Faith is believing something that you know isnt true.

[DBT]

Observations powerfully infer that the universe began to exist. Thus to believe that that universe has a cause is far more reasonable than its alternative.
Specifically with regards to the universe beginning to exist.
CMB, second law of thermodynamics, GTR, temp ripples in the CMB seeding galaxies, redshift, all of the spacetime theorems specifically the BGV theorem, observed time dilation in gamma-ray bursts, SBBM, the decay times of distant supernova light intensity, H-He abundance, inflation, etc.

That wasn't the point. According to the evidence, yes, the universe does indeed appear to have had a beginning 13 billion years ago.....in its present form, but this does not say whether it may or may not be cyclic, a part of a greater system/multiverse or the nature of time within a singularity. Or something not thought of yet.

What you say is not evidence for the existence of a Creator in general, or specifically, the god of the bible.

It is evidence for the existence of a complex universe, nothing more, the nature of its origin being unknown.

 

[Lion IRC]

Here remez
https://m.imgur.com/gallery/MjNXXvM

thank you

Are you sure that was the link?
because....That line of reasoning is literally an accidental suicide.
The logic kills itself while shaving.

LOL
I know, right?

 

[remez]

Where is this evidence?

Observations powerfully infer that the universe began to exist. Thus to believe that that universe has a cause is far more reasonable than its alternative.
Specifically with regards to the universe beginning to exist.
CMB, second law of thermodynamics, GTR, temp ripples in the CMB seeding galaxies, redshift, all of the spacetime theorems specifically the BGV theorem, observed time dilation in gamma-ray bursts, SBBM, the decay times of distant supernova light intensity, H-He abundance, inflation, etc.

…... According to the evidence, yes, the universe does indeed appear to have had a beginning 13 billion years ago.....in its present form,

Again that was my point……I do have evidence that the universe began to exist, thus I have evidence for my faith that God exists. Hold on…..I’m not asserting that a beginning universe proves God exists, only that is evidence that supports my belief that he exists because the universe then needs a transcendent cause. How many worldviews purport a transcendent cause?

Now as to your models of possibility…cyclic and multiverse….

According to the evidence, yes, the universe does indeed appear to have had a beginning 13 billion years ago.....in its present form, but this does not say whether it may or may not be cyclic, a part of a greater system/multiverse or the nature of time within a singularity. Or something not thought of yet.

….we have been here before. I spelled out their faults several times. I addressed those faults with science and not theology. Knowing that you would not accept my take on this issue I provided links to a prominent atheist that addresses them as well….. here………..again….. This time take a look at some evidence………

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." - Alexander Vilenkin

Here is a whole lecture from Vilenkin himself….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IJLZO7o4Ak

Here is another article called in the beginning was the beginning where he explains the problem with cyclic models…
http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

As to your disparate plea that it is perhaps it some other natural model we have thought of yet…..that is nothing more than a nature-of-the-gaps fallacy. Your alternatives are desperate attempts to flee the plausible implications of the evidence. Which was my other point here in this thread. By your own definition you are believing against the evidence.

What you say is not evidence for the existence of a Creator in general, or specifically, the god of the bible.

It is evidence for the existence of a complex universe, nothing more, the nature of its origin being unknown.

You provide no reasoning to support those conclusions. Until you provide and defend your reasoning those assertions are simply volitional reflections of your worldview. The burden of proof is yours. Just a reminder, I’m more than ready to combat your IDKism.

 

[remez]

Here remez
https://m.imgur.com/gallery/MjNXXvM

thank you

Are you sure that was the link?
because....That line of reasoning is literally an accidental suicide.
The logic kills itself while shaving.

LOL
I know, right?

He doesn’t see that the logic of the razor as he is using it there in that context, slices out logic itself. It slices out the logic of causality. Here…………

When you posit a God as creator of the universe,

First of all the KCA is not simply asserting that God is the creator. It’s an argument that concludes God exists.

all you are doing is pushing the ultimate mystery of the origin of reality back a step;

ok

and there is no reason that extra step need be taken.

Now that is a conclusion ignoring the overt logical need for a cause. If the universe began to exist it needs a cause.

