Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Cosmological argument.
#51

Cosmological argument.
(05-18-2021, 05:34 PM)TheGentlemanBastard Wrote:
(05-18-2021, 11:27 AM)Lion IRC Wrote:
(05-18-2021, 12:19 AM)Dancefortwo Wrote: You're dancing around your theists god claim.

P1. Things which exist require a first cause.
P2.  You claim your god exists
C.  What caused your god to exist?  



P1. ???

Who claims things which exist require a cause?
The Cosmological argument states that things which begin to exist - are not past eternal - have a cause. If God and the universe have always existed, neither require an explanation as to where they came from.
(my bold)

If the universe has always existed, then there is no need for your creator gawd.

Well, God might be needed for other things, but you are absofrikenlutely right.
If the universe has always existed, it is alike with God - no causal explanation needed.
We are in heated agreement. 

Quote:The whole fucking point of the cosmological argument is to establish gawd as the special case. The uncaused cause, the unmoved mover. It's nothing more than a special pleading fallacy.

No!!!
The whole point of the cosmological argument is to apply coercive logic to the question of whether the universe has always existed. If it has, then the CA is a non-starter.
If it hasn't always existed, then it requires an explanation as to its causation - deliberate or accidental (unintentional/spontaneous).

If it wasn't unintentional/spontaneous, then what other possibility is there other than than it was caused by deliberate volition?

Now, do you see the word God anywhere above? This is a purely secular philosophical syllogism. Was it caused? If not, who cares. If it was, then we have good reason to care Who or what caused it and if there is a WHY in there somewhere.

You and I deliberately cause things to (begin to) happen. This is a mundane truism There's no God argument being smuggled into the uncontroversial category of agent/mechanism. The universe could be the end product of a Higher Power (Agent) who agrees with atheists that there is no Higher Being.
Reply
#52

Cosmological argument.
(05-20-2021, 11:35 AM)Lion IRC Wrote: No!!!
The whole point of the cosmological argument is to apply coercive logic to the question of whether the universe has always existed. If it has, then the CA is a non-starter.
If it hasn't always existed, then it requires an explanation as to its causation - deliberate or accidental (unintentional/spontaneous).

Reality does not give a shit about your "coercive logic". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercive_logic What a pile of crap.
In order to even use that nonsense TWO must agree to even use it. No one here has. That is so hilarious ... in order to prove his Jebus, he has to "trick" people into his logic.
Leon's alternatives are the "black and white thinking" falacy, (or the false dichotomy falacy), and he is too dull to come up with any more, and cosmologists have many proposed answers.

You have not demonstrated that any of the logic systems apply to this question. You're up shit creek from the get-go.
Humans at this point simply do not have this knowledge now, and until there is EVIDENCE, you can say nothing about the matter.
The Big Bang Theory states that "The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of high density and temperature"
..... and you cannot say what was at an initial state, "nothing" is not at high temperature and density. You have no reason to claim the universe "began", and all this horsehit is dismissed for what it is. It's stupid, misleading apologetic crap. Something was there already to "bang" ... and the Theory in no way supports your nonsense.

Quote:If it wasn't unintentional/spontaneous, then what other possibility is there other than than it was caused by deliberate volition?

Actually you left out two possibilities. Spontaneous, and "unknown/other". You have laid no foundation for limiting it to your two. You WANT there to be two, but you have not demonstrated need for the limitation. It's also speculation, .... unsupported speculation, AND the Argument from Ignorance falacy. You don't know, so you make up an answer.
Perhaps someday science will know or have some postulates, right now YOU and your stupid arguments DO NOT KNOW, and you cannot justify the use of ANY logic, until you can name the logic you choose, and TEST whether you logic applies, you're dead in the water.

Volition and creation and whatever bla bla bla are ACTIONS. An act has a beginning, and an end. The THINKING about it, (volition) is a PROCESS. To use those words, you must assume space-time is the environment your god exists in. You have no evidence for that, and in fact your belief system says precisely the opposite, that it is "eternal". Eternal means (in Theology) "timeless". Have you ever taken a theology class ?

Why do you think William Craig, knowing full well this IS the probem it is, tried to invent "non-tensed" time. You boys don't even know your own shit.
The following 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post:
  • Deesse23
Reply
#53

Cosmological argument.
(05-20-2021, 11:35 AM)Lion IRC Wrote:
(05-18-2021, 05:34 PM)TheGentlemanBastard Wrote: If the universe has always existed, then there is no need for your creator gawd.

