(March 14, 2018 at 10:57 am)SteveII Wrote:

(March 13, 2018 at 7:10 pm)Mathilda Wrote:

(March 13, 2018 at 4:44 pm)SteveII Wrote: Second, your rewriting significantly reduces the scope of the premise by making it about things inside the universe. This makes it useless to talk about things outside the universe.

But this is precisely what the KCA does that you like so much

The KCA is an argument that applies to all reality. Not just our laws of physics that started a finite time ago.

OK let's recap here.

Your KCA argues that things begin to exist and everything has a cause.

I point out that things do not ever instantly begin to exist but gradually change over time. You ignore this point and talk about discrete causes instead.

I rewrote your KCA as a continuous version rather than discrete.

You object to this by saying the continuous version fails because it makes assumption that the first two steps apply understanding of what happens inside the universe to what happens outside the universe.

I point out that the same argument applies to the discrete version that you think is correct.

You do not respond to that but instead continue making the assumption that there is more to the universe than matter and energy.

So tell me why the continuous version of the KCA is any less valid than the discrete version that you know and love.

Both versions assume that what happens inside the universe applies outside.

(March 12, 2018 at 11:51 am)SteveII Wrote: 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.

(March 13, 2018 at 6:08 am)Mathilda Wrote: 1. Every stable pattern of matter and energy in the universe first had to develop over time (continuous version of begins to exist) and this happened because of how it was shaped by a larger environment (continuous version of cause).
2. The universe itself first had to develop over time.

So answer without trying to logic meaningless concepts into existence and using nebulous words like 'being' which allow for equivocation. Tell me:

• Why assume that there is more to the universe than matter and energy?
  
• Why it is OK to argue things begin to exist in an instant in the real world when they never do?
  
• Why you can use this incorrect premise about how inside the universe works to argue how the outside works?
  
• Why you cannot use the correct premise that nothing begins in an instant inside the universe to argue how the outside works?
  

(March 14, 2018 at 10:57 am)SteveII Wrote: You have logical problems with anything material "always existing". You cannot have a series of causes/effects going back forever because you can't complete an actual infinity of steps

How do you know that you can't have an infinite number of steps? Isn't your whole belief system devoted to an idea of an eternity in Heaven or Hell?

(March 14, 2018 at 8:35 am)SteveII Wrote: While some properties of God are unknowable, some are not. He has reveals a great deal about himself in both the OT and the NT. Here is a great list.  There is also a ton of things we can infer from known characteristics (the result of a process of systematic theology).

You’re wandering a bit.

The claim is that god is the personal creator of the universe as we know it.  If god is real, he is the best explanation for the universe’s existence.  

When examining a possible explanation for a particular phenomenon (in this case, god as the cause of the universe), most rational people would think it important to know a few key specifics about this proposed explanation:
 
1. What is god made of?
2. By what mechanisms did he accomplish this?
3. How can we differentiate between god, and things that are not god?
4. What mechanisms underpin this timeless, changeless, spaceless state?

Your answers to this line of questioning so far have been, ‘category error,’ and ‘not knowable’.  

That is some “explanation”, Steve.  Further, I don’t understand how you can call the definition of god as, “not needing an explanation”, any kind of definition at all.  God is what, then?   I’ll-defined by definition?  Why would any rational person accept a theory that is unexplainable by definition, as an explanation for real phenomena?

Quote:You continue to ignore the fact that I have a list of real life reasons to think the concept is true.

What you have is your belief that the Bible is true, and personal experience.  If that’s enough for you, fine.  But you must be able to see how this is not even close to enough for many of us here.

”God-did-it because the Bible says so”, as the explanation for existence is never going to be enough for me.

(March 14, 2018 at 1:21 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(March 14, 2018 at 8:35 am)SteveII Wrote: You continue to ignore the fact that I have a list of real life reasons to think the concept is true.

What you have is your belief that the Bible is true, and personal experience.  If that’s enough for you, fine.  But you must be able to see how this is not even close to enough for many of us here.

”God-did-it because the Bible says so”, as the explanation for existence is never going to be enough for me.

(March 14, 2018 at 8:54 am)alpha male Wrote: In general, people believe or don't due to matters of the heart. They then use their head to justify their desired conclusion.

Lol, wow. Alpha said that?!

