DBT
Contributor
The universe is eternal and cyclic, given an eternity of elements combining and recombining, anything that can possibly happen, happens....there you go, claims are easy to make.
... Your scenario confuses the physical with the metaphysical.
You’re trying to shoe horn a non-physical God into your physical “only” understanding of the world. Your scenario is replete with this theme. You’re trying to fit a supernatural God into your nature “only” understanding of the world. And you see contradictions. I get that. I would reach the same conclusion if I forced the universe to have a natural only explanation. It would be like trying to shoe horn the set of real numbers into the set of even numbers. It just doesn’t fit.
What does a supernatural ghost sound like?
and how are you reasoning that undescribed sound matches a supernatural ghost?
What evidence and reasoning do you have that it was a supernatural ghost?
Either something created something from nothing
Or
Nothing created something from nothing.
Because……
The “something” is in question here. You have provided no reasoning other than you found no evidence therefore ghost. I have provided reasoning as to why God is the cause of the universe and thus it was not based upon the absence of evidence therefore wild guess.
As well…..
Your attic is not nothing. Thus there is strong reason to reason a natural cause. Which is what I would do with the noises in your attic.
But what if Joe was Lord of the Town, which he built with the 1 mile road, in the middle of a desert? All those in his town use the road and life is ok even when the road is short. In THIS scenarion Joe has a higher status than Sara because he also made the rules in his town that everyone can live by (it's sort of Adam and Eve in yours). He can also go beyond the barrier because being the only pilot, he flies a biplane. Sara always looks forward to seeing Joe when he's back in town ... because thats where those sort-after pineapples come from, 73 miles away.
Isn't it reassuring that people still can invent quirky stories just like the writers of Aesop's Fables and the books of the Bible?
You are unfairly flattering yourself.But what if Joe was Lord of the Town, which he built with the 1 mile road, in the middle of a desert? All those in his town use the road and life is ok even when the road is short. In THIS scenarion Joe has a higher status than Sara because he also made the rules in his town that everyone can live by (it's sort of Adam and Eve in yours). He can also go beyond the barrier because being the only pilot, he flies a biplane. Sara always looks forward to seeing Joe when he's back in town ... because thats where those sort-after pineapples come from, 73 miles away.
Isn't it reassuring that people still can invent quirky stories just like the writers of Aesop's Fables and the books of the Bible?
If at all properly written 'illustrating some aspects of morals or truths' which are written about in both, I don't think my story would make the grade for the bible but could possibly for Aesop's fables.
In the context of the reasoning that I clearly presented….you by that statement there…… are divorcing the principle of cause and effect from science. How can you reason that and think anyone should take you seriously? I rest my case."Begin to exist" is scientifically meaningless,
Are you paying attention abaddon?The universe is eternal and cyclic, given an eternity of elements combining and recombining, anything that can possibly happen, happens....there you go, claims are easy to make.
I offered you a definition of "begin," and you accepted it. That's not my fault. According to that definition, which you agreed to, your gods began.
I don’t understand. You are only repeating yourself without addressing the reasoning that I’ve already provided in posts 160, 161 and 170. I never agreed that God began. That was reasoning I have pointed out to be flawed several times. It is clearly wrong. You have yet to address it.….. And here we sit: Your gods are, by our agreed definition, begun. Therefore, your gods are, by your stipulated logic, caused.
Absolutely.it your position that if something is found to occur, and the source of it is not clear, then it is more reasonable to assume a natural cause?
No, that is not accurate. You are applying temporal constraints without actually providing a case for why temporal constraints exist, as there is no point in time that the universe didn't exist. This sounds like a technicality, but it is a significant truth you are ignoring.In the context of the reasoning that I clearly presented….you by that statement there…… are divorcing the principle of cause and effect from science."Begin to exist" is scientifically meaningless,
Up to this point, most things that were thought to have supernatural causes became reduced to having natural (but yet unknown then) causes. Theism is so desperate for a supernatural cause that it is turning the clock back 13.7 billion years to try and prove God has to exist because we can't perfectly explain what led to the expansion 13.7 billion years ago.Absolutely.it your position that if something is found to occur, and the source of it is not clear, then it is more reasonable to assume a natural cause?
But
Could the cause of nature itself……… be natural?
Seriously, if you have to turn back the clock that far back to find an instance in history that demonstrates the existence of a deity, that deity ain't doing much.
