Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Battle Royale VII Specific discussion thread

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mr Bobby E's circular reasoning

    HU: A Being Cannot be Both Necessary and Conscious

    BE: Hey Huey, were you conscious when you wrote that?

    To the reader: I’m getting punchy. I feel like someone’s piping nitrous oxide into my office. The atheist arguments are so hard to take seriously, and to listen to with a straight face. Of course, theists agree with Huey that “the world itself… denotes something that exists independent, outside and apart from our own minds.” I am also happy to agree with Huey that “a ‘nothing’ does not and cannot exist by definition.”
    To the reader: the theists arguments, and especially their misuse of scientific arguments, are in our views not anything less as nuclear attack, which makes Mr Bobby E's feeling of punchyness sort of peanuts...

    But let us state first the positive facts:
    I am very consent that Mr Bobby E here agrees with the fact that a 'nothing' is not and can not exist by definition, and I am also glad I can testify that I was consciouss when writing that particular part. The statement Mr Bobby E makes, is an unconstrained one, which is we do not have to assume the existence of anything for that to be true. With that statement, we can already state that whatever there is that exist, there is necessary something, since a 'nothing' can by definition not exist.

    Where in that conclusion, Mr Bobby E, do we or do you or does anybody else has to assume any mystical creation acts to have taken place, and any mystery creators, for that fact to be conceived of being true?

    Answer: we don't!

    And that already means that we don't have to assume a Deity for the fact that there exists a world - in whatever form - in the first place. Even when we - apart from this discussion in which we will conclude that no such Deity exists - consider it an unanswerable question wether or not a Deity exists, we can already state that for the world itself, it is rather arbitrary for it's existence, wether a Deity exists or not. But since the existence of a Deity is precisely argued at the basis of the necessity for the world to have been caused by a Deity, we can already agree here that that particular defined Deity does not exist, since the world itself and the argument with which Mr Bobby E agreed, already state that for there to be something instead of nothing the intervention of a Deity isn't a necessity. One could still argue for a non-necessary Deity, some specific form of consciousness residing somewhere in the universe, without us knowing that, but that is obviously not the Deity Mr Bobby E had in mind.

    When deepening our question, and dig into the question of what is there, that is necessary there for there to be something instead of nothing, it is at the same time clear that there is not any specific something, that qualifies for that (at least not that we are aware of or have knowledge of, and if Bobby E thinks that to be the case, he can come up with the proof for that).

    We can question all known things, and ask ourselves, what the world would be like without the existence of that specific something. And the simple conclusion we draw is that the existence of any specific something ain't a necessary fact for the world itself to exist, since if that specific something would not have formed and not have existed at all - whatever specific something that we could have in mind - would not alter anything about the fact that the world itself exists.
    We could ponder for example what the world would be like, without there being a planet Mars. It would be a different world, for sure, but still the world would exist. And wether we take Mars, Venus, the sun, the galaxy, or whatever enormous big or enormous small, does not matter. The world would be different, but would still exist.
    And even more, in some of these cases, we would not be there, because the conditions which brought us here, didn't exist.
    But even that, the inexistence of any human being or any life form, would not alter anything for the fact that the world itself exists, instead of not exists.

    The only difference would be that in that case we would not be here pondering such issues. I would not state that such would be indifferent to us (since it would differ the world to us wether we exists or not), I just concluded that it would not alter anything for the fact that the world exists.

    The rest of his argument is based upon the following false assertion, for which he provides no evidence:

    HU: The whole of existence consists of finite and temporal forms…

    BE: Circular Reasoning #1: Here, Huey is assuming his conclusion. For if the whole of existence consists of only finite entities, then an eternal God cannot exist, and voila! Huey won the debate! Hey Huey, you claim that only finite entities exist, so you should have provided your evidence for that statement if you have any. And then Huey makes this conclusion which he bases on his assumption (which he later uses as the basis for another conclusion!) “A necessary being therefore cannot be anything less (or anything more) than the whole of existence.”
    That is a seeminlgy hard statement, you make Mr Bobby E, but helas that hard sounding argument has not much concrete back up, and already dissolces into thin air by mere looking at it. According to you the fact that the world so far we know it only exists in the form of finite, temporal existence forms, is a false statement. Since my statement is correct and in line with all human knowledge, and we don't have any observational proof for the opposite (the existence of infinite and eternal entities), it is not me who has to deliver proof for my statement, but Mr Bobby E has to proof his accusations and false claims.

    His second conclusion is that my argument is invalid, because that would mean that his Deity does not exist. Well that may be a pitty for him, but such is of course not any valid rebuttal, since we can not merely assume the existence of his Deity on a belief basis, since the existence of THAT particular entity is the thing Mr Bobby E has to proof to us!
    His false accusations of using circular reasoning, therefore don't affect my arguments, since the fact is that the only one using circular forms of reasoning, is...... Mr Bobby E himself!