If he is attempting to simply ignore that need then he is ignoring logic as well. And if he is going to arbitrary shave out that logic then why not ignore the logic of Occam’s razor as well.

If he is going to slice out logic then how can you logically use the logic of the razor? There is no defense for his arbitrary use of logic there. His feet are firmly planted in midair.

Now..............
Regarding bilby’s charge of ignorance against you in post 60.

From post 17….

.....Like preaching that the Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be.

That's just a re-statement of your first point; and we hypothesize that it's true, we don't 'preach' it.

Note Jobar’s disdain that they don’t preach Uncle Karl’s cosmos myth. Yet bilby did exactly that in 3 posts earlier in 14 and admires it as good hard logic to dismiss theism altogether………….

I am certain that Gods don't exist, and that the universe therefore wasn't made by one; That's a belief, but it's one based on good hard logic- by "The universe" I mean everything that exists; In order for any entity to make the universe, it would have to not be a part of everything that exists.

…and now in post 60 he is inferring your ignorance as to you not knowing the myth of his assertion that he is preaching as fact.

Does science also tell people to equivocate on the difference between 'universe' meaning 'everything that exists' and 'universe' meaning 'observable universe'; Or is that merely a product of your ignorance?

He has yet to defend his preaching on this point yet and it needs a defense. Even fellow skeptics don’t accept that as good hard logic.

 

[ronburgundy]

Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism had it correct when he said that "Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."

Holding a belief on faith is the definitional anti-thesis of reasoning, and since using evidence to evaluate ideas is a from of reasoning, faith is the opposite of using evidence. As such, it does sometimes entail believing in an idea that your own knowledge indicates is false. Every theist has a mountain of knowledge and experience which implies that the idea of a God that is both omnipotent and loving is false. It cannot be reconciled with readily apparent facts of the world. So, while one could simply have faith in a thing that one lacks sufficient evidence for, in actual practice religious faith almost always entails the belief in things one has tons of evidence against.


The whole argument that God works in ways beyond our comprehension (an extremely widespread rationalization among monotheists) is nothing other than an admission that one's own knowledge of the world and reasoning about it contradicts one's belief about what God is and does. It is saying "I believe that which my own logic and reasoning tells me is false, by presuming that God transcends my reasoning and thus my reasoning is not a valid tool to determine my belief."

The very long and pervasive track record of faith going hand and hand with authoritarianism, violence, and emotional bribery is directly related to the inherent antagonism of faith and reason. Overwhelmingly, the source of the idea that faith is a virtue comes almost entirely from theistic religion. This is because theism and related notions are contradicted by reasoned thought and thus only by rejecting reason, which is essence of faith, can one accept these ideas. But if one rejects reason, then the only alternatives to defend and spread those ideas is by physical force (authoritarian power), or threats of violence or promises of reward to the obedient, which combined comprise 99% of what all monotheistic religions are about and found on every page of the Bible and Koran.

 

[steve_bank]

Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism had it correct when he said that "Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."

Holding a belief on faith is the definitional anti-thesis of reasoning, and since using evidence to evaluate ideas is a from of reasoning, faith is the opposite of using evidence. As such, it does sometimes entail believing in an idea that your own knowledge indicates is false. Every theist has a mountain of knowledge and experience which implies that the idea of a God that is both omnipotent and loving is false. It cannot be reconciled with readily apparent facts of the world. So, while one could simply have faith in a thing that one lacks sufficient evidence for, in actual practice religious faith almost always entails the belief in things one has tons of evidence against.


The whole argument that God works in ways beyond our comprehension (an extremely widespread rationalization among monotheists) is nothing other than an admission that one's own knowledge of the world and reasoning about it contradicts one's belief about what God is and does. It is saying "I believe that which my own logic and reasoning tells me is false, by presuming that God transcends my reasoning and thus my reasoning is not a valid tool to determine my belief."