If the universe has always existed, it is alike with God - no causal explanation needed.

This claim is unbelievably absurd!  To say a purported supernatural entity = the collective sciences.    Weeping

Quote:We are in heated agreement.

Nope.  Regardless of how much you delude yourself, atheists would never align themselves
with anything of the theology theists blindly accept.
 
Quote:If it wasn't unintentional/spontaneous, then what other possibility is there other than than it was caused by deliberate volition?

Whatever the possibilities—and I agree it's not yet been decided—it most definitely had nothing
at all to do with some imaginary mythical god.   That notion is the stuff of kids' fairy stories FFS.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply
#54

Cosmological argument.
(05-20-2021, 11:35 AM)Lion IRC Wrote:
(05-18-2021, 05:34 PM)TheGentlemanBastard Wrote:
(05-18-2021, 11:27 AM)Lion IRC Wrote: P1. ???

Who claims things which exist require a cause?
The Cosmological argument states that things which begin to exist - are not past eternal - have a cause. If God and the universe have always existed, neither require an explanation as to where they came from.
(my bold)

If the universe has always existed, then there is no need for your creator gawd.

Well, God might be needed for other things, but you are absofrikenlutely right.
If the universe has always existed, it is alike with God - no causal explanation needed.
We are in heated agreement. 

Quote:The whole fucking point of the cosmological argument is to establish gawd as the special case. The uncaused cause, the unmoved mover. It's nothing more than a special pleading fallacy.

No!!!
The whole point of the cosmological argument is to apply coercive logic to the question of whether the universe has always existed. If it has, then the CA is a non-starter.
If it hasn't always existed, then it requires an explanation as to its causation - deliberate or accidental (unintentional/spontaneous).

If it wasn't unintentional/spontaneous, then what other possibility is there other than than it was caused by deliberate volition?

Now, do you see the word God anywhere above? This is a purely secular philosophical syllogism. Was it caused? If not, who cares. If it was, then we have good reason to care Who or what caused it and if there is a WHY in there somewhere.

You and I deliberately cause things to (begin to) happen. This is a mundane truism There's no God argument being smuggled into the uncontroversial category of agent/mechanism. The universe could be the end product of a Higher Power (Agent) who agrees with atheists that there is no Higher Being.

Since you don't seem to understand the argument you're defending...
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Cosmological Argument
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Wrote:The cosmological argument is less a particular argument than an argument type. It uses a general pattern of argumentation (logos) that makes an inference from particular alleged facts about the universe (cosmos) to the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God.
(bold added by me)

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Wrote:From these facts philosophers and theologians argue deductively, inductively, or abductively by inference to the best explanation that a first cause, sustaining cause, unmoved mover, necessary being, or personal being (God) exists that caused and/or sustains the universe. The cosmological argument is part of classical natural theology, whose goal is to provide evidence for the claim that God exists.
(bold added by me)

As I said, "the whole fucking point of the cosmological argument is to establish gawd as the special case. The uncaused cause, the unmoved mover. It's nothing more than a special pleading fallacy."

I would recommend figuring out what the fuck your going on about before acting like a know-it-all douche-bag. Or, you can just keep doing you.
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
Reply
#55

Cosmological argument.
Question: How can God be uncaused? If God at time T exists, that means he existed at time T-1, T-2, T-3, and so on. This implies that an actual infinite exists. But as WL Craig explains, that's absurd.

How can God exist without running afoul of the problem of infinite regress?
[Image: sea-stones-whimsy-7-sm.jpg]
Reply
#56

Cosmological argument.
(05-20-2021, 04:44 PM)Dānu Wrote: Question:  How can God be uncaused?  If God at time T exists, that means he existed at time T-1, T-2, T-3, and so on.  This implies that an actual infinite exists.  But as WL Craig explains, that's absurd.

How can God exist without running afoul of the problem of infinite regress?

They will say he exists in a timeless environment .... but then go on to say many other things about it (the god) which are temporal.
Loving, creating, getting angry, sending a son, etc etc ... all actions which imply/assume/need time. Sentience (thinking) itself is a mental PROCESS. I guess their god is a stone. Oh wait, even a stone has moving atoms.
Reply
#57

Cosmological argument.
(05-20-2021, 04:44 PM)Dānu Wrote: ...How can God exist without running afoul of the problem of infinite regress?