    And as an example of that, look at this:
    Life could not have come from non-life. Why not? Because then my Deity would not exist. And why does your Deity exist? Because he created all life.

    The universe (everything that exists) can not exist eternally. Why not? Because then my Deity would not exist. And why does your Deity exist? Because this Deity created the universe.
    Etc.

    Very splendid Mr Bobby E for pointing out and showing your own circular reasoning!

    Back to the argument:

    The world in so far we know and observe it, consists indeed of finite and temporal existence forms. That is the case for everything we know of so far, which means that that is just a statement of our knowledge, since we have never seen / observed directly something that has eternal existence or something that is infinite, neither will we ever observe that. Infinite and eternal things are not an observable fact of the world.
    I can therefore state my assumption at the basis of the whole body of human knowledge, in which everything we know of, exists only within a finite temporal and spatial extend.

    If my assumption ain't true, then please provide us with the proof of the contrary! Mr Bobby E obviously can't, unless he uses here again his famous trick of circular reasoning, and proving God at the grounds of a reasoning that already assumes the existence of God. Which is of course not a valid proof.

    And another point is this:

    Where did I imply that the whole of existence itself is just finite and temporal?

    I just stated that it consists of temporal and finite existence forms, but this doesn't imply that the whole of existence is or can be itself finite and temporal. THAT would be a rather contradictionary fact, since THEN we would have to explain for instance:
    When did the whole of existence start, and what came before that or cause that?

    Since the whole of existence is already the whole of existence, it could then only have started from nothing. But nothing is not a begin. Nothing is only nothing. And in agreement with what Mr Bobby E has confessed here is also the position of theists, a 'nothing' can not exist by itself by definition.

    This can only mean one thing: that the whole of existence did not start from 'nothing', but has existed always, that is in infinite time, and therefore eternal. And no alternative can exist, since every other explenation would require us to assume that apart from the whole of existence there would exist a particular something, that could have been the cause for the whole of existence. Which would just mean we poorly defined the 'whole of existence' and mistakenly left out that particular something.

    And please consider the fact that, despite our initial statement that every individual 'thing' exists only in a finite and temporal way - at the basis of that - we can not conclude that the whole of existence therefore also is finite and temporal. Neither as we can conclude that, when every team member has a parent, that also the team itself must have a parent.

    In conclusion: the fact that every individual thing we know of, exists as a finite and temporal existence form, does not lead to the conclusion that the whole of existence therefore must also have a finitite and temporal form of existence. And in fact, if we take into consideration other known properties of finite temporal things, we can argue in fact that the whole of existence can not be a finite and temporal form of existence.
    But at the same time, neither do we have to assume that that would lead to the existence of God, since God not only has the property of an infinite and eternal existence form (if the definition of God would require us nothing else as that, we could already finish this discussion, and state that this infinite and eternal existence form does in fact exist), but has also other attributes. And as I have shown in my argument the combination of that attributed properties of God, of an infinite and eternal existence form and as a necessary being (which as we have seen can not be anything less or anything more as the whole of existence) can not be matched with a consciouss form of existence.

    His rebutal must of course be of the form that a finite line cannot be lined up to form an infinite line, in the same way as a material existence form one formed and shaped out of previous existing material forms, and which will turn after a period of time into other material existence forms.
    In the course of that process, matter/energy is known to be conserved. Which means that such temporal existence forms can be placed after one another, and form by themselves the infinity/eternity of time of the whole of existence. No other special assumptions are necessary to conclude that fact, and any other explenation, would have to explain a lot more.

    The obvious (and also contradictionary) fact is that an infinite line, is made up of finite lines only. And so will all our time and spatial measurements always indicate only finite material existence forms.

    Huey then confuses himself with another assumption:

    HU: A conscious being can be conscious because it can have sensory awareness about things that exist outside, apart and independent of itself… To be self-conscious means that one can distinguish between oneself and something that exists outside of oneself.

    BE: Circular Reasoning #2: Once again, these are self-serving assumptions designed to lead to Huey’s atheistic conclusion. It’s circular reasoning. Consciousness fundamentally is awareness of one’s self, i.e., self-awareness. Then, if something else does exist, a conscious mind may discern between itself and the other thing. We humans could have first hand knowledge of how this works if we were able to remember our earliest thoughts in the womb; but we don’t. We’re not sure if we were aware of our own existence prior to being aware of any external entities. Theism, the position Huey has volunteered to refute, claims that God alone existed forever into the past prior to any creation. So Huey’s assumption that nothing can be conscious if it existed all alone handily assumes his conclusion once again. (And he thought we wouldn’t notice!) So again, Huey makes an assumption without offering any evidence for it.
    I can answer this by saying that they are not my assumptions that are in confusion here, but the one's that Mr Bobby E presents to is.
    Mr Bobby E states that consciousness is fundamentally only awareness of oneself. And where did Mr Bob E proof such a thing?
    Nowhere. He just assumes and states that, because else he can not come up with his 'Self aware/ self consciouss' Deity, that has nothing to ponder or think about, except itself.

