remember. You can't neuralyze us.
Andre says: "BTW take note, your supposed refutations have refuted zip."
Well, so far we've refuted Aquinas' First Way, Leibniz' PSR as proof of God, and William Lane Craig's Kalam cosmological argument.
See, for example, my refutations designated A to G and my refutations F to K. See also Jem's "killshot" of the Prime Mover, which made Egnor admit his god does not exist: "He [God] does not have existence." Also see my refutations of Steps 1, 2, and 4 in the William Lane Craig’s pathetic Kalam cosmological argument. They’re “zip” in the sense that your logical “proofs” were infantile to begin with.
The fact that you're pretending you've gone deaf and CAN'T HEAR our trivially easy refutations doesn't mean we don't know we kicked Egnor's ass, and Aquinas', and WLC's, and yours. We know we beat you, and we know you know, because you're pretending like you've gone deaf, and Egnor is pathetically bleating "He [God] does not have existence." It's child's play for us.
Vashti,
Why do you post comments if you won't read and/or consider the answers? Are you just stupid or something like that?
«Heb 3:4 "For every house is built by some man; but he that built all things is God."»
That's no evidence for the existence of god(s). It's a mere assertion.
«Rom 1:20 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.»
That's no evidence either. It's just one more assertion.
If those are your standards for evidence for god(s), then maybe it's not just that you won't read and consider our answers, but rather that you lack the capacity to understand them.
I think Larry preferred not to be absolutist about the lack of evidence. I would have said "although they do claim that the evidence presented to them so far is wrong."
See ya
vashti, do you believe that everyone and everything that that has ever existed that didn't/doesn't worship the same "God" you worship deserves death, and eternal agony in a lake of fire?
If "all things" are built/made by "God" then rocks and viruses are some of "the things that are made". Do rocks and viruses understand "his eternal power and Godhead" and are rocks and viruses "without excuse"?
vashti, even if there was a 'first cause', what does that have to do with the so-called gods and associated fairy tales that people have thought up, believed in, and worshiped?
Religious people use lots of 'philosophical' arguments about first cause, uncaused cause, cause and effect, beginnings, creation versus natural, intelligent creator(s), fine tuning, supernatural power and knowledge, material/immaterial, finite/infinite, inside or outside space and time, nothing/something, life and no life, and a whole bunch of other stuff but where in all that is there evidence for any of the so-called gods that anyone has ever thought up, promoted, and worshiped?
And specifically, where is the evidence that makes it reasonable to jump from 'first cause' and all the other 'philosophical' arguments to yhwh-jesus-holy-ghost and associated fairy tales?
mregnor asserted:
"God is not a thing. He is not a composite, and is not a part of the universe. He is metaphysically simple, and his essense is existence. Loosely speaking, He does not have existence-- He is existence. He is Being."
What makes you think that you know all that? And first you said that "He" is a being but now you say that "He" is being. Which is it and how do you know?
"Classical cosmological proofs and classical theology depend on these metaphysical concepts."
Do they depend on "God" being a "He"? Why do you call "God" a "He"? How do you know that "God" isn't a she or an it? Does "God" have a penis?
"You may disagree with the concepts, but disagreement presupposes understanding, which you obviously lack."
But of course you have that understanding, eh? How, when, and where did you get that understanding and how do you know that it's correct?
"You have a long way to go before you can debate these proofs. The only thing you're debating how is your ignorance of the proofs."
Proofs? Or your ignorant religious beliefs? Can you prove your claims about your so-called "God" with scientifically testable evidence?
If most evidence for god (s) is wrong, it is logical to conclude from such a statement that at least some evidence for god (s) must be right. Which evidence for god (s) is right then?
Is this an example of the best logic employed by theists?
No wonder you're losing the battle.
Diogenes,
Your "tornado probability" explanation above is superb.
Seconded. The term "tornado probability" deserves to become standard.
Thanks guys, but I was hoping for input about my description of the fallacy which I called "inductive slice", above. Probably some philosopher has made this argument before, it is most likely an old complaint not original to me, but I don't know the philosophical term to describe this fallacy, so I coined one.
