Stump the Christian?

[Randy Carson]

Incidentally, the physicists you quote don't agree with you: in a debate with William Lane Craig, who also misuses the same scientists that you do, Sean Carroll anticipated this argument and asked Alan Guth for his view. His response was unambiguous: "I don't know whether the universe had a beginning. I suspect that it did not have a beginning." So, who is misinterpreting the paper: the person who wrote it, or the non-physicist attempting to bend science to his biases?

Vilenkin doesn't like what you're selling either, Randy; in his 2006 book, "Many worlds in one," he has this to say about theologians attempting to hold up his work as proof of god:

Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist.

It is obvious that you have spent far more time on this topic than I care to or need to. And you are right to a degree, it IS all beyond my grasp...not because I couldn't sit down and plow through it all, but because I have not sought to grasp it. However, there are knowledgeable theists who have and do stay current on these issues, and thankfully, I can read their responses. I've not come across anything yet which suggests that anyone is terribly nervous about these points.

However, I know my limitations, and I am neither a cosmologist nor a philosopher. So, while it's all very impressive that you HAVE read the paper which I have not read, so what? The fact that I am not able to respond to you on a subject about which I freely admit little or no expertise does not mean that NO ONE could. You can find such discussions on YouTube readily enough.

Now, you have taken quite a bit of time addressing the paper, but you have not really addressed the point behind my reason for quoting it in the first place: science points to the beginning of the universe, and this can be more helpful to the theologian than Vilenkin cares to admit perhaps in the passage you quoted.

I have promised Neimenovic that I will take a look at the threads that he was kind enough to bring to my attention.

That said, you may have the last word.

[Randy Carson]

Is this hypothetical? Or are you seriously willing to consider the matter?

Hypothetical.  I seriously considered the matter for the better part of 30 or 35 years before realizing that I did not believe, and further inquiry just confirms the doubt.  The discrepancies between denominations and individuals only became clear after I stepped outside of the bubble of my particular branch of Christianity, but it also helped me see that many (if not most, or all) of them require that you shield at least some of your beliefs from scrutiny.  At least one of the reasons for my leaving religious faith behind was that I tried pretty hard to test those shields, and that's not a good thing to do if you want to remain faithful.

Well, I am happy to test myself, as well. (I'm here.)

So, feel free to see how my shields hold up by posting your questions in the "Ask a Catholic" thread.

Thanks.

[Randy Carson]

I agree with you about the appeal to popularity as a PROOF. However, it does tell us something about human nature.

For example, if one of your best friends told you about an online game that he discovered, would you check it out?

If 2.2 billion people downloaded a new app onto their smartphones, would you check it out?

If xx billion people believe that a god exists, would you check it out?

It tells us something about Human nature... you got that right!
Beliefs are powerful incentives to action... and a belief that gets passed on tends to stick around.
Also, if somewhere along the chain of passing the belief along, you come across the information that not holding that belief is bad, or that those who don't hold your same belief are "the others" and must be destroyed or converted, then you pick up on a very powerful force that, in time, gets the whole world to hold such beliefs.
We are at that time.

And, if you notice, I never mentioned that whatever is believed upon must be true.

The concept of god has won out in the beliefs stage mainly for its inability to be disproved.
Even with the far reaching advancement of science, god-of-the-gaps is still a thing. As long as there is a gap in knowledge, god will hide there and xx billion people will believe some form of god exists.

It's all down to human nature. No god required.
Being aware of this, how would I let my own mind be tricked into believing whatever god is proposed to me?

You wouldn't. No one would.

And yet, many people, atheists included (highlighted for emphasis), continue to consider what is proposed by theism and find that it is reasonable.

How is that trickery?

Are there that many fools on the planet in the course of history and only a few intelligentsia who broke free?

[abaris]

On what basis?

Based on your claims.

[Longhorn]

You're not  surprising anybody.

