(March 13, 2016 at 2:56 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 13, 2016 at 2:43 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: It's not in any possible world the case that it is good to torture a being forever and ever for no crime.

This premise seems eminently disputable.  I can think up a possible world in which it is good to torture a being forever and ever for no crime.   Namely the world in which moral values are determined by a consensus of society.  In such a world, society could decide that it's good to punish people for no reason whatsoever, to keep you on your toes.  I don't live in such a world, nor would I want to live in such a world, but nonetheless it is a possible world.....  unless you're begging the question by saying that this is objectively immoral.  You wouldn't be begging the question now, would you?

It's objectively immoral is no doubt part of that premise. When I am talking about morality, I'm talking about how it classically was defined. For example, a person says "That's the moral thing to do...", would mean he is talking about in a true sense. "I think this is moral, this is moral according to these people, etc..." is from the angle it's not necessarily true morality but a perception of morals that maybe true or not.
I'm not begging the question. I am not trying to prove morality is objective through this argument, I'm using such a belief to prove a Creator that is the source of morality. I'm trying to prove a eternal creator through it, that is the source of morality and that morality is eternal.

(March 13, 2016 at 3:01 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: We are talking about the fact existence cannot come out of non-existence with no cause. In your example, existence simply changed with no cause and time began to apply to it. That is difference from there being nothing, and existence coming out of it after there being nothing.

How would we know that something can't come from nothing? We've never been in a state of nothingness, but if there were such a time as when nothing existed, how would we know about it? It's an assertion based on causality as it applies to creation ex materia, not an observation of what happens to nothingness. Maybe something does come from nothing. How would you know, with emphasis on the word 'know', that things were not such?

(March 13, 2016 at 3:06 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(March 13, 2016 at 2:56 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: This premise seems eminently disputable.  I can think up a possible world in which it is good to torture a being forever and ever for no crime.   Namely the world in which moral values are determined by a consensus of society.  In such a world, society could decide that it's good to punish people for no reason whatsoever, to keep you on your toes.  I don't live in such a world, nor would I want to live in such a world, but nonetheless it is a possible world.....  unless you're begging the question by saying that this is objectively immoral.  You wouldn't be begging the question now, would you?

It's objectively immoral is no doubt part of that premise. When I am talking about morality, I'm talking about how it classically was defined. For example, a person says "That's the moral thing to do...", would mean he is talking about in a true sense. "I think this is moral, this is moral according to these people, etc..." is from the angle it's not necessarily true morality but a perception of morals that maybe true or not.
I'm not begging the question. I am not trying to prove morality is objective through this argument, I'm using such a belief to prove a Creator that is the source of morality. I'm trying to prove a eternal creator through it, that is the source of morality and that morality is eternal.

An eternal creator with such morally stunted opinions belongs in the bronze age.. Oh wait that's where he came from.

(March 13, 2016 at 3:08 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 13, 2016 at 3:01 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: We are talking about the fact existence cannot come out of non-existence with no cause. In your example, existence simply changed with no cause and time began to apply to it. That is difference from there being nothing, and existence coming out of it after there being nothing.

How would we know that something can't come from nothing?  We've never been in a state of nothingness, but if there were such a time as when nothing existed, how would we know about it?  It's an assertion based on causality as it applies to creation ex materia, not an observation of what happens to nothingness.  Maybe something does come from nothing.  How would you know, with emphasis on the word 'know', that things were not such?

How would know it is different then if we know it. But the simple answer to this, is we been given some innate knowledge of existence through being linked to the existing. We know for example, God could not have came out of nothing. I hope you don't deny this. It's manifest, it's clear. 

However - if we are always going to say - well how do you know God could not have came from nothing? And one says "from God"? Then they say you assume God exists in all this so it's circular.

This is improper. The question is do we know these things.

Do I know that non-existence cannot be such that there be nothing at all, then absolute existence, God, absolute glory and beauty, just appears out of it from nothing.  Yes I do.

I care less if people say prove it. It's innate, and obvious to everyone.

That said many Atheists believe they know for certain existence could not have come out of nothing in the sense that nothing is total non-existence.

You should really ask them how they know. You already know what I believe is the source. This argument is useful to such Atheists as well.

(March 13, 2016 at 2:51 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 13, 2016 at 1:53 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Point to that which proves this claim then (ie. the claim you just made).

I love when people do this, like they expect me not to be able to do it: science time!

Let's say we have three claims: claims A, B, and C. Claims A and B are true, and claim C is false. However, of claim A and B, only claim A can be demonstrated. Claim B is completely non-demonstrable in any respect.

So, how do we find out which of the claims are true? With claim A, it's easy, since there's demonstrable evidence that it's true, and we can verify that. Claim C is easy too: it's not true, and so we can find no evidence to confirm it, and possibly evidence to contradict it. Either way, claim C cannot be accepted as true. But what about claim B?

Now we have a problem. Since claim B is non-demonstrable, there's no way of confirming whether it's true. In fact, given that there's no evidence to confirm it, it's in exactly the same category as claim C, which is false. There is a difference between the two claims, in that claim B is actually true, but being that it's not demonstrable, how will we ever know? How can we find out the difference between B and C?

The truth is that we can't. Now, along you come, saying that you know claim B is true. Knowledge is commonly defined as justified true belief, but when we ask you how you know that, you can't give us anything. Claim B has no demonstrable observation or experience to back it. Given that we cannot determine that claim B is true, and that's a key component of the definition of knowledge, in what sense can we actually call what you have knowledge?

