(October 6, 2012 at 3:22 pm)Darkstar Wrote: When you have more faith than genuine evidence, it is reasonable for someone to doubt the validity of your claim.

Again you're assuming the only valid evidence is testable, observable, demonstrable evidence. If you are not an epistemologically arrogant atheist, explain why (as I interpret) you are an Empirical Naturalist.

(October 6, 2012 at 3:22 pm)Darkstar Wrote: You assume that it exists whilst simultaneously admitting that it cannot be observed, nor can evidence of its existence be found.

It is impossible for anyone to believe anything source-less. Every reaction (believing, in this case) has a cause/reason (evidence). If you say a theist's cause for belief is not evidence, you're basically suggesting every theist is mentally insane. One noted evidence for Christianity is the need for a power outside our natural system to serve as the catalyst for the universe. Another is the Bible, and the literature, archeology and reason supporting its historicity--more specifically, the life and works of Jesus. I do not need to prove either evidence for it to be acceptable. Technically you can only prove repeatable phenomena, so a standard like that actually rules out most of reality.

(October 6, 2012 at 3:22 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Explain again why the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.

http://bbhchurchconnection.wordpress.com...-of-proof/

(October 8, 2012 at 12:11 am)Undeceived Wrote: One noted evidence for Christianity is the need for a power outside our natural system to serve as the catalyst for the universe.

Where's your Nobel? Bullshit.

Quote: Another is the Bible, and the literature,

No need to be redundant....

Quote: archeology and reason supporting its historicity--more specifically, the life and works of Jesus.

Here's a perfect example of something you believe for no reason..hehehe.

(October 8, 2012 at 12:16 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(October 8, 2012 at 12:11 am)Undeceived Wrote: One noted evidence for Christianity is the need for a power outside our natural system to serve as the catalyst for the universe.

Where's your Nobel? Bullshit.

Do you contest the law of causation? If so, on what grounds?

Who said anything about that, last I checked the law of causation didn't have a "power outside our natural system to serve as the catalyst for the universe" clause. Try again.

For shits and giggles, lets see what it would look like if there were such a clause. Would we then have evidence of god? Nope, stil jack shit, we'd have evidence for "power outside our natural system to serve as the catalyst for the universe". Starting to see why they haven't awarded you that prize yet.....

Why contest this particular point instead of the other two btw? Could it be that you felt you might be able to weasel an argument out of this one and not the others? Mercy me wouldn't want to engage in a discussion about something concrete, better to shit and run with regards to cherished but empty beliefs eh?

Why don't we go a step further and say, if we assume that it is a god, and that the law of causation does mean this, then what caused god?


Oh, right, he's exempt, as usual

(October 8, 2012 at 10:17 am)Rhythm Wrote: Who said anything about that, last I checked the law of causation didn't have a "power outside our natural system to serve as the catalyst for the universe" clause. Try again.

(October 8, 2012 at 11:49 am)Darkstar Wrote: Why don't we go a step further and say, if we assume that it is a god, and that the law of causation does mean this, then what caused god?

According to our observations, all actions/transfers of energy have a cause. By deduction, the first atoms did too. Since they are the first pieces of material in our universe, the cause must be outside the universe. Where else would you get a cause for the first atoms? God, on the other hand, does not need to be caused because he is outside of our universe and laws--He is not bound to the law of causation. You could hypothesize a physical universe outside our universe, but that would need a cause too, and we enter infinite regress. The objective is to keep going back until you reach an entity who/which doesn't have to be caused. Christians call this entity "God". He is by definition causeless. Once we've established this unchanging, timeless (otherwise he'd be caused) entity, we can take the reasoning a step further. We could dismiss He/It as something we've never imagined, but philosophy loves answers. We have to continue and say that since no physical objects existed, the cause of the universe must either be numbers or an intellectual mind. Numbers cannot create—they can only guide--so that leaves an intellectual 'mind'. Define that as you will. Now, being uncaused, this mind has to choose to put the universe into existence. This is because there is no endless flow of energy running through Him/It. A changeless entity can only create change if it decides to. And therefore, assuming you actually want answers, we come up with a God being.

(October 8, 2012 at 11:49 am)Darkstar Wrote: Oh, right, he's exempt, as usual

Undecieved Wrote:God, on the other hand, does not need to be caused because he is outside of our universe and laws--He is not bound to the law of causation.

What did I tell ya?

So why does the law of cause and effect arbitrarily die outside of our universe? Because it's convenient.

