I have "Brief history of time" in my room...I think I will go re-read it, because this infinite gravity and zero space, I'm not sure I quite remember that.

(July 6, 2012 at 8:05 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I have "Brief history of time" in my room...I think I will go re-read it, because this infinite gravity and zero space, I'm not sure I quite remember that.

The idea of infinite gravity has been around since 1916.

(July 6, 2012 at 3:06 pm)jerNYC Wrote:

Quote:I really don't want to defend ID because I know very little about it.

ID is actually no different from any other form of Creationism, so if you can defend Creation, you can defend ID.

How do you define creationism? I think you are conflating creationism with believing God created the world. Likewise everyone who is feminine is not a feminist.

Quote:

Quote:However, say that you found a machine with buttons, cranks, wheels, all made out of steel with a few hundred screws. I think we both know that you would not even for a moment think that this had come into being purely by chance.

This is the classic watchmaker analogy that Paley proposed in 1802. It has been disproved, yet people continue to use it to this day. The same, false argument is used to attempt to explain the origin of the bacterial flagellum, DNA, and the cell. But it's wrong. Darwin proved that complexity can arise in nature without the need for intelligence, so simply saying "god did it because only god can create complexity" or "we can infer an intelligent god from complexity" is wrong (and both arguments are illogical). If you really understand the power of natural selection, it will change the way you think about complexity in nature. (Also, If you want to find out more about the Intelligent Design arguments, google “Kitzmiller v Dover” and read Judge Jones’ decision. He explains it quite well, considering that he’s a devout Christian and a conservative republican Judge)

As I said, I know little about ID, but I do know that they argue that there are certain things in nature that are irreducibly complex. Darwin did not know about cells and all sorts of complexity that we know about now. (we have found cells are not empty caverns but more like complex cities) Regardless, I'll grant you for the sake of argument that ID arguments from biological complexity are nonsense. I never believed based on them, and I cannot think of anyone I know who believes in God based on them.

Quote:

Quote:I am aware of Occam's razor. I think here, if we accepted evolution, all it would show is that God is not necessary to explain how biological complexity came about. However, all that would follow here, I think, is that we cannot infer the existence of God based on biological complexity. However, it doesn't follow that arguments for the existence of God which are not based on biological complexity are
effected.

You tacked God on to a statement about evolution. But you would still need a positive argument for God, instead of just throwing god into the equation because they equation allowed you to do so. It’s like saying 2 + 2 + x = 4 – x

How am I throwing God into the equation? I say that the way one best knows God exists is by personal experience apart from argument.

Quote:

Quote:I would challenge you here and ask how we can empirically verify (without circular and invalid logic) the existence of the past or the reliability of our senses.

Science has already figured this out. We establish an objective, universal standard.

Does your standard presuppose the reliability of your sense perception? If so it cannot demonstrate it without being circular.

Quote:

Quote:What about the Kalaam cosmological argument?

1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist (the big bang theory)
3. Therefore the universe has a cause

This is an argument for the cause of the creation of the universe, not an argument for the existance of god.

The logic you quoted below infers that the cause is God from the necessary characteristics of it.

Quote:

Quote:Therefore, whatever caused everything to be must be spaceless, immaterial, timeless, and a being of immense power (to cause everything that is). And the latter characteristics are traditional properties of God.

This definition is vague enough to explain anything. See Reason 1 for why I don't believe that gods exist. When we finally figure out the real cause of the creation of the universe, your definition will change.

A spaceless timeless immaterial being of immense power which created the universe sounds like God to me. I have read and responded in depth to your first post, now it is your turn to deal with the logic I presented here. You seem to be positing a "science of the gaps." All I use is the basic logical principle that something cannot cause itself to exist and the scientific evidence for an absolute beginning to the universe, and there is a good argument for God.

However, even if the Kalaam cosmological argument fails, and all others for God do too, all that would follow would be that we have no argument to prove God exists… not that we cannot know God exists or that he does not exist.

Quote:I say that the way one best knows God exists is by personal experience apart from argument.

How convenient. Totally lacking in any empirical substance. How do I know you are not batshit crazy?

Some moron is always claiming that "god" told him to kill someone. Why should we believe you and not him? You both cite the same authority.

Quote:How do I know you are not batshit crazy?

I'd say this might be a hint.

Quote:Quote:I say that the way one best knows God exists is by personal experience apart from argument.

Personal experience is not proof. Nor,in my opinion,can God be argued into or out of existence.


The polite term for belief without evidence is 'faith based'. I'm a simple being and call a spade a spade; I call belief without evidence 'superstition'.