If anyone knows of a proper philosophical term for the fallacy I call "inductive slice", that would be great. Perhaps Jem might know.
How is god metaphysically simple? God is said to have intent and emotions. Are those things characteristics of only existence? If not, then god must be a combination of existence + other things.
By the way, there is one more fallacy in arguments based on causality. Those idiots are obsessed with linear causal chains like A > B > C > ... > Z, while in the real universe every event can have any number of mutually independent "causes" inside its past light cone, and any number of mutually independent "effects" in its future light cone. More often than not we deal with distributed causality, where it's impossible to point to any event (or a small number of events) in the past as the "main" cause(s). It was raining here a few hours ago. What caused that rain? And what caused the things that caused it? So "everything has a cause" is nonsense. Every event is caused, not by one thing in its past, but by the entire content of its past cone -- and nothing else. Causality is a trivial geometrical relation, not some mystical connection between selected individual events.
I have to admit I have not laughed like this since my brother in law announced that he is an atheist and the reason for his change of believes was the book by none other than Lawrence Krauss and his famous book about the universe from nothing that you so freely quote. I will not get into these details, because my brothers and a couple of family members have thorn this book apart when we had a couple of drinks. What really makes me laugh is your denial of verbal abuse. If you have a son, and a woman that gave birth to this child, I feel sorry for them. You have no insight to you serious problem. But who cares.
Once 2 morons accept that 2 pieces of LEGO can assemble themselves and one of them can propose a theory, then the 2 can become scientists and they propose a scientific theory and then it will became the truth.
"Once 2 morons accept that 2 pieces of LEGO can assemble themselves and one of them can propose a theory, then the 2 can become scientists and they propose a scientific theory and then it will became the truth."
Crap. We broke his brain. Are there any neurosurgeons in the house? Oh. Shit. Are there any *other* neurosurgeons in the house?
"I will not get into these details"
Details are not really your bag, are they?
I would like to bet $100.00 Canadian that the "friendly atheist" is gay. Anybody interested?
OK. Please explain what the 'Lego' is in this analogy. And if the Lego's not assembling itself, then that means God -
Pretty please?
I'd prefer to hear it from you. Go on. Self-assemble enough rope.
Are ad hominem attacks the only output of the religious brain?
vashti, who is your Friday, July 12, 2013 8:21:00 PM post directed at?
Vashti, don't make up a story about cosmology. You don't know quantum mechanics, and can't apply it to the inflation field. Address your previous accusation:
"The most bizarre thing I find about most atheists is that they get really angry when they are cornered with the possibility of the First Cause,"
That was not true. Every theist on this thread said there was PROOF of god. Not a possibility. Do not change the subject.
So address your falsehood.
So, vashti, since you have no legitimate arguments you're just going to display your smug, self-righteous, homophobic bigotry?
"I would like to bet $100.00 Canadian that the "friendly atheist" is gay. Anybody interested?"
First of all, I think it's appalling and instructive that, with no actual arguments, not only do you resort to insults, you think 'gay' is an insult.
But I want to school you in the ways of truth, evidence and research. And it's a personal failing of mine, but I really want you to eat shit and die at the moment more than I want to lecture you about homophobia.
But I don't want $100, even Canadian.
If I can provide evidence the Friendly Atheist is not gay, I want you to reply, with no qualification or preamble, with the following phrase:
'I Vashti, think if God existed he'd be a cunt and people who believe in him are all dickheads'.
That's all. You don't have to mean it. Just type it and post it.
If I can't provide evidence, I'll pay you $100 Canadian.
Deal, faith-boy, or are you chicken?
"Perhaps Jem might know."
I don't.
But to be clear: it's when someone draws two conclusions from the same argument, but they're mutually incompatible?