(special pleading)
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 1 user Likes SYZ's post:
  • TheGentlemanBastard
Reply
#58

Cosmological argument.
(05-20-2021, 11:35 AM)Lion IRC Wrote: If it wasn't unintentional/spontaneous, then what other possibility is there other than than it was caused by deliberate volition?

There's the rub. We don't know.

Did we know about relativity before Relativity was discovered ?
Did we know about quantum uncertainty before it was discovereed ?
Do we know why universes pop out of what we know nothing about, if that's what happens ?

We. Don't. Know.

Our state of not knowing does not justify : "Oh a god musta done did it".
We'll know when we know.
Given that the state of science is a mere few hundred years old in a universe that's billions of years old, "we" may never know.
Did all the people who lived before Hubble know how vast the universe is ?
Did all the people before the 1920's or whenever galaxies were discovered to be so extensive, know about them ?
No. You're not special, and the universe does not owe you an answer, even though you appear to desperately need one.
Google "low ambiguity tolerance" and "high need for cognitive closure". There you are.

Every time we think we know how small things really are or can get, we're proven wrong.
Every time we think we know how big things are, we are proven wrong.
The following 6 users Like Bucky Ball's post:
  • Dānu, TheGentlemanBastard, Alan V, trdsf, brunumb, Deesse23
Reply
#59

Cosmological argument.
(05-20-2021, 06:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(05-20-2021, 11:35 AM)Lion IRC Wrote: If it wasn't unintentional/spontaneous, then what other possibility is there other than than it was caused by deliberate volition?

There's the rub. We don't know.
 

This isnt about knowing. It's about picking between two possible options.
Did Paley's watch spontaneously manufacture itself by pure chance? Or is it the end result of deliberate - intentional - causation.

Quote:Did we know about relativity before Relativity was discovered ?
Did we know about quantum uncertainty before it was discovereed ?
Do we know why universes pop out of what we know nothing about, if that's what happens ?

We. Don't. Know.
 

Sure. You/we can make a very long list of stuff we wish we knew.
Science keeps adding to that list with every new discovery.
The 'horizon' of the unknown seems to be shifting further and further away, the higher we climb.

Quote:
Our state of not knowing does not justify : "Oh a god musta done did it".
 

The argument from causation doesn't compell you to conclude that Someone named God is the prime suspect, the only possible agent who might have caused the end result. But it does compel you to decide whether the first premiss is more plausible than its negation.

Is it logical or not to think that a thing which begins to happen, or comes into existence, has a cause. This is a simple ontological question. Yes or no.

Quote:We'll know when we know.
Given that the state of science is a mere few hundred years old in a universe that's billions of years old, "we" may never know.
Did all the people who lived before Hubble know how vast the universe is ?
Did all the people before the 1920's or whenever galaxies were discovered to be so extensive, know about them ?
 

All great rhetorical questions. 
Now. Yes or no. Deliberate or Accidental?

Quote:
No. You're not special, and the universe does not owe you an answer, even though you appear to desperately need one.
 

I already have an answer. I'm quite content thanks.

Quote:
Google "low ambiguity tolerance" and "high need for cognitive closure". There you are.

Every time we think we know how small things really are or can get, we're proven wrong.
Every time we think we know how big things are, we are proven wrong.

Yes. I know.
Reply
#60

Cosmological argument.
Well, first of all, there are more than two possibilities. I know of three without looking.

And that's just that I know of. Claiming there are only X or Y explanations inevitably requires an argument from ignorance, which blows up any point you intended to make.

The second is the theist notion that we have evidence that the universe began. We do not.
[Image: sea-stones-whimsy-7-sm.jpg]
The following 1 user Likes Dānu's post:
  • GenesisNemesis
Reply
#61

Cosmological argument.
(05-20-2021, 08:46 PM)Lion IRC Wrote: This isnt about knowing. It's about picking between two possible options.
Did Paley's watch spontaneously manufacture itself by pure chance? Or is it the end result of deliberate - intentional - causation.

