Atheism is unreasonable

[His_Majesty]

Our current universe beginning to exist is not the same thing as reality itself beginning to exist.

Did I say or imply that it was? No, I didn't. I said "the universe began to exist"...now of course, since I only believe there is only one universe, which is our own, I don't posit any other universe. BUT, if you do want to posit a pre-big bang scenario, then you are only pushing the question of origins back one step further at which you dive right back into the realm of infinity.

You sit here airily telling me to speak with cosmologists as though you've done so yourself, but we both know that you haven't; most of them will tell you that our ability to describe what happens just before the Planck time is non-existent.

Hey, I go where the science takes me, and for the last 80+ years it is a fact in science that our universe began to exist. Point blank, period.

Oh! And as it happens, I can tell you of three cosmologists that don't believe the universe began in the finite past; just look at the Borde-Guth-Villenkin theorem. It's a favorite of William Lane Craig, when he trots out the same tired Kalam nonsense that you have, only two of the three scientists who wrote the paper came out to correct him, saying that actually no, their work does not say that the universe began in the finite past. They're on record as saying that, on video in Guth's case, but you know what WLC did? The same thing you do: when it suited him, he just waved the science off, the same science he was directly quoting a moment ago, as though it meant nothing. "That's just their opinion!" He crowed.

Wrong again. In his book, Many World's in One, pg. 175, Vilenkin said this about the BGV theorem:

"We made no assumptions about the material content of the universe. We did not eve assume that gravity is described by Einstein's equations. So, if Einstein's gravity requires some modification, our conclusion will still hold. The only assumption that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value, no matter how small. The assumption should certainly be satisfied in the inflating false vacuum. The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation without a beginning is impossible."

I don't even know why you even mentioned the BGV theorem, as if that somehow supports your side of things.

Hey, if you're going to claim something then make sure the claim you're making is accurate. If you're going to say Kalam adequately explains why infinity is impossible, then how the fuck am I supposed to know that you wanted to say something different? I'm not a mind reader.

Mind reader? Dude, the kalam argument has two premises. You erraneously attributed the infinity problem to the premise that it didn't apply to. That is your ignorance, not mines. And if you were familiar with the argument as you made it seem with that weak rebuttal, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You don't know how time works, if you're saying that.

Actually, I already know how the game goes. When you mention the concept of time, all of a sudden it is time to get all technical and crap. That is why I am purposely not focusing on specifically time, but events in time, which is why I gave the analogy regarding the event of your birth. And the good thing about that is, it is independent of how technical you want to get about time.

An infinite number of events does not render an individual event within that time frame impossible.

Wrong again, because it does. Here is another (better) analogy.

Analogy: So if I imagine myself standing on an infinitely long road, and in the distance, I see you running towards me. When you reach me, I stop you, and I ask you how long have you been running. And you say "For eternity"..and I say, "Ok, I want you to turn around, and run the opposite direction, and I want you to stop running when you reach the same (equal) distance that you reached when you met me", and you turn around and begin running...at what point would you stop?

No need for any smart ass comments either...just tell me at what point would you stop.

It just means that there was an infinite number of prior events of the same type, and an infinite number of future events of the same type.

But for every event, an infinite number of events preceded it. That is the point. For every event that comes to past, and event number of events was before it, which is basically saying saying that infinity has been traversed. But you can't traverse infinity, that is the problem.

In a causal infinity

What the hell is a "causal" infinity?

time would still be moving forward, and you'd still have one day following the next; my birth as an event in time would just have happened on one of those days, of an infinite set of days.

But for your birth to come to past, an infinite "set" is traversed", the entire "set" which includes every event which preceded your birth would be complete...but that is like saying you can count the entire set of natural numbers and be "complete". It can't happen.

You could only assert that my birth would never happen if you continually define my birth as one happening in the future, pushed back one birth further by each incoming birth, rather than just keeping my position stable in the sequence wherever it may be, which is what it would literally be.

