Cosmological argument.

[Bucky Ball]

Norman Borlaug ... Jebus could feed a few thousand. Humanist Borlaug saved 1,000,000,000 people by his discoveries, using science to increase grain production. Your gods, on the other hand, let little babies starve, all the time.

[Dancefortwo]

Science  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidom...%20leprosy.

Science is what you're using to post stuff.  Yes, the computer is a complicated piece of science.  Without science millions more people would have died from Covid.  Science has wiped out Polio. Smallpox is a thing of the past because of science.  Without science and the discovery of penicillin many millions of people would have died from simple infections.  I'm one of them.  Women don't die in childbirth as they did in the past.  Why? Because of science.

Science makes your water drinkable.  Prior to water purfication processes typhoid and cholera  killed millions of people.   One of Abraham's sons died of typhoid. Cancer drugs are extending life, it's more survivable now and some medications are completely wiping out some types of cancer.  All because of science.

By the way, the picture of the thalidimide baby is of course very sad but the drug is today being used to destroy certain kinds of cancers. 

You really are ignorant, aren't you.

[Bucky Ball]

If he was having chest pain, would he drop to his knees and pray ?
No.
He would call the EMT's and go to the doctors, where they practice science.

[SYZ]

What the hell are you trying to say, aside from a lame attempt to poison the well?

I'm saying that it's disingenuous, but very common, for atheists to argue like this...

You repeatedly over-generalise atheist behaviour, and really can't comprehend what
atheism actually is.  You seem to mistakenly think that every atheist disbelieves in your
particular god;  I for one don't, because I'm ignostic—as are millions of other atheists.
Why would I concern myself about an imaginary entity that doesn't exist?  I have far
better things to do with my time.

What I do object to is the deliberate distortion of facts, ethics and morals that
religionists are forcing upon a largely secular world.  From enforced religious
holidays, to working days/hours, to foodstuffs, to education, to sexuality, to
reproductive rights, to clothing, to the arts and entertainment industries etc.

Atheist 1: Certain characteristics ascribed to god are problematic.
Not so.  Imaginary gods can't and don't have "characteristics".  The
alleged characteristics you and other deity worshippers cite are just
figments of your imaginations, superimposed onto a fantasy figure.

Theist: Gives defense of said characteristics.
Which is a pointless and unevidenced "defence" that—naturally—fails
to convince any skeptic.  Why?  Because they've not even proved that
God or gods exist outside of their own heads.

Atheist 2: WELL YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS!!!
Which is a perfectly valid response, is unequivocally true, and paints the
theists into a corner.  And, of course, the theist will come up with all sorts
of absurd straw-men in order to avoid that little problem.

When Atheist 1 says something about god, the following is implied: I don't believe that there's evidence supporting this god, but let's suppose for the sake of discussion that it exists.

Nope.  I for one never imply that God or gods do or could exist.  I make
that very clear in all my comments here—in exactly the same way that I
never imply that unicorns, fairies, or leprechauns do or could exist.  All
too often here, you're attempting to put words into atheists' mouths.

I mean, come on, if that isn't implied, then stop discussing such supposed problems - just keep making threads about lack of evidence.

I'm pleased to see that you're giving at least some  currency to "the
lack of evidence" in our debates about God and gods.  This lack is a
critical, life-redefining issue for theists. Which is why the panic and
anger consumes them whenever atheists criticise the entirety of their
religions, from their holy books, to their millennia-old dogma, to their
beliefs in the actuality of paranormal phenomena and supernatural
entities—angelic miracles, gods and devils, heavens and hells—to their
repudiation of the earth sciences, astrophysics and cosmology, scientific
empiricism and rationalism etc.

[SYZ]

Fun fact. Jebus is the ancient name of the place which came to be known as Jerusalem. The Jebusites (/ˈdʒɛbjəˌsaɪts/; Hebrew: יְבוּסִי‎, Modern: Yevūsī, Tiberian: Yəḇūsī ISO 259-3 Ybusi) were, according to the books of Joshua and Samuel from the Hebrew Bible, a Canaanite tribe that inhabited Jerusalem, then called Jebus...

LOL... so now you're claiming that the Hebrew bible is an
accurate, trustworthy, inerrant historical record of the times?

Fuck me sideways!      

You [Deesse] down vote me and call me a troll then you proceed to feed the troll. Are you new to the internet? Enjoy the silence pal!