The very long and pervasive track record of faith going hand and hand with authoritarianism, violence, and emotional bribery is directly related to the inherent antagonism of faith and reason. Overwhelmingly, the source of the idea that faith is a virtue comes almost entirely from theistic religion. This is because theism and related notions are contradicted by reasoned thought and thus only by rejecting reason, which is essence of faith, can one accept these ideas. But if one rejects reason, then the only alternatives to defend and spread those ideas is by physical force (authoritarian power), or threats of violence or promises of reward to the obedient, which combined comprise 99% of what all monotheistic religions are about and found on every page of the Bible and Koran.

The quote certainly covers modern American conservative Christiansl

 

[steve_bank]

The further back in time we look, the smaller the observable universe is. However at the Planck Epoch, our ability to look back any further ends, with the observable universe not only still finite in extent, but also with the exact same total mass-energy as today.

To look at those facts and conclude that, a little earlier than the earliest time that our theories can describe, the universe began to exist, is completely unsupported speculation.

To declare that speculation 'reasonable' because it conforms to your religious beliefs is just stupid.

To be a smug git about it is indefensible, and gets you placed back on 'ignore'.

The problem with that is trhe fact that what we see as the edge of the universe may well be the limit of our ability to detect photons. The Hubble deep field picture showed what appeared to be a dark region in spcae to be full of galaxies.

We have no idea what it would look loke at the our observational limit.

Within relativity we could be in a black hole, for example.

 

[steve_bank]

An irrational belief....given that we have a fair idea, through direct experience, design, etc, of how mechanical systems work.

I understand aerodynamics and lift, but the average passenger does not.

The average passenger may not fully aerodynamics and lift, but does have experience with flying, refueling, etc, and is probably aware of plans crash reports, their frequency and likelihood.

In the contrary; People overestimate risk, and as a result most airline passengers, due to their lack of understanding of the engineering details, think that flying is FAR mor dangerous that it actually is.

Far from having blind faith, they are actually needlessly frightened by that which they do not understand.

Still does not answer the question.

Why would you belive any part of scince even if have some understanding?

A chemist may know nothing of aerodynamics. Intuition, insight? This leads into what I picked up from Popper. How science becomes culturaly acceped as truth is a subjective social process.

The devotees of pop science have a kind of faith.

The BB Theory has become a defacto modern creation myth. The theory actually does not explain any ultimate origins or what led to the initial conditions. It does not start at time zero, so to speak.

Why would you believe the BB is true?

 

[ronburgundy]

Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism had it correct when he said that "Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."

Holding a belief on faith is the definitional anti-thesis of reasoning, and since using evidence to evaluate ideas is a from of reasoning, faith is the opposite of using evidence. As such, it does sometimes entail believing in an idea that your own knowledge indicates is false. Every theist has a mountain of knowledge and experience which implies that the idea of a God that is both omnipotent and loving is false. It cannot be reconciled with readily apparent facts of the world. So, while one could simply have faith in a thing that one lacks sufficient evidence for, in actual practice religious faith almost always entails the belief in things one has tons of evidence against.


The whole argument that God works in ways beyond our comprehension (an extremely widespread rationalization among monotheists) is nothing other than an admission that one's own knowledge of the world and reasoning about it contradicts one's belief about what God is and does. It is saying "I believe that which my own logic and reasoning tells me is false, by presuming that God transcends my reasoning and thus my reasoning is not a valid tool to determine my belief."

The very long and pervasive track record of faith going hand and hand with authoritarianism, violence, and emotional bribery is directly related to the inherent antagonism of faith and reason. Overwhelmingly, the source of the idea that faith is a virtue comes almost entirely from theistic religion. This is because theism and related notions are contradicted by reasoned thought and thus only by rejecting reason, which is essence of faith, can one accept these ideas. But if one rejects reason, then the only alternatives to defend and spread those ideas is by physical force (authoritarian power), or threats of violence or promises of reward to the obedient, which combined comprise 99% of what all monotheistic religions are about and found on every page of the Bible and Koran.

The quote certainly covers modern American conservative Christiansl

That is because modern American conservative Christians are the most faithful to their religion. Numerous studies show that they have the strongest level of faith in their beliefs, meaning the least doubt, and meaning they actually regularly try to apply what they believe to their daily lives, which is a strong indicator of whether you really believe it.

