Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[Nay_Sayer]

Yes. 100% airtight, mathematical, proof. I do feel bad for the other theists who have it so very very wrong, I will pray for them diligently.
RAmen

[polymath257]

The fact that there is no internal contradiction means it isn't logically eliminated. So, yes, we get to assume any axiom that isn't contradictory. The *logic* isn't violated.

Metaphysics is bunk. Pure and simple. There is no such thing as valid metaphysical reasoning: only metaphysical assumptions, usually invalid ones.

I won't come up with a metaphysics article because I consider *all* metaphysics articles to be bunk. But, the math and physics articles are very clear about the *logical* possibility of an actual infinite.

The problem I have with 'concrete' objects is that I don't consider the word 'concrete' to be well defined. For example, is an electron a 'concrete object'? Give reasons for your answer. is a neutrino a 'concrete object'? is a photon? These are the *actual* objects from which the universe is built. These are the ones that matter. Whatever your vague notion of 'concreteness' is irrelevant to the actual physics. And if your metaphysics doens't allow the actual physics, then it is simply invalid.

Good. Further conversation on this is impossible because this conversation is about metaphysical concepts and you just declared all metaphysics to be "bunk". I'll leave you with a list of the "Central Questions" of metaphysics--but you probably don't care about any of them, they're just "bunk"...

2.1 Ontology (Being)
2.2 Identity and change
2.3 Space and time
2.4 Causality
2.5 Necessity and possibility

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysic..._questions


It also sucks for science, since these and other metaphysical concepts are required to have a philosophy of science--without which science cannot exist. Damn, what a shame when they all find out...

Let me put it this way. Synthetic a priori knowledge is impossible. Mathematics consists of rearranging assumptions using an assumed logic. In other words, axioms and rules of deduction. Science works by taking observations, formulating testable hypotheses based on those and making predictions based on those hypotheses and seeing if they are verified through further observation.

Metaphysics, on the other hand, tends to assume certain categories make sense, assumes that certain things are necessary a priori, and that even the concept of 'identity, causality, space, time, necessity, etc' even have meanings outside of pure formal systems or observations testing. The basis of science, which you seem to ignore is NOT some metaphysical axiom system, but simply that we should test all of our ideas about the 'real world' by testing. That means even ideas about space, time, and causality. Pure philosophy can get nowhere because the range of actual logical possibilities is too great and pure logic too weak to eliminate most of them. Only actual observation and testing is strong enough to eliminate the falsehoods.

In terms of overall philosophy, I am closest to Hume. Kant made some mistakes in thinking space and time are synthetic a priori (they are not). The list of topics you gave can be largely addressed via the scientific method. To the extent they cannot be so, they are literally meaningless.

[Peebothuhlu]

There are no example in this universe of something from nothing. It is simply impossible. 

QM indeterminate particles are not an example of something uncaused. RR posted previously:

Quantum mechanics merely describe what takes place at the quantum level.  It makes no reference to causes, but that does not imply that there are no causal entities involved.
Feser hypothesizes that perhaps Oerter understands the law of causality to refer to some sort of deterministic cause, and since quantum mechanics are supposedly indeterministic (a disputed interpretation), the law of causality could not apply.  Feser notes that “[t]he principle of causality doesn’t require that.  It requires only that a potency be actualized by something already actual; whether that something, whatever it is, actualizes potencies according some sort of pattern –deterministic or otherwise — is another matter altogether.”

The fact of the matter is that quantum mechanics has not identified causeless effects or invalidated the causal principle.  For any event to occur it must first have the potential to occur, and then have that potential actualized.  If that potential is actualized, it “must be actualized by something already actual,”[2] and that something is what we identify as the cause. https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2012/...principle/

 Okay, cool.

So... do you think the idea in regards to Hawking radiation is all a furphy then?

