Invitation for Atheists to Debate a Christian via Skype

[Pat Mustard]

Let me guess, time to get your grades up in religion class in fundagelical homeschool.

No. I'm not in high school. Thought Atheists liked to reason and dialogue. Guess not?

I didn't say you were in high school, I said you were in fundagelical homeschool. To normal students, that's the equivalent of montessori.

Oh, I like reason and dialogue. I know I won't get either from you.

---

*Though I don't like the membership talking together outside the forum because I'm nosey and suspect they're talking about me**

Oh, we talk about you all the time. You know we do.

---

Though it's variations on the theme of "Valk is hot!" "Yep" "Aye" "Yeah" "No shit, Sherlock" and so on

---

[SenseMaker007]

Christianity isn't worthy of debate. Theism in general is, but only if the audience hasn't already seen the same old fallacies get knocked down time and time again.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Christianity isn't worthy of debate. Theism in general is, but only if the audience hasn't already seen the same old fallacies get knocked down time and time again.

That's exactly the point.  There isn't anything new to debate on the topic.  Even those topics contributory to the theism/non-theism debate (biogenesis, first cause, evolution, morality, justice, etc) have been done to death.

I suspect, but cannot prove, that EVERY SINGLE THEIST who shows up here looking for a formal debate has read something in Craig or Strobel or McDowell that they think is so Earth-shatteringly compelling, no atheist could possibly counter it.  Of course, they never ever take the trouble to research refutations to their apologetics de jour, they just blunder on in with all the tact of a wild boar at a Hassidic wedding, never stopping to think that maybe...just maybe...we've heard it before.

Boru

[Jehanne]

I highly doubt that any knowledgeable scientist thinks that acausal proccesses mean that things just happen for no apparent reason.

Among quantum field theorists, this is the overwhelming consensus, and the sources are numerous, HRW for one.

[Amarok]

Basic logic demands a cause for all phenomena,

No such demand exists 

really, because a so-called "acausal" explanation for existence is still an explanation for something existing, of course, and is therefore actually causal in a wider sense.

This makes no sense 

It may not be causal in a scientific sense ... but if X explains the existence of Y then it's certainly causal in a philosophical sense.

Nope

---

I highly doubt that any knowledgeable scientist thinks that acausal proccesses mean that things just happen for no apparent reason.

Then you aren't aware of many

---

universe just being pure teleporty magic.

As opposed to your magical assertion logic demands a cause

[Peebothuhlu]

Well... I found LetsDebateThings Wrote not unpleasant to chat to.  

 

Not at work.

[Belacqua]

Christians only ever argue for the existence of a first cause and they never explain why that first cause is supposedly intelligent. Unless you include them attacking evolution (as they have no argument for intelligent design now that we know evolution is true, and evolution can explain the world, so they have to attack evolution).  And they never say why it should be the specifically Christian God. Unless you include them insisting that there is historical evidence for the resurrection. But evolution is true, there is no historical evidence of Jesus's resurrection at all, and a first cause is just a first cause. They can call it a prime mover all they want ... it doesn't make it anything other than just a first cause.

Nothing in modern physics demands a cause for all phenomena; the spontaneous transition of an electron to a lower or ground state isn't caused by anything; it just happens.  Ditto for radioactive decay of an unstable atom into its daughter elements.

Radioactive decay or the transition of an electron as something causeless does argue against temporal First Cause arguments like the so-called Kalam argument. 

We should keep in mind, though, that Aristotle and Aquinas specifically rejected such temporal arguments. When they speak of a first cause, it isn't an event which brings about another event. So the examples you give from physics don't touch the traditional First Cause arguments. 

Both of the occurrences you mention do rely on causes in the sense that Aristotle uses the word: conditions of the world which must exist for their dependent conditions to exist. The existence of an unstable atom and its decay depend on the essentially prior existence of space-time and the laws of physics. If space-time and the laws of physics went away, so would such atoms. This is the kind of cause which both Aristotle and Aquinas refer to. 