Ok, so if I told you that in an infinity number of days, I will deposit a trillion dollars in your bank account, will you ever get the money? No, because for every single day that passes, there is an infinite amount to go, so you will NEVER get the money.

So for the event of your birth to come to pass after traversing an infinte number of births would be saying that an infinite set of births has already been traversed. If that can't happen in the "trillion dollar" analogy, how can it happen in the "birth" analogy?

In an infinite set, things still happen. We have an infinite number of numbers, but by some magical coincidence I'm still able to count from one to two.

Have you ever wondered why you can magically count from 1 to 2 quite easily, but you will never reach the #2 if you counted all the number in between 1 and 2?

However, all this talk of infinity is pointless anyway, since nobody is asserting infinity. There could be any number of potential causal setups beyond the big bang, there's no reason to assume anything about it.

Foolishness. If time never began, then it is infinite.

So you have no justification for making up whatever answer you feel best leads to your presupposed conclusion, then, do you?

Until you can solve the infinity problem, statements such as the one above need not be made.

Borde, Guth, and Villenkin.

What the HELL are you talking about? The BGV theorem is a theorem which proves that the universe began to exist.

And incidentally, no cosmologist has come to the god conclusion either.

So, there is no cosmologist on earth that believes in god?

"All men are cats, Abraham Lincoln was a man, therefore Abe Lincoln was a cat," is a perfectly valid logical syllogism. There are no invalid premises, except for the fact that, like Kalam, like the Ontological argument, like the moral argument, the premises are not factually based. That's why logic gets you nowhere unless you feed accurate data into it.

Um, I am a man, but I am not a cat.

Except if you don't know that you don't know it.

To be omniscient would mean that it is impossible for you to not know anything, so no point in these meaningless hypotheticals.

Nevertheless, finding single hypothetical scenarios in which those conflicts might arise- as I'm sure you're desperately trying to do in a little "gotcha!" moment- will not reduce their efficacy in the main. They are sufficient objective standards through which we can build up a moral system from simple beginnings, assuming we consistently plot it out, without special pleading at any point. Simple.

Spare me the rhetoric…do objective moral values exist…yes or no? Very simple question.

Ugh. So can you take the information out of DNA? Hold it in your hand? Can you get a fistful of information? Or is it a fucking conceptual thing, after all?

Can you hold a computer code in your hand and get a fistful of information??

For the life of me, I can't. Because it literally has nothing to do with what we were actually talking about. It's a red herring. Again.

Then you apparently lack the basic reading comprehension skills needed to decipher what was said to you, which was based on what you said to me. I don’t think I can help you there.

I did, like two posts ago. Aren't you paying attention before you decide to disagree with me? It's a beneficial trait for organisms to be able to react to their environments more accurately over a wider range of stimuli.

Bullcrap. It would be a beneficial trait for me to evolve wings to be able to fly away from a bear in the woods as opposed to running from it, but I don’t have no damn wings, do I?

Consciousness arose as an emergent property of that drive toward more complex reactive intellects, as a means to better react on the fly to more complicated scenarios. It's all tied in with the evolution of brains, as consciousness is a property that arises within the brain.

More bullcrap. This is all bio-babble. What the heck is “complex reactive intellects”, and who is directing the “drive” towards it? This is a prime example of putting words together to make it sound pretty when in actuality the answer that is given leaves you with more questions than answers. If the brain “evolved” like you claim it did, and if you are sitting there watching it evolve, please explain to me at what point would that brain begin thinking…and what is the mechanism needed for this to happen.

The brain is made up of matter. If you had a chunk of brain cartilage and you shaped and molded it into a brain, at what point would you get that brain to begin thinking of thoughts??

I will patiently wait for more bio-babble.

First of all, you're begging the question by calling whatever "information" you want to see in DNA specified.

Well, hmm…the first sentence in this page article

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/ce...mregarding DNA states

¬“DNA carr¬ies all of the information for your physical characteristics, which are essentially determined by proteins.”

If DNA “carries all the information for your physical characteristics”, I would say that is quite specified, don’t you think?

