RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
September 13, 2021 at 4:28 pm
(This post was last modified: September 13, 2021 at 4:32 pm by R00tKiT.)
(September 13, 2021 at 3:49 pm)Angrboda Wrote: I never suggested the existence of an actual infinite, which is what was Aquinas' objection, and so no, you haven't provided a valid reason. You neither know nor can demonstrate that an infinite duration must have preceded the creation of this universe. You are simply mouthing ignorant articles of faith.
I am not sure I follow. You said we can't apply the CA to a universe prior to this one because it could be eternal, and I am telling you that this very preceding universe caused our own at some point, and so cannot have an eternal past (because we must get to the point where it actually causes our universe).
And I am not suggesting that it is actually the case there is a infinite duration preceding the univrse, I am simply ruling out its possibility.
(September 13, 2021 at 3:49 pm)Angrboda Wrote: An exception can prove a rule of convention, not a rule of logic, an inference, or a law of physics. In such cases they are called counter-examples and falsify that being claimed, as here. As noted, the existence of good isn't a bar to a malevolent deity.
Most inferences are done in the existence of exceptions. Inference is inherently probabilistic. We infer benevolence based on what we observe around us, if our world was some infinite loop where we repeatedly get squashed like bugs and then reincarnated, then yeah, maybe you can make a case for a malevolent deity. Instead, we have a world when people can experience pleasure, peace, empathy, have a wealthy life, etc. and where the universe is to some extent intelligible and predictable.
(September 13, 2021 at 3:49 pm)Angrboda Wrote: "You can't give what you haven't got," is simply invalid as a rule.
Why is it invalid? I already gave its equivalent within the universe, it's exactly the conservation of mass, or, even better, the conservation of energy. An isolated system's energy is constant, we simply can't have some ex nihilo energy popping out somewhere and prompting some movement or motion. In other words, a system can't give some energy it doesn't already have. Energy and mass are interchangeable (in theory) and can only be transformed, but never destroyed or created.
(September 13, 2021 at 3:49 pm)Angrboda Wrote: An insect isn't like the universe in that its wonderful adaptations evolved through natural means and required no god.
Personal incredulity. Just because you can't imagine a god operating through these very adaptations doesn't mean he doesn't exist or isn't required. Is it really that difficult to understand that some agent must have started these "wonderful adaptations evolved through natural means".......
(September 13, 2021 at 3:49 pm)Angrboda Wrote: As to your moronic challenge, it's a non sequitur and I won't waste my time attempting something that would prove nothing even if I failed. The fact that I can't design an artificial human proves nothing about design. Hell, I can't even cook a decent meatloaf. That tells us nothing about God, except perhaps, that there isn't one.
You didn't even understand the challenge.... The point wasn't that you can't design an artificial human, it's that you would keep your body parts even in the presence of artificial organs... they already exist.
(September 13, 2021 at 3:49 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Cosmological models are at least mathematically coherent,
The proposition : " 0=1 => Jehanne doesn't exist" is a also a true proposition, a mathematically coherent model..........
(September 13, 2021 at 3:49 pm)Jehanne Wrote: what these models imply, however, is that an appeal to a creator god is unnecessary.
These models don't imply anything outside of the universe. A god is necessary because of the causality principle.