---

Interesting, and for a bit of ‘meta’ fun, this is the definition of the word, ‘definition’ in the dictionary:

Quote:def·i·ni·tion
ˌdefəˈniSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
1.
a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary.
2.
the degree of distinctness in outline of an object, image, or sound, especially of an image in a photograph or on a screen.
synonyms: clarity, visibility, sharpness, crispness, acuteness

Does Steve’s “definition” of god as ‘a thing which needs no explanation”, even qualify as a definition at all?

(March 14, 2018 at 11:51 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 14, 2018 at 10:57 am)SteveII Wrote: ...it seems that a firm feature of reality is that being can only come from being.

Please explain what you mean by being coming from being and give an example. 

It is the inverse of the statement ex nihilo nihil fit (out of nothing, nothing comes) first argued by Parmenides. It has been refined into concepts like the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR):

Quote:The principle of sufficient reason states that everything must have a reason or a cause. The modern[1] formulation of the principle is usually attributed to Gottfried Leibniz,[2] although the idea was conceived of and utilized by various philosophers who preceded him, including Anaximander,[3] Parmenides, Archimedes,[4] Plato and Aristotle,[5] Cicero,[5] Avicenna,[6] Thomas Aquinas, and Spinoza.[7] Some philosophers have associated the principle of sufficient reason with "ex nihilo nihil fit".[8][9] Hamilton identified the laws of inference modus ponens with the "law of Sufficient Reason, or of Reason and Consequent" and modus tollens with its contrapositive expression.[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_...ent_reason

Quote:I'm aware that in quantum mechanics there is the concept of uncaused events and that existence essentially means collapse of the wave function, without which the being of something is indeterminate (see Bernard D'espagnat on Bell's inequalities, HERE), but neither of those appear related to what you are claiming.  There is, I believe, some support that new particles can appear out of nothing, but since that is ex nihilo, that would actually be a contradiction to your claim. 

"Uncaused events" may appear uncaused or actually be uncaused, but they are not from nothing. You have the energy from the quantum vacuum from which the particles form. 

Quote:Then there is the existence of virtual particles, but that again seems more like a refutation of your claim rather than a confirmation.  Aside from that, as far as I know, matter has never been observed to have been created or destroyed, so I am not aware of any example from reality in which matter literally came from matter unless that matter is just a reconfiguration of previously existing matter.  But that would make your phrase "being can only come from being" only true in the figurative or metaphorical sense, and if that is the sense in which you are interpreting statements such as "began to exist" then you seem to have some equivocation going on.  So what do you actually mean by being "coming from" being?

As you pointed out, within the universe, matter and energy does not just come into existence from nothing. So within our universe we have only ever observed that being comes from being or if you prefer the inverse, out of nothing, nothing comes. It is the opposite of figurative or metaphorical--it is actually true. The PSR is a universally accepted concept within our universe. 

How about prior to our universe? Cosmologist don't set aside the PSR in their theories. Why? Because we all believe it to be an objective aspect of reality that such a thing is true. If there were no such thing, it is not even clear if it is possible to know anything about such a state of affairs. 

Is it possible that it does not apply outside our universe. I suppose. But the KCA is an inductive argument where the conclusion is more likely to be true than not because its premises are more likely true than not. It does not need certainty to be successful.

(March 14, 2018 at 1:55 pm)SteveII Wrote: The PSR is a universally accepted concept within our universe. 

No, that's not actually true. In addition, there are multiple PSRs depending upon specifically what one does or does not want to exempt from the rule. But I'm used to your penchant for exaggeration by now, so I'll just let that slide.

What I do find troubling is that you are justifying "being comes only from being" via ex nihilo nihil fit, as that seems to be an axiom rather than a justified truth, so asserting its complement ("being only comes from being") appears to be nothing more than begging the question. I'd like to see the statement justified, not simply assumed. You implied that you could provide examples from "reality." That at least would provide you with the basis of an inductive argument, but given your last reply, it doesn't seem that you are able to do that. Is ex nihilo nihil fit an a priori truth? I don't think it is. Therefore I'd appeal to Hitchens' razor, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

(March 14, 2018 at 10:57 am)SteveII Wrote:

(March 14, 2018 at 9:39 am)Mathilda Wrote: So how can your god be the best (or excellent) explanation if it is completely or partially unknowable?

You are wanting your cake and eat it. Is your god the best explanation or is it only partially unknowable?

