Yet religious nutbags have been claiming the existence of wish granting magic sky pixies for how long now?


Magic gud, science bad.
Unless, of course, that science benefits my life. Like electricity, modern medicine, the automobile, the interwebs... etc.

(September 8, 2021 at 7:37 am)Spongebob Wrote: @Klorophyll  I think everyone here gets that your position is based solely on the Cosmological argument.  That's fine; it's a valid philosophical argument

Then we're done. BOOM. Atheism is flushed down the toilet.

(September 8, 2021 at 7:37 am)Spongebob Wrote:  but as arguments go it is, in the end, inconclusive.  One can accept your assumptions and conclusions as true or reject them as incomplete and neither can be demonstrated to be true or false.  That's the nature of the argument.  

I am not sure what you're driving at exactly. The premise "The universe began to exist" is supported by modern cosmology, namely the BB. Although it doesn't completely preclude an eternal universe, the data we have about the observable universe suggests that there had to be a beggining and eventually some end. 

The other premise "Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence" is simply the causality principle. Feel free to reject the causality principle, if you're willing to go that far to dodge God's existence.

(September 7, 2021 at 10:52 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: I think you already know that a disembodied mind/object can never be ruled out. You simply can't prove that it's non-existent.

I think you already know any bullshit any bullshitter shits out can be couched in terms that makes it impossible to disprove. So it is up to a specific bullshitter, that is you, to show your bullshit is different.

I think you also know that if something whose existence is in principle not demonstrable, then it is in principle the same as if it does not exist. Trying to pull a fast one because getting other people to think it exists makes your feel better is craven intellectual dishonesty of the most profoundly disgusting type.

(September 8, 2021 at 11:04 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: I think you already know any bullshit any bullshitter shits out can be couched in terms that makes it impossible to disprove.   So it is up to a specific bullshitter, that is you, to show your bullshit is different.

I think you also know that if something whose existence is in principle not demonstrable, then it is in principle the same as if it does not exist.  Trying to pull a fast one because getting other people to think it exists makes your feel better is craven intellectual dishonesty of the most profoundly disgusting type.

Look, you said that a disembodied being is non-existent. I am fine with you saying there no sufficient evidence, that it's not demonstrable,etc. But non-existence if a far stronger claim, if you can't prove it, I suggest you take it back, and wisely shut it.

There is no god!
Put that in your pipe, and fucking smoke it!

(September 8, 2021 at 11:33 am)Klorophyll Wrote:

(September 8, 2021 at 11:04 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: I think you already know any bullshit any bullshitter shits out can be couched in terms that makes it impossible to disprove.   So it is up to a specific bullshitter, that is you, to show your bullshit is different.

I think you also know that if something whose existence is in principle not demonstrable, then it is in principle the same as if it does not exist.  Trying to pull a fast one because getting other people to think it exists makes your feel better is craven intellectual dishonesty of the most profoundly disgusting type.

Look, you said that a disembodied being is non-existent. I am fine with you saying there no sufficient evidence, that it's not demonstrable,etc. But non-existence if a far stronger claim, if you can't prove it, I suggest you take it back, and wisely shut it.

I am saying it is as totally and complete indistinguishable from nonexistence as any arbitrary bullshit things any bullshitter ever cared to make up on the spur of amt moment, which is indeed the very maximally strong assertion of no existence as can ever be leveled at any notional thing whatsoever.

That such a maximally strong claim of no existence that can ever be leveled against anything can be leveled with complete assurance against your god shows what caliber of bullshit the notion of the existence of you god actually is.

(September 8, 2021 at 9:54 am)Klorophyll Wrote: I am not sure what you're driving at exactly. The premise "The universe began to exist" is supported by modern cosmology, namely the BB. Although it doesn't completely preclude an eternal universe, the data we have about the observable universe suggests that there had to be a beggining and eventually some end. 

The other premise "Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence" is simply the causality principle. Feel free to reject the causality principle, if you're willing to go that far to dodge God's existence.

Causality may be faulty.  It requires space and time and current quantum-mechanics to exist.  What happened "before" the Big Bang?  I don't know.  There might have been a cause, but we have no way to model either space or time.

It may be that the past is eternal, or we don't even understand time (it could've been created in the Big Bang).  There may be a multiverse, and this was one Big Bang among many.

I find it unlikely that there is a "first cause", but if there was, I believe it would be the most simple thing imaginable.  The universe shows us that the complex emerges from the simple.

(September 8, 2021 at 9:54 am)Klorophyll Wrote:

(September 8, 2021 at 7:37 am)Spongebob Wrote: @Klorophyll  I think everyone here gets that your position is based solely on the Cosmological argument.  That's fine; it's a valid philosophical argument

Then we're done. BOOM. Atheism is flushed down the toilet.

