(September 14, 2021 at 11:46 am)Klorophyll Wrote: That's because a deity purportedly intervenes through rarely occuring miracles, and rarely occuring events can't also be repeatable or reproducible....

So God created the universe because Virgin Mary supposedly appeared on a toast, icons that weep, statues that bleed, Hindu statues that drink water, healings by John of God, stigmata, and similar.

(September 10, 2021 at 11:37 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(September 8, 2021 at 5:42 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Read what I wrote more carefully, dear bullshitter. A universe requires a cause, it can't just pop out of nothing. That's why the concept of God is necessary, it's because we care about rationality -unlike you, you think I am arbitrarily adding qualifiers to God to make it escape falsification. Well, no, you got it backwards: our position is that a deity is a necessary condition to existence, it's not an optional add-on. No god means no existence. No entity with sufficient qualifiers means no Anomalocaris.

Why in the world would you assume something as complicated as an intelligence would be required for anything else to exist?

Why cannot the universe itself 'simply exist' with no cause? That is, after all, what you are assuming about some deity.

The problem with inserting an all powerful super cognition would be the problem of infinite regress. If they want to argue everything has a cause, then what caused that super cognition, and what caused that super cognition, and what caused that super cognition, ect ect ect ect.

I have often argued that there is an "eternity", but not one that requires a cognitive cause. Much like the seasons constantly change on earth without a Snow God or Easter God or Beach God or Oak Leaf God. 

It is true that science has yet to figure out if there was something prior to the Big Bang or it came out of "nothing". It could be that our current universe was the result of the death and collapse of a prior universe. Much like a dead tree becomes food for future plant life. 

Either way, something vs nothing does not require a super cognition. 

Humans simply don't like the idea of being finite, and god belief is simply a projection of their own desires.

(September 14, 2021 at 11:46 am)Klorophyll Wrote:

(September 13, 2021 at 6:01 pm)Angrboda Wrote: False.  We can't even say that our own universe required a beginning or else is past eternal, much less a universe we know nothing about.  

For any existing universe, the two propositions, P :"A universe began to exist" and Q :"A universe has an eternal past" are mutually exclusive,  one of them must be true, Q is simply non-P. This is the basic law of excluded middle. 

Unless you're willing to deny the most basic rules of logic and delve into sophistry, you are forced to pick one of these propositions. 

You have presented neither deductive nor inductive argument for their mutual exclusivity. I will reserve comment until you support your assertion. Failing, that, it can be dismissed.

(September 14, 2021 at 11:46 am)Klorophyll Wrote:

(September 13, 2021 at 6:01 pm)Angrboda Wrote: You are simply wrong in your claim that any universe that did not begin to exist must be past eternal.  How would you even know such a thing?

 Splash your face with water and re-read what's above.... I guess ?  

Exactly how is reading an unsupported assertion from you a path to knowledge?

(September 14, 2021 at 11:46 am)Klorophyll Wrote:

(September 13, 2021 at 6:01 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(September 8, 2021 at 3:02 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: It's possible to argue for benevolence on the grounds of the ability of creation to fulfill good deeds, our inner moral compass, the maternal instinct, etc. All these mundane observations can serve as premises to prove some property that a deity likely has. Something can't give or cause what it doesn't have, if this rule holds (or, at worst, is probable), then a malevolent deity is unlikely to have created mothers who instinctively protect their children.

[emphasis mine]

As pointed out, the rule is not valid in this context and it doesn't justify thinking it unlikely that a malevolent deity would create the maternal instinct.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth in more ways than one.  If the existence of evil is compatible with a benevolent deity, then the existence of good is compatible with an evil deity.  You can't carve out a greater likelihood for one or the other, as both depend upon the same argument.

You say, "You can't carve out a greater likelihood for one or the other", as if I didn't give plenty of reasons already for why the balance tilts towards benevolence.. This is not rocket science, we evaluate this "likelihood" based on what we observe. And what we observe is that peace, empathy, sense of community, our inner moral compass, our sense of justice, etc. are all the default state of our species. Going to war is an exceptional occurence, perpetrating genocide and other gravely immoral acts is exceptional, etc. 

My argument for compatbility serves only to prove that theism is coherent, regardless of its truth value. Proving that benevolence is the actual state of affairs -if God exists- can only be done by inference, i.e. by infering God's character based on his creatures'.