Evolution is perfectly sufficient to winnow down randomly generated anything into usable forms, as the unusable ones... died off? You know, natural selection?

Natural selection “selects”…it doesn’t “create” anything. The information was already there, and once again, back to my questions of origins…where did it come from? How can a mindless process get this kind of information to “create” anything???

You’ve basically sold yourself on the unsupported fact that a mindless and blind process created consciousness and vision, when it couldn’t think or see?? Wow.

I don't deny the existence of readable information in DNA, I deny your claims as to the nature of information in general. Do try to keep up; my position is that information is a conceptual state of predictable and reliably derived patterns within an object, that can be read after the fact by intelligent minds.

All I did was say that DNA contains specified information, information on how to make you, You. When you open up a book and you see that the letters are all sequenced and patterned in a way to form words and sentences, you know that there is information in the pattern. The same thing with DNA. It is patterned and sequenced….but there is no mechanism that patterns the DNA into that particular sequence, the sequence that is spewing of information. The information has to come from an external source, because nature sure as hell didn’t “know” anything.

When I said that, instead of addressing the issue, you just went "aha! But where did those minds come from?" as though that has any relevance at all to the nature of information.

So basically, I am supposed to let you use consciousness as a gateway to something else without having you first empirically explain to me where consciousness came from in the first place…when the origin of consciousness is exactly what I questioned in the OP??

It doesn't have some objectively real form that can be extracted and shown to anyone else.

You are wrong yet again. It can be shown to anyone that wishes to view it under a microscope..you know, that “thing” that every biochemist has his lab.

Only if your definition of a code requires that it be intentionally placed. In which case, you are absolutely begging the question by calling DNA a code.

So the code that is embedded in DNA is the only code known to man that isn’t intentionally placed? And DNA is the only case where “instructions” doesn’t come from an “instructor”. Gotcha.

Do you happen to know anything at all about how the elements of DNA bond together? The four nucleobases pair up in very specific, well understood base pairs. It is, in fact, entirely predictable. The fact that it is a complex topic in no way reduces scientists ability to predict and understand it, your pointless condescension notwithstanding.

Bonding is one thing, sequencing is another. A metal chalkboard with a dozen magnetic letters attached to it; Yeah, the letters are attached to the board…but if the letters form the patterned sequence of the word “Information” on it, that is specified complexity. Or better yet, if there is a giant magnetic chalk board with hundreds of magnetic letters on it and the idea is for the letters to be formed in a way to give instructions of how to assemble a bicycle, even if the letters were randomly scattering about the board, you will be hard pressed to think that the letters will eventually randomly form perfect words in perfect sentences, periods included. It takes faith to think that it could, and even more faith to think that it did.

Since when did complexity have anything to do with predictability? Complex things can be predicted. You really don't even know what you're arguing anymore, do you? You're just throwing out random topics that are only tangentially related to what we were discussing before, and have no relevance to the topic at hand.

I am talking about specified complexity, buddy.

When it comes to many other things in antiquity we have corroboration from other sources.

I’m glad you said that. So I challenge you to name me one external Egyptian source that can vouch for the existence of King Tut. You just said we have corroboration from other sources when it comes to many things in antiquity, but we don’t with King Tut, yet I assume you have no problems believing that King Tut existed, right?

When we get to the bible, suddenly it's only the one source, and it's the same source that's making all the claims in the first place.

Actually the Bible is one book comprised of many different INDEPENDENT books, so it’s not just one source. Second, every single claim in the Bible could be true EVEN if it all came from one source, and to think otherwise would be clearly committing the Genetic Fallacy.

Oh, and all of those claims are supernatural with no supporting justification at all. If you found a book from antiquity that contained an account of an alien invasion, only it was the only book from that time that mentioned anything about it, would you believe it just because it was a book?

Again, you are making it seem as if the Bible is one single book written by one author. We have four independent accounts of the Resurrection, plus the letters of Paul. That is at least 5 different sources, not even mentioning the Old Testament. Just because someone came up with the bright idea to compile all of the books into one book doesn’t negate those facts.