Well, you see? Vashti thinks that someone, who knows which someone, was cornered with the possibility of the "First Cause," but I did not see anybody stumble on it. Everyone who offered an answer showed that the first cause bull shit is, well, bullshit. So no cornering to talk about. Therefore, even if the insults and such happened, Vashti would still be making up shit, since nobody was cornered. Yet, Vashti was indeed shows devastatingly wrong. Isn't it curious that instead of addressing the problems with his "arguments" he would start this series of attempts at insults. Rather than curious it is ironic. Vashti was cornered by the evidence that his arguments are fallacious, so he has nothing else to offer, so he craps around the place.
Vashti, it's amazing how much of an exemplar of Christianity you are.
«Matthew 7:15-20
King James Version (KJV)
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.»
Well, I think that this inference slice is more of a cherry picking thing. It's a lack of consistency. The creationists sees one generalization but ignores the other. The creationist will conclude from knowing that there's a lot of that cause/effect that therefore everything has causes, but won't see that those known cause/effect relationships are physical and thus fail to infer that therefore all causes would be physical. I would say cherry picking. The creationists takes what "works" for his preferred conclusion, but ignores anything else.
"I did not see anybody stumble on it."
Exactly. The idea that atheists hear the First Cause argument for the first time in some internet comments section, then run away screaming is ... well, a comforting fantasy for theists, I guess.
It's a disingenuous argument for reasons that pretty much everyone understands straight away. It goes 'and we call that God', then falls silent and hopes everyone's too busy trying to find an example of an effect without a cause that no one ever asks 'er, *why* do you call it God?'.
The fact that empirical evidence now demonstrates that there *are* - certainly in terms the ancients would have accepted - effects without causes is just the icing on the cake.
Hmm... Isn't Vashti a girl's name?
Neither Vashti nor Andre answered the question "How do you define the universe?"
Jem says: "It goes 'and we call that God', then falls silent and hopes everyone's too busy trying to find an example of an effect without a cause that no one ever asks 'er, *why* do you call it God?'."
That's right. I compare proofs of God's existence to carrots. Too many atheists start chewing on the wide end of the carrot. If the proof goes 1-2-3-4, the atheist rebuts 1, then 2... We should start on the narrow end of the carrot. Start on 4, and then *if* there's time (in a debate there may not be) work backwards toward 1.
Isn't Jemima a girl's name?
Diogenes,
Neither you, nor Negative Entropy have explained how quantum mechanics eliminates the need for the first cause in the appearance of the universe.
Are you waiting for us to do that for you or you are ignorant enough to think that we are going to accept it?
Quantum mechanics eliminates the first cause the same way the theory of evolution eliminates the need for spontaneous appearance of life last time I checked. So, indulge us lol
Jem: "to be clear: it's when someone draws two conclusions from the same argument, but they're mutually incompatible?"
Not really. It's when someone derives an alleged "universal law" by induction from a set of observations, but overgeneralizes the "universal law" in such a way as to use bad logic-- overgeneralizing in a fallacious way because he contradicts a second "universal law" which follows with equal confidence from the very same set of observations used to derive the overgeneralized "universal law." And the second universal law, which the theist contradicts, is mechanistically linked to the first.
Example #1: from a set of observations of physical causes and effects all in space-time, the theist alleges a universal law:
[A.] "Every event has a cause; the cause may or may not be material, and may or may not be in space-time"
This is an overgeneralization of the data, because in the set of observations used to justify [A], the cause was always physical and always within space-time. But the theist contradicts an equally valid "universal law" drawn from the very same set of observations:
[B.] Causes of events are always material, in space-time and interact with effects by material mechanisms.
Here is another example, which all evolutionists are very familiar with!
[A.] "All instances of specified complexity [CSI] or irreducible complexity, whose histories are known, are produced by intelligence, which may or may not be material, and may or may not be in space-time"
This is an overgeneralization of the data, because in the set of observations used to justify [A], the causes were always humans made of matter interacting by material means. But the theist contradicts an equally valid "universal law" drawn from the very same alleged set of observations:
[B.] The causes of specified complexity [CSI] or irreducible complexity, when known, are always humans made of matter interacting by material mechanisms.