Fallacy of the false analogy. You know nothing about the conditions from which the universe arose.
Just as near a Black Hole, all scientific and physical laws break down, and no longer apply, so it is with your universe, as tightly wound as the Big Bang,
We never boxed ourselves into your (dishonest) COERCIVE bullshit. You may have, but that's your problem.
I don't care to play your fucking ignorant games. I get that's all you have. Where in hell did you get that crap ?

Quote:Sure. You/we can make a very long list of stuff we wish we knew.
Science keeps adding to that list with every new discovery.
The 'horizon' of the unknown seems to be shifting further and further away, the higher we climb.

And your POINT is what ? You NEED to know today. We get it. Your psych problems are showing, child. It's something we don't know, and unlike you, we don't make up shit.

Quote:
The argument from causation doesn't compell you to conclude that Someone named God is the prime suspect, the only possible agent who might have caused the end result. But it does compel you to decide whether the first premiss is more plausible than its negation.

Not because you say so. It's the only possibility that your unimaginative and ignorant mind can cook up. An omnipotent deity could have made universe makers. Your reasoning does not lead  to the only possible agent. I never said I bought into your coercive bullshit logic. Your idiocy compells me to do nothing. I don't play 3 year-old games with apologists.

Quote:Is it logical or not to think that a thing which begins to happen, or comes into existence, has a cause. This is a simple ontological question. Yes or no.

What logic are you using, and when did you demonstrate it applies to this situation ? You can get back to me. Until you do, and justify it, you're dismissed.

Quote:All great rhetorical questions. 
Now. Yes or no. Deliberate or Accidental?

Are you fucking two years old.
Neither.
We don't know, and you have no agent for the deliberate option, AND because we know from Chaos Theory that order arises spontaneously in this universe, we don't need one.
Google Chaos Theory. It's neither. It's all about statistics, baby.
That's an option you didn't know about, as you're pretty uneducated, Leon.
Your "logic" is not *even* logic. You have not deomonstrated it applies and you can shove your "coercive logic" up your ass.

Wherever you think you learned this coersive logic bs, ya see leon, it's debunked.
First of all, you have to get the other fool to AGREE to it. You didn't.
Then you have to lay the foundation for the question. You didn't. Have fun learning to play with your new toy. You should have read the instructions for it.

"Coercive logic is a concept popularised by mathematician Raymond Smullyan, by which a person who has agreed to answer a question truthfully is forced to perform an undesired action, where not doing so would mean breaking their agreement. Smullyan presents the concept as a question: Suppose I offer you a million dollars to answer a yes/no question truthfully, would you accept the offer? If so, you shouldn't, for I would then ask: Will you either answer no to this question or pay me two million dollars? The only way you can answer truthfully is by answering yes and then paying me two million dollars. Smullyan's question is asking the reader whether at least one of the two options is true: They will truthfully answer no to his question. They will pay him two million dollars.
The reader is unable to truthfully answer no, as this would mean that point 1 was true and the reader's answer would be false. If the reader answers yes, they cannot be saying that 1 is true (as they did not answer no), so must be asserting that 2 is true, and must give Smullyan two million dollars. Smullyan credits the name of the process to his son-in-law Jack Kotik.
WHat in hell kind of bullshit is this ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercive_logic  Have you lost your mind ? Some people are smart enough not to get caught in this "logic" scam. LOL
Is your logic so weak, you need to scam people into it ?

Quote:I already have an answer. I'm quite content thanks.

You made one up, because your childish mind needs one, and you're a fool. But I'm glad you're happy there.
Thanks for the VERY illogical and anti-intellectual response.

Show ContentSpoiler:

Quote:Yes. I know.

Thanks for the compliment.

You really suck at this stuff. Maybe you need to go back to school, and take a refresher or two.
Thanks for the preachy-weachy.
Reply
#62

Cosmological argument.
(05-20-2021, 08:46 PM)Lion IRC Wrote: The argument from causation doesn't compel you to conclude that Someone named God is the prime suspect...

It would seem that you believe and/or know that there is only one god from the way you write.

The Australian aborigines have observed various gods for more than 60,000 years.  These are
a few of them: Wandjina; Altjira; Lumaluma; Baiame; Eingana.  Can you state unequivocally
that they do not exist, and never have?  What evidence do you have for your chosen response?

Or if you accept that they do exist, what position does that put your chosen god into?
Or would you claim that the Aboriginal gods of rain, drought, thunder, anger, love etc are imaginary?
Or do you want an each way bet?