    Has he come up with his 'amazing first life' experience from the whomb, in which he knew he existed, but when he did not yet have any sensory awareness about an outside reality? Does he know about any one else's 'whomb experience' that would make it possible to state such a fact?
    Neither, and non whatsoever. In if he would have known such a fact, he would not miss to present that to us. Which means he just makes unprofound statements about reality, like he always does.

    A more sound statement about reality is that our awareness about reality, and also our reflections (but in first instance only instinctive) on reality already started before we were even consciouss about ourselves.
    When we saw our first light, and were first breast feeded, our consciousness did react according to outside stimuli, but no memory of any consciousness has been left of us, reacting that way. We have only second hand knowledge about ourselves in that phase of our existence. We might encounter our first picture of our existence, and look at it, and state: yes, this was my at age 6 weeks. I know it is me, but I don't remember the fact that that picture of me was ever taken. My consciouss memory about that is not there.

    So, this being the facts of our first life, Mr Bobby E, what now about your thesis that our life started out with self consciousness first? Why don't we have any memories about this part of our life, if your thesis would be correct? What fact is there to explain that we don't have any memories of our self-consciousness at a time in which we did exist as a human being, and did react to our natural environment, and at that basis it could be stated we had some form of consciousness about outside reality, but without us having conscious memories about that?
    Is our memory about our self consciousness suddenly lost by a natural cause in our early childhood? What fact is that then, and what medical facts do you have to back that up?
    And if you can not come up with any such fact, then the only possible explenation is to state that our self consciousness arises from our consciousness of reality, because at some distinct moment in our development, we come to realize that we are a distinct entity in reality.
    Our personality and self awareness gets developed based on our first experience of outside reality. We learn to make a distinction between the things that exists outside and apart of ourselves, and our own mental awareness and self consciousness.

    Based on these facts of life this urges us to conclude the opposite of your thesis, that our consciousness does not arise from self consciousness, but that self consciousness only arises in a later instance and at the basis of our first experience and consciouss awareness of outside reality.

    The obvious thing is of course that something that only has self-consciousness, can not be consciouss, because it can not be consciouss of something.
    His Deity can neither be self consciouss, because the 'self' does not exist (by definition) in the case that there is nothing that exists outside of that.
    The term 'self' already assumes that there are also things outside of self.
    'Self' only exists because there also exist not-self, which is something that is outside, apart and independend of self.

    Which is as we have showed is impossible in the situation of the 'necessary being' (which is the whole of existence).

    But then of course Mr Bobby E, questions the definition of God.
    As we shall see, he not only questions the definition of God, but he questions God itself, since the definition of God which I used and God itself are one and the same. That is a nice feature of this type of debate, that the one person that is trying to proof the existence of this remarkable entity, is brought into the position that he has to question the existence of the entity he tries to proof. Which is a good thing, Mr Bobby E!

    And let me remark here that I am pretty sure that the definition I used, I did not make up arbitrariliy, but based that on the statements of the person defending the existence of such an entity, and the the definition I used is the only and unique and proper definition for that entity. And also I am pretty sure that after a fundamental analysis of that entity, we must conclude that this entity does not and can not exist.
    And not only that, as a statement coming from me, but also that my opponent, who defends magical mystical creation acts by a mystical deity, in fact has no other alternative then to make that same conclusion, that such an entity can not possible have existence.

    We already have him confessing partly that fact, since he:
    - Conceives of the fact that the world itself can not not exist (since whatever is there, there is always necessarily something instead of nothing), and this he states independly of the (non)existence of any Deity. In other words, to explain that the world is there (in whatever form), instead of not there in first instance, does not require us to assume that a Deity exists that is responsible for that fact.
    - Concieves of the fact that the world itself exists independend, apart and outside of his own consciousness, and that he can not conceive of that not being the case.

    It comes down to make these 'confessions' a sound and well found argument, based on profound knowledge, in which the existence of his deity no longer and in no possible way can be stated. Since that is of course the very obvious conclusion to be made.

    But let us suppose here - just for one moment - that the definition of God, which has the property of being both a necessary and a consciouss being (which as we have seen can not be the case simultaniously), is wrong.

    This either means:
    - God is not a necessary being, and therefore God is an unnecessary, a finite and temporal being.
    - God is not a consciouss being.

    So what definition should we use then Mr Bobby E. Please 'enlighten us' on this remarkable issue for once and for all!