(I'm not suggesting I believe B is true! Of course, the alleged set of observations that go into the ID creationist ideas of "specified complexity" and "irreducible complexity" have been hoaxed up by their cherry-picking of observations: they pruned out all false positives of "specified complexity" that were produced by natural processes. I'm saying that even if we were to grant their cherry-picked set of observations, which I don't, the induction they apply to the observations is still fallacious.)
A final example: consider the set of observations "Every day, the sun rises." Suppose the theist were to concoct an alleged "universal law":
[A] "Every day, a light source appears, which may or may not be made of matter, may be round or cubical, may be visible or invisible, might be white or rainbow-colored"
And then from this "universal law" assert that, tomorrow, a light source will appear which will be not made of matter, cubical, invisible but also rainbow-colored at the same time.
This would be absurd, but why? Of course this is an overgeneralization of the data, because the theist would ignore the equally valid principle derived from the same observations:
[B] When the sun appears, it is always made of matter, always yellow-white, and always produces light by the material means of nuclear fusion.
So here is my definition of an "inductive slice":
The "law" [B], which the theist contradicts, 1. is derivable with an equal degree of confidence as the "universal law" [A], 2. [B] is derived from precisely the same set of observations that [A] was derived from, and 3. [B] is mechanistically linked to the [A]: that is, we have mechanistic reasons for believing [B] always goes together with [A].
Vashti says
"Neither you, nor Negative Entropy have explained how quantum mechanics eliminates the need for the first cause in the appearance of the universe."
ACTUALLY WE DID, AND WE KNOW WE DID, and you cannot neuralyze us and make us forget what we wrote. You just want to pretend you're deaf like you can't hear what we said. That is not a refutation.
See, for example, my comment here, refuting Step 1 of the Kalam cosmological hypothesis.
Again: you cannot neuralyze us and make us forget what we wrote. Like most theists, when faced with trivially easy refutations, you just pretend you're deaf like you can't hear what we said. That is not a refutation.
are ignorant enough to think that we are going to accept it?
No. I know you'll never accept mountains of evidence if singing "la la la" is enough to flatter your god-sized egos. I know how dishonest Christian apologists are; I know they have ZERO intellectual integrity. You assholes think you're god, you think you have the infallibility of god, and you think it's OK to tell lies because you've got a morally higher cause.
I know Christian apologists lie. You lied on this very thread. I'm not shocked by Christian apologists with zero intellectual integrity. You behave exactly like I expect.
I have asked you twice so far to correct this falsehood of yours:
Vashti: "[Atheists] ever [sic] swear and verbally abuse those who even dare to mention such possibilities [of God]."
This is a lie. Egnor showed up on this thread saying he had proofs of God, proofs, not possibilities and atheists were too stupid to understand them. He was lying on both counts.
You say you have proofs, then when challenged, you say you're just suggesting possibilities. You say "proofs", then you say "possibilities", then you say "proofs" again, then I say fuck you.
Three strikes rule in effect. I have asked you twice so far to back up this false claim:
Vashti: "[Atheists] ever [sic] swear and verbally abuse those who even dare to mention such possibilities [of God]."
This is #3. THREE STRIKES AND YOU'RE OUT.
Vashti,
Jem asked you a fair question. To repeat:
If I can provide evidence the Friendly Atheist is not gay, I want you to reply, with no qualification or preamble, with the following phrase:
'I Vashti, think if God existed he'd be a cunt and people who believe in him are all dickheads'.
That's all. You don't have to mean it. Just type it and post it.
If I can't provide evidence, I'll pay you $100 Canadian.
Here's your chance to make money, Vashti.
NE says: "I think that this inference slice is more of a cherry picking thing. It's a lack of consistency. The creationists sees one generalization but ignores the other."
Not exactly the same-- cherry picking refers to the data from which generalizations, from which "general principles" are derived. Inductive slice refers to how you phrase the "general principles" derived from the data.
Arguments from Intelligent Design and Christian apologetics suffer BOTH from cherry-picking their data set, and THEN applying an inductive slice to the cherry-picked data!