—This atheist needs to know.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 1 user Likes SYZ's post:
  • Peebothuhlu
Reply
#63

Cosmological argument.
(05-20-2021, 11:44 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(05-20-2021, 08:46 PM)Lion IRC Wrote: The argument from causation doesn't compel you to conclude that Someone named God is the prime suspect...

It would seem that you believe and/or know that there is only one god from the way you write.

The Australian aborigines have observed various gods for more than 60,000 years.  These are
a few of them: Wandjina; Altjira; Lumaluma; Baiame; Eingana.  Can you state unequivocally
that they do not exist, and never have?  What evidence do you have for your chosen response?

Or if you accept that they do exist, what position does that put your chosen god into?
Or would you claim that the Aboriginal gods of rain, drought, thunder, anger, love etc are imaginary?
Or do you want an each way bet?

—This atheist needs to know.

I see that @Lion IRC has not only ignored my shutting down of his bullshit claim that the cosmological argument isn't about his gawd, now he's trying to shift the goal posts by calling it "the argument from causation." He seems to think we won't be able to smell the bullshit through that extremely thin veil. A rose, by any other name, may not smell as sweet, but bullshit stinks no matter what you call it. Big Grin
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
Reply
#64

Cosmological argument.
The Olympic Gods are the only ones worth a shit.




These people are no sillier than any other superstitious fucks.... and probably a hell of a lot less dangerous.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#65

Cosmological argument.
(05-21-2021, 12:24 AM)TheGentlemanBastard Wrote:
(05-20-2021, 11:44 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(05-20-2021, 08:46 PM)Lion IRC Wrote: The argument from causation doesn't compel you to conclude that Someone named God is the prime suspect...

It would seem that you believe and/or know that there is only one god from the way you write.

The Australian aborigines have observed various gods for more than 60,000 years.  These are
a few of them: Wandjina; Altjira; Lumaluma; Baiame; Eingana.  Can you state unequivocally
that they do not exist, and never have?  What evidence do you have for your chosen response?

Or if you accept that they do exist, what position does that put your chosen god into?
Or would you claim that the Aboriginal gods of rain, drought, thunder, anger, love etc are imaginary?
Or do you want an each way bet?

—This atheist needs to know.

I see that @Lion IRC has not only ignored my shutting down of his bullshit claim that the cosmological argument isn't about his gawd, now he's trying to shift the goal posts by calling it "the argument from causation." He seems to think we won't be able to smell the bullshit through that extremely thin veil. A rose, by any other name, may not smell as sweet, but bullshit stinks no matter what you call it. Big Grin

I sincerely apologize for leading you to think that I was ignoring your devastating slam dunk argumentation. I'll try harder to make time for your delightful posts.

The first two premisses of the cosmological argument - aka the argument from causation, first cause, kalam, contingency, etc. do not contain any reference to divinity. They are theologically neutral.  Likewise the conclusion entails nothing other than the existence of a cause. (Deliberate or accidental.) To the extent that the universe is of such large scale that its effective cause was probably not a human being, the inference is that it was caused by a higher power. (Deliberately or accidentally.)

1. Whatever begins to exist/move has a cause of its existence/movement. (Secular) 
2. The universe began to exist. (Secular)
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. (Secular)

If things can and do magically begin to exist, spontaneously popping into existence without a cause, then the argument unquestionably fails at the first premise. 

If the universe didn't have a beginning, if it has, (like God,) always existed, then the argument fails at the second premise.

If P1 and P2 are true, or at least more plausible than their negation, then the argument is sound and the conclusion is inescapable. The conclusion merely invites further consideration as to the nature of the cause.

Speaking of ignoring other peoples' posts....

@Bucky Ball
Is it logical or not to think that a thing which begins to happen, or comes into existence, has a cause. This is a simple ontological question. Yes or no.

Still waiting.
Reply
#66

Cosmological argument.
Whatever virtual reality computer simulation begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The computer simulation called the matrix began to exist.
Therefore, the matrix has a cause of its existence.
Reply
#67

Cosmological argument.
(05-20-2021, 11:44 PM)SYZ Wrote: The Australian aborigines have observed various gods for more than 60,000 years.