    What definition pleases and describes your God then best, if you don't like my definition of a necessary and conscious being:
    An unncessary one or an unconsciouss one (or both)?

    Further we can state that Mr Bobby E has some funny - if not straight out weird - ideas about consciousness, and the way in which consciousness exists. In the first alinea Mr Bob E has already brought a sound fact about reality: a 'nothing' does not and can not exist.
    Based on what, does Mr Bobby E make that statement? Based on the inexistence and unknowability of the world, outside, independend an apart from his consciousness? Based on his self awareness alone?

    How do we conceive, and how do you conceive of the fact that you are self-aware by the way? What concrete facts urge us to conclude that you have self awareness, and that you yourself can state your own self awareness?
    In what way could you even state, if only for yourself, that you are 'self aware' if you would not have awareness and consciousness about there being a world outside, apart and independend of your consciousness?

    Mere logic makes us conclude that his consciouss statement about reality, that reality as such exists, and exists apart, independend and outside of one's own consciousness, and that in no conceivable way the world itself could not exist, are based on the fact that his conscioussness is based on the real existing material world itself and nothing else.

    About the issue of alienated (only being aware of oneself without being aware of something outside of oneself) consciouss:

    Is Mr Bobby E's consciousnesss the same form of alienated consciousness which he has in mind for his Deity, or is his consciousness based on the fact that he acknowledges that there exists a world, outside, apart and independend of his consciousness?

    What can we state about a supposedly consciouss entity that is facing the situation that it can not have any awareness, knowledge or sense perceptions about there being a world independend, apart and outside of it's own consciousness.

    Suppose such a hypothetical consciouss being would exist. Then how could for instance this hypothetical consciouss being answer the question: Why is there a world, a universe, any something, instead of nothing?

    We may assume that this hypothetical being has every possible reasoning capacity. It can however not in any possible way know that there is a world, that there is something instead of nothing.
    And because it can not know that fact, neither it can answer the question, why there would have to be a world, instead of none.
    Any reasoning, to explain that X is the case, needs an explenation in the form of: since B is the case. But from the 'point of view' of this hypothetical being, no such B exists that can form the ground for any reasoning that could lead to the conclusion that there is a world, instead of none.

    Since therefore this hypothetical being does not know that there is a world, or has to be a world, this being does not know anything about the world.
    And for that reason, neither does this being know that it itself exists.

    For that reason, such a hypothetical consciouss being can not be a factual consciouss being, since:
    - Neither can it itself state that the world exists or would have to exist, let alone 'itself' (since we have argued, that no such thing as 'self' can or does existence in that particular hypothetical situation).
    - Not are there any other outside things, that could state it's existence.

    That being the case, it is clear that there is no possible way in which anyone or anything could proof in an objective way the existence of such a hypothetical consciouss being.

    And since we know that, the only possible argument Mr Bobby E can bring in, is that he nevertheless believes such a hypothetical consciouss being to exist, despite the factual knowledge, that such an assumption is baseless and without any proof.

    Then he does the same circular reasoning thing (is anyone getting dizzy?) a third time:

    HU: A conscious being… can state the existence of something that exists outside of… itself. There must also exist something outside, apart and independent of this conscious being…

    BE: Circular Reasoning #3: Ditto my above points. Now, for a fourth ride on the merry-go-round:

    HU: God is defined as… a necessary being… But a necessary being, since it is defined as the whole of everything that exists, cannot have anything that exists outside of itself.

    BE: Circular Reasoning #4: Hey Huey, who defined a necessary being “as the whole of everything that exists?” You did. Based upon what? Based upon your assumption that God cannot exist because as you declared, “the whole of existence consists [only] of finite and temporal forms.” When you deny God, you commit yourself to the irrational, and then the more rigorously you attempt to support your position, the more you draw attention to your irrationality.

    Let me give you an example of clear thinking and honesty, and then atheists can attempt to mimic this when considering Christian arguments. Here we go: If Heusden’s assumptions were correct, then his conclusion would be correct also, that the God I believe in does not exist; but I believe his assumptions to be false! Thus, if you can prove that “the whole of existence consists of finite and temporal forms,” I would concede the debate. Likewise, if you could prove that “there must also exist something… independent of this conscious being,” then I would admit defeat. Do you see how easy that is? All of you atheists? Taoist, Flipper, Huey, Zakath, and the rest of you? It is easy to recognize the form of an opponent’s argument, to admit (or disprove) it logical features, and accept (or reject) its factual basis. This is easy, and honest -- unless… unless you are afraid of your opponent’s position. And that is what characterizes the atheist response from the first rounds of Battle Royale VII through to this Post Game Show. Hey, if you are afraid to challenge what you believe, then you better challenge what you believe. My many Christian friends and I really LOVE to take on atheist arguments, honestly acknowledge them, and deal with them. Why don’t you try reciprocating? It might get you somewhere.
    Mr Bobby E states that my conclusions are right if my assumptions are right. But, he says, my conclusions are not right because he believes that my assumptions are not right.