If Vashti's smart, he might - correctly - suspect that I'm basically asking him to stand on a big cartoon X and not to check for suspended anvils.
Vashti,
Please learn to read. I did not mention quantum mechanics. Not a single time. I pointed to many other problems in the arguments that you presented. All the problems I focused on did not need me to know or not know about quantum mechanics. Your arguments are so flawed that we don't need to know if/when/how the universe started before we notice those flaws.
Pay attention Vashti. Read what I wrote, don't just imagine it, read it. Make the effort to understand it. Stop making a ridiculous cartoon out of yourself.
Diogenes,
Your "tornado probability" explanation above is superb.
:)
Sexual orientation is not relevant to this discussion. I don't allow comments that bring up irrelevant personal issues - that includes comments about someone's wife and children.
Vashti, this is your first warning. You are entitled to one more but as soon as you commit a third offense, you will disappear from Sandwalk.
NE,
You must've mention QM in your other posts, as I had it stuck in my mind for some reason.
It was Dinogenes then who was bragging about QM and how it's great properties eliminate the first cause.
C'mon now, Vashti, don't back down so easily. If you believe Negative Entropy wrote about quantum mechanics, then it must be true. Who cares if the evidence clearly shows that he didn't? Why would you start worrying about whether what you believe is consistent with the evidence, when you've been doing the opposite all along so far?
latesuit,
Do you still withhold the truth from your patients when proscribing statins or you tell them the truth now, that statistically their lives are going to be prolonged a few days? Come on, who cares about your profession and your income depending on patients returning regularly for nothing.
Just to let you all know, I can't see your comments blow mine with the scriptures. They are not loading, so unless you state your argument in the first few words of your comment, I don't know what you wrote. I'm not sure why they are not loading?
Vashti, I understand your confusion. The First Cause argument is rubbish for so many reasons it would be hard for anyone to keep them straight.
For the record:
1. There *are* quantum events that the current scientific model accepts are 'uncaused', certainly to a standard that Aristotle would have accepted. The example that's been given here is radioactive decay.
2. The argument contains a serious logical error when it establishes that all physical effects have a physical cause ... but that the 'first cause' is metaphysical, not physical.
3. The argument depends entirely on an archaic notions of what 'begins' means when we refer to the universe as a whole. (Simply put 'what caused time?' is a meaningless question, like 'what's north of the North Pole?')
4. The argument depends entirely on an archaic understanding of what it means for a thing in the universe to 'begin' - it's wedded to old notions of 'matter' and 'form' we simply know now aren't meaningful.
5. Even without referring to anything as gauche as facts, reality and empirical evidence, or anything as trendy as the scientific discoveries since the Enlightenment, the argument is disingenuous because it only infers what it seeks to prove. There's a massive leap from 'there is a first cause' to 'and we call it God'.
6. ... and there's a second massive disingenuous leap if someone asserts that it proves *their* particular God exists. The fact that a believer in the Greek pantheon first came up with the idea, that Aquinas was (in modern terms) a Catholic, that Kalam was a Muslim and that William Craig Lane teaches at a fundamentalist evangelical institution might serve as a clue that the loudest proponents of the First Cause argument don't actually agree *which* brand of God they think lit the blue touchpaper.
There's also a distinct (7), related to (5) and (6) - there's no reason to think an effect can't be superior in at least some aspects to a cause. Simple processes can refine, purify or add complexity to matter. Turning sand into a silicon chip does not represent a lessening, any more than Michelangelo ruined a bit of marble by carving David. There's no reason to worship a 'first cause' simply for *being* the first cause.
Kalam was a Muslim
Just a minor correction, Jem. The Kalam was a philosophical tradition (Islamic, of course), not a person.
I'm not sure why they are not loading?
Click on the "Load more" link.
I think one has to disagree. I think that sexual orientation plays a great deal in this case as we are discussing whether God exists or not. One's beliefs can be influenced by his or her sexual orientation, if he or she believes that a God does not approve his or her sexual orientation. Their views can be bias due to their sexual orientation, I believe.
vashti, neither you nor any other god pusher has ever "explained" that, even IF there was a "first cause", it must be the so-called "God" that you or they believe in, worship, and push.