WOW.
Thanks for that.
More evidence that atheism is false.
Reply
#68

Cosmological argument.
(05-22-2021, 09:45 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  To the extent that the universe is of such large scale that its effective cause was probably not a human being, the inference is that it was caused by a higher power. (Deliberately or accidentally.)
My dick is also pretty large. Must be created by a higher power as well.
What, dont believe me? Ask my girl! She regularly mentions "oh my god".

(05-22-2021, 09:45 PM)Lion IRC Wrote: 1. Whatever begins to exist/move has a cause of its existence/movement. (Secular)
2. The universe began to exist. (Secular)
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. (Secular)
100% pure and unfiltered bullcrap.
Try to agrue your fucking god into existence without using terms tied to time, because thats what you need to do when you are making claims about "pre-planck-time".
God you amateur apologists are so ...boring. Oh, wait the professional ones too, just more verbose.
Trying to use scientific knowledge to support your entirely uncientific claims is pretty shitty behaviour, by the way.

(05-22-2021, 09:45 PM)Lion IRC Wrote: If the universe didn't have a beginning, if it has, (like God,) always existed, then the argument fails at the second premise.
One would think that if the universe and everytihing (else) was created by an all..whatever entity, his/its name would be written all over its reation, but alas, all you have is fallacious arguments. *starts dismissive wanking motions*
R.I.P. Hannes
The following 1 user Likes Deesse23's post:
  • Minimalist
Reply
#69

Cosmological argument.
(05-22-2021, 09:45 PM)Lion IRC Wrote: To the extent that the universe is of such large scale that its effective cause was probably not a human being

This is the stupidest thing I have ever read in all my life.

And people are still trying to have a conversation with someone capable of actually typing something so monumentally idiotic?

No, I get it, it's stupidity of such large scale that its effective cause is not a human being. Just your garden-variety Xtian.
“We drift down time, clutching at straws. But what good's a brick to a drowning man?” 
Reply
#70

Cosmological argument.
(05-20-2021, 09:02 PM)Dānu Wrote: Well, first of all, there are more than two possibilities.  I know of three without looking.

Three more possibilities? So at least five?

Quote:And that's just that I know of.
 

But you didn't actually name any of them. 
I suspect your three extras might just be rewording of the only two I can think of.  Consider

Quote:Claiming there are only X or Y explanations inevitably requires an argument from ignorance, which blows up any point you intended to make.

If you assert that there are more available menu options I haven't heard of, just name them.

I dont assert that deliberate agency and spontaneous, mysterious accident are the only two options. 

I dont assert that there are only two possible answers to the Yes or No question whether the universe has always existed. 

Quote:The second is the theist notion that we have evidence that the universe began.  We do not.

Are we talking about the same universe which my high school science teacher informed me was 13.7 billion years old?
Reply
#71

Cosmological argument.
(05-22-2021, 09:45 PM)Lion IRC Wrote: If things can and do magically begin to exist, spontaneously popping into existence without a cause, then the argument unquestionably fails at the first premise. 

Then it fails.
The following 1 user Likes airportkid's post:
  • Astreja
Reply
#72

Cosmological argument.
(05-22-2021, 09:45 PM)Lion IRC Wrote: To the extent that the universe is of such large scale that its effective cause was probably not a human being...

That's because human beings are a comparatively recent development in the universe.  We weren't there 13.7 billion years ago.

And if it took over 13 billion years for us to get here, how long would the precursor(s) of the current universe have had to exist in order to give rise to a being with vastly superior sentience and the ability to manipulate matter/energy at both quantum and universal scales?

And if universe(s) are prone to occasionally collapsing into a singularity and then expanding again, what would keep such a being alive through the transition when the temperature was upwards of 10^32 Kelvin and not even atomic nuclei could hold together?

This is why I consider a creator-god infinitely unlikely, and round down to zero.
Reply
#73

Cosmological argument.
(05-22-2021, 09:45 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:
(05-21-2021, 12:24 AM)TheGentlemanBastard Wrote:
(05-20-2021, 11:44 PM)SYZ Wrote: It would seem that you believe and/or know that there is only one god from the way you write.

The Australian aborigines have observed various gods for more than 60,000 years.  These are
a few of them: Wandjina; Altjira; Lumaluma; Baiame; Eingana.  Can you state unequivocally
that they do not exist, and never have?  What evidence do you have for your chosen response?