That is why it is also true of other groups of true devout believers in Judaism and Islam. Ultimately the "conservative" label on religion just means a person that actually acts like they believe what they say and believes what the founding documents of their religion clearly command them to.

There is a reliable correlation between how sincerely one actually ascribes to theistic ideas, and how much they promote faith over reason as a virtue.

The RCC only pretended to promote "learning" because they were in control of "learning" and actively tried to limit who could read and what could be studied. Pretending that God's word could only be understood by learned analysis was just a way to keep the masses beholden to the few allowed to get an education. It's also why the RCC kept mass only in Latin for so long.
But in practice, anyone who asked the wrong question or applied honest reason usually got their ass beat.

 

[DBT]

Again that was my point……I do have evidence that the universe began to exist, thus I have evidence for my faith that God exists. Hold on…..I’m not asserting that a beginning universe proves God exists, only that is evidence that supports my belief that he exists because the universe then needs a transcendent cause. How many worldviews purport a transcendent cause?

But it was my point in relation to what you said then, and what you are saying now - the existence of the universe itself, that the universe appears to have had a beginning is not evidence for a creator for the given reasons, the necessity for a creator being an assumption.....and I made no mention of proof.

….we have been here before. I spelled out their faults several times. I addressed those faults with science and not theology. Knowing that you would not accept my take on this issue I provided links to a prominent atheist that addresses them as well….. here………..again….. This time take a look at some evidence………

There are faults with all the models, nobody is saying otherwise. As I said, nobody actually knows. Models such as many worlds interpretation of QM, is based on experimental results, but of course it is only a proposition.

The existence of a Creator is also an idea, perhaps an assumption, but not based on QM, relativity or cosmology. That assumption, if it becomes a matter of belief, is faith.

You provide no reasoning to support those conclusions. Until you provide and defend your reasoning those assertions are simply volitional reflections of your worldview. The burden of proof is yours. Just a reminder, I’m more than ready to combat your IDKism.

Well, I did give the reason why the existence of the universe says nothing about the existence of a creator, but apparently it was not understood. The evidence for the existence of the universe is the universe itself, stars exist, galaxies exist, nebula, planets, moons, comets, etc, these being properties and attributes of the universe.....all form and motion determined by natural processes, gravity, physics, etc, with no apparent presence or input from an external agency, a Creator.

A Creator is assumed on the basis of 'how could such complexity emerge without one'' rather than actual evidence to support the proposition.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Well, I did give the reason why the existence of the universe says nothing about the existence of a creator, but apparently it was not understood. The evidence for the existence of the universe is the universe itself, stars exist, galaxies exist, nebula, planets, moons, comets, etc, these being properties and attributes of the universe.....all form and motion determined by natural processes, gravity, physics, etc, with no apparent presence or input from an external agency, a Creator.

A Creator is assumed on the basis of 'how could such complexity emerge without one'' rather than actual evidence to support the proposition.

The argument is about beginnings of things, not things. The argument fails because no one has yet shown that the cosmos has a beginning. That it is everywhere all the time is good enough argument that it always has been in some form.

One cannot make the same argument about stories of magic spacemen. Those stories clearly are not everywhere all the time, not to mention the spacemen themselves.

 

[remez]

But it was my point in relation to what you said then, and what you are saying now - the existence of the universe itself, that the universe appears to have had a beginning is not evidence for a creator for the given reasons, the necessity for a creator being an assumption.....and I made no mention of proof.

Your use of the word creator is fine, but deceiving. It misleads you to think that we are assuming the charactristic of personal agency. That is why I have always properly referred to it is a cause. It is an argument for the first CAUSE. Agency is a characteristic of that cause supported by its own separate line of reasoning.
And….
The conclusion is not assumed. It is an argument that reasonably concludes that God exists as the first cause and that conclusion is supported by science for premise 2. None of it is assumed.

Well, I did give the reason why the existence of the universe says nothing about the existence of a creator, but apparently it was not understood. The evidence for the existence of the universe is the universe itself, stars exist, galaxies exist, nebula, planets, moons, comets, etc, these being properties and attributes of the universe.....all form and motion determined by natural processes, gravity, physics, etc, with no apparent presence or input from an external agency, a Creator.