(October 8, 2012 at 12:51 pm)Undeceived Wrote:

(October 8, 2012 at 10:17 am)Rhythm Wrote: Who said anything about that, last I checked the law of causation didn't have a "power outside our natural system to serve as the catalyst for the universe" clause. Try again.

(October 8, 2012 at 11:49 am)Darkstar Wrote: Why don't we go a step further and say, if we assume that it is a god, and that the law of causation does mean this, then what caused god?

According to our observations, all actions/transfers of energy have a cause. By deduction, the first atoms did too. Since they are the first pieces of material in our universe, the cause must be outside the universe.

Put on the brakes. The correct answer is "we don't know". You've abandoned science from this point forward (because it was only useful to you as a preamble), you've abandoned evidence (because it is only useful to you as pretext)

Quote:Where else would you get a cause for the first atoms?

Where indeed, and if you could answer this question you may actually be on to something, but clearly you cannot..judging by what follows.

Quote:God, on the other hand, does not need to be caused because he is outside of our universe and laws--He is not bound to the law of causation.

You can demonstrate this? Whose to say that whatever sphere this fairy lives in doesn't have it's own laws, complete with something very much like our own causation? That's ignoring the fact that you've simply exempted your explanation from the very question you're attempting to answer.

Quote: You could hypothesize a physical universe outside our universe, but that would need a cause too, so we enter infinite regress.

Or I could propose a fairy realm that also requires causation, like I just did.

Quote:The objective is to keep going back until you reach an entity who/which doesn't have to be caused. Christians call this entity "God".

Whose objective is that? Not mine. Do you often paste names on whatever you happen to find when your search is unfrutiful in the main? I don't know that I'd be willing to settle for such a "god", personally. Entity, btw, pretty loaded term. The farther back we go the less we find in the way of "entities" to begin with. I find it amusing that you imagine some super-entity lies at the bottom of all of this, since the demonstrable trend is the reverse.

Quote: He is by definition causeless.

he is, by assertion and endless amounts of pleading, causeless - fixed that for you.

Quote: Once we've established this unchanging, timeless (otherwise he'd be caused) entity, we can take the reasoning a step further.

Good idea.....maybe you should establish that eh?

Quote:We could dismiss He/It as something we've never imagined, but philosophy loves answers. We have to continue to say that since no physical objects existed, the cause of the universe must either be numbers or an intellectual mind.

Where's your Nobel....oh, right nvm.

Quote:Numbers cannot create—they can only guide--

What gave you the impression that numbers could even do that?

Quote:so that leaves an intellectual 'mind'. Define that as you will.

Right...because you clearly have....

Quote:Now, being uncaused, this mind has to choose to put the universe into existence.

Still asserting this exemption...and now we're doubling down, good stuff.

Quote:This is because there is no endless flow of energy running through Him/It.

You're just winging it now aren't you, where did you pull this fact from?

Quote:And therefore, assuming you actually want answers, we come up with a God being.

LOL< finally, the moneyshot. Nothing between the start and the finish in the way of support, just a steady drivel of assertions and complete bullshit. You can see why I find this unsatisfying, yes?

(October 8, 2012 at 12:51 pm)Undeceived Wrote: According to our observations, all actions/transfers of energy have a cause.

http://www.philosophos.com/knowledge_bas..._1206.html

Quote:According to quantum mechanics, there are uncaused events (such as the radioactive decay of an
atom, for example, or the precise way in which the QM probability wave function collapses). But some
people didn't like this idea ("God doesn't play dice with the Universe" Albert Einstein said), so they
posited what were called 'hidden variables' which would be unable to be measured but which would
cause quantum events. However, John Bell thought up an experiment that would distinguish whether
an event depended on hidden variables or not, and Alain Aspect found a way to do it. The results
showed that (on the assumptions made), there are no hidden variables.


Since all experiments rest on assumptions, we can look at them to see if there is a way out of the
conclusion. One of the assumptions here is that causes precede effects. If that is false, then we can
have backwards causation in time and the Aspect experiment does not show that there are uncaused
events. Some people take this seriously, but others think backwards causation is logically suspect. In
a way, you have to choose which you think is more impossible: backwards causation or uncaused
events.


I would think that the scientific consensus at the moment is that some events are uncaused.

Quote:Quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing, as allowed by the Uncertainty Principle. It is synonymous with vacuum fluctuation

http://universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htm

You were saying.