I predict a whole buttload of special pleading and a hint of desperation in the coming rebuttal to this.

(August 26, 2013 at 7:52 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote: You can't have a time before time itself existed. God exists beyond time and brought time into existence so you can have events that run in a sequence. The events begin with the Big Bang.

Good thing you asserted that baselessly! I was worried for a second, but since you said it, it immediately became true. Whew!

So listen, motherfucker; I've read the last few hilarious pages of you attempting to defend your flawed and useless argument by ignoring everything we say and asserting your position over and over, but that doesn't get you off the hook when it comes to answering the damn questions I asked way back at the beginning of this Kalam idiocy.

How do you know the universe began to exist? How do you know that whatever it was before the big bang- not god, but the universe as it was before the Planck time- isn't the eternal thing? Beyond you just really wanting your god to be the eternal thing, in your petulant child way, where do you actually draw that opinion from?

And where do you get off claiming that my position is "things happening for no reason," when your position is exactly that with regard to your god, give or take some flowery, obfuscating language?

Quote:You're dodging the question because we are talking about what is responsible for the existence of the laws of physics. You can't use the laws of physics to explain the origins of the universe as they only exist within the universe as part of the universe.

How do you know? How can you possibly say that there weren't some other variant of physics beyond the big bang that caused the bang itself? Do you know something we don't? Measured beyond the Planck wall?

Quote: You can't use what you're trying to explain to explain what you're trying to explain.

Oh, you mean like "things can't come from nothing for no reason, so my answer is that god did it, and he came from nothing for no reason because he's the perfect circle?"

The depths of your dishonesty and intellectual laziness is astounding.

Quote: There has to be an explanation beyond and separate to what you're trying to explain. God would fit the bill very nicely. What kind of God? This one right here will do.

Oh man, here we go. This is what I find completely and utterly hilarious about Kalam: it doesn't even get you to your god. And you've just hit right on this: it's so apparent that you don't give a shit about what might actually be beyond the big bang, you don't even care about obeying the premises of your own argument. It doesn't matter what god is actually there, you've got no evidence, you just really want it to be Jesus!

So it's not even about truth, just what you want to be true. You've just displayed how little you believe your own fucking argument.

Quote:But that's a slightly different debate. You have to start with an appreciation of Gods general existence before you can get into what he told us about himself in the holy scriptures right there.

Keep drinking the kool aid, asshole. And answer the fucking questions.

(August 26, 2013 at 5:30 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(August 26, 2013 at 1:08 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: Homo sapiens originated from a common ancestor we share with other primates.

How did this common ancestor originate and from what/who?

That's what the Internet is for, son.

---

(August 26, 2013 at 6:27 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote:

(August 26, 2013 at 6:08 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: We don't care that god exists because it's not our claim.

No no you're claiming you should not believe God exists unless you have 100% certain scientific proof of some kind (which we don't have obviously). I'm saying you should believe God exists and I'm explaining why you should believe God exists with the logic I've just given you. I'm not just stating what I believe without proof here, I've given you good logical reasons for the belief. It's a very simple deduction of cause and effect and the nature of the single cause of all the effects that exist, whether it be in this universe, other universes or whatever else that exists in reality. You must have one single starting point in common for everything and the starting point has no start itself (point of creation), ie it is outside of time/events in a sequence. You have the cause of the sequence of all events everywhere, and so the prime mover. There is no burden of proof needed for this it follows logically to a conclusion. If there was no cause then there could have been no effects but there was an effect if we're here. There must be only one cause for everything and whatever caused everything is uncaused.

Nonsense.

S of C...

You seem to have a hang-up about cause and effect. Because, in your view, everything in our large scale universe must have a cause you think that this principle can be applied to the universe itself.

First of all, even if your premise is correct and there must have been a cause in order for this universe to come into existence, why does it follow that this cause was in any way intelligent, let alone a specific character from a specific religion. It's just as likely that this universe is a result from a physics experiment in an alien universe or came into being due to the collision of two colliding branes in hyperspace, or etc. etc.

Also, your premise that all things must have a cause is dodgy at best. In the wonderful world of quantum mechanics particles are popping into existence from seemingly nowhere and then annihilating themselves all the time, this is the whole premise behind evaporating black holes and Hawking radiation etc. Although I stand to be corrected.

Remember that when the universe was very small, prior to inflation, it operated under the quantum laws where the familiar laws of time & space, cause & effect, dimensions etc. all break down. Under the laws governing the very small it is just as likely for effect to precede cause and for the future to influence the past.

You simply cannot take your everyday experiences of reality and then blanketly apply them to everything. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, "The Cosmos does not have to conform to your expectations of it."

So, to say that everything must have a cause, therefore God, and to stubbornly adhere to this view in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary seems utterly bizarre!

(August 27, 2013 at 1:53 am)Esquilax Wrote: Good thing you asserted that baselessly! I was worried for a second, but since you said it, it immediately became true. Whew!

So if I were to say you can't go north of the north pole that would be a baseless assumption? Try to engage your brain and think a bit.

Quote:So listen, motherfucker

I don't think I will motherfucker, this has clearly just over your head and through one ear and out the other so there is reasoning with you.

(August 27, 2013 at 2:52 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Nonsense.

Nonsense because you say so or nonsense for a reason?

(August 27, 2013 at 6:25 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: I don't think I will motherfucker, this has clearly just over your head and through one ear and out the other so there is reasoning with you.

Oh how ironic. It is in fact, the complete opposite situation

(August 27, 2013 at 6:25 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: So if I were to say you can't go north of the north pole that would be a baseless assumption? Try to engage your brain and think a bit.

Actually, without realising it, you have given a very good analogy of the universe having no beginning.

Just as you can't go any further north from the north pole, as you would just start going south again, you can't go any further back in time once you reach the big bang as you would simply start going forward again.

A universe with no beginning, there being no time in order for the beginning to start, needs no creator.

(August 27, 2013 at 6:27 am)Rationalman Wrote: Oh how ironic. It is in fact, the complete opposite situation

If you were to come up with a decent argument rather than just give short sentences that state your own opinion you can. I'm not interested in opinions I'm interested in good arguments and objections presented in a half civilized manner. A very good argument in favour of a naturalist/coincidental origin of humanity and the universe could possibly win me over, but there hasn't been anything so far.

(August 27, 2013 at 6:35 am)Sword of Christ Wrote:

(August 27, 2013 at 6:27 am)Rationalman Wrote: Oh how ironic. It is in fact, the complete opposite situation

If you were to come up with a decent argument rather than just give short sentences that state your own opinion you can. I'm not interested in opinions I'm interested in good arguments and objections presented in a half civilized manner.

Then reread this thread dumbass.

(August 27, 2013 at 6:35 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: If you were to come up with a decent argument rather than just give short sentences that state your own opinion you can. I'm not interested in opinions I'm interested in good arguments and objections presented in a half civilized manner.

(August 27, 2013 at 6:35 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: I don't think I will motherfucker, this has clearly just over your head and through one ear and out the other so there is reasoning with you.

Practice what you preach hypocrite.