How old are you again mate? Fourteen, maybe 16?
BTW, it's not forum netiquette to debate whether or
not people are voting you up, or down—as in your case.
Please go somewhere else and sulk if you must sonny.

[Bucky Ball]

In 1 Samuel 28:3-25 The Witch of Endor conjures up the ghost ("shade") of Samuel for Saul.
I'm sure that really happened.

[Paleophyte]

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.

And if neither of those are true then you have a non sequitur because you're talking about two very different usages of the phrase "begin to exist" in P1 and P2. Congratulations on disproving the Cosmological Argument. Please try again.

Wait. What?
Since when are P1 and P2 using two "very different" meanings of the same verb?

"to begin"

Phrase "begin to exist", not verb. Work on that reading comprehension.

I'm pretty certain that you know what creatio ex nihilo is and how it fundamentally differs from the more mundane creation that we observe at the potter's wheel, but since we're pretending that you don't I'll add the subtext so that the error is obvious:

1. Whatever begins to exist from something else has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist from nothing.
3. Therefore, 1 and 2 form a non sequitur that is glaringly obvious unless you leave out the entire statement in the hope that the criminally gullible might mistake it for valid reasoning.

I've always enjoyed P2 because theists never seem to get the joke, stridently arguing that the universe must have come from nothing whilst simultaneous maintaining that it cannot have come about by nothing. Unsatisfied with merely trying to have a cake and eat it you want to accomplish both simultaneously.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Science  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_b...d_Nagasaki



Atheist, totalitarian, undemocratic states which manufactured/deployed weapons of mass destruction.
China
USSR
North Korea
Cambodia
Vietnam

Not fucking one of them did so in the name of atheism.

Care to count the number of times some christer chuckle-fuck started a war with their neighbor in the name of their gawd?

[TheGentlemanBastard]

You're leaving? That's cool. We haven't had a good rage quit in a while.

I don't think we've ever had a voluntary rage quit period bro.

It's just common courtesy to let someone know when you've decided to stop talking to them.

I can't enjoy the silence if you're still shitting out of your pie-hole. I figured even someone as stupid as you could get that.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Science - why hasn't malaria been defeated?
https://www.google.com/search?q=why+hasn...e&ie=UTF-8

Blames science for not (yet) curing what his imaginary friend allegedly created. Holy fuck but the stupid is strong with this one.

[Minimalist]

Science  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_b...d_Nagasaki



Atheist, totalitarian, undemocratic states which manufactured/deployed weapons of mass destruction.
China
USSR
North Korea
Cambodia
Vietnam

Hey, dipshit.  We are the only nation to drop an atomic bomb.  Jesus must approve, huh?

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Science  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidom...%20leprosy.

Science is what you're using to post stuff.  Yes, the computer is a complicated piece of science.  Without science millions more people would have died from Covid.  Science has wiped out Polio. Smallpox is a thing of the past because of science.  Without science and the discovery of penicillin many millions of people would have died from simple infections.  I'm one of them.  Women don't die in childbirth as they did in the past.  Why? Because of science.

Science makes your water drinkable.  Prior to water purfication processes typhoid and cholera  killed millions of people.   One of Abraham's sons died of typhoid. Cancer drugs are extending life, it's more survivable now and some medications are completely wiping out some types of cancer.  All because of science.

By the way, the picture of the thalidimide baby is of course very sad but the drug is today being used to destroy certain kinds of cancers. 

You really are ignorant, aren't you.

(my bold)

It's also the only known, effective treatment for that ole' buy-bull favorite, leprosy.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

If he was having chest pain, would he drop to his knees and pray ?
No.
He would call the EMT's and go to the doctors, where they practice science.

Of course, he would pray on the way and, if successfully treated, give all the credit to his gawd.

[Dancefortwo]

Science  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_b...d_Nagasaki



Atheist, totalitarian, undemocratic states which manufactured/deployed weapons of mass destruction.
China
USSR
North Korea
Cambodia
Vietnam

You mean a dictatorship in which the head guy won't allow descent or criticism without the threat of torture and revenge..... like the Biblical god?  The difference between a totalitarian leader and your god is slim to none.

ETA:  Regarding the A-bomb.  It's not in the same league as your god who killed a planet full of people, around 24 million,  because he can't figure out how to forgive his creations without murder and genocide.