As an added bonus, along comes someone else, claiming that they know claim C is true. We ask them the same question, and they also can't show us anything, so their "knowledge" of claim C and your "knowledge" of claim B are functionally indistinguishable. So what we have here is one claim that's true and can be demonstrated, a true claim that can't, and a false claim, and the latter two claims look exactly the same to any outside observer. Since we've now demonstrated that non-demonstrable true claims look identical to false claims, we can conclude that anyone claiming knowledge of a non-demonstrable claim is either claiming knowledge of a true thing or a false thing, without any way of determining the difference. We also cannot know something that is not true. Given this, there is no way to establish whether a person truly does know what they're claiming, if that claim is not demonstrable.

Conclusion: true claims of knowledge must be demonstrable to set them apart from claims of knowledge that are false. Claims of knowledge without demonstrability are indistinguishable from untrue claims, and thus cannot reasonably be called knowledge. Done.  

Quote:That's an assertion, but again, this is not cosmological argument. So everything you said regarding that is irrelevant. I'm talking about the present moment. Infinite past for all I care can be possible.

It's not an assertion, it's a conclusion borne out by the vast majority of physicists and cosmologists. I didn't just pull it from my ass, you know: it's a conclusion present in plenty of peer reviewed papers and theories.

No, the problem is that your claim that things require something else to maintain their existence has not been justified in any way. You're just saying it, over and over, as though that means anything. So, you've made two claims about causation: one is demonstrably false according to modern cosmology, and the other is unjustified. What am I supposed to be refuting, here?

Quote:We know these two things I mentioned and cannot know one without the other when reflected about because they rely on the same knowledge and principle, and when formed in an argument, point to a Creator. It's evidence to me.

Do you seriously think that just saying "we know it," counts as a refutation?

Did you drop the Mike after that?!  You should have! 

(March 12, 2016 at 8:20 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Ok big bang happens, no cause. Now what? Everything keeps existing and existing without anything causing and maintaining it's existence? Or do quarks cause and maintain their own existence constantly?

This is not the cosmological argument. It has nothing to do with how things started. I'm not talking beginning, but about constant existence needing constant cause. 

I don't believe quarks cause themselves to exist, rather, I believe it's more rational to believe in supernatural existing being causing them to exist.

The big bang had a cause, albeit not necessarily in the sense that we perceive time and causality.

The maintenance of the universe is due to the fact that energy cannot be destroyed.  The energy is always there, changing. Watch a bouncing ball.  Eventually it will stop bouncing because the energy was transferred via heat and motion.  If you bounce it on a suspended flat steel plate, the plate will start vibrating as the energy from the ball is transferred to the plate.  The plate will stop vibrating as the energy is transferred to the air as sound.  Some energy from both scenarios will be transferred as heat which is then transferred to something else.  This will go on forever as the different forms of energy move and change, but nothing is ever lost.

Effectively, the universe is one giant perpetual motion machine. That is what keeps the universe in motion.  We even have equations that describe every aspect of this energy transfer.

(March 13, 2016 at 3:06 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(March 13, 2016 at 2:56 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: This premise seems eminently disputable.  I can think up a possible world in which it is good to torture a being forever and ever for no crime.   Namely the world in which moral values are determined by a consensus of society.  In such a world, society could decide that it's good to punish people for no reason whatsoever, to keep you on your toes.  I don't live in such a world, nor would I want to live in such a world, but nonetheless it is a possible world.....  unless you're begging the question by saying that this is objectively immoral.  You wouldn't be begging the question now, would you?

It's objectively immoral is no doubt part of that premise. When I am talking about morality, I'm talking about how it classically was defined. For example, a person says "That's the moral thing to do...", would mean he is talking about in a true sense. "I think this is moral, this is moral according to these people, etc..." is from the angle it's not necessarily true morality but a perception of morals that maybe true or not.
I'm not begging the question. I am not trying to prove morality is objective through this argument, I'm using such a belief to prove a Creator that is the source of morality. I'm trying to prove a eternal creator through it, that is the source of morality and that morality is eternal.

You've just defined a God who is a passive witness to morality. That's not the God of any JudeoChristian religion.

(March 13, 2016 at 12:16 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: You are correct. As the video explains, you can't "demonstrate" morality, just as you can't demonstrate God. They both are in the realm of the supernatural, and there is no proof for either of them. But that is what we believe.

WHY?

(March 13, 2016 at 3:18 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 13, 2016 at 3:06 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: It's objectively immoral is no doubt part of that premise. When I am talking about morality, I'm talking about how it classically was defined. For example, a person says "That's the moral thing to do...", would mean he is talking about in a true sense. "I think this is moral, this is moral according to these people, etc..." is from the angle it's not necessarily true morality but a perception of morals that maybe true or not.
I'm not begging the question. I am not trying to prove morality is objective through this argument, I'm using such a belief to prove a Creator that is the source of morality. I'm trying to prove a eternal creator through it, that is the source of morality and that morality is eternal.

You've just defined a God who is a passive witness to morality.  That's not the God of any JudeoChristian religion.

I don't understand what you are saying. Is Christian and Jewish God not the source of morality? I think you should watch what William Lane Craig says on the false dichotomy of the Euthyphro Dilemma and the third option he presents.

(March 13, 2016 at 12:53 am)Irrational Wrote:

(March 12, 2016 at 10:10 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I'm here to have discussions with people who aren't ass holes.

What kind of discussions? I'm serious, what's the aim exactly? Just to be heard?

It seems you want us to not challenge what you say.

Thread summary so far:

- This is what I believe. I have no reason for believing it. No evidence for convincing that it even might be right. I'm not trying to convince anyone else to believe it. But it's what I believe.

- Neato

/thread