Logic? Then how did you get to "A spaceless timeless immaterial being of immense power which created the universe"? More "science ergo magic" bullshit. So that's two of you in the thread now? ffs......

Quote:Of course, in every religion there are a few fanatics who follow to the letter what they regard as God's will:

• Yigal Amir, who assassinated Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, was an extremely religious Jew who stated in court, "Everything I did, I did for God."
  
• Paul Hill, who murdered abortion provider Dr. John Britton in Florida in 1994, made the following statement just before his execution in 2003: "I feel very honored that they are most likely going to kill me for what I did. I'm certainly, to be quite honest, I'm expecting a great reward in heaven for my obedience."
  
• Mohammed Bouyeri, the Muslim extremist who killed Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004, declared in his trial, "What moved me to do what I did was purely my faith . . . I was motivated by the law that commands me to cut off the head of anyone who insults Allah and his prophet."

But, thankfully, they are the exception. Furthermore, each of these fanatics would be hard-pressed to demonstrate where exactly in their scriptures were they commanded to commit their dreadful acts.

by Victor Stenger

Quote:How do you define creationism? I think you are conflating creationism with believing God created the world. Likewise everyone who is feminine is not a feminist.

Creationism means that something (the universe, the world, life, etc.) was created by the God of Genesis. I assumed this was standard Christian dogma, since I’ve never met a Christian who didn’t believe in the God of Creation. Do you not agree?

Quote:I never believed based on them, and I cannot think of anyone I know who believes in God based on them.

Maybe. I’ve heard numerous arguments for an intelligent God of Creation, so I assumed that people were making those arguments for some purpose. Maybe they aren’t the sole reason for why people believe, but they must at least think it strengthens their argument for God – otherwise, why bother?

Quote:How am I throwing God into the equation? I say that the way one best knows God exists is by personal experience apart from argument.

You’ve mentioned previously that God could have had a role in evolution, and I explained why I disagree. God doesn’t in any way inform our understanding of evolution. God is irrelevant and unnecessary in the argument. Now we’ve changed the subject to instead understanding God through “personal experience”, which is fine. Except, now I have to ask you: How do I understand God through your personal experience?

Quote:Does your standard presuppose the reliability of your sense perception? If so it cannot demonstrate it without being circular.

I think it can. I can certainly rationally explain the means with which I get to the “truth” of something through logic and reason. But this isn’t “my” standard. This is a universal standard to which both you and I subscribe, since we are here engaged in a rational discussion, following those universal rules of logic.

Quote:The logic you quoted below infers that the cause is God from the necessary characteristics of it.

No. Such an inference would be illogical. If you start off with the assumption that God, by definition, is already the premise (the thing you’re trying to prove), then you’re begging the question. (See the previous 30-something posts regarding this argument).

Quote:A spaceless timeless immaterial being of immense power which created the universe sounds like God to me. I have read and responded in depth to your first post, now it is your turn to deal with the logic I presented here. You seem to be positing a "science of the gaps." All I use is the basic logical principle that something cannot cause itself to exist and the scientific evidence for an absolute beginning to the universe, and there is a good argument for God.

For the sake of moving past this, I’ll accept your argument and call the mechanism that created the universe “God.” Now, why does this mechanism care whether I worship it? In other words, you now have the duty of imposing the other characteristics of the Biblical God onto this universe-creating mechanism. I don't see how that's logically possible.

I’m also not sure what you mean by “science of the gaps.” Can you be more specific?

Quote:However, even if the Kalaam cosmological argument fails, and all others for God do too, all that would follow would be that we have no argument to prove God exists… not that we cannot know God exists or that he does not exist.

Yes. As far as I know, there are no arguments to prove the existence of any gods. But how else, besides reasoning and rational arguments, can you know that God exists? This is why I think, at least for now, a belief in god requires a great deal of faith.

(July 7, 2012 at 2:40 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: However, even if the Kalaam cosmological argument fails, and all others for God do too, all that would follow would be that we have no argument to prove God exists… not that we cannot know God exists or that he does not exist.

Kalam and all the other philosophical arguments for the existence of a god DO fail. There is no 'if'.

(July 7, 2012 at 10:35 am)Simon Moon Wrote:

(July 6, 2012 at 5:20 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: However, even if the Kalaam cosmological argument fails, and all others for God do too, all that would follow would be that we have no argument to prove God exists… not that we cannot know God exists or that he does not exist.

Kalam and all the other philosophical arguments for the existence of a god DO fail. There is no 'if'.

You quoted the wrong person!