    Well, Me Bobby E, you can believe anything you want and as long as you wish, and I am certainly not holding you back on that one! Don't let me destroy your most precious beliefs...!

    But for this discussion, you would have to do a little more as just stating that you believe my assumptions to be false, since I could in turn just state that I believe my assumptions are right. The belief issue therefore is no argument, since no definite position can be drawn from that, and that is why more sophisticated arguments and forms of reasoning, don't depend on issues of belief.

    This means: If you state that my assumptions are false, then you would have to proof that. My assumptions are not out of the ordinary, they are just based on our ordinary experience and perceptions of reality. To state otherwise, and to state that such assumptions are false, therefore ask for a more sophisticated and profound explenation as the argument from belief.

    I state that they are right, and have not been in the least persuaded by your belief argument, that they are not correct, and in fact it is the case that I concieve of them to be correct.

    By the way, I call Heusden “Huey” in honor of one of the Disney characters because of Heusden’s obsession on the boards with the existence of a talking mouse (by which he means Mickey).
    Hee, Mr Bobby E. I didn't conceive of it that the Micky Mouse (by the way, factual I used Donald Duck, which is as we know a talking duck) argument made such an impression on you that you even choose to name me after a Disney figure (or can't spell my name properly)

    However, I still didn't get a direct and straight answer from you, how it is that you presumably argue from the point that your Deity figure has any more existence as Donald Duck (or in the case of Mr Bobby E, who has an obssesion about talkince mice: Mickey Mouse)

    The only answer I got, and presumably ever will get, is: 'Never mind'.
    Which ain't much for an argument.

    For that particular reason, maybe I could better call you Mr Never Mind as Mr Bobby E.

    Finally, I’ll repeat Huey’s summation here underlining the supposed logical construction of his argument, and without further comment in order to illustrate the strength of my rebuttal:

    HU: This necessary being cannot therefore exist in the objective sense, since there cannot be an objective relation between the necessary being and anything outside of it, as everything that exists is contained within the necessary being. Since the necessary being cannot be stated to have objective existence, then neither can it be a conscious being. The necessary being can therefore neither be conscious of something outside of itself, nor of itself. God therefore cannot be both a necessary being and a conscious being simultaneously. If God is said to exist, then either He is a conscious being that is not a necessary being, a finite and temporal form of existence or He is a necessary being which does not exist in the objective sense, and can therefore not be a conscious being. God therefore, in the way that He has been defined, does not exist.
    I see this not as an argument, but as a critique on the forum rules, that have necessitated us to present our argument very briefly, and in very condensed form. My original argument I sent in as a contribution was a bit longer, but this did not please the forum administrators, and because of that, they were presented in a rather brief form.

    Mr Bobby E: I advise you to sent in a complaint to the forum administrator, which has given your posts much more room then ours.

    IN CONCLUSION:

    1. Mr Bobby E conceives of the fact that a mere 'nothing' does not exist! And he conceives of that fact, without urging us to assume that such is the case only because of his Deity exists. So, since a mere 'nothing' does not and can not exist, he already confesses that for the universe to exist - which is the collection of all 'somethings' that exist at a specific time - no reason or cause other then that statement of utterly simple logic is necessary.

    2. Mr. Bobby E protest however that God is defined as a Necessary and both a Consciouss being. He must be aware of the fact then that based on that argument, his God would not exist. So, he is given the alternative then to come up with a better definition in the form of EITHER an unnecessary being (which is a finite and temporal existence form) OR an unconsciouss being (or both) whatever Mr Bobby E pleases and prefers. So what will it be, Mr Bobby E? Does the unconscious universe (the whole of existence) qualify for your Deity, or does a temporal and finite existence form, a being of flesh and blood qualify for your Deity? Or perhaps you yourself?

    3. Mr Bobby E is not consent with the fact that all things he knows of, including himseld, does not exist eternally, but had once come into being and will also once cease to be. We are very sorry however to state that even your life, since it had a begin (without you being aware of that fact at that time!), also has an end. Life wisely, we should say, and don't get caught up in false beliefs!

    4. Mr Bobby E presents us the fact that, while sitting and growing in his mom's womb, and even before he had any sensory perceptions of an outside world, he was already self aware!. An amazing fact, which has no other explenation then he is God, I mean, that his God must exist, and also must be a being that is self consciouss, without having consciousness about anything that does exist outside of itself.