A Creator is assumed on the basis of 'how could such complexity emerge without one'' rather than actual evidence to support the proposition.

Parsed further…..

Well, I did give the reason why the existence of the universe says nothing about the existence of a creator,

I reason to differ. You can forensically examine this universe to determine several characteristics of its CAUSE. Just like you would forensically examine any event to determine characteristics of its CAUSE. That is not religious assumption at all. That is plain simple forensic reasoning.

Very briefly to that point. The mechanics of this universe most plausibly infer that it is not past eternal. Thus it began to exist. Therefore it needs a CAUSE. Forensically this universe is temporal, has space, is material therefore its CAUSE must be timeless/eternal because time began, its CAUSE must be spaceless because space began, and the CAUSE must be immaterial because material began. The CAUSE of the universe could not be itself. Thus that CAUSE of the universe transcends the universe. Put it all that together, the CAUSE of the universe forensically has these characteristics; it’s spaceless, eternal, immaterial, and transcends the universe.

The evidence for the existence of the universe is the universe itself, stars exist, galaxies exist, nebula, planets, moons, comets, etc, these being properties and attributes of the universe.....all form and motion determined by natural processes, gravity, physics,

Of course. But I’m not trying to prove that the universe exists. I’m arguing for its CAUSE, because it began to exist.

with no apparent presence or input from an external agency, a Creator.

You addressing two different characteristics there. External and agency. The each have different reasons for their presence on the list of characteristics of a CAUSE of the universe. You blend them together without proper recognition. Of course the cause is external. That is simple logic. Isn’t it? Agency of the cause is a different characteristic and requires a different line of reasoning. You seem to be rejecting the external characteristic of a cause because you debate agency characteristic of the cause.

So first...... Is the cause of any effect logically external to the effect?

Because to deny that would be to deny reasoning and thus going any further would be unreasonable.

A Creator is assumed on the basis of 'how could such complexity emerge without one'' rather than actual evidence to support the proposition.

Now this is a confusing two different arguments.

Again FTA is a relevant but a different line of reasoning. And in no way assumed. The arguments are precise and cumulative. To blend their reasoning together is to commit a categorical error and build straw men. Specifically there you asserting that I’m using your straw man version of the FTA as reasoning to support the KCA. That I’m not doing. If you are going to seriously debate these issues then you need to first understand each of them and the roles in a cumulative case for Christianity.

 

[DBT]

The conclusion is not assumed. It is an argument that reasonably concludes that God exists as the first cause and that conclusion is supported by science for premise 2. None of it is assumed.

I am busy at work and other projects at home. There are far to many points to deal with at once, sorry

I can deal with one or two points at a time.

So, as to your claim above....can you describe the evidence that allows one to '''reasonably conclude that God exists as the first cause and that conclusion is supported by science,'' and therefore''not necessarily assumed'

 

[abaddon]

There are far to many points to deal with at once

That's a trick called the Gish Gallop.

 

[DBT]

There are far to many points to deal with at once

That's a trick called the Gish Gallop.

Yes, it fits the description. A common tactic.

 

[Lion IRC]

There are far to many points to deal with at once

That's a trick called the Gish Gallop.

Yes, it fits the description. A common tactic.

remez pays you the compliment of presuming you can keep up.
But I'm sure he is gracious and will acknowledge your time limitations.
How about we take bite-size segments one at a time?

Do you agree that IF the universe/multiverse/megaverse had a beginning then speculation as to the type of cause (personal/deliberate/spontaneous) is not unreasonable?

 

[remez]

I am busy at work and other projects at home.

BIG TIME DITTO!

There are far to many points to deal with at once, sorry

I can deal with one or two points at a time.

Then stay focused on the issue at hand and stop jumping all over the place. I’m only trying to show you that I have evidence for what I believe. I’ve provided scientific evidence for premise 2 of the KCA to counter your contrary notion. You have been trying to find fault with that and are jumping all over the place to accomplish that.

