Atheist Put up or shut up
in comment sectionatheist says:"When Christians show they can actually offer real arguments, rather than question begging and shifting the burden of proof, I might pay attention to it. When all they have is Christianity is true because Christianity is true I will treat it with the contempt it deserves."
Answer:
Put em up again get to refutting
1. Something exists.
2. Whatever exists does so either because it exists eternally or because it's existence
is dependent upon some prior cause or set of circumstances.
3.If all things that exist are dependent for their existnece there is no actual
explanation of causes
4. Therefore, there exists at least one eternal thing
5. The one eternal thing is the logical explanation for all causally dependent things
6.Any eternally existing cause of all things is worthy of the appellation "God."
7. Therefore God exists.
Answer:
Put em up again get to refutting
1. Something exists.
2. Whatever exists does so either because it exists eternally or because it's existence
is dependent upon some prior cause or set of circumstances.
3.If all things that exist are dependent for their existnece there is no actual
explanation of causes
4. Therefore, there exists at least one eternal thing
5. The one eternal thing is the logical explanation for all causally dependent things
6.Any eternally existing cause of all things is worthy of the appellation "God."
7. Therefore God exists.
Comments
is dependent upon some prior cause or set of circumstances.
This claim is based on the unproven and unspoken assumption that nothing comes into existence spontaneously.
If you want to claim that we have no experience of something that comes into existence spontaneously, the same can also be said be said of something that exists eternally. Unless, of course, you are assuming your conclusion.
4. Therefore, there exists at least one eternal thing
Or at least something that exists spontaneously.
5. The one eternal thing is the logical explanation for all causally dependent things
Why do you reject there being more than one eternal thing?
6.Any eternally existing cause of all things is worthy of the appellation "God."
This is your usual semantic trickery of redefining "God". Most people would understand the word to mean an intelligent, sentient agency that can and has/does communicate with mankind. That assuredly does not follow from your argument.
My personal opinion is that something eternal is more likely than something spontaneous, but I see no reason to suppose that that something is what is generally understood to be God.
Your argument comes down to:
1. There is an ultimate cause (dubious, but not too unreasonable)
2. You have chosen to label that ultimate cause "God" (sematic trickery)
3. Therefore God exists
Pix
is dependent upon some prior cause or set of circumstances.
This claim is based on the unproven and unspoken assumption that nothing comes into existence spontaneously.
No that is proven, The fact that it has never been observed anywhere is proof enough
If you want to claim that we have no experience of something that comes into existence spontaneously, the same can also be said be said of something that exists eternally. Unless, of course, you are assuming your conclusion.
This is a deductive argument, It is proven by deductive reasoning; everything need not be empirical. You are begging the question when you assert that lack of emotional proof of no God. Then you us that as a licence to commit the fallacy you accuse me of.
4. Therefore, there exists at least one eternal thing
Or at least something that exists spontaneously.
Clearly e have a greater reason to assume eternal. spontaneous as two problems: One it never been observed. Second, there's no logical basisfor cause and effect in the scenario. it;s magic.
5. The one eternal thing is the logical explanation for all causally dependent things
Why do you reject there being more than one eternal thing?
Occum's razor, unnecessary
6.Any eternally existing cause of all things is worthy of the appellation "God."
This is your usual semantic trickery of redefining "God". Most people would understand the word to mean an intelligent, sentient agency that can and has/does communicate with mankind. That assuredly does not follow from your argument.
you think theology is popular opinion but it;s not. All organized religion has mystical conspicuousness at its base, meaning God transcends human understanding. Trying to limit God's consciousnesses to our understanding of communication is foolish. Even so no reason why God can't be both the eternal necessity and loving father,
My personal opinion is that something eternal is more likely than something spontaneous, but I see no reason to suppose that that something is what is generally understood to be God.
logically it would have to be since there;s no other way for cause and effect to begin, you have not answered that argument,
Your argument comes down to:
1. There is an ultimate cause (dubious, but not too unreasonable)
logically mandated two major reasons to doubt magic.