As an analogy, we could say that temporal causal arguments say that the pool ball went into the pocket because another ball hit it, and that ball hit it because the pool cue hit it, and the pool cue hit it because the pool player aimed it, etc., in a temporal chain of actions. An essential causal chain, on the other hand, would say that the ball went into the pocket (in part) because of the existence of the pocket, and of the pool table, and of the laws of motion, and of space-time, and of all the other things that must be the case if the ball is to do that. Some of these might be temporally prior, but that's not the important thing. Some of them are probably simultaneous, as neither space-time nor the laws of motion are likely to have existed one before the other. 

Granted, most Christians on the Internet argue the easier, temporal version, and don't understand Aquinas. 

And as SenseMaker says, very sensibly, anyone arguing that such a First Cause argument points to a specifically Christian God needs a whole lot of further arguing.

[LastPoet]

And as SenseMaker says, very sensibly, anyone arguing that such a First Cause argument points to a specifically Christian God needs a whole lot of further arguing.

Not just the specific cristian god. Any god. There is a huge Argumentum ad ignorantium there, coupled with soecial pleading. Not only the only option is a god, but such a thing is the exception that doesn't need a cause. Posited ad hoc without any evidence.

[Jehanne]

Nothing in modern physics demands a cause for all phenomena; the spontaneous transition of an electron to a lower or ground state isn't caused by anything; it just happens.  Ditto for radioactive decay of an unstable atom into its daughter elements.

Radioactive decay or the transition of an electron as something causeless does argue against temporal First Cause arguments like the so-called Kalam argument. 

We should keep in mind, though, that Aristotle and Aquinas specifically rejected such temporal arguments. When they speak of a first cause, it isn't an event which brings about another event. So the examples you give from physics don't touch the traditional First Cause arguments. 

Both of the occurrences you mention do rely on causes in the sense that Aristotle uses the word: conditions of the world which must exist for their dependent conditions to exist. The existence of an unstable atom and its decay depend on the essentially prior existence of space-time and the laws of physics. If space-time and the laws of physics went away, so would such atoms. This is the kind of cause which both Aristotle and Aquinas refer to. 

As an analogy, we could say that temporal causal arguments say that the pool ball went into the pocket because another ball hit it, and that ball hit it because the pool cue hit it, and the pool cue hit it because the pool player aimed it, etc., in a temporal chain of actions. An essential causal chain, on the other hand, would say that the ball went into the pocket (in part) because of the existence of the pocket, and of the pool table, and of the laws of motion, and of space-time, and of all the other things that must be the case if the ball is to do that. Some of these might be temporally prior, but that's not the important thing. Some of them are probably simultaneous, as neither space-time nor the laws of motion are likely to have existed one before the other. 

Granted, most Christians on the Internet argue the easier, temporal version, and don't understand Aquinas. 

And as SenseMaker says, very sensibly, anyone arguing that such a First Cause argument points to a specifically Christian God needs a whole lot of further arguing.

In The Physical Review Letters (I think, Section E), one can find models of eternal cosmologies, namely, that of the Cosmos that has no beginning or end.  That should settle the matter; anything beyond that is in the same category as appealing to the motion of stars and planets as being due to angelic beings pushing on them.

[LastPoet]

In The Physical Review Letters (I think, Section E), one can find models of eternal cosmologies, namely, that of the Cosmos that has no beginning or end.  That should settle the matter; anything beyond that is in the same category as appealing to the motion of stars and planets as being due to angelic beings pushing on them.

Those models need to be confirmed via experimentation. Religionists build holy places like churches, only to bring on more believers and tithe them.

Nerds build the LHC, An overpriced microscope (lel), but something to prove or disprove a model. What can be disproved in a church? Nothing. It's cool since I live in Portugal, there is an abundance of monasteries, moorish fortresses, celtic monuments, (obelix surely brought some menirs here with asterix). Dolmens are awesome. Those primitive people managed to put a big ass stone on top of other 3 pillar like stones to serve as burial ground.

There is nothing bad about that. It's people. Trying to pay the dead after they are dead. I instructed my family to give me in advance all the money they wish to spend on my funeral. I never wore pajamas.