Nor did I expect to. I will take a look at the threads. I spent HOURS reading all the Tim O'Neill threads, and I was impressed with how he addressed the issues of the historicity of Jesus. (Quite a few folks got shellacked by a fellow atheist on that issue.)

If the proponents of the Kalam argument did as well as Tim, then I look forward to reading their posts.

Thanks.

Great. The posters that had argued in those threads have a much better understanding of the topic than I do, hopefully you'll see just how bad Kalam is....and even more hopefully you won't use it in the future

[Esquilax]

It is obvious that you have spent far more time on this topic than I care to or need to. And you are right to a degree, it IS all beyond my grasp...not because I couldn't sit down and plow through it all, but because I have not sought to grasp it. However, there are knowledgeable theists who have and do stay current on these issues, and thankfully, I can read their responses. I've not come across anything yet which suggests that anyone is terribly nervous about these points.

Oh, theists aren't terribly nervous? So what? Unearned, unabashed confidence that has nothing to do with the facts and everything to do with faith is a hallmark of christian apologia.

However, I know my limitations, and I am neither a cosmologist nor a philosopher. So, while it's all very impressive that you HAVE read the paper which I have not read, so what? The fact that I am not able to respond to you on a subject about which I freely admit little or no expertise does not mean that NO ONE could. You can find such discussions on YouTube readily enough.

So I should ignore the trained physicists and just listen to Youtube apologists?

Now, you have taken quite a bit of time addressing the paper, but you have not really addressed the point behind my reason for quoting it in the first place: science points to the beginning of the universe, and this can be more helpful to the theologian than Vilenkin cares to admit perhaps in the passage you quoted.

So, despite the fact that I very specifically quoted areas of the paper demonstrating that it does not point to a beginning of all universes, period, just a beginning to our current expansion model, despite the fact that actually, the scientific consensus tends to agree with me, that we aren't equipped to properly measure beyond that point yet, you're still going to insist, on the basis of Youtube apologists and a scientific paper that has been demonstrated not to say what you think it says, that actually the science says something totally opposite to that?

You delete huge chunks of what I actually wrote, ignore the major points entirely, and then respond with another fiat assertion. Why does anyone bother responding to you when you have no interest in honestly engaging with us?

[pocaracas]

It's all down to human nature. No god required.
Being aware of this, how would I let my own mind be tricked into believing whatever god is proposed to me?

You wouldn't. No one would.

And yet, many people, atheists included (highlighted for emphasis), continue to consider what is proposed by theism and find that it is reasonable.

How is that trickery?

Are there that many fools on the planet in the course of history and only a few intelligentsia who broke free?

Indoctrination is powerful stuff... and the unfalsifiable nature of the claim make people stick to it... once hooked, it becomes problematic to think about it as just a man-made concept.
Think back to how you got hooked. Did anyone show you a god? Did anyone do any apologetics?

Brainwashing is almost like washing clothes with bleach - easy to get the stains out, but not so easy to get the color back on.

Remember, Randy, half the population has an IQ below 100.
Nowadays, in the US, an IQ of 100 is a bit low, wouldn't you say?... still, half of americans stand down there. So yes, there are that many fools.
Educations is one thing that can make the non-fools think... but it's clearly not enough.

Existing atheists need not be aware of the multiple pitfalls of their own psychology.
Heck, even psychologists fail to their own psychology! It was a psychologist that said that they can apply all the theory to other people, but never to themselves... or.. well... I don't like the word "never" in this context... I'd say that they can seldom apply it successfully to themselves.

In the end, all I see are people, believers and non-believers... regardless of the existence of any god, their bickering goes on... If it happens regardless of the existence of any god, then why believe? Why assume that such an entity exists?
Because others believe it?
Because you don't have all the answers to the world, as you would like?
Because death scares the shit out of you and you feel better knowing (actually believing) that your essence will go on indefinitely, even knowing full well that your body will die, decay, rot and be dispersed into the wind?
Because your momma tells you so?