[GenesisNemesis]

Science  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_b...d_Nagasaki



Atheist, totalitarian, undemocratic states which manufactured/deployed weapons of mass destruction.
China
USSR
North Korea
Cambodia
Vietnam

You mean a dictatorship in which the head guy won't allow descent or criticism without the threat of torture and revenge..... like the Biblical god?  The difference between a totalitarian leader and your god is slim to none.

Lotta similarities between Yahweh and those dictators. Like that he allegedly flooded the entire world and killed almost everyone because they wouldn't obey him.

Human dictators would love to have such powers.

[Dancefortwo]

Science  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_b...d_Nagasaki



Atheist, totalitarian, undemocratic states which manufactured/deployed weapons of mass destruction.
China
USSR
North Korea
Cambodia
Vietnam

You mean a dictatorship in which the head guy won't allow descent or criticism without the threat of torture and revenge..... like the Biblical god?  The difference between a totalitarian leader and your god is slim to none.

Lotta similarities between Yahweh and those dictators. Like that he allegedly flooded the entire world and killed almost everyone because they wouldn't obey him.

Human dictators would love to have such powers.

I think it's interesting that Stalin studied to be a Russian orthadox priest for several years.  He learned dictatorship authority and vengeful wrath from one the best examples......the biblical god.

[Bucky Ball]

...or creating matter/energy from nothingness without energy already in existence.

Why is this controversial? There's no religious overtones embedded in this idea.

No modern atheist cosmologist is embarrassed to assert the plausibility of this ex nihilo concept.

The magical, spontaneous appearance of matter/energy out of nowhere ceased being religious 'woo' at around the same time as we started using terms like 'singularity' and quantum vacuum and virtual particle.

His Eminence Archbishop Lawrence Krauss has given his imprimatur for the universe coming from nothing. So has Monsignor Victor Stenger. The Venerable Cardinal James Hartle approves (nihil obstat) the doctrine that there was... literally a moment in the history of the universe prior to which there weren’t any other moments. There was a boundary of time (the Big Bang), prior to which there was … nothing. No stuff, not even a quantum wave function; there was no prior thing, because there is no sensible notion of “prior.”

Wow ... so much bullshit. So many lies. So much willful misrepresentation, (or utter stupidity).

If you actually read Krauss's books, he does NOT say the universe came from Lyin's "nothing". Krauss re-defines "nothing". Everyone who even opened his book(s) know this.
Apparently all Lyin' reads is Christian apologetics bullshit. https://nautil.us/blog/why-we-had-to-cha...of-nothing

Stenger also does NOT say what Lyin' says he does : https://infidels.org/library/modern/vic_...rside.html

Unless you're trying to tell us the universe was created inside another version of itself, (LOL), (which already existed), best you try to explain to Percie and yourself, that his "knowing how things work inside the universe" (which P1 totally depends upon) doesn't apply here. He (and many many others) don't get that if there is no sensible notion of "prior", in the case of a singularity, and the universe does not exist yet, which is what the claim of P1 is all about, then you have no knowledge base about the PRE-universe environment to make the P1 claim, and it's meaningless and does not apply as YOU DON'T know how anything works, except INSIDE this universe, after it's on it's way. How things work inside this universe was not the case until the universe already existed. It's meaningless drivel ie "no sensible notion of prior". You do not know what the conditions were or are, except AFTER this universe began to expand. If there was a boundary of time, (we don't know), PRIOR to which there was "nothing" ie "No stuff, not even a quantum wave function; there was no prior thing, because there is no sensible notion of “prior.”, one cannot then turn around and say "Prior to which there was nothing", which is contradicting the very notion you just said. You don't get it both ways. They are not compatible. Hartle actually does not say the universe had a beginning. You appear not to understand this stuff, at all. "According to the Hartle–Hawking proposal, the Universe has no origin as we would understand it: the Universe was a singularity in both space and time, pre-Big Bang"

No, it messes with me because it disagrees with everything I know about this universe. In this universe, effects stem from causes. Shit doesn't just happen.

psssst ... Percie, if the universe does not exist, (ie if it were to have had a beginning), knowing about how things work in what would be a future universe is not going to help you know something about how it began, NOT INSIDE IT. All you know NOW, is a very small sample of a universe that is already proceding. You know nothing about anything other, ... thus no P1 premise (as it is) can be made.