You continue to lie in the face of clear evidence that what you are saying is false. You claimed that you could prove benevolence -- not coherence, benevolence -- based upon the premise that you could rule out a malevolent deity on the basis of it being unable to give what it hasn't got. Nowhere did you argue that a preponderance of good makes a benevolent deity probable, and for the reasons pointed out, it wouldn't. Just as the inductive argument from evil fails on account of things like the free will defense, the inductive argument from good fails by similar means. Having made an argument that failed, you now lack the balls and integrity to stand behind the argument that you made. You're simply engaged in historical revisionism, as anyone can see by examining your prior statement, and you are now shamelessly trying to save face by lying.

(September 14, 2021 at 6:11 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(September 14, 2021 at 11:46 am)Klorophyll Wrote: For any existing universe, the two propositions, P :"A universe began to exist" and Q :"A universe has an eternal past" are mutually exclusive,  one of them must be true, Q is simply non-P. This is the basic law of excluded middle. 

Unless you're willing to deny the most basic rules of logic and delve into sophistry, you are forced to pick one of these propositions. 

You have presented neither deductive nor inductive argument for their mutual exclusivity.  I will reserve comment until you support your assertion.  Failing, that, it can be dismissed.

(September 14, 2021 at 11:46 am)Klorophyll Wrote:  Splash your face with water and re-read what's above.... I guess ?  

Exactly how is reading an unsupported assertion from you a path to knowledge?

(September 14, 2021 at 11:46 am)Klorophyll Wrote: You say, "You can't carve out a greater likelihood for one or the other", as if I didn't give plenty of reasons already for why the balance tilts towards benevolence.. This is not rocket science, we evaluate this "likelihood" based on what we observe. And what we observe is that peace, empathy, sense of community, our inner moral compass, our sense of justice, etc. are all the default state of our species. Going to war is an exceptional occurence, perpetrating genocide and other gravely immoral acts is exceptional, etc. 

My argument for compatbility serves only to prove that theism is coherent, regardless of its truth value. Proving that benevolence is the actual state of affairs -if God exists- can only be done by inference, i.e. by infering God's character based on his creatures'.

You continue to lie in the face of clear evidence that what you are saying is false.  You claimed that you could prove benevolence -- not coherence, benevolence -- based upon the premise that you could rule out a malevolent deity on the basis of it being unable to give what it hasn't got.  Nowhere did you argue that a preponderance of good makes a benevolent deity probable, and for the reasons pointed out, it wouldn't.  Just as the inductive argument from evil fails on account of things like the free will defense, the inductive argument from good fails by similar means.  Having made an argument that failed, you now lack the balls and integrity to stand behind the argument that you made.  You're simply engaged in historical revisionism, as anyone can see by examining your prior statement, and you are now shamelessly trying to save face by lying.

How does he even know it's benevolent?. How does he know something that looks benevolent to us when in fact it's part of some far grander malevolence? How does he know God isn't simply tricking him into thinking it's benevolent because it enjoys deluding people?

(September 14, 2021 at 11:46 am)Klorophyll Wrote: For any existing universe, the two propositions, P :"A universe began to exist" and Q :"A universe has an eternal past" are mutually exclusive,  one of them must be true, Q is simply non-P. This is the basic law of excluded middle. 

Unless you're willing to deny the most basic rules of logic and delve into sophistry, you are forced to pick one of these propositions. 

What if there was a theory/hypothesis where (looking back in time, from todays point of view) there is a point at which time (and space) break down? Doesnt our universe "start to exist"?
What if, at some point, time (and the universe) start together? Didnt the universe exist for all of time? Since eternal means "for all of time", isnt the universe eternal?


That is, why your methodology, WLC-like, of arguing with (intuitive) assumptions about the fundamentals of reality, which we know to be not-intuitive, and then applying logic to those, is doomed to lead you to wrong conclusions. You better go with observation and evidence, and those currently are telling us (as has been told again and again): "We dont know".
Aa Polymath already pointed out, when, at quantum level, everything becomes a wave function, a "distribution of probability" influenced by the fact if you are observing or not, then collapsing into what we perceive as our subjective reality, well, then exercises in logic like the above are turning into being "not evern wrong".

