post 157
In response to people saying that this god - that the argument allegedly supports the "existence" of - does not exist your response is to say "go on then, do better".
No, No No. You made the statement.......
What your theory seems to be based on appears to be no more logically feasible than an uncaused spontaneous event creating the universe.
Make your case. At least I provided an argument supported by science. You’ve provide nothing more the speculation. Where is your science and reasoning for that position? Convince me. Seriously take your best shot. I’m ready.
....asserting that "uncaused spontaneous event creating the universe" was more logically feasible then my argument.
I asked you the make your case that an "uncaused spontaneous event" is even more remotely plausible then an eternal, beyond nature cause.
But you've proposed it so it behoves you to support it rather than attempting to somehow prove it to be true on the basis of the eradication of other theories.
First. I have supported and defended the KCA this entire thread within context of the thread, which challenged our reasons for the existence of God. I evidence that support here with your own complaining later is that same "sentence" that I was eliminating others models. How is that not supporting the KCA?
Second. To your concerns of my eradicating. That is the nature of a deductive argument.
Third. I wasn’t the one offering the other models as counters. You Folks were. I was doing my part to SUPPORT the premise of the argument by addressing their overt flaws. Note I did so scientifically not theologically.
Lastly here..... Do you now admit with that statement that the other models were eradicated because they were less plausible?
Religion loves to work in this way since it appeals to emotion but it’s operating on a dwindling base as more is learned about the world around us.
Personal subjective emotional opinion only.
Post 160
Remez.
Craig basically states the KCA as:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause.
The concept of an eternal creator has been around for thousands of years. The third step, an assumption built on the previous assumption, is easy to position the god (you believe in) within. As this imaginary being is eternal it appears to avoid being subject to the same constraints that the universe has been placed in, the submission/inclusion of the universe itself somehow only there to demonstrate that the creative force exists, like a product in a chain.
Again you fail to properly represent how the KCA reasons from "The universe has a cause" to God exists. That is important. You still think this is assuming God. It is not, it is an argument to that conclusion. I'm not asserting that you need to agree with the argument. But if you are going to argue against it you should know and understand its reasoning. Your objection there indicates you don't even know what you are arguing against. It would be like me arguing against an expanding universe and not knowing what the red shift of light has to do with it.
We don't know that No.1 holds in all cases. The possibility exists that not everything that begins to exist does have a cause. We can attempt to describe what we think the universe is, label constituent parts in at attempt to understand it but does anyone actually know what it is? How much of it have we discovered? People surmise but again noone knows. There may be, for example, an event or occurence 'A' that was caused by event or occurence 'B' but 'B' was itself an uncaused, non-eternal, spontaneous event or occurence. Or 'A' could be itself an uncaused, non-eternal, spontaneous event or occurence. The "cause" could be itself.
That totally defies logic. To imagine not reason, that events can occur without cause are evidentially insufficient and incoherent to the reality we live in. So if you want to imagine from an illogical foundation then go ahead. I'm not going to stop you. Just don't expect anyone in the jury to think your position is more reasonable.
Whatever is eternal has no cause.
Your god is eternal so did not begin to exist.
Your god has no cause.
--it still doesn't mean that your god - on the basis that it exists - brought the universe into existence even if it can be logically argued that this is what "happened".
"Even if it can be logically argued that this is what "happened"" and yet you'll reject it because you can imagine something far less plausible. That is perfectly OK with me.
Also...............
If he exists and the universe needs a cause why wildly speculate any further?
Ockham's razor.
If your god can be discussed using logic then it should, as the universe is, be subject to the same logical interrogation as everything else.
Of course.
Including, for example, not brushing under the carpet the question of HOW your eternally existing god brought the universe into existence.
First. I’m not brushing that under the carpet. You never asked.
Second. How did he do it? I don’t know? See I’m very comfortable saying that.
Third. Examine the nature of your HOW? Does the HOW affect that he exists. If you don’t know how gravity exists does it mean you float away?
Fourth. I would expect that it would be a non-natural process, because nature did not exist. I’m certainly going to ask.
To say that it just "did" is too easy.
I’m not saying it just did. I’m reasoning that he did.
We can, for example, simplify and suggest or propose that the creation of the universe was an uncaused spontaneous event with no prime mover at all. This can work logically.
Not logically.
Imagining and reasoning are to different things here. Explain how your imagined “uncaused event” is logical. I’m reasoning that the event had a cause, you are imagining your event had no cause. Which is more reasonable?
You need to make a case for that. Be fair.
Why would this god that you believe in need to create the universe?
It’s a good question, but completely irrelevant to the context here…..Why would his reason to create have anything to do with his existence?
Also.....
If you don’t like his reason….. does that mean he doesn’t exist? If that line of reasoning determined existence then inventors would be disappearing from history. Think about it. If I don't like the reason that Alfred Nobel had to create dynamite does that mean he does not exist? Or even. He exists because I like the reason he created the Nobel prizes.
That is what you call a categorical fallacy.
Who is to say that there is only one universe and only one god?
Not "who" but "what"……Logic and reasoning.
So lets reason through this number of Gods issue.
Using simple logic we can exhaust the list of possibilities as no god, one God or many gods.
Thus the candidates are
Atheism ... no God ... nature only.
Mono theism ... known as simply as theism.... one God only.
Polytheism.... which are all are pantheist......many Gods.
Let's reason through this issue. Which one best explains our reality?