    5. Mr Bobby E conceives of the fact that my conclusions are right if my assumptions are right. He states however that my assumptions are false, but does not present us any real argument why that would be the case. He only argues this: he beliefs my arguments are false, since if they are true, then his Deity does not exist.

    6. Mr Bobby E has every right to complain about circular argumenations. But perhaps he should first try to uncover and understand his own circularity of argumentation. The universe in his mind, could not have existed always. Why not? Well if that would be the case, no Deity would be necessary to assume. But why would we assume that Deity to exist? Because that Deity created the universe..
    Life can not come from non life. Why not? Well if that would be the case, no Deity would be necessary to assume. But why would that Deity exist? Because that Deity created life from non life...

    7. Does Mr Bobby E's Deity exist or not exist? Is this form of existence Objective or Subjective? Thus far, we simply miss out on any objective proof for such a Deity. And the only 'proof' ever given to us is that a reasoned argument that - as a matter of belief - already assumes his Deity to exist, will of course draw us to conclude that such a Deity in fact exist.
    But in the objective sense, our knowledge of and about the world, urges us to conclude the opposite fact. The Deity which Mr Bobby E has in mind in fact does not exist. So, the only form of existence grantable to his Deity, is a form of subjective existence which this Deity has to share with for instance ..... Donald Duck.
    Last edited by attention; September 13th, 2003, 05:51 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by attention
      Since you conceive of a 'coming into existence' you already concieve of a cause for that 'coming into existence'.

      But the error or problem in your argument is exactly that, that you try to conceive of the universe (which is in the ordinary meaning everything that exists) as that it had a 'coming into existence' history.
      That however is inconceivable and not reconceilable with the fact that we mean with the term universe everything that exists.
      Any causes that might exist, are then by definition part of the universe. No outside causes - again by definition - can exist.

      We could of course conceive of the term universe in another way, in which the universe is not everything that exists. A small part of inflating and expanding spacetime bubble, we could call universe, and that could have causes outside of itself.

      So, to start with, an atheists does not conceive of the fact that the universe has ever 'not been' or will ever 'not be'.

      Which means in other words: it is eternally unfolding in time, without a begin or end.

      I never stated that I can concieve the coming into existence of the universe.Like I said in my post prior, I don't know the answers. I was just pointing out the fact that Bob is using both sides of the coin on the science issue. He doesn't know but asserts he does. I pulled up the full quote so people wouldn't think I am misquoting or using a portion of the entire statement to misrepresent him. He states there is too much we don't know and says he is right about his assertions from science. I was just pointing out the incongruity of his argument. I am not an atheist by the way. Thanks for helping me clear that up. I didn't think that someone would think I would be disagreeing with all of his statements. I was just using an example from what he wrote is all.

      Spartin

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Spartin



        As to common sense. My common sense is saying that there is too much blind assertion by most religions about the creation of the universe. That just leads me to believe that religions are fallible like the man it is created for. So instead of trying to make me sound like I lack common sense, why not ask me questions regarding how I came to my conclusions. It shows that you are jumping into another blind assertion over something you don't even know.


        If you want to ask me some questions feel free to ask. Don't make assumptions like that. Thanks for your reply


        Spartin
        Ok, here's a question. Did you come to the conclusion that Christianity is just another fallible religion after thoroughly investigating it and studying the bible or did you come to this conclusion mostly due to what others had to say about it?
        "The most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" - Ronald Reagan



        Check out the "rightest" of all right wing moms. FarRightMom


        Upgrade your TOL membership.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Spartin
          I never stated that I can concieve the coming into existence of the universe.Like I said in my post prior, I don't know the answers. I was just pointing out the fact that Bob is using both sides of the coin on the science issue. He doesn't know but asserts he does. I pulled up the full quote so people wouldn't think I am misquoting or using a portion of the entire statement to misrepresent him. He states there is too much we don't know and says he is right about his assertions from science. I was just pointing out the incongruity of his argument. I am not an atheist by the way. Thanks for helping me clear that up. I didn't think that someone would think I would be disagreeing with all of his statements. I was just using an example from what he wrote is all.
          I never stated that you yourself stated that, I just brought to your attention that when assuming such a thing to have happened ( the 'coming to be' of the universe) one already assumes and conceives of that at the basis of a cause, but that such an assumption already assumes an impossibility. An imposibility which some people just can't manage to decipher and therefore try to 'compensate' that by assuming another impossibility in the form of a Deity.



          And about mr Bobby, well I know his reasoning. He is arguing like this. At some point he points out that the characteristics of a specific something lead to the fact that that is a coin. And if you profoundly debate and discuss those given characteristics, and point out to him that based on that, the thing he has in mind can not possibly be a coin, he then argues with you that your assumptions are incorrect, because if they were correct, it would lead to the fact that the thing he has in mind, is in fact not a coin.
          And the argument he uses then is that, despite your lenghty and profound logic, which he even confesses as valid reasoning, is nevertheless wrong, because the assumptions are wrong, for no other reason then - whatever there is the case - he believes the thing he has in mind to be a coin.