In regards to atomic decay. Other than the Uranium 'Wanting' to fall apart (Eventually into Lead. I mean, how sucky is that? Uranium eventually turns into Lead. Wouldn't the whole place be soo much better if the darn stuff fell apart into something useful..... Such as Gold.  ) might you have some links as to the non-unverifiable nature of which atoms and at what times said atoms will 'Decide' to fall apart?

As a side note.... the decay of Uranium, while 'Quantum', is very much a 'Macro' scale thing.

Not at work.

[178Kristy]

Wasn't blind for most of my life though but remembering still sends a shiver from the past. My vision isn't perfect today but can actually get around without glasses or contact lenses but I keep them near by. I'm thinking to try eye surgery for 20/20 vision one day. Why stop now right?

---

Ok so did more research to remember the story. Ok so how can an incurable illness that she had be cured? If you watch the movie and stuff the hit on the head was what the doctor called the brain turning on and off and body restarting and she was cured with the restart. Still an impossible phenomenon where she could have died but instead had a positive ending.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...-tree.html

[Gwaithmir]

@ SteveII:

Inductive line of reasoning:

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
> Cite your Sources.

b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry.
> Prove it.

c. They presided over the early church.
> Prove it.

d. This early church instructed Paul.
> Prove it.[/size]

e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written).
> Prove it.

f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels.
> Prove that apostles Peter, James and John were the actual authors of said gospels.

g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day.
> Prove it.

h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses).
> Prove it.

i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book.
> Prove it.

j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
> Prove it.

k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop).
> Prove it.

THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.
> Only if the above claims can be proven to be historically accurate.

This is where you are not following along. I don't have to prove  anything. You know very well my sources. This is an inductive argument and the probability of the conclusion follows from the probability of the premises. It does not claim proof of anything. This is where you have to be careful. You can't say I am wrong--because you bring on yourself a burden of proof (which you can't provide). You can only say that the evidence I cited is not convincing to you --which I never doubted.

Again, cite your sources, as is required in any proper argument. You have no argument, inductive or otherwise, until you prove that these alleged events actually took place. Thus far, all you have done is made a series of unsubstantiated CLAIMS.

[Rahn127]

Regarding the "Something from nothing"

At what moment in the past was there ever nothing ?

Something comes from something and that would indicate that something has always existed.

It didn't need to be created. It has always been here.

[Amarok]

This is where you are not following along. I don't have to prove  anything. You know very well my sources. This is an inductive argument and the probability of the conclusion follows from the probability of the premises. It does not claim proof of anything. This is where you have to be careful. You can't say I am wrong--because you bring on yourself a burden of proof (which you can't provide). You can only say that the evidence I cited is not convincing to you --which I never doubted.

Again, cite your sources, as is required in any proper argument. You have no argument, inductive or otherwise, until you prove that these alleged events actually took place. Thus far, all you have done is made a series of unsubstantiated CLAIMS.

He will keep going

---

Regarding the "Something from nothing"

At what moment in the past was there ever nothing ?

Something comes from something and that would indicate that something has always existed.

It didn't need to be created. It has always been here.

Funny thing is theists repeat something from nothing but never back it up seriously

[Dmitry1983]

 Can you give a single scientific example of a consciousness existing inside a brain?

How about we do some radically invasive surgery on your brain and you tell us about the state of your consciousness, before and after the procedure? Since we have no scientific reason (according to your Apologetics 101 sophistry) to think there is a necessary connection, you have absolutely nothing to lose, right?

Will this state be different for p-zombie?

---

 Can you give a single scientific example of a consciousness existing inside a brain?

We know we can alter what the brain perceives by altering the brain chemistry

Altering brain chemistry of p-zombe will give you same result

---

Can you do the same with existing methods?

 The observations are that everything about consciousness depends on the brain

Consciousness was never observed in scientific experiment

[GrandizerII]

What in the world are you talking about? I know you get kudos for some of your posts--but that's usually just because you replied to me--not that you made a point that anyone actually understands.

No need to be upset or jealous, Steve. I'm sure, one day, you will understand the maths and the logic as well as they do.