Or if you accept that they do exist, what position does that put your chosen god into?
Or would you claim that the Aboriginal gods of rain, drought, thunder, anger, love etc are imaginary?
Or do you want an each way bet?

—This atheist needs to know.

I see that @Lion IRC has not only ignored my shutting down of his bullshit claim that the cosmological argument isn't about his gawd, now he's trying to shift the goal posts by calling it "the argument from causation." He seems to think we won't be able to smell the bullshit through that extremely thin veil. A rose, by any other name, may not smell as sweet, but bullshit stinks no matter what you call it. Big Grin

I sincerely apologize for leading you to think that I was ignoring your devastating slam dunk argumentation. I'll try harder to make time for your delightful posts.

The first two premisses of the cosmological argument - aka the argument from causation, first cause, kalam, contingency, etc. do not contain any reference to divinity. They are theologically neutral.  Likewise the conclusion entails nothing other than the existence of a cause. (Deliberate or accidental.) To the extent that the universe is of such large scale that its effective cause was probably not a human being, the inference is that it was caused by a higher power. (Deliberately or accidentally.)

1. Whatever begins to exist/move has a cause of its existence/movement. (Secular) 
2. The universe began to exist. (Secular)
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. (Secular)

If things can and do magically begin to exist, spontaneously popping into existence without a cause, then the argument unquestionably fails at the first premise. 

If the universe didn't have a beginning, if it has, (like God,) always existed, then the argument fails at the second premise.

If P1 and P2 are true, or at least more plausible than their negation, then the argument is sound and the conclusion is inescapable. The conclusion merely invites further consideration as to the nature of the cause.

Nice dodge of my actual point. [Image: Eye_Roll.gif]

Maybe you could answer that instead of pretending to be some intellectual giant by twisting what the fucking argument is really all about.
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
Reply
#74

Cosmological argument.
(05-22-2021, 10:09 PM)Vera Wrote:
(05-22-2021, 09:45 PM)Lion IRC Wrote: To the extent that the universe is of such large scale that its effective cause was probably not a human being

This is the stupidest thing I have ever read in all my life.

And people are still trying to have a conversation with someone capable of actually typing something so monumentally idiotic?

No, I get it, it's stupidity of such large scale that its effective cause is not a human being. Just your garden-variety Xtian.

Well, I suppose even as an intelligent person, you're entitled to waste your time posting lengthy rants about how stupid you think something is. And adding a thinly veiled, incredulity insult at your fellow forum members and the futility of stupidly discussing stuff with someone as stupid as me. Did I trigger you? Could you simply not fight the irresistible urge to stoop so low as replying to the posts of an idiot?

You wanna know what I think is stupid - and rude and crass.?

Going out of your boganish way to mock and insult the low IQ and ignorance of an obvious moron like me. Calling a child childish. Calling a retarded person a retard. Screaming at a dumb animal which is so dumb, it doesn't understand the insults you're screaming at it.
Reply
#75

Cosmological argument.
(05-22-2021, 10:52 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:
(05-22-2021, 10:09 PM)Vera Wrote:
(05-22-2021, 09:45 PM)Lion IRC Wrote: To the extent that the universe is of such large scale that its effective cause was probably not a human being

This is the stupidest thing I have ever read in all my life.

And people are still trying to have a conversation with someone capable of actually typing something so monumentally idiotic?

No, I get it, it's stupidity of such large scale that its effective cause is not a human being. Just your garden-variety Xtian.

Well, I suppose even as an intelligent person, you're entitled to waste your time posting lengthy rants about how stupid you think something is. And adding a thinly veiled, incredulity insult at your fellow forum members and the futility of stupidly discussing stuff with someone as stupid as me. Did I trigger you? Could you simply not fight the irresistible urge to stoop so low as replying to the posts of an idiot?

You wanna know what I think is stupid - and rude and crass.?

Going out of your boganish way to mock and insult the low IQ and ignorance of an obvious moron like me. Calling a child childish. Calling a retarded person a retard. Screaming at a dumb animal which is so dumb, it doesn't understand the insults you're screaming at it.

Nobody loves me, everybody hates me,
I think I'll go and eat worms,
Big fat juicy ones, little slim slimey ones,
See how they squiggle and squirm.

I bite off their heads and spit out the juice,
And throw the skins away,
Nobody knows how I survive
On worms three times a day!

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)