Hilarious.  I said it was a valid philosophical argument, in that it holds together logically.  That doesn't mean it's necessarily true and certainly doesn't mean it's convincing.  It's been around for a very long time, so the very fact that it doesn't convince everyone should tell you something.  Not all logical arguments are true.  There's information missing that could be very important and of course you are making a lot of assumptions; you said so yourself.  

Quote:I am not sure what you're driving at exactly. The premise "The universe began to exist" is supported by modern cosmology, namely the BB. Although it doesn't completely preclude an eternal universe, the data we have about the observable universe suggests that there had to be a beggining and eventually some end. 

The current and most accepted model does describe a beginning, yes.  That's just about all it does.  It certainly doesn't say anything about how it began or what exited before it, if anything.  So you are just arguing that because there was a beginning, then there must have been a god to cause the big bang.  OK, so noted.  That and $6.50 will get you coffee at Starbucks.  Stephen Hawking certainly wasn't convinced of the need for a god.  What you are doing is the same thing theologians have done for thousands of years.  We don't understand X, therefore god must have done it.

Quote:The other premise "Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence" is simply the causality principle. Feel free to reject the causality principle, if you're willing to go that far to dodge God's existence.

Does the causality principle say anything that exists and we don't know its specific cause must have been caused by god?  If not, then I don't have anything to dodge.

And feel free to just ignore the rest of my post because, well, we know you can't answer it.

---

(September 8, 2021 at 8:18 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(September 8, 2021 at 7:37 am)Spongebob Wrote: I still think it's a gigantic strawman argument.  I can understand the intension but the arguments against peanut butter are incredibly lame and don't represent the arguments opposing the existence of god.  I'm guessing he worked for hours to come up with that lame ass peanut butter nonsense and it is embarrassingly silly.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning, and he compares peanut butter with God by holding peanut butter responsible that a baby died and suffered in the fire, but peanut butter doesn’t have the power to save anyone from a fire as the supposed omnipotent good God does.

The strawman is that he claims how atheists use the argument from evil to debunk God’s existence, but that is not true. That argument is "only" used to debunk the goodness of God and maybe even his omnipotence, but not necessarily the existence of God himself because there is no settled definition of what God is or what his attributes are.

Well, to me all of those arguments appear to be a strawman because he's basically saying each one represents a standard argument against god, but none of those come close to representing the actual arguments the reject god.  That's exactly what a strawman is, a propped up argument meant to analogize another argument but it fails because it does not accurately represent the original argument.

But I'm not going to lose sleep over the definition of a gigantically miserable argument.  I always find it hilarious that theists spend so much time and energy trying to convince the tiny fraction of atheists in the world that their god is real when there are literally billions more people worshiping the "wrong" god and are far easier to convert.  Why are we so special?

(September 8, 2021 at 11:47 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: I am saying it is as totally and complete indistinguishable from nonexistence as any arbitrary bullshit things any bullshitter ever cared to make up on the spur of amt moment, which is indeed the very maximally strong assertion of no existence as can ever be leveled at any notional thing whatsoever.

Not really, God isn't equivalent to Russell's teapot. Russell's teapot is an arbitrary object inside the universe. God is posited to be the cause of the universe. Positing a personal cause of the universe can't really be put hand to hand with any arbitrary assertion about existence.
Also, proving God's existence can have an effect in our life. If we prove the theistic God, then an afterlife very probably exists, and answering prayers becomes possible, etc. Proving Russell's teapot, for example, won't change anything, and doesn't imply an afterlife.

(September 8, 2021 at 11:48 am)HappySkeptic Wrote: Causality may be faulty.  It requires space and time and current quantum-mechanics to exist.  

Well this is a very ambitious claim. Let's say that causality is wrong outside of spacetime, then there is at least one instance where an effect precedes its cause. If we allow for such an asinine possibility, then we are really on the brink of sophistry.

(September 8, 2021 at 11:48 am)HappySkeptic Wrote: It may be that the past is eternal, or we don't even understand time (it could've been created in the Big Bang).  There may be a multiverse, and this was one Big Bang among many.

I find it unlikely that there is a "first cause", but if there was, I believe it would be the most simple thing imaginable.  The universe shows us that the complex emerges from the simple.

Well, the complex emerges from the simple only inside the universe, and guided by various physical/chemical laws. But oustide of it, I don't think you can keep applying this heuristic. We simply need a cause of the universe. If the multiverse is true, then let's label the entirety of universes one BIG universe and look for a cause of its existence, etc. You can see that we can keep going indefinitely, if there is a notion of time that is independent of the Big Bang, then there is surely a first cause, because, for our universe to exist, a infinite amount of time must have elapsed -impossible, which implies the existence of an absolute beginning of the chain of causation.

If we assume there is no notion of time, then it really gets harder. An infinite regress of actual causes AND a first cause might both be a coherent possibility. Arguing further for theism can only be on the grounds of explanatory power, that is, a personal first cause intentionally creating a universe explains it better than an infinitely long chain of causation, which looks unnecessarily complex.

