Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[SteveII]

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.

Sources: Depends on the premise. The 27 documents contained in the NT. Other documentary evidence that discusses the existence of churches and their beliefs (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/), Josephus, Tacitus.

There you go using the word 'prove' again. You really need to re-read my post above. 

Further, what exactly do you mean by "prove"? It seems there are different kinds of proof.
* Scientific proof
* Historical proof
* Logical proofs (both deductive and inductive)
* Proof resulting from personal experience

There also also different thresholds of proof:
* Possible
* More likely than not (preponderance of the evidence)
* Beyond reasonable doubt
* Absolute certainty

These lists result in 16 different combinations alone (and I'm sure I missed some).In my experience, a discussion like the one you are intending is a long series of shifting the goal post until you arrive at demanding something akin to absolute certainty resulting from scientific proof for a specific belief. The problem is that this is not the standard necessary for a rational belief. Another point, atheist constantly miss the fact that religious belief is due to a cumulative set of reasons to believe--all with their own kind/threshold of proof needed for that particular individual. So, to simply demand "proof" is insufficient. What kind, what threshold, single issue or cumulative, and to what end?

[polymath257]

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.

The way I think about it is that whenever there was time, there was matter, energy, and space. Causality only makes sense *within* the universe because causality requires time and time is part of the universe.

At no point in time was there 'nothing'. If nothing else, there was time.

[SteveII]

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.

The way I think about it is that whenever there was time, there was matter, energy, and space. Causality only makes sense *within* the universe because causality requires time and time is part of the universe.

At no point in time was there 'nothing'. If nothing else, there was time.

That's wrong. Causality does not require time--time requires causality (events). 

Time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.[1][2][3] Time is a component quantity of various measurements used to sequence events, to compare the duration of events or the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change of quantities in material reality or in the conscious experience.[4][5][6][7] Time is often referred to as a fourth dimension, along with three spatial dimensions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

[possibletarian]

Your replies...

Will this state be different for p-zombie?
Altering brain chemistry of p-zombe will give you same result
Consciousness was never observed in scientific experiment

What is the matter with you,  you do realise that any p-zombies are simply a hypothetical being right, that they don't really exist. They are an imagined being there to aid in philosophical (not scientific) experimentation.  No one knows what would happen if a p-zombie existed, or even if they actually could exist.  

There is heaps of evidence that you can alter conscious experience of a person by changing brain chemistry or damaging parts of the brain, even bringing about permanent changes in core personality.  There is zero evidence that the consciousness is any kind of independent entity.

Now how about you stop being so slippery and answer the questions put before you, here's your chance to present your evidence.
How do you get to the point where you believe that a consciousness is not of the brain ?
Why do you believe it is not of the brain, what makes you think we should be able to observe it as a separate thing (even if that were possible) ?
What makes you believe that the brain is a remotely controlled ?

[Abaddon_ire]

The way I think about it is that whenever there was time, there was matter, energy, and space. Causality only makes sense *within* the universe because causality requires time and time is part of the universe.

At no point in time was there 'nothing'. If nothing else, there was time.

That's wrong. Causality does not require time--time requires causality (events). 

Time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.[1][2][3] Time is a component quantity of various measurements used to sequence events, to compare the duration of events or the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change of quantities in material reality or in the conscious experience.[4][5][6][7] Time is often referred to as a fourth dimension, along with three spatial dimensions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

Please demonstrate causality without time.

[polymath257]

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.

Sources: Depends on the premise. The 27 documents contained in the NT. Other documentary evidence that discusses the existence of churches and their beliefs (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/), Josephus, Tacitus.

There you go using the word 'prove' again. You really need to re-read my post above. 

Further, what exactly do you mean by "prove"? It seems there are different kinds of proof.
* Scientific proof
* Historical proof
* Logical proofs (both deductive and inductive)
* Proof resulting from personal experience

There also also different thresholds of proof:
* Possible
* More likely than not (preponderance of the evidence)
* Beyond reasonable doubt
* Absolute certainty

These lists result in 16 different combinations alone (and I'm sure I missed some).In my experience, a discussion like the one you are intending is a long series of shifting the goal post until you arrive at demanding something akin to absolute certainty resulting from scientific proof for a specific belief. The problem is that this is not the standard necessary for a rational belief. Another point, atheist constantly miss the fact that religious belief is due to a cumulative set of reasons to believe--all with their own kind/threshold of proof needed for that particular individual. So, to simply demand "proof" is insufficient. What kind, what threshold, single issue or cumulative, and to what end?

Well, let's eliminate 'personal proof', which is the same as anecdotal. We can also eliminate 'logical proof' since logic alone can say nothing baout the real world.

So, in this context, scientific and historical proof will be the main contenders.

For a claim in the existence of a deity, 'possible' is rather too weak. I would go for 'beyond a reasonable doubt', but this requires *all* of the evidence, including the nature of the society, the local history, the biases and personalities of those involved, the provenance of any writings (not just the claimed authors), and any scientific evidence that the events could actually happen as stated. Evaluation of texts should be done in the same way as any other texts from the time period and society. Any extraordinary claims made should be treated the same as similar claims made by other authors.

Which means, you loose, badly

---

The way I think about it is that whenever there was time, there was matter, energy, and space. Causality only makes sense *within* the universe because causality requires time and time is part of the universe.

At no point in time was there 'nothing'. If nothing else, there was time.

That's wrong. Causality does not require time--time requires causality (events). 

Sorry, but I am correct in this. Causality only happens in the future light cone. It is the action of physical laws from some initial condition giving rise to some later condition. So causality requires *at least* time and the action of physical laws.

[SteveII]

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?

Put your argument in a syllogism and I will respond. You are talking yourself in circles and you think you make sense.

[GrandizerII]

The way I think about it is that whenever there was time, there was matter, energy, and space. Causality only makes sense *within* the universe because causality requires time and time is part of the universe.

At no point in time was there 'nothing'. If nothing else, there was time.

That's wrong. Causality does not require time--time requires causality (events). 

Time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.[1][2][3] Time is a component quantity of various measurements used to sequence events, to compare the duration of events or the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change of quantities in material reality or in the conscious experience.[4][5][6][7] Time is often referred to as a fourth dimension, along with three spatial dimensions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

In what way does this back your point at all?

I note, by the way, you define causality as events. Not that this changes anything, but it's not exactly just simply events, but rather the connection between events, with one being the cause and the other being the effect. That's causality (at least how we view it intuitively, that is).

But I know why you would want causality to not require time. Because, then, how could your god create anything without time, right?

We're not blind to your theological biases, Steve.

[Dmitry1983]

What is the matter with you,  you do realise that any p-zombies are simply a hypothetical being right, that they don't really exist.

How do you know that? How can you prove it scientifically?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_other_minds

There is heaps of evidence that you can alter conscious experience of a person by changing brain chemistry or damaging parts of the brain, even bringing about permanent changes in core personality.

There is correlation between behaviour and brain chemistry. That doesn't mean that scientifically consciousness exists

 There is zero evidence that the consciousness is any kind of independent entity.

There is no evidence at all that consciousness exists. By default we are all p-zombies.

[GrandizerII]

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.


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.


To which I responded as well. Did you forget?


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).


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.


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.


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?

Put your argument in a syllogism and I will respond. You are talking yourself in circles and you think you make sense.

Address the specific points I asked you to address first. Then, I will do what you want me to do, if still needed.