So, as to your claim above....can you describe the evidence that allows one to '''reasonably conclude that God exists as the first cause and that conclusion is supported by science,'' and therefore''not necessarily assumed'

I have. You seem to be misunderstanding how an argument (not assumption) is designed.

It is not the evidence that leads to a conclusion. The evidence supports the reasoning that leads to the conclusion. Hence premise 2 is overtly supported by the science I provided.

Thus I have evidence to support the reasoning for what I believe. What is so hard about that?

You may not judge the argument (not assumption) compelling, but that does not dispel the fact that I have provided evidence and reasons for what I believe. I don’t have a blind faith.

Now if you are going to attack the argument as assumption, then by all means make your case. But if you are going to do that, then stop creating straw men by mixing up the arguments. It’s that simple. I’m not the one jumping all over the place.

 

[remez]

Yes, it fits the description. A common tactic.

remez pays you the compliment of presuming you can keep up.
But I'm sure he is gracious and will acknowledge your time limitations.
How about we take bite-size segments one at a time?

Do you agree that IF the universe/multiverse/megaverse had a beginning then speculation as to the type of cause (personal/deliberate/spontaneous) is not unreasonable?

My concern was far simpler than even that. I was only trying to show that I have evidence for what I believe. It is not a blind faith which he suggests. I additionally assert that I have more evidence for my beliefs than he does for his regarding premise 2.

He started to protest against this and started jumping all over the place. Thus when I had to explain where and how he got lost, he turned it all round, and started agreeing with someone crying on the bench that I was confusing the issues on purpose to confuse him.

 

[Copernicus]

Yes, it fits the description. A common tactic.

remez pays you the compliment of presuming you can keep up.
But I'm sure he is gracious and will acknowledge your time limitations.
How about we take bite-size segments one at a time?

Do you agree that IF the universe/multiverse/megaverse had a beginning then speculation as to the type of cause (personal/deliberate/spontaneous) is not unreasonable?

My concern was far simpler than even that. I was only trying to show that I have evidence for what I believe. It is not a blind faith which he suggests. I additionally assert that I have more evidence for my beliefs than he does for his regarding premise 2...

Remez, I read you long reply to DBT, and I came away just as confused by it as he did. Nowhere was there "evidence" for any of your conclusions. Hence, he asked you to "describe the evidence that allows one to '''reasonably conclude that God exists as the first cause and that conclusion is supported by science,'' and therefore''not necessarily assumed'". That is, he was asking you for the evidence that you seemed to think you had managed to convey in that pile of sentences.

My best take on your argument was that you were looking at the origin of the observable universe and trying to reason about what could possibly have caused the "Big Bang". You don't seem to be very aware of the many different ideas that physicists themselves have come to propose on that subject. The science is only about what can be measured by scientists, so science itself does not actually support the kind of assumptions that you were trying to call "forensic evidence" about what cannot be observed. It seems reasonable to speculate about events that might have caused what we see as the observable universe, but it is hard to believe that a godlike entity of some sort helps to explain what sort of event led up to the big bang. Why assume that the precursor to our universe is anything other than a preexisting "metaverse" of some sort? Physical reality (as opposed to just the observable part of it) doesn't need to have been created at all. The Big Bang could just be an event within a matrix of physical reality.

 

[DBT]

Yes, it fits the description. A common tactic.

remez pays you the compliment of presuming you can keep up.

It's not a matter of ''keeping up'' - I have a time constraint. I have limited time to compose a reply and post. That is simply the reality of it.

But I'm sure he is gracious and will acknowledge your time limitations.

Why does it require graciousness? It's just being practical and to the point.

How about we take bite-size segments one at a time?

Sure, that is what I said....one or two points at a time.

Do you agree that IF the universe/multiverse/megaverse had a beginning then speculation as to the type of cause (personal/deliberate/spontaneous) is not unreasonable?

Speculation is fine. I don't think that anyone objects to speculation, proposing new ideas or hypothesis....the issue is with being convinced of the truth of ones belief where there is insufficient evidence to justify a belief/ conviction. That being the definition of faith, and the issue raised in this thread.