Tell me, what other reason is there for people to cling to belief in a god?

[Randy Carson]

Composition Fallacy?

The argument is in the classic form Modus ponens:

P implies Q.
P.
Therefore, Q.

1. All men are mortal. (Everything that begins has a cause.)
2. Socrates was a man. (The universe began.)
3. Therefore, Socrates is moral. (Therefore, the universe has a cause.)

The argument does not imply that because some things in the universe have a cause, therefore the whole universe must have a cause. Instead, the premises are argued as follows:

Regarding the first premise:

1. Something cannot come from nothing.
   
2. If something can come from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything does not come into being from nothing. If the universe can come into being out of nothing, why not root beer? Or bowling balls? And why don't they appear out of nothing at random?
   
3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise one of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. (This is an example of the type of inductive reasoning that undergirds all of science.)
   

Regarding the second premise:

1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics shows that if the universe had existed forever, it would have run out of energy long ago.
   
2. Modern cosmologists, Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin, have proved that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history, cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning. This also applies to multiverses – if there is such a thing. Vilenkin said,
   

“This means that scientists “can no longer hide behind a past eternal-universe. There is no escape; they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”

The Fallacy of Equivocation?

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a word is used in two different ways as follows:

1. Socrates was Greek.
2. Greek is a language.
3. Therefore, Socrates is a language.

However, in the Kalam Argument, God is the efficient cause of the universe, not the material cause. Here is another example:

Michaelangelo is the efficient cause of the statue, "David". The material cause of the statue is the block of marble.

Further, "begins to exist" means "comes into being". Thus, the Kalam argument may also be stated:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe came into being.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

In the Kalam argument, there simply is no equivocation.

'everything that begins to exist has a cause' is equivalent to 'everything except God has a cause', thus begging the question at the very first premise

Also special pleading, asserting that god is not subject to infinite regress

See, there you go again conflating 'beginning to exist out of nothing' and 'beginning to exist by rearrangement of things that already exist'

There is a composition fallacy in there, because you are a placing the set (universe) on the same last as it's members (every physical thing)

Here Randy. Let's not derail this thread with that pile of shit. Do a little reading.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-32198.ht...ight=kalam
http://atheistforums.org/thread-31488.ht...ight=kalam
http://atheistforums.org/thread-19972.ht...ight=kalam
http://atheistforums.org/thread-18263.ht...ight=kalam

Okay. I've read all the threads, and while I'm no expert, nothing jumped out at me as being the definitive fatal blow to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Since I obviously missed it, would you be so kind as to give me the exact post or the exact argument itself which you feel does strike such a blow?

Thanks.

[LastPoet]

Christians lie.
Christians are intellectually dishonest.
Christians are prideful.
Christians are deluded.

Man, it sure is refreshing to see how wonderfully developed the atheist sense of living in harmony with and caring for others really is. Gotta love that societal evolution.

Yes, yes, yes and also, yes. I agree wholeheartedly.

As to your last remark, I only resort to violence when someone takes the first punch and I have been using words. Truth hurts and all that shebang heh? You are so full of shit, re-iterating all those theistic canards, almost as if you wanted to sound intelligent. Want to do something with your life? Study hard Logic, Math and be kind for your own whim, not because of a god.

By your interactions in this forum, I remain skeptical that you can even be a reasonable believer, you studied the lamest of disciplines: Apologetics. That is not hard work or even knowledge, it is the art of being a dishonest liar for Jesus.

You have been going trough all the canards theists pull. Are you keeping TAG as a trumph card? It fails as bad as Kalaam. Do you guys will ever cut with the bullshit and teach us a way to find your god?

[Randy Carson]

On what basis?

Based on your claims.

I asked in the context of the theists personal experience of God.

Therefore, I ask again: On what basis can you say with certainty what the theist has or has not personally experienced of God?