So if our universe (all matter, space and time) began to exist. That means nature began to exist. Its cause must be immaterial, spaceless, timeless and beyond nature. Therefore we can reasonably say good bye to atheism and pantheism. What’s left? The mono-theisms of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and a sect of Hinduism. That's it. Wow that got narrow pretty quick.
So there is really no big concern there if you really think about it.
A religious text wouldn't necessarily mention this,
Most do mention that precisely as shown above.
..especially when they are nothing more than works of the human mind and experience at points in time and space.
But how does that infer all of them are wrong? Last time I checked all scientists are human does that mean all science is wrong? Of course not. Reason it through.
You posit eternity, its quite simple to posit infinity. Why not? I can't prove or disprove the existence of your god, and neither can you. Neither I nor you can prove or disprove the existence of infinite gods and universes.
I didn't make God eternal. Think about it the definition of God (context of this thread) has been around for thousands of years. We have only recently discovered that the universe has a cause and that cause just so happens to match those characteristics. You have it the wrong way around. We theologians have been waiting for you to catch up.
There may not actually be a point at which the universe began to exist because we do not know whether there has always been something or not. A single "thing" could have existed in a certain form or state eternally but then, for some reason, changed form/state.
Again you are imagining against reason. What other "form" is possible if there was no matter, no space, and no time?
Seriously this is where our two epistemologies clash. Let’s finally address it head on here. You end all knowledge at scientific naturalism. Meaning that all explanations have to be natural. I'm not that limited. I feel philosophy is the better ground for knowledge. Your approach is self-defeating.
Let’s examine.....
So here at this point (singularity) you can't and won't ever (there's a prediction) find a natural cause for nature. So you stop right there and hide in your security blanket of IDK and boldly assert no one can know. Until some scientist does the impossible and finds a natural cause.
But I remind you I don't stop at the singularity, like you do.
I look at the singularity not as a stopping point of knowledge. I philosophically reason that if nature had a beginning then its cause would rationally be non-natural. Now I am certainly past the point where we can scientifically reason but I can philosophically reason further by following the evidence. And from your limited viewpoint you assert I'm religiously motivated to make up things. No No No. I'm reasonably reasoning that nature could not have a natural cause. So at this point I forensically (science) examine nature and reason what are the characteristics of its cause. Nature is all matter time and space. Thus its cause has to be immaterial, timeless, spaceless and from beyond nature. That is not religion.
Think about it carefully. Our difference is not religion versus science. It is this. Is science or philosophy the better grounds for knowledge? Wait before you object. I believe science can give us the strongest grounds for knowledge. If true science challenges a philosophical belief then I will drop the bad philosophy in a heartbeat. So science trumps philosophy hands down. I just don't limit my knowledge to something as limited in scope as science. I see science as a subset of larger philosophy that we can build our knowledge on.
So here at the singularity you see scientifically that all your scientific knowledge breaks down and creates a gap of KNOWLEDGE. So you are forced to fill that gap with either, a subjective IDK, faith that nature is eternal or imagine against all reason that it created itself. I, on the other hand, am not limited to the notion that nature only is the best explanation. I don't reason a gap. I reason (with scientific evidence) that singularity is not a gap but the moment nature began to exist. Thus its cause reasonably couldn't be anything natural. Faith has nothing to do with it here at this point, except on your side, you have faith it will be natural. A nature of the gaps fallacy.
So it is an issue of whose epistemology is more reasonable. And as I have already told you your epistemology is self-refuting. You have no empirical evidence that empiricism is the better pathway to knowledge. You have no scientific evidence that science is the best pathway to knowledge. Each is a bad philosophical position to hold because they are self-refuting. Yet that is the foundation you are standing on and asserting that I'm the one in error.
The starting point of the Big Bang is obscure and unknown.
Only someone subjectively stuck in a self-refuting epistemology like yours, that's subjectively hiding under a security blanket would say that. You're stuck in a faith that there must be a natural explanation. I'm not claiming its unknown. I'm reasoning that it began.
It may be that the laws of physics that exist now are completely unrecognisable at every other point.
Imagination vs reason.
Maybe the universe is always either expanding or contracting and the laws either change or not depending on the conditions inherent.
Reason vs. imagination. Which is more plausible to believe? I have already addressed your cyclic universe model, it is pure imagination, no evidence whatsoever. The science does not work. Be reasonable.
Noone can prove or disprove any of the possibilities.
I did counter your cyclic model earlier with SCIENCE.
I actually like not having certainty
Of course you do. It’s your security blanket, because the way you use it…. is subject to your desires. It gives you a place to hide when you choose to. It allows you to dismiss the most reasonable inference when you choose to. Evolution is reasonable even though it’s not certain, but an absolute beginning universe cannot be plausible because your security blanket allows you to cry "I don’t know." Be consistent.
Post 162
Has anyone actually been convinced by anything you have posted here and started believing the same things that you do?
The question is poorly phrased. Do you mean has anyone at this website become theist? I highly doubt it.
But have I witnessed posters at this website make corrections on some misunderstandings about the theism or science?…..yes.
As I said earlier I’m here weeding out the bad philosophy proposed against theism and science in some cases. To that end I have had some success.
Have I, outside of this board, actually witnessed atheists becoming theists due to my personal efforts to present reasons for what I belief? ….…absolutely yes. Made a couple of great friends that way.
Science makes testable predictions - can you show us what you have that is actually testable?
How about a huge one that has already been played out in history?
For thousands of years the universe was thought to be eternal against the theistic predictions to the contrary.
As even Dawkins would admit to in one of his debates with Lennox.
We even have atheistic scientists now writing books to address a universe that began to exist.
