(January 7, 2024 at 12:51 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(January 6, 2024 at 4:23 am)JJoseph Wrote: Hi all. I'm curious if any of you can refute the Kalam cosmological argument for God's existence


Step 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

E.g. Houses, Trees, Planets etc begin to exist and have a cause. So does the Universe, which brings us to Step 2.

Step 2: The Universe began to exist. 

This step is also proven by mathematical logic, has empirical confirmation in the Big Bang Theory etc.

Step 3: Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

The conclusion logically follows from the preceding premises. Dr. Craig occasionally goes for a further step.

Step 4: Therefore, an Eternal Creator of the Universe exists, that brought the Universe into existence from nothing.

This sounds very much like the traditional Creator God of classical Judeo-Christian Revelation? Any thoughts on the subject?

Regards,
Joseph.

There's the special pleading between your first and second claims. There's also the non sequitur between claims three and four.

As an aside, you cannot argue anything into existence. If your god is so well hidden he must be argued into reality by such shitty argumentation, he's obviously not worthy of your worship.

If there is indeed a creator of everything, Should his existence not be the most obvious fact of all? Shouldnt everything have his handwriting on it? Yet it does seem to be quite the opposite.

Notably Joesph has avoided my Pastalogical argument.

They always do.

(January 7, 2024 at 1:20 pm)JJoseph Wrote:

(January 7, 2024 at 12:10 pm)Angrboda Wrote: So you're saying that DNA resembles a man-made creation.  Which one?

Signature in the Cell would answer that question, Angrboda. Wiki: "Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design is a 2009 book about intelligent design by philosopher and intelligent design advocate Stephen C. Meyer." 

Have you read it, or do you want me to summarize the arguments? Briefly, the Genetic Code in DNA is evidence/proof of a Designing Intelligence, the same as "Welcome to Mars" leaflets, if known not to come from human beings, would be proof of Intelligent Life on Mars, because Language itself is a Code, one of the most basic forms of a Code, that conveys information. This argument, and others, are developed in depth by Dr. Meyer.

And, Fake Messiah, it is not that I don't know what Evolution claims. I know it very well, and that's why I reject it. Since I simply lack a belief in the Theory of Evolution, I don't have to prove anything, according to your own Atheist principles. Why don't you first of all state the Evolutionist Belief, and then offer the Proof of that Belief? Which Ape exactly was the "Uncle" to both Human Beings and Chimpanzees? Why, if we're allegedly "cousins" with today's Chimpanzees, are we unable to breed with them, as Monkey-boy Darwin's theory would imply we can. We did not come from Apes, that is a Darwinist Sophism intelligently but cruelly designed by those who hate you and want you to believe you are Monkeys and born of Monkeys so that your thoughts no longer arise to God and to Heaven. I am aware many of the Scientists I cite are ID Theorists, that is true.

Darwin was also a Vicious White Racist, and his Theory provides a "scientific" justification for Racism, just like he himself was a Vicious Racist.

Quote:As an aside, you cannot argue anything into existence.

That is true. But many theorems are not immediately evident as true, e.g. Pythagoras' Theorem, but become evident once some axioms are laid down, and the proof is derived from them.

It’s not seriously arguable that Darwin was a racist. Though, for his time and place, he was a comparatively mild and enlightened one.

But Darwin’s attitudes regarding race are completely inconsequential to evolutionary theory. Claiming otherwise is ad hominem. I’ll add it to the list.

Boru

(January 7, 2024 at 1:20 pm)JJoseph Wrote: Signature in the Cell would answer that question, Angrboda. Wiki: "Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design is a 2009 book about intelligent design by philosopher and intelligent design advocate Stephen C. Meyer." 

It won't answer because that is not a scientific journal but some ramblings without any evidence.

Btw, jj is obviously Nishant Xavier.

Nah, Was there actually room for Nishant to become even dumber?

The depths of hooman stupidity are fathomless.

(January 7, 2024 at 1:20 pm)JJoseph Wrote:

(January 7, 2024 at 12:10 pm)Angrboda Wrote: So you're saying that DNA resembles a man-made creation.  Which one?

Signature in the Cell would answer that question, Angrboda. Wiki: "Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design is a 2009 book about intelligent design by philosopher and intelligent design advocate Stephen C. Meyer." 

Have you read it, or do you want me to summarize the arguments? Briefly, the Genetic Code in DNA is evidence/proof of a Designing Intelligence, the same as "Welcome to Mars" leaflets, if known not to come from human beings, would be proof of Intelligent Life on Mars, because Language itself is a Code, one of the most basic forms of a Code, that conveys information. This argument, and others, are developed in depth by Dr. Meyer.

Then you should have no problem answering the question, which you didn't do. Which human-made creation resembles DNA?

I wonder whether we've ever considered the inference in reverse? That things like code and language do not suggest a supernatural intelligence, rather, they suggest a natural stupidity. Language and codes are things we use to solve problems. They're a means of overcoming general and specific incompetence. Buncha nerds around here, but the question of why a god would need a starship is mechanically identical to the question of why it would need code or language. FWIW, there are other living things that don't employ language or code (in any way we understand either, at least) to overcome those same problems. Often better than we can. We imagined ourselves doubly wise, but if we're really thinking about intelligence in general it's useful to remember that what looks really fucking smart to the thinking ape is often the dumbest apey-ist shit imaginable. If we apprehend this natural and regular order with languages and codes and creatures like us (and not like us) as something so impressive only a god could account for it, we might be selling gods short.

Quote:In Chapter 14, as Stephen Meyer brings his discussion about the feasibility of RNA’s role as the early storehouse for cellular information to a conclusion, he recalls a twenty year old conversation with a philosophy professor about origin-of-life-research: “The field is becoming increasingly populated by cranks. Everyone knows everybody else’s theory doesn’t work, but no one is willing to admit it about his own.” Following this statement, Meyer fast-forwards into the present, and writes of his own assessment of the field twenty years later: “I found no reason to amend these assessments” (p. 322). As a geneticist, I am taken aback by this assessment. The work he had just been discussing is the work of Jack Szostak who was awarded the Nobel Prize a few weeks ago. I’ve heard Dr Szostak speak a number of times. He is no crank. He is widely regarded as a brilliant mind. Read his Scientific American article for yourself (see footnote, below), you’ll see he is also very frank about the strengths and weaknesses of his current thoughts about life’s origins. Also, his work is by no means at a standstill. Only a philosopher, I suppose, or someone else quite naïve about how science proceeds at a lab bench would be able to make such an assessment.

Immediately prior to Meyer’s assessment about cranks in the field of origin-of-life-research, he had also been discussing the work of Gerald Joyce of The Scripps Research Institute. I have also been privileged to hear Dr. Joyce speak on at least three occasions. He, like Szostak, is widely regarded by biochemists and molecular biologists as brilliant. Like Szostak, I find that his discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the RNA world model is cautious. He knows there are many unanswered questions, but he has made great strides at answering some of them. At the time of writing Signature of the Cell, Dr. Meyer correctly concluded that no RNA molecule had ever been evolved in a test tube which could do more than join two building blocks together. However, while the book was in press, Gerald Joyce and Tracey Lincoln published an article in Science in which they demonstrated that evolved-RNA can take on a second function, the all-important replication activity. In just 30 hours their collection of RNA molecules had grown 100 million times bigger through a replication process carried out exclusively by evolved RNA molecules. So another dead-end pronouncement by Meyer was breached even while the book was in press.

https://biologos.org/articles/signature-in-the-cell