(June 12, 2015 at 12:53 am)Neimenovic Wrote: Also special pleading, asserting that god is not subject to infinite regress

See, there you go again conflating 'beginning to exist out of nothing' and 'beginning to exist by rearrangement of things that already exist'

A little more here since "conflating" is your problem, not mine.

The Contingency Argument states that “everything that exists has an explanation.” The explanation would be either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

Opponents of theism frequently confuse or conflate the Contingency Argument with the Kalam Cosmological Argument by arguing something such as:

1. Everything that exists has a cause.
2. If God exists, He must have a cause.
3. Therefore, God has a cause.
4. But anything that has a cause cannot be God.
5. Therefore, God does not exist.

This fails because Kalam states "begins to exist" - not merely "exists".

But then opponents of theism often claim that this is “special pleading”; however, atheists themselves often argue that the universe - matter, energy and time - have always existed. Therefore, it is not special pleading for the theist to argue that God has always existed.

Bottom line?

No Composition Fallacy.
No Fallacy of Equivocation
No Special Pleading.
No idiocy.

(June 12, 2015 at 4:30 am)robvalue Wrote: @all: It's funny how the one thing no one ever seems to want to discuss are these actual supposed "meetings" with god/jesus. Come on, what's the problem? Tell us about those meetings Why would you not want to? Something is propping up all these beliefs, and it isn't these broken-ass arguments.

But rob, you have previously written that even in your 10 best friends or wife told you of such a meeting, you would not believe it.

So, why waste the keystrokes?

If you ARE inclined to believe such testimony, there are lots of good books written by people who have had encounters with God...you can probably even Google specifically for ATHEISTS who have met Him.

Impressive string of words you have there, Randy. But that's the only impressive thing about the post.

First, people argue from different perspectives and the most honest answer to the timeline before the big bang is "we don't know". Don't know, as I said above, doesn't mean god.

Simple enough for you, or should I package that in a pseudo philosophical surada to drive the point home.

(June 12, 2015 at 8:08 am)Tonus Wrote:

(June 11, 2015 at 3:31 pm)SteveII Wrote: You can stomp your feet all you want demanding proof. If I (and 2.2 billion others) want to believe the 1900+ year old content of the NT, I don't see why we are being unreasonable. I think for the belief to be unreasonable, you would have to prove that it is not what it claims to be. Are you denying that the first century Christians did not believe the way they said they did (and history shows the results)? I think the burden of proof does shift when there is no good reason not to believe the testimony of so many people.

Ah yes, the appeal to popularity.  However, we all know that a significant percentage of those 2.2 billion are pretty sure that you have it wrong to some degree or another.  The eight million Jehovah's Witnesses are absolutely certain that you other 1.192 billion are wrong enough to incur god's wrath, and they're using the Bible to "prove" it.  There are thousands of denominations and splinter groups and individuals who have interpretations of the Bible that contradict your interpretation on many points, with some being a complete opposite.

But please, tell us again about what "it claims to be."  Your interpretation is almost certain to be at odds with even a few of the handful of Christians who visit this forum, but you think that the burden of proof is on the non-believers.

I agree with you about the appeal to popularity as a PROOF. However, it does tell us something about human nature.

For example, if one of your best friends told you about an online game that he discovered, would you check it out?

If 2.2 billion people downloaded a new app onto their smartphones, would you check it out?

If xx billion people believe that a god exists, would you check it out?

Finally, doctrinal distinctions between various Christian denominations does not take away from the fact that Orthodox Christians (and let's be clear that Mormons and others are NOT Christians in the traditional sense of the word despite their claims to the contrary) agree that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day after His death on a cross.

Pointing to disagreements among Christians is like saying that a few players for the New England Patriots have disagreements among themselves over which of their passing plays is best in a third and long situation. That doesn't prevent them from winning the Super Bowl.

(June 12, 2015 at 8:10 am)Neimenovic Wrote: Jesus fuck, Randy, fix your formatting

Sorry. I try to be VERY conscientious about that, so you must be seeing something that I'm not seeing.

Sometimes I compose in Word, then I paste into Outlook, change the formatting to plain text and then copy it into the forum...all so that the Word formatting will be scrubbed out.

Did I forget to do that on a post? Which one?

(June 12, 2015 at 10:33 am)Randy Carson Wrote: For example, if one of your best friends told you about an online game that he discovered, would you check it out?

If 2.2 billion people downloaded a new app onto their smartphones, would you check it out?

If xx billion people believe that a god exists, would you check it out?

The third example is very different from the first two. My friend would explain how to find and try the game. My smartphone would allow me to locate and try the application. But how do I check out the claim regarding god? Those 2.2 billion people may have thousands --or possibly millions-- of different suggestions for how to do so, none of which would actually get me to a god that exists. And some of those suggestions would be in direct contrast to other suggestions, even among the people whose beliefs overlap in some areas. Why would I accept the general claim regarding the resurrection of Jesus, when those billions of believers can't even come to an agreement as to who or what he is?

(June 12, 2015 at 10:33 am)Randy Carson Wrote: I agree with you about the appeal to popularity as a PROOF. However, it does tell us something about human nature.

For example, if one of your best friends told you about an online game that he discovered, would you check it out?

If 2.2 billion people downloaded a new app onto their smartphones, would you check it out?

If xx billion people believe that a god exists, would you check it out?

1) No, not automatically. Only if I'm interested in the topic

2) Hell no. Not before I checked what it does and if it does any damage or profiling

3) I did and the results didn't satisfy me.

As for point three, there are 1,6 billion muslims. Don't you feel the need to check it out? There are also give or take 800 million Hindus - checked them already? The Budhists?

(June 12, 2015 at 8:10 am)Neimenovic Wrote: You're not  surprising anybody.

Nor did I expect to.

(June 12, 2015 at 8:43 am)abaris Wrote:

(June 12, 2015 at 7:43 am)Randy Carson Wrote: You have failed to address the Kalam (or the science of cosmology). In the beginning, there was NOTHING to rearrange.

Further, if everything that exists is merely rearranged, then you have to answer by what cause. An object at rest tends to stay at rest.

So, no...

God of the gaps again.

You don't know the answer, nobody does. But at heart you're still the caveman praying to the moon. Don't know doesn't mean god required. Don't know is simply what it says: Don't know.

In a hundred years, we will know more and in a thousand years, we will have learned a lot more. For me, we don't know simply means interesting question. Would be nice if some of them could be answered while I'm still around. And no, god done it isn't the answer.

No, this is science-of-the-gaps. Your assumption is that science can't give us all the answers now, but eventually it will.

Ironically, you are taking a faith position, not a scientific position.

(June 12, 2015 at 10:46 am)Randy Carson Wrote: No, this is science-of-the-gaps. Your assumption is that science can't give us all the answers now, but eventually it will.

Ironically, you are taking a faith position, not a scientific position.

I repeatedly said that I don't know. You only refuse to acknowledge my saying so. I also pointed out that Jenny has a point and referred to the limits of what we can explore due to the speed of light being an absolute as far as we know.

Not knowing means not knowing - it's not having faith, it's simply the absence of any need to attribute something supernatural to the unknown to fill the gap. Filling the gap with god stuff is faith and hence god of the gaps.