Your whole counter argument is:

A. Let's not call them logical contradictions--let just say they are 'indeterminate'. 
B. Indeterminate is not the same as logically impossible
C. Therefore an actual infinite is possible.

That is HORRIBLE logic.

Thankfully, that's not the argument exactly. You're just mocking a strawman summary of it because you're unable to address the specific points I made, either because you didn't understand it ... or you do, but you're unable to rebut it effectively.

Please address the specific points I made in that argument. At least for once, just so I know you actually did understand the argument. Because, note: you never did address these at any point in the other thread.

So show me that you do understand what I'm saying. And if you don't, just ask for clarification on something I said. Don't dismiss it out of hand just because it's an atheist rebutting your sacredly held position.

NOPE. Answered that too:

To which I responded as well. Did you forget?

B THEORY OF TIME
Another argument that has been made is that if the B Theory of Time is correct, spacetime is infinite in extent. But there is nothing in the theory that says our spacetime is infinite in the past. To get that, you must also posit an infinite cosmology model. But such models are not thought to be the best candidates for our universe, so, while possible (broadly speaking), there are not good reasons to believe this to be the case. But, such a combination of theories seems possible, so then doesn't that show that an actual infinity is possible. No, not at all.

Emphasis mine. According to whom? WLC?

Making a claim is one thing, backing it up is another. Try not to make such claims without much basis to them.

Either way, like you then pointed out, that's irrelevant anyway to whether or not an actual infinity is logically possible. Also, it's not like your god has been scientifically established, so quit the double standards. If we're doing pure philosophy here, you and me, then let's stick to that, ok? You can argue the science with polymath (if you're even qualified to do so).

Under any theory of time there is some sequence that is countable whether you call it causes/connection/light cones/changes in entropy/states of affairs/or whatever. I'll call it causal connections (but insert whatever you want).  Any timeline would show that the causal connections that created the present were preceded by causal connections which were preceded by causal connections for an infinite series in the prior-to direction. If you posit an infinite number of these causal connection going back, you have a problem. How could we have traversed through an infinite number of sequential causal connections to get to the one that caused the present (causal connection 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0)? There will always have to be infinite more causal connections that still need to happen. We will never arrive at the present.

Again and again, you are still arguing against the A-theory of time. The moment you talk about traversal and arriving at the present, you are not talking about the B-theory of time, you are STILL talking about the A-theory of time.

Under the B-theory of time, the flow of time is an illusion. Hence, there is no "traversal" or "arriving" happening.

Note this doesn't mean the B-theory is necessarily correct, it may well be that there's a better theory of time out there that has yet to be discovered. But if you're going to argue against the B-theory, you need to come up with an appropriate argument against it. You can't just slightly modify your original objection (to the fundamentally different A-theory of time) and just hope it works, lol.

To illustrate it with a thought experiment, imagine a being who is counting down from eternity past to the present: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, now. How is that possible? Wouldn't he have an infinite amount more numbers to get through to get down to 3, 2, 1?

Indeed! So at every "time-point", there is an instance of that being counting one of the integers. And there are infinite time-points of such.

If you were an outside observe (say, even god himself), you would see a still image of that being counting "5". Simultaneously, there is a "still image" of that same being counting "4" and another image of it counting negative Graham's number and so on. As a godly entity, all of them are there available for your viewing pleasure.

If you insist that this could be done, why didn't he get done 1000 years earlier or for that matter, an infinite time ago?

Easy, this is pure word-play, nothing more. You are trying to argue against the B-theory of time while speaking the A-theory language. So no challenge at all here.

Now about my response to your "evidence for god" argument in this thread? Anything?

[The Grand Nudger]

Wasn't blind for most of my life though but remembering still sends a shiver from the past. My vision isn't perfect today but can actually get around without glasses or contact lenses but I keep them near by. I'm thinking to try eye surgery for 20/20 vision one day. Why stop now right?

---

Did you or did you not go blind, and then miraculously regain your sight, just trying to get some clarity on this.