You have set up a false dichotomy. It is not one of the other. There is no argument you could make to even suggest it.

So you are claiming that your god is partly unknowable, yet is still the best explanation for the known universe and its known laws by presupposing the existence of another external universe with different yet unknowable laws even though there is absolutely no evidence for it or your god.

Agreed?

Quote:The PSR is a universally accepted concept within our universe. 

Even if try it's irrelevant

---

Quote:In general, people believe or don't due to matters of the heart. They then use their head to justify their desired conclusion.

Keep pushing that bullshit Beta . It just reeks of desperation to make what is not rationally equal, equal .

(March 14, 2018 at 12:01 pm)possibletarian Wrote:

(March 14, 2018 at 10:57 am)SteveII Wrote: If the God of Christianity exists, then the Bible certainly contains information (no matter your position on inerrantcy) about God. You are confusing proving God with knowing his attributes if he does exist. They are not the same task.

Yes its a good list of definitions, but nothing more. All you seem to be proving is that Christianity has made a better a good job of creating a list of definitions that may be true if a god existed, though of course there are continued problem with the interpretation of what the scripture actually means in many places.

There is no "continued problem with interpretation" concerning the nature of God. That only exists in your head. 

Quote:It would be easy to define a completely new entity that would better fit  the world we see around us though, we could make one up who loved misery and was mischievous (in fact many early religions did)  We could define a creator god who from the start created using evolution. A god who caused the known universe from existing matter via manipulation, in fact we could add many modifications to our 'god definition'  to make it a more likely god than Yahweh. We could even make up a god who caused people to believe in many gods all of them lies including Yahweh. All these better fit the world we see around us.

Go ahead, knock yourself out. 

Quote:But such things would be completely meaningless and remain an exercise of the mind unless we could actually prove the god behind the definitions existed, a list of definitions proves only that you have a list of definitions.  I guess what we are really asking is what even makes you think your definitions are true ?

So you ask a question about God, I answer. Then your reply is "well, you haven't proven God". You are a discussion genius. I can't match your skills. Unless you say something especially new or interesting, don't expect an answer in the future.

(March 14, 2018 at 3:36 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(March 14, 2018 at 12:01 pm)possibletarian Wrote: Yes its a good list of definitions, but nothing more. All you seem to be proving is that Christianity has made a better a good job of creating a list of definitions that may be true if a god existed, though of course there are continued problem with the interpretation of what the scripture actually means in many places.

There is no "continued problem with interpretation" concerning the nature of God. That only exists in your head. 

Quote:It would be easy to define a completely new entity that would better fit  the world we see around us though, we could make one up who loved misery and was mischievous (in fact many early religions did)  We could define a creator god who from the start created using evolution. A god who caused the known universe from existing matter via manipulation, in fact we could add many modifications to our 'god definition'  to make it a more likely god than Yahweh. We could even make up a god who caused people to believe in many gods all of them lies including Yahweh. All these better fit the world we see around us.

Go ahead, knock yourself out. 

Quote:But such things would be completely meaningless and remain an exercise of the mind unless we could actually prove the god behind the definitions existed, a list of definitions proves only that you have a list of definitions.  I guess what we are really asking is what even makes you think your definitions are true ?

So you ask a question about God, I answer. Then your reply is "well, you haven't proven God". You are a discussion genius. I can't match your skills. Unless you say something especially new or interesting, don't expect an answer in the future.

Yes very nice of you, but can you prove your definitions are true ?
I understand that you are frustrated by people asking you to justify you definitions and/or belief in god, I understand the questions are not new. I'm not asking in this instance for you to prove god, I already know from the past few months you cannot do that. I'm asking why you believe your definitions to be rational or true. For instance when god is claimed to bless, curse, make crops grow, bring calamity, make rain and bring drought how are you meant to tell the difference between that and nature happening ?

When people push you on them you claim much is unknowable, and then claim they are being unreasonable in holding back belief in your assertions, for all your lengthy answers you do what many Christians do and fall back on an unknowable, mysterious, unprovable god, you are in effect saying 'god did it' that's what I already believe, and unless you can prove me otherwise then i will continue to believe that.

The reason why Christians are faced with a barrage of 'not new' questions is really simple, they have not given unbelievers sufficient reason to believe their faith in definitions of their god, or god himself resides outside their own mind. If you don't wish to reply to any of my posts further then that's fine, I will certainly continue to comment on yours