2. You have chosen to label that ultimate cause "God" (sematic trickery)
People have been labelling it that way for thousands of years,i did not just make it up.
3. Therefore God exists
sure
Okay.
Mankind has never seen anything that has existed eternally, and - by yoiur logic - that is proof there is no such thing, and hence no God.
See, Joe, this is why Christian arguments are so poor; they are ad hoc. You have decided in advance what conclusion you want to arrive at, so will use any argument to get there, with no regard for whether it also eliminates the conclusion you purport to prove.
Joe: This is a deductive argument, It is proven by deductive reasoning; everything need not be empirical. You are begging the question when you assert that lack of emotional proof of no God. Then you us that as a licence to commit the fallacy you accuse me of.
Not sure what that means.
It is not a deductive argument; you just admitted "it has never been observed anywhere is proof enough" which is clearly inductive.
If an argument is not based on the empirical then there is no reason to suppose it applies to our world rather than a hypothetical one.
And of course I am begging the question when I assert nothing can exist eternally. I am mocking your own argument, with its claim nothing comes into existence spontaneously. Both arguments are equally invalid.
Joe: Clearly e have a greater reason to assume eternal. spontaneous as two problems: One it never been observed. Second, there's no logical basisfor cause and effect in the scenario. it;s magic.
Clearly we have a greater reason to assume spontaneous existence. Eternal existence has two problems: One it never been observed. Second, there's no logical basis for cause and effect in the scenario. It's magic.
See, Joe, the same ad hoc rationalisations can be applied either way. My argument is just as valid as your... I.e., not.
The difference is that you really want eternal existence to be true and spontaneous not, so you contrive every ad hoc excuse you can.
Joe: you think theology is popular opinion but it;s not. All organized religion has mystical conspicuousness at its base, meaning God transcends human understanding. Trying to limit God's consciousnesses to our understanding of communication is foolish. Even so no reason why God can't be both the eternal necessity and loving father,
I think LANGUAGE is popular opinion. Words mean what the majority think they mean.
The "God" you have supposedly proved is not God as other people understand the term. Indeed, your claim here tacitly admits God as a consciousness.
Sure, there is no reason why God cannot be both the eternal necessity and loving father. But the point is that there is no reason to think he is.
Why should anyone imagine this supposed first cause is what everyone - including you - would consider God, i.e., a loving father and a mystical consciousness. That is the big hole in your argument.
Joe: logically it would have to be since there;s no other way for cause and effect to begin, you have not answered that argument,
It is not logic, it is wishful thinking.
Joe: People have been labelling it that way for thousands of years,i did not just make it up.
People have labelled something that is a loving father and a mystical consciousness for thousands of years. You have yet to show that the first cause is either of those. You are assuming it because you want it to be true.
Pix
In my view, that is a stunning position to take. If things are capable of coming into existence spontaneously, there has to be a cause for that. To quote the old song, "Nothing comes from nothing, nothing eve could." Even in quantum physics, there is no belief that particles come into existence from nothing. Rather, as noted by Scientific American:
"Quantum physics explains that there are limits to how precisely one can know the properties of the most basic units of matter—for instance, one can never absolutely know a particle's position and momentum at the same time. One bizarre consequence of this uncertainty is that a vacuum is never completely empty, but instead buzzes with so-called 'virtual particles' that constantly wink into and out of existence."
So, even in quantum physics there is a something that exists that precedes and creates the environment (i.e., causes) particles to "wink into and out of existence."
I guess you could argue that it is possible that things could come into existence (as opposed to eternally existed) without a cause, but I think that you have to make a more compelling case than "it's possible" since things are physical and we have no evidence of things ever coming into existence spontaneously and uncaused.
Do you know what spontaneous means?
BK: So, even in quantum physics there is a something that exists that precedes and creates the environment (i.e., causes) particles to "wink into and out of existence."
Okay. Now prove that that something could not itself appear spontaneous.