This is pretty much the crux of the 'argument'. Remez maintains that a devout belief in magic is more reasonable than uncertain guesses at solutions for unresolved events.remez's argument isn't that we cannot perfectly explain what led to the BB, but that none of the possible naturalistic explanations match supernaturalism for reasonableness at this point in time,...
And here his assertion (made to support his acceptance of magic) demonstrates an ignorance of the actual cosmological models. At best, some cosmological models suggest a start of this particular phase of the universe....because he asserts that science indicates an absolute beginning to all material existence so that leaves no naturalistic alternative that's as "reasonably plausible".
No, that is not accurate. You are applying temporal constraints without actually providing a case for why temporal constraints exist, as there is no point in time that the universe didn't exist. This sounds like a technicality, but it is a significant truth you are ignoring.
Using science to attempt to prove magic is certainly an interesting development among modern religionists. What's wrong with good old inerrant sacred writings to prove their magic claims? I guess it's that those stories aren't "scientific" enough, therefore not believable. Interesting.Up to this point, most things that were thought to have supernatural causes became reduced to having natural (but yet unknown then) causes. Theism is so desperate for a supernatural cause that it is turning the clock back 13.7 billion years to try and prove God has to exist because we can't perfectly explain what led to the expansion 13.7 billion years ago.
I offered you a definition of "begin," and you accepted it. That's not my fault. According to that definition, which you agreed to, your gods began.
I addressed this with you in posts 160, 161 and 170. “oranges are meat products” and “test B” . I had no problem with the definition. But I did point out that your jump from definition to reasoning that ALL things begin was a non-sequitur. You did not address the reasoning I gave you. And then you just repeated yourself here.
I don’t understand. You are only repeating yourself without addressing the reasoning that I’ve already provided in posts 160, 161 and 170. I never agreed that God began. That was reasoning I have pointed out to be flawed several times. It is clearly wrong. You have yet to address it.….. And here we sit: Your gods are, by our agreed definition, begun. Therefore, your gods are, by your stipulated logic, caused.
Just because hamburgers begin to exist does not [imply] all things begin to exist.
How does an overt non-sequitur improve your economy of reasoning?
You can’t BUT I can. Aka….merological nihilism. This objection conflates a thing with the matter or stuff of which the thing is made. Just because the stuff of which something was made has always existed doesn't imply that the thing itself has always existed. Here is how absurd it is….If that notion were true it would be sensible for me to ask you ….What were you when Alexander the Great died?
That objection is bankrupt of all reason. It’s just plain silly.
That’s fine. But your volitional opinion doesn’t improve your economy of reasoning against the reasoning of the KCA. We’re not comparing opinions here. We comparing whose reasoning for those opinions is more reasonable.
With reason…I ask you……. how does “begin” relate to “eternal.” Seriously if something is eternal does it have a beginning?
That is more than a question here in this context. Maybe you should bother with that before resorting to opinion.
And …..
Either gods (if they exist) begin like everything else, or nothing begins. Either way, the first cause argument fails.
But by your own words that is based solely on your opinion.
The reasons you provided to hold that opinion I have directly challenged to be less reasonable than the reasoning for the KCA. So we are still at the epistemic stage here.
Thus your special pleading assertion rests upon your opinion to reject the obvious reasoning that somethings begin to exist and somethings do not.
Against that……. I reason that it is purely logical that things that are eternal did not begin to exist and thus do not have a cause.
And overtly somethings do begin to exist and thus have a cause.
I have reasonably, to this point with you, defended the KCA against your assault upon it. Your assault was not successful for the reasons I provided. This isn’t over ….you still have work to do.
Could the cause of nature itself……… be natural?
Most of the founding fathers of science tried to use science to prove god. All of those efforts were not successful unlike their significant science discoveries.Using science to attempt to prove magic is certainly an interesting development among modern religionists. What's wrong with good old inerrant sacred writings to prove their magic claims? I guess it's that those stories aren't "scientific" enough, therefore not believable. Interesting.Up to this point, most things that were thought to have supernatural causes became reduced to having natural (but yet unknown then) causes. Theism is so desperate for a supernatural cause that it is turning the clock back 13.7 billion years to try and prove God has to exist because we can't perfectly explain what led to the expansion 13.7 billion years ago.