Yeah, and when we find supernatural or miraculous claims in any other history book, do you know what we do? We discount them as superstitions of the time.

Right, and in order for you to discount them as superstitions, you have to presuppose that they are in fact superstitions. They are not superstitions just because you think that they are or want them to be.

Why should we do any less for the bible, a book that is actually less supported from independent sources than any of these other books?

You can do whatever you like, although I would hope that you will examine the evidence before drawing such conclusions.

I'm saying that the names are plug names, pseudonyms attached to the books so they would have an author attached to them by the church

Fine, but my point is if the church was going to just start attaching names to their sacred books, why would they attribute those specific people? Why Mark instead of Peter? Why Luke instead of Paul? If you are going to just toss names in there to give this religion any credibility, I would think you would attach the names of more prominent individuals within the Christian domain than these lesser individuals. Just sayin’

Just looking at the book of Matthew specifically, it only gained that name in the second century, and the idea that this Matthew was the disciple Matthew was added later still by a bishop named Papias. It has nothing at all to do with who literally wrote the book.

If Matthew actually wrote the book, then it has EVERYTHING to do with who literally wrote the book. Either Papias was mistaken, lying, or telling the truth. I don’t see him claiming that Matthew wrote the book unless he had reasons to believe so.

Sure, but when we add in that the gospels were written years after Jesus' death

The Gospels were all written within 40 years after the cross, which was during the lifetime of the disciples. Paul’s epistles were written even earlier that the Gospels.

by people who never knew him

Soo, on your view we don’t know who wrote the Gospels, but we do know that whoever wrote it never knew him?? If you don’t know who wrote it, how do you know whether or not whoever wrote it knew him??

in a historical context in which nobody else was writing about Jesus when he was alive

Well, judging by the fact that the vast majority of the population at the time couldn’t read or write, I guess it should come as no surprise that people were breaking out their pen and pads when he was alive.

it becomes a much, much more shaky basis for deriving historical fact. In fact, this is almost an irrelevant point; what does the careful passing down of scriptures matter at all, if the scriptures weren't written anywhere near the time the action went down?

Um, Paul was there “near the time the action went down”. Paul actually met with the ORIGINAL disciples…so this would make his testimony second hand at worse.

All of which were written at least twenty years after Jesus' death. How could they be testament to the resurrection?

Twenty years? Well, MLK was assassinated in 1968, and after 46 years, people are STILL talking about him as a person..his speeches, his actions, his character. So if we are still talking about MLK and even made a holiday in his honor 46 years later…why is it so difficult to believe that Paul testifying the Resurrection 20 years after the cross.

And not only that, but Paul was an active member of the Jewish authorities shortly post-Resurrection. So it isn’t as if he knew nothing about Christianity and bumped into some guy at the Temple and was told about it. He was there.

So basically, your historical evidence is that you have some dudes, centuries after the events in question, asserting that some books were written by dudes that they never met, nor have any evidence that the books were ever written by them. That's your big ticket winner, here? "Some guy said it."?

No, the evidence is we have at least 5 external biblical sources that mentions Jesus by NAME, and mentions his character as well. Take those 5 external sources, plus four Gospel’s by his followers, and a few letters from a skeptic turned convert. So we have at the very least 11 sources for the historical Jesus, and it is based on these sources that the vast majority of all scholars accept Jesus as a historical figure.

Only if they're supported.

They are.

[The Valkyrie]

Seems, once again, we're experiencing tag team idiocy.

[His_Majesty]

No, it isn't that simple. I'm just trying to explain it to a simpleton is all.

Word.

BTW, I love the double standard of requiring demonstration of abiogenesis in a lab all while you cling to your religion that isn't able to demonstrate one iota of credible evidence.

I gave evidence.

That's actually naturalism, which despite the rumors, is not a prerequisite for atheism.

If you don't believe that "Goddidit", then you believe that "Naturedidit", and if that makes an atheist a naturalist, if it looks like a duck...

The funny thing is, you're actually a naturalist for 99.9% of your life. I don't imagine that when your car breaks down on the highway that you start looking for invisible spirits or pray that it will fix itself.