BK: I guess you could argue that it is possible that things could come into existence (as opposed to eternally existed) without a cause, but I think that you have to make a more compelling case than "it's possible" since things are physical and we have no evidence of things ever coming into existence spontaneously and uncaused.
Wrong! To counter Joe's argument all I need is "it's possible". His supposed proof fails if "Whatever exists does so either because it exists eternally or because it's existence is dependent upon some prior cause or set of circumstances." is not true. It is not true if "it's possible" something existed spontaneously.
Joe: No that is proven, The fact that it has never been observed anywhere is proof enough
Okay.
Mankind has never seen anything that has existed eternally, and - by yoiur logic - that is proof there is no such thing, and hence no God.
You are ignoring my answers. I said first deductive logic proves it, I denied your assertion that only empirical knowledge is valid knowledge; deductive also rules out spontaneous creation.
See, Joe, this is why Christian arguments are so poor; they are ad hoc. You have decided in advance what conclusion you want to arrive at, so will use any argument to get there, with no regard for whether it also eliminates the conclusion you purport to prove.
You are ignorant! philosophers have been arguing this way since the Greeks but you know so lite about that you assert well it's not science so it's ad hoc, Deductive reasoning is the basis of all reason even specified reasoning, see A,E. Burtt, Metaphysical foundation of early Modern Science.
Joe: This is a deductive argument, It is proven by deductive reasoning; everything need not be empirical. You are begging the question when you assert that lack of empirical is proof of no God. Then you use that as a licence to commit the fallacy you accuse me of.
Not sure what that means.
read it again carefully
It is not a deductive argument; you just admitted "it has never been observed anywhere is proof enough" which is clearly inductive.
Yes that is deductive. (1) I m answering your argument, what you call ad hoc is just the necessity of responding to the appointment's argumemt.
(2) The deductive as aspect to draw conclusions based upon m the lack of any other satisfactory answer. It would be much more illogical to say well there's no solution to why thins exist so I guess that means there's must not be a reason.
(3) You are arguing fallaciously because you assert no empirical evidence for God means no God. but no empirical evidence for popping out of nothing means no popping you just ignore.
If an argument is not based on the empirical then there is no reason to suppose it applies to our world rather than a hypothetical one.
That is fallacious BS.(1) A /= ~A applies to our world.
(2) You just beat your own argent since your stamen means portentous creation does not apply to our world.
(3) Deductive argumemt can include empirical knowledge as a premise.
And of course I am begging the question when I assert nothing can exist eternally. I am mocking your own argument, with its claim nothing comes into existence spontaneously. Both arguments are equally invalid.
we can count that out since you know it's BS but I have disprove your replacement. I give two reasons to abort spontaneous creation you have no answer.
Joe: Clearly we have a greater reason to assume eternal. spontaneous as two problems: One it never been observed. Second, there's no logical basis for cause and effect in the scenario. it;s magic.
Clearly we have a greater reason to assume spontaneous existence. Eternal existence has two problems: One it never been observed. Second, there's no logical basis for cause and effect in the scenario. It's magic.
We know time begs with the big bang so that is proof of empirical beginning, since definitive reasoning tells us nothing can change in timeless void the timeless void for witch spontaneous creation would come proves nothing could come to be,
See, Joe, the same ad hoc rationalisations can be applied either way. My argument is just as valid as your... I.e., not.
your connections are fallacious. you are using ad hoc reasoning badly asserting this proves I do it
The difference is that you really want eternal existence to be true and spontaneous not, so you contrive every ad hoc excuse you can.
You measly want God not to be true.
Atheist are so bleeding stupid to think they can expansion motivations for experience they have not had.
I think LANGUAGE is popular opinion. Words mean what the majority think they mean.
The "God" you have supposedly proved is not God as other people understand the term. Indeed, your claim here tacitly admits God as a consciousness.
yes it is deductive reason tells us this too.The term "God" is a general term it's not a pioper name, Its a job description, Decictie trith:
If there is an X sch that this X is the only such X that can be, any references to that X are in fact references to the same thing regardless the words used to refer to it.