(September 8, 2021 at 11:49 am)Spongebob Wrote: Hilarious.  I said it was a valid philosophical argument, in that it holds together logically.  That doesn't mean it's necessarily true and certainly doesn't mean it's convincing.  It's been around for a very long time, so the very fact that it doesn't convince everyone should tell you something.  Not all logical arguments are true.  There's information missing that could be very important and of course you are making a lot of assumptions; you said so yourself.  

It's true that not everything is clearly laid out in the argument. But since when the fact it doesn't convince everyone is somehow an argument against it..???? This looks like ad populum. We know flat earthers exist in the 21st century, should I argue that the earth might be flat because a round earth doesn't please everybody? Of course not.

(September 8, 2021 at 11:49 am)Spongebob Wrote: The current and most accepted model does describe a beginning, yes.  That's just about all it does.  It certainly doesn't say anything about how it began or what exited before it, if anything.  So you are just arguing that because there was a beginning, then there must have been a god to cause the big bang.  OK, so noted.  That and $6.50 will get you coffee at Starbucks.  Stephen Hawking certainly wasn't convinced of the need for a god.  What you are doing is the same thing theologians have done for thousands of years.  We don't understand X, therefore god must have done it.

Stephen Hawking also thought the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, don't you think it's a stupid assertion?? If the universe has a beginning, then it must have come from something, this something is a cause of the universe, that's what the cosmological argument is about. OFC it doesn't get us to the theistic God, but let's take it one at a time. No need to rush when it comes to the central question of existence..................

(September 8, 2021 at 11:49 am)Spongebob Wrote: Does the causality principle say anything that exists and we don't know its specific cause must have been caused by god?  If not, then I don't have anything to dodge.

And feel free to just ignore the rest of my post because, well, we know you can't answer it.

I explained above why there has to be a first cause if there is any conceivable notion of time independently of the Big Bang.

What exactly did I ignore?? Do you mean the bit about these argument not getting us to the nature of God..? Of course they don't, I repeat it then : there is no wholesale argument getting us straight to the God of Abraham, Jesus and Muhammad.

(September 8, 2021 at 12:28 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: It's true that not everything is clearly laid out in the argument. But since when the fact it doesn't convince everyone is somehow an argument against it..???? This looks like ad populum. We know flat earthers exist in the 21st century, should I argue that the earth might be flat because a round earth doesn't please everybody? Of course not.

That's not what I said.  And again, you are using a strawman.  You know as well as I do that we have plenty of evidence that the earth is not flat.  I simply said that the cosmological argument is not convincing, so that should tell you something about the argument.  You aren't talking to a bunch of people who don't process information and mostly not people who have no experience with religion.  It takes more than just a good argument.  And anyway, there are certainly non-theists who fully accept the possibility that god does exist and caused our universe to exist.  I'm willing to accept the possibility myself.  But it is just that, a possibility.  What else am I to make of it?  What does god do in our universe that makes its presence felt?  For that you need far more than just an argument, you need evidence.

Quote:Stephen Hawking also thought the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, don't you think it's a stupid assertion?? If the universe has a beginning, then it must have come from something, this something is a cause of the universe, that's what the cosmological argument is about. OFC it doesn't get us to the theistic God, but let's take it one at a time. No need to rush when it comes to the central question of existence..................

Hawking didn't claim the universe came from nothing; that's not precisely what spontaneous means.  His view was that the laws of physics accounted for the big bang, which is precisely how we have eliminated many previous myths about god.  And you certainly have no credibility calling anything Hawking said "stupid" until you demonstrate that your intellect is superior to his.  All I've seen you do is regurgitate arguments I've heard scores of times with nothing new added.  Anyone can do that.

Quote:I explained above why there has to be a first cause if there is any conceivable notion of time independently of the Big Bang.

What exactly did I ignore?? Do you mean the bit about these argument not getting us to the nature of God..? Of course they don't, I repeat it then : there is no wholesale argument getting us straight to the God of Abraham, Jesus and Muhammad.

Nope, you didn't.

The cosmological argument only accounts for the possibility of a god.  In no way does it describe such god or what it has in mind for humans.  So if one believes there is a god, it remains a study of myth and emotions to determine the nature of this god.  I'm happy for people to spend their lives in search of this ethereal concept but I've spent as much time as I care to on the subject.  Demonstrating that god exists and created the universe would be a change in human existence such that we've never seen before.  Leaving it as a possibility is the best that anyone can do.  If left as a possibility and having no way to absolutely describe the nature of god leaves us precisely where humans have been all of our existence, with differing opinions of god and the afterlife.  It is and will remain a continued source of disagreement and bloodshed and the very fact that people will resort to violence to defend the notion of their god informs my opinion of those people.