The jump from "first cause" to yhwh-satan-jesus-holy-ghost, or Zeus, Vishnu, Odin, allah, or any other so-called 'God(s)' that anyone has ever thought up and pushed is ENORMOUS.
No 'God(s)' that anyone has ever conjured up has any evidence of its existence. If you think you can prove me wrong, show the evidence. Oh, and 'the bible says so' or some other 'holy text says so' or 'millions of people believe' is not evidence.
I finally watched the video. Too bad Dominick got banned or he would have dismantled this psychotic rant. I have no patience for this. Sorry, but I have feelings and I feel sorry for the lost minds of the lunatics
I'm trying to save your life, not your boring job. Can you appreciate it?
Huh?
Assuming that your response is directed at me, I ask:
In what way are you trying to save my life, and what does that have to do with this thread?
And what "boring job" do you think I have?
"One's beliefs can be influenced by his or her sexual orientation, if he or she believes that a God does not approve his or her sexual orientation."
Again, a comforting theist myth: we're all atheists because we're, in their terms, sexual deviants or at the very least led by our lusts.
No, we're atheists because the 'irrefutable proof' you present as an elegant mathematical demonstration of your god's existence is nothing of the sort. And that it's rather telling that when challenged most theists abandon any attempt to defend their position and just start throwing insults around.
Oops. Thanks. Now, Mregnor and Vashti, watch carefully: now I know that, I accept my error and will never repeat it. Because that is the intellectually honest and personally satisfying thing to do.
Vashti has created a sock puppet "Liberte" to agree with his ad hominem attacks. Real original.
I think that sexual orientation plays a great deal in this case as we are discussing whether God exists or not. One's beliefs can be influenced by his or her sexual orientation, if he or she believes that a God does not approve his or her sexual orientation. Their views can be bias due to their sexual orientation, I believe.
You've got it backwards.
If one is a homophobic bigot, there is motivation to invent a deity who is also a homophobic bigot, thereby creating the false impression that one's bigotry is a moral principle.
That the belief in God can serve to condone and encourage such bigotry is yet another reason to be an atheist. But one does not have to be homosexual to have that concern.
The way theists project their own anxieties and prejudices onto their deities, as lutesuite says, another bit of compelling evidence.
There may be a God (spoiler: except, no). But the one the theologians talk about is unknowable. And so we again have this extraordinary bait-and-switch: 'God is unknowable ... the priesthood say gay marriage is bad'. And the double standard: 'God is unknowable ... but you are not qualified to speculate about his nature, only we are'.
We live in a tolerant, multicultural society. Most bigots seem to be religious. Is this because society gives a free pass to bigotry if it's religious, so bigots plead the rosary? Are bigots just gravitating to religion? Or, most scary, does religion make bigots? Or is it just a stupidity thing? There are smart people who are religious ... but they tend to be able to compartmentalize. Those who can't put their gods in a box may have a harder time of it.
Guys,
If Dominick is Vashti's intellectual standard, then we should not be surprised that he won't read or won't understand our comments. They must be like a foreign language to Vashti. Vashti's mind must be so damaged or so "not there" that the only thing (s)he must understand about any comment must be "this is from a Christian" or "this is not from a Christian." If from Christian, then Vashti concludes that it must be right, if from a non-Christian, then Vashti concludes it must be wrong. No reasoning involved.
But well, of course, Vashti thinks that a couple of drinks makes creationists into experts in advanced physics ... not surprising that Vashti would talk about "the lost minds of the lunatics" unaware of the irony.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand the "doc" runs away as usual. I guess my dunks destroyed the rim or something.
mrengor! I had a blast learning from your defenses in this blog. I appreciate you use of logic and a tact which was not shown by your dissenters. I hope you are not discouraged by the unreasonable posts some of these people have made, and truly wish for you to continue to defend your faith in the future. I can say that I have learned from reading your ideas. Much respect and admiration.
John
Post a Comment