(September 15, 2021 at 2:26 am)Deesse23 Wrote: That is, why your methodology, WLC-like, of arguing with (intuitive) assumptions about the fundamentals of reality, which we know to be not-intuitive, and then applying logic to those, is doomed to lead you to wrong...

William Craig also denied the existence of the number zero:

Rationalwiki -- Dr. William Lane Craig

For those who are interested, you can find a good multimeter at True Value for under $20, a good stocking stuffer.

Has Klor argued one into existence yet............. anybody?

Magic makes humans special.
Science, not so much.
Therefore,............miracles.

I was comparing this meme that portrays tactics Christians usually use when talking to atheists and it fits pretty well on a Muslim too.

So first, the meme and you have to substitute word "Christian" for "Muslim"



It seems to me that I found all of them except nr. 11 because maybe Muslims don't pray for others or at least not in the way Christians do. And I didn't post nr. 2 because that usually is tied to some other post as context.

Anyway, tell me what you think about this.

1

Klorophyll Wrote:Category mistake: asking for concrete/empirical evidence for the existence of a non-empirical being.

---

3

Klorophyll Wrote: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.

...

The cosmological argument merely proves that there is a cause of the universe, if you say it's not convincing, you should point out which premise you don't agree with and why. If you say, as you did before, that it doesn't prove the theistic God, then you are simply moving the goalposts, and arbitrarily shooting down arguments to prevent us from making some progress.

---

4

Klorophyll Wrote:I used to hold the atheist position in high regard, it looked like a very logical position to endorse when one isn't convinced of some particular account of God. I started to become highly suspicious of that when I discovered that all the big objections to theism simply fail miserably. 

---

5

Klorophyll Wrote:It's possible to argue for benevolence on the grounds of the ability of creation to fulfill good deeds, our inner moral compass, the maternal instinct, etc. All these mundane observations can serve as premises to prove some property that a deity likely has. Something can't give or cause what it doesn't have, if this rule holds (or, at worst, is probable), then a malevolent deity is unlikely to have created mothers who instinctively protect their children. The evolutionary explanation of maternal instinct isn't a valid defeater here, because it is a scientifc explanation, and scientifc explanations can go hand in hand with the personal explanation of a divine agent.

...

We can easily see here why the scientific explanation only gives the mechanical, boring part of the full explanation. The real motive behind the curtain is the agent who decided at some point to execute the sequence of events that led to the bird's death.

Similarly, with the universe, we can explain stuff scientifically all we want, there is still room for a personal explanation of why various phenomena occur, and of why, above all, this universe exists.

---

6

Klorophyll Wrote: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.

---

7

Klorophyll Wrote:The universe's existence is used as a premise in a posteriori arguments for God, not as direct evidence. Premise and evidence aren't the same thing.

---

8

Klorophyll Wrote:What @brewer is asking for is some empirically measurable way to discern God's existence, there is clearly something syntactically incoherent about his request, since God is usually defined as a disembodied mind.

...

What I meant by a category mistake is that disembodied minds (e.g. God) can't be the object of a mundane scientific experiment. By definition of a disembodied mind, one cannot derive some experiment that proves its existence, unlike an embodied mind (e.g. human beings) or an object/particle such as electrons.

...

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.

---

9

Klorophyll Wrote:Why do you separate the laws of nature and the designer? Why can't these laws be an instrument of a supreme designer?

...

Hawking's intellect doesn't prove his claim. Very smart people believed in God too, after all. And, actually, he did say the universe came from nothing.

---

10

Klorophyll Wrote:Even if we assume no deductive argument is conclusive, we can still infer God's existence based on what we see in the world. I see appearances of order, I marvel at God's omnipotence. I see instances of caregiving, I admire God's benevolence, etc.  Islam endorses the idea of the sensus divinitatis (Fitra'), that is, I am simply tilted toward teleology and assigning agency to things. I should simply listen to this innate sense.

...

Just because you can't imagine a god operating through these very adaptations doesn't mean he doesn't exist or isn't required. Is it really that difficult to understand that some agent must have started these "wonderful adaptations evolved through natural means"

(September 16, 2021 at 7:35 am)brewer Wrote: Has Klor argued one into existence yet............. anybody?

Has anything ever been argued into existence?