Sure, there is no reason why God cannot be both the eternal necessity and loving father. But the point is that there is no reason to think he is.
obviously there is since any creator that loves us would necessary be a loving creator. Only Mnemosyne who had not experienced the reality of God can say that.
Why should anyone imagine this supposed first cause is what everyone - including you - would consider God, i.e., a loving father and a mystical consciousness. That is the big hole in your argument.
No its the proof of my argument, it the empirically basses rational warrant,the same experience is at the core of all religions, their experiences are the same and their reactions are the same regardless of the words they use,
Joe: logically it would have to be since there;s no other way for cause and effect to begin, you have not answered that argument,
It is not logic, it is wishful thinking.
that does not put the meat on the table you have not answers the argument,
Joe: People have been labelling it that way for thousands of years,i did not just make it up.
People have labelled something that is a loving father and a mystical consciousness for thousands of years. You have yet to show that the first cause is either of those. You are assuming it because you want it to be true.
Pix
I just did mystic experience is about God is about the basis of reality that mystics say that's what they are experiencing they are hes experiences in all religions. read the Book
So typical of the atheists. he just asserts he won that argument even tough he had no answer for my two arguments. His logic is not about logic but about opinions and how close hey cone to his atheist ideology.
By "something existed spontaneously." he means it goes poof and pops into being form nothing for reason here are no laws of physics and no prior structure to make it possible. The fact that we have never seen this happen is testament to the fact that it is impossible,in fact it is magic, he has not answered this argument, don't let him just insist it must be true because he wants it
Second, just because you pronounce something "wrong" does not make it wrong.
Third, since you are apparently taking the argument that if something is possible it is a sufficient argument, then let me just say "it is possible that God exists." There we go. I have just refuted your counter-arguments.
But then, I suppose you will say that's not what you meant....
I am not ignoring your answers. I replied "It is not a deductive argument; you just admitted "it has never been observed anywhere is proof enough" which is clearly inductive." and "If an argument is not based on the empirical then there is no reason to suppose it applies to our world rather than a hypothetical one." You may disagree with me, but it is simply not true that I ignored you.
Joe: You are ignorant! philosophers have been arguing this way since the Greeks but you know so lite about that you assert well it's not science so it's ad hoc, Deductive reasoning is the basis of all reason even specified reasoning, see A,E. Burtt, Metaphysical foundation of early Modern Science.
I never said "it's not science so it's ad hoc". It is ad hoc because you rationalise your claims as convenient in the moment. You decide what you what to be true, then look for any seemingly reasonable argument for it, ignoring the plain fact that that same argument can be used to argue the reverse of what you claim.
More specifically, you rule out spontaneous existence because it has not been observed, but embrace eternal existence despite that also not being observed.
Have philosophers been doing THAT since the Greeks? If they have, I will call them on it.
Joe: read it again carefully
Heaven forbid you should make the effort to clarify.
Joe: Yes that is deductive. (1) I m answering your argument, what you call ad hoc is just the necessity of responding to the appointment's argumemt.
No it is not deductive.
Joe: (2) The deductive as aspect to draw conclusions based upon m the lack of any other satisfactory answer. It would be much more illogical to say well there's no solution to why thins exist so I guess that means there's must not be a reason.
That is a great example of an ad hoc argument. It does not actually support your claim, but it seems reasonable. But look behind the faced, and what do we find? Just proposing an argument that is even more illogical than your own does not magically make your own argument any better.
Joe: (3) You are arguing fallaciously because you assert no empirical evidence for God means no God.
Where did I say that? Again, an ad hoc rationalisation, this time a straw man. You may have good reason to think that that is my belief, but I am assuredly not arguing it here. All I am arguing here is that your OP is flawed. Furthermore, you are the one who brought up empirical evidence in the first place.
Joe: but no empirical evidence for popping out of nothing means no popping you just ignore.
There is just as much evidence for eternal existence as there is for spontaneous - none at all.
The difference is that you really want