Posts: 3045
Threads: 14
Joined: July 7, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: Disproving the Bible
July 8, 2014 at 6:28 pm
Contingency Argument (as explained by WLC)
1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
According to premise 1 there are two kinds of things: (a) things which exist necessarily and (b) things which exist contingently. Things which exist necessarily exist by a necessity of their own nature. Many mathematicians think that numbers, sets, and other mathematical entities exist in this way. They’re not caused to exist by something else; they just exist by the necessity of their own nature. By contrast, contingent things are caused to exist by something else. They exist because something else has produced them. Familiar physical objects like people, planets, and galaxies belong in this category.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
If the universe has a cause of its existence, that cause must be a non-physical, immaterial being beyond space and time. Now there are only two sorts of thing that could fit that description: either an abstract object like a number or else an unembodied mind. But abstract objects can’t cause anything. So the cause of the existence of the universe must be a transcendent Mind, which is what believers understand God to be.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.
Posts: 591
Threads: 13
Joined: July 7, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: Disproving the Bible
July 8, 2014 at 6:37 pm
1. No. You are assuming that the universe early on has the same properties as things in the universe now. We don't know this. Further there are quantum physicists who tell us that stuff pops in and out of existence all the time. And when we speak of the singularity at the start of our universe our Einsteinien and Newtonian physics stop working. We begin to deal with quantum physics and the realm of the unknown.
2. Why must there be a cause of the universe? Time as we know it began at the Big Bang so the idea of a before is non-sensical. And even if there is something else that caused the Big Bang, why must it be non physical? I've put forth other scenarios, why are they implausible?
Posts: 2009
Threads: 2
Joined: October 8, 2012
Reputation:
26
RE: Disproving the Bible
July 8, 2014 at 6:53 pm
(This post was last modified: July 8, 2014 at 6:55 pm by LostLocke.)
(July 8, 2014 at 6:28 pm)SteveII Wrote: If the universe has a cause of its existence, that cause must be a non-physical, immaterial being beyond space and time. Demonstrate that.
And then show why it must be your god, and no one else's, or something/someone all together different.
Posts: 1121
Threads: 53
Joined: February 5, 2013
Reputation:
15
RE: Disproving the Bible
July 8, 2014 at 6:59 pm
(July 6, 2014 at 8:43 pm)Jenny A Wrote: (July 6, 2014 at 8:39 pm)justindagar Wrote: If someone today wrote the Bible or other holy scriptures they would be regarded as a madman as almost everything written in them has been disproved by science. The Book of Mormon is doing pretty well, and it's of recent vintage.
Yeeees, because none of us think Joseph Smith was cuckoo-batshit-crazy.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
Posts: 66911
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Disproving the Bible
July 8, 2014 at 7:13 pm
(This post was last modified: July 8, 2014 at 7:14 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
See, it doesn't actually matter to Steve whether or not he's on firm ground. All that matters, is that he thinks that he has something to add to the conversation. Talking at people, and not to them or with them. None of this is even important to him, because it doesn't inform his faith.
Fucking charlatan.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 726
Threads: 15
Joined: February 18, 2014
Reputation:
17
RE: Disproving the Bible
July 8, 2014 at 8:09 pm
I love how Steve dropped the scientific arguments when confronted with them and then goes back to apologetics. Nice try bud.
If the hypothetical idea of an afterlife means more to you than the objectively true reality we all share, then you deserve no respect.
Posts: 4659
Threads: 123
Joined: June 27, 2014
Reputation:
40
RE: Disproving the Bible
July 8, 2014 at 8:30 pm
(July 8, 2014 at 6:28 pm)SteveII Wrote: Contingency Argument (as explained by WLC)
1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
According to premise 1 there are two kinds of things: (a) things which exist necessarily and (b) things which exist contingently. Things which exist necessarily exist by a necessity of their own nature. Many mathematicians think that numbers, sets, and other mathematical entities exist in this way. They’re not caused to exist by something else; they just exist by the necessity of their own nature. By contrast, contingent things are caused to exist by something else. They exist because something else has produced them. Familiar physical objects like people, planets, and galaxies belong in this category.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
If the universe has a cause of its existence, that cause must be a non-physical, immaterial being beyond space and time. Now there are only two sorts of thing that could fit that description: either an abstract object like a number or else an unembodied mind. But abstract objects can’t cause anything. So the cause of the existence of the universe must be a transcendent Mind, which is what believers understand God to be.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.
The universe doesn't need good to exist; The universe exists; therefore god doesn't exist... There you like the taste of your own medicine?
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Disproving the Bible
July 8, 2014 at 9:36 pm
(July 8, 2014 at 8:09 pm)Godslayer Wrote: I love how Steve dropped the scientific arguments when confronted with them and then goes back to apologetics. Nice try bud.
Seems to have given up on the old hebrew scriptures shit, too.
Posts: 5706
Threads: 67
Joined: June 13, 2014
Reputation:
69
RE: Disproving the Bible
July 8, 2014 at 9:37 pm
(This post was last modified: July 8, 2014 at 9:38 pm by Jenny A.)
(July 8, 2014 at 12:45 pm)SteveII Wrote: Let's discuss one--Contingency Argument.
Why not? Lets. It'll be funny:
(July 8, 2014 at 12:45 pm)SteveII Wrote: 1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
Not proven and what exists by the the necessity of its own nature? Give an example.
(July 8, 2014 at 12:45 pm)SteveII Wrote: 2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
Really? Why? And if so, what is the explanation for god?
(July 8, 2014 at 12:45 pm)SteveII Wrote: 3. The universe exists.
Indeed it does.
(July 8, 2014 at 12:45 pm)SteveII Wrote: 4. Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.
Doesn't follow.
Besides, even assuming any of the above made sense, it doesn't by any means prove that god still exists, is good, has any interest in man, had anything to do with Christianity or any other religion. This kind of "proof" leads no where
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Disproving the Bible
July 8, 2014 at 9:39 pm
Quote:2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
I'll go with Neil De Grasse Tyson over this bozo.
|