          And then as a finishing touch, he accuses you of using 'circular reasoning'......

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Spartin
            I believe in God, not the Christian one, but I believe there is one in existence.
            Spartin,
            Could you tell us about your God and religion? Or do they have conventional names? I'm curious what your religious orientation is.
            Thanks
            That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world.
            Philippians 2:15

            Comment


            • Originally posted by LightSon
              Spartin,
              Could you tell us about your God and religion? Or do they have conventional names? I'm curious what your religious orientation is.
              Thanks

              My belief system isn't conventional. As far as I know, I am the one person who believes the way I do. It does have a large flavouring of Christianity, for the moral grounds on how to treat your fellow man etc. (I was a Christian for a number of years) I don't believe in adultery or any other sin that hurts your fellow man/woman. I just know God is out there and is watching us. I don't know exactly how to explain it mind you. This isn't one of my big voiced topics. It is more of a feeling than a documented thing for me. It makes more sense to me now than three years ago. I believe in three more years I will understand more. I wish I could articulate myself better but unfortunaly I can't at this time in my life . In a couple years I will be better equipped to answer this but at this time, I guess I just need that, time. Part of the reason I am here. To pickup some more thoughts and understanding on the whole thing. Frustrating at times but so far it has been worth it.


              Spartin

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Poly
                Ok, here's a question. Did you come to the conclusion that Christianity is just another fallible religion after thoroughly investigating it and studying the bible or did you come to this conclusion mostly due to what others had to say about it?

                It was a combination of both. I did spend a number of years in the flock. Not a scholar but familiar with it. Everything that I did hear I would always try to look for a source and something to verify its' validity. Alot of the time there was no grounds based upon. Sometimes it did. I just couldn't accept certain things in the bible as true where I was told that the book was 100% true. That was the beginning of the end for me in Christianity. I personally believe that the Bible is written by Man for Man. Man's judgement is clouded (Maybe mine is right now ) hence the problems I have with the book. Who knows? This helps me figure out where I am and where I am going. I dislike answering questions like this, but it is all part of the journey.


                Spartin

                Comment


                • Just like to take a look at Bob’s neat little end conclusions:

                  BE: We Know God Exists: because:
                  1. the universe could not always have been here, nor could it have made itself from nothing
                  We don’t know that at all. Further more the same can be said for God.. he could not have always existed or could not have made himself.

                  2. even the basic functions of biological life are irreducibly and wildly complex and could not originate by the laws of physics
                  The basic functions of life follow the laws of physics ALWAYS. Pleas name me ONE that doesn’t. Why does complexity imply a God anyway ?

                  [quote]3. consciousness, that is, self-awareness is non-physical and could not arise from atoms and molecules[/quote}

                  So says Bob !.. self awareness is a result of having a large enough brain. Even Cats and Dogs are self aware.. they know it themselves in the mirror. Our consciousness is just a result of an evolutionary process that provided us with high intelligence. Why is God implied by it ?

                  4. only a moral God can account for absolute right and wrong and the human conscience
                  Absolute right and wrong are human invented concepts .. just like God. I always find it just a little hilarious when morals are attributed to a God instead of man.. when man made up the God in the first place.

                  5. the laws of physics cannot account for broad and extraordinary features of the solar system
                  Yes they can.. we just need to learn them all. The ridiculous “coincidences” in the Solar system don’t even line up exactly like Bob declares they do.. his “extraordinary” features are full of ALMOST ½ and NEARLY 40 % etc etc. As we find out more about other Solar systems it seems there are perfectly natural explanations for solar system shape and formation and features.

                  6. even if evolution were possible, apart from supervision, even the simplest proteins would each require trillions of years to form
                  Bob thinks this because of his failed attempt at mathematics. No wonder he dropped out of his course. Time and time again I have told him he fails to take into account no of iterations and the locking in place of beneficial results.

                  7. human behavior indicates the existence of the soul and spirit and the real existence of ideas indicate the existence of a non-physical reality
                  Human behvious indicates and intelligent being who has empathy for fellow humans and strives to understand or provide reasons for natural happenings. When reason aren’t forthcoming humans have generally opted for Gap Gods.

                  8. higher biological functions like sight, flight, and echo-location are so wildly and irreducibly complex they could not evolve in stages
                  I fully explained how all these functions not only occurred naturally but how we still have intermediate forms in existence today of all the necessary steps.

                  9. apart from the existence of God, logic and reason have no foundation, and thus leading atheists deny the objective nature of the laws of logic
                  Logic and reason are human concepts formed by our large intelligence as tools to explain our universe. Again it is ironic that a human could claim that a human invention implies a God (which is another human invention) exists !