I will look to science when I want to learn how a car operates. I will look to supernaturalism when I want to know where the matter that makes up a car comes from.

You just want to deny rules you use on a daily basis for one instance in order to maintain a comforting belief.

Not at all. I go where logic and reason takes me, and it took me on a first class flight to Christian theism.

[downbeatplumb]

I will look to science when I want to learn how a car operates. I will look to supernaturalism when I want to know where the matter that makes up a car comes from.

Wow really?
You know that after things have been investigated and understood it has never turned out that the supernatural did it.
Not once.

You just want to deny rules you use on a daily basis for one instance in order to maintain a comforting belief.

Not at all. I go where logic and reason takes me, and it took me on a first class flight to Christian theism.
[/quote]

No it didn't.
You are just saying that because you think it sounds good.
You need to show to show your working in order to convince us that your position is in any way reasonable, but so far you are babbling like the brain washed sheep you seem to be.
All juiced up on those god delusions.

[Dolorian]

I am talking about specified complexity, buddy.

I checked the thread and you haven't defined this. What do you mean by "specified complexity"?

[coldwx]

I’m glad you said that. So I challenge you to name me one external Egyptian source that can vouch for the existence of King Tut. You just said we have corroboration from other sources when it comes to many things in antiquity, but we don’t with King Tut, yet I assume you have no problems believing that King Tut existed, right?

WTF? We actually do have other references, not to mention we have the FUCKING MUMMY!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun

[The Valkyrie]

I’m glad you said that. So I challenge you to name me one external Egyptian source that can vouch for the existence of King Tut. You just said we have corroboration from other sources when it comes to many things in antiquity, but we don’t with King Tut, yet I assume you have no problems believing that King Tut existed, right?

WTF? We actually do have other references, not to mention we have the FUCKING MUMMY!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun

Not to mention that we have his DNA and have confirmed his lineage.

Oh, the stupid is strong with this one.

[coldwx]

I did, like two posts ago. Aren't you paying attention before you decide to disagree with me? It's a beneficial trait for organisms to be able to react to their environments more accurately over a wider range of stimuli.

Bullcrap. It would be a beneficial trait for me to evolve wings to be able to fly away from a bear in the woods as opposed to running from it, but I don’t have no damn wings, do I?

Consciousness arose as an emergent property of that drive toward more complex reactive intellects, as a means to better react on the fly to more complicated scenarios. It's all tied in with the evolution of brains, as consciousness is a property that arises within the brain.

More bullcrap. This is all bio-babble. What the heck is “complex reactive intellects”, and who is directing the “drive” towards it? This is a prime example of putting words together to make it sound pretty when in actuality the answer that is given leaves you with more questions than answers. If the brain “evolved” like you claim it did, and if you are sitting there watching it evolve, please explain to me at what point would that brain begin thinking…and what is the mechanism needed for this to happen.

The brain is made up of matter. If you had a chunk of brain cartilage and you shaped and molded it into a brain, at what point would you get that brain to begin thinking of thoughts??

I will patiently wait for more bio-babble.

I am thoroughly enjoying Esquilax's dismantling of your arguments, but I had to jump in on this. You obviously have no idea how evolution works, and that is evidenced by your first claim above. Calling something bio-babble just because you don't understand it is an avoidance at best.

[abaris]

Did I miss something today?

Is it day of the imbecile or something? Since I signed up I didn't have the displeasure to read so many utterly stupid comments by believers. The Tut comment of his mayesty really is something very special in the annals of ignorance. Someone should preserve it for future generations, as a warning what being high on religion can do to your mind.

[The Valkyrie]

Did I miss something today?

Is it day of the imbecile or something? Since I signed up I didn't have the displeasure to read so many utterly stupid comments by believers. The Tut comment of his mayesty really is something very special in the annals of ignorance. Someone should preserve it for future generations, as a warning what being high on religion can do to your mind.

We had two who arrived a little while ago and seem to tag-team the idiocy here.