So we have Lyin' entirely wrong with P1, wrong about the cosmologists he's lying about, and then we have Percie (way way behind even Leon) claiming he knows how these things work in this universe, yet it doesn't EVEN exist yet in his paradigm with P1, and he's claiming the environment it's ABOUT to come from, is the same as that inside it. It's just like saying the environment inside a black hole works the same as the rest of the universe outside it.

Um, no.

[Minimalist]

You aren't dealing with the sharpest knives in the drawer there, Buck!

[Bucky Ball]

You aren't dealing with the sharpest knives in the drawer there, Buck!

I know that Min ... these two have their heads so far up their asses, they'll never see daylight.
But for the guests that read their drivel, they will see that this bullsit can be fairly easily refuted.

[Dancefortwo]

Science - why hasn't malaria been defeated?
https://www.google.com/search?q=why+hasn...e&ie=UTF-8

Blames science for not (yet) curing what his imaginary friend allegedly created. Holy fuck but the stupid is strong with this one.

Scientists found mosquitoes encased in amber with malaria in them which are over 20 million years old.  This means that if a gawd created earth he did so with malaria ready and set to infect all kinds of primates including humans.   And then, funnily enough,  Loin blames people dying from malaria on scientists.  Jesuschrist, what a dolt. 

[Lion IRC]

Redefining the *cough* definition of nothing to suit your gonzo metaphysics???

OK. I'll play along.

In the T=0 beginning (of the past eternal universe)...way back when there was simultaneously no universes and yet also an infinite number of universes, the non-existent space/time we call home, suddenly began to expand into the nothingness from whence it spontaneously came,  driven by the invisible hand of Lord Darkness of Energy which atheists believe is causing the exponential and eternal acceleration of everything in an outward direction...until such time as the Dark Energy Lord decides to put everything into reverse...at which time the nothingness will swallow itself leaving not a single trace...until the next time nothingness decides to swallow or regurgitate something.

I had nothing to eat for lunch. It was delicious.
I saw nothing. 
Nothing bothers me.

[Astreja]

...or creating matter/energy from nothingness without energy already in existence.

Why is this controversial? There's no religious overtones embedded in this idea.

Well, if your god was a quantum fluctuation instead of a sentient being obsessed with foreskins and the sanctity of Saturdays, you might have a point there.

[Lion IRC]

And if neither of those are true then you have a non sequitur because you're talking about two very different usages of the phrase "begin to exist" in P1 and P2. Congratulations on disproving the Cosmological Argument. Please try again.

Wait. What?
Since when are P1 and P2 using two "very different" meanings of the same verb?

"to begin"

Phrase "begin to exist", not verb. Work on that reading comprehension.

I'm pretty certain that you know what creatio ex nihilo is and how it fundamentally differs from the more mundane creation that we observe at the potter's wheel, but since we're pretending that you don't I'll add the subtext so that the error is obvious:

1. Whatever begins to exist from something else has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist from nothing.
3. Therefore, 1 and 2 form a non sequitur that is glaringly obvious unless you leave out the entire statement in the hope that the criminally gullible might mistake it for valid reasoning.

I've always enjoyed P2 because theists never seem to get the joke, stridently arguing that the universe must have come from nothing whilst simultaneous maintaining that it cannot have come about by nothing. Unsatisfied with merely trying to have a cake and eat it you want to accomplish both simultaneously.

P1 and P2 both use the same verb and the same predicate.
Begin (verb) Exist (predicate)
Neither premiss asserts a specific type of contingency - let alone ambiguous or differing types of contingency. You've added those yourself. And I know why. 

[trdsf]

I'm still waiting on you (or Penrose, or Hawking)

Hawking is dead. 

Unless you want him to scream out the solution while he's supposedly burning in Hell or something.

Just out of general curiousity, is his voice dead too?  It's kind of an odd question, but he sometimes mentioned he enjoyed his "American" voice.

He actively resisted getting a more modern vocoder because his electronic voice was so closely identified with him by the time better models came along.

The National Weather Service used to use the same system for their automated shortwave broadcast service.  They used both the male and female modes, which we referred to as 'Stephen' and 'Stephanie'.  They have since upgraded their system, and I kinda miss the old 'robotic' voices.

[trdsf]

The logic structure of the argument is really even simpler, really

1. From our perspective in spacetime the universe appears to have expanded from an infinitesimal point some 13.7 billion years ago
2. What caused this is an area of active research and there is no generally agreed-upon explanation yet

therefore

3. Anyone who tells you they know for certain how the universe started is wrong, lying, deluded, and/or stupid.