                  10. God has revealed Himself uniquely in the Bible and confirmed its claims through scientific statements, prophecies, and many other wonderful proofs that God became flesh in Jesus Christ, who was crucified by Pontius Pilate, and rose from the dead on the third day, according to the Scriptures, and that those who trust in Him will have everlasting life.
                  God is written about in the Bible and a hundred other religious mythologies. He is written about by MAN who is making up stories. Most of us stopped believing fairy tales after kindergarten. The need for “everlasting” life is what drives man to fall prey to the fantasy of a God !

                  Comment


                  • Most of us stopped believing fairy tales after kindergarten.
                    So why do you believe fairytales like the universe created itself and life appeared by naturalistic means?

                    You haven't stopped believing in fairytales at all. You simply have substituted one set of fabulous stories for another under the mistaken belief that the new ones are "scientific" and hence more worthy of your adoption of them into your worldview..
                    Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                    Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                    Comment


                    • Bob

                      So why do you believe fairytales like the universe created itself and life appeared by naturalistic means?
                      I don’t “believe” in anything. However it is a good bet to assume the universe had a natural beginning.. why ???

                      Because everything EVER known has had a natural origin.

                      Everything ever discovered = Natural
                      Every scientific explanation = Natural
                      Only known source for everything = Natural

                      Yet you somehow jump to a God at some stage.. that just doesn’t make sense !

                      You haven't stopped believing in fairytales at all. You simply have substituted one set of fabulous stories for another under the mistaken belief that the new ones are "scientific" and hence more worthy of your adoption of them into your worldview..
                      The Natural explanations proposed are offered up by scientists based on what we DO know and the evidence that DOES exist. It is offered up with NO agenda.

                      Mythological religious explanations are based on ancient stories with NO evidence. Not only that they are contradictory and illogical and HEAVILY agenda driven.

                      Science start with evidence and looks for an answer that fit it.

                      Religion starts with the answer and looks for evidence to fit it.

                      I know which ones still uses fairy tales !

                      Comment


                      • The creation of the universe is unlike every other event that occurs once the universe has come into existence.

                        Thus it is incorrect to equate the creation of the universe to events which happen in the universe once it has been created.

                        Science typically concerns itself with events that occur within the physical universe. Once it strays from this it is no longer really science but instead is philosophy.
                        Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                        Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                        Comment


                        • Bob,

                          So now we can just declare something and it is true..

                          Sorry.. that isn;t how it works for me !

                          Comment


                          • Aussie thinker,

                            If you can not differentiate between the event that created the universe and events which have occurred once the universe was created then I am sorry for you.

                            The fact that all events which occur within the physical universe are logically considered by most people to be natural provides zero support for the proposition that the creation of the physical universe itself must therefore have also been a "natural" event.

                            You can believe that if you wish, but neither logic nor science provides support for that position.
                            Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                            Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by bob b
                              The creation of the universe is unlike every other event that occurs once the universe has come into existence.

                              Thus it is incorrect to equate the creation of the universe to events which happen in the universe once it has been created.

                              Science typically concerns itself with events that occur within the physical universe. Once it strays from this it is no longer really science but instead is philosophy.
                              What IS the "creation of the universe"?
                              You can not call it an "event" since events take place in time, and time is not existing in that case.
                              So, it isn't even realy an event, it is not something that takes place at some moment in time and at some point in space.

                              What IS it then?
                              Well, it is a fixious idea in the heads of people that assume unreasonable things.

                              It is a reasonng that takes induction outside of it's defined context and reasons as follows:
                              1. all things that exist, have begun to exist.
                              2. the universe is a "thing" that exists
                              3. thus, the universe began at some point in time.

                              The error in the logic is that:
                              1. everything that begins to exist, does not start in or from nothing, but from previous pre-existing causes and existence forms.

                              2. a property of an element of a collection, is not necesseraly a property of the collection of those elements. Like an integer is an element of the set of all integers, and has the property that by adding one, you still get an integer. But you can't add one to the set of integers. etc.

                              3. The proper definition of the universe is all existence forms in all space and all time. I realy can not have a start in time, since that would imply it would have started from nothing. But nothing is not a begin of anything.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by attention
                                Well, it is a fixious idea in the heads of people that assume unreasonable things.
                                Sorry to be pedantic, but what is "fixious"? I can't find it in my dictionary.

                                Or perhaps you meant one of the following?

                                1. factitious: not spontaneous or natural; artificial; contrived

                                2. fictitious: created, taken, or assumed for the sake of concealment; not genuine; false

                                3. fictitious: of, pertaining to, or consisting of fiction; imaginatively produced or set forth; created by the imagination
                                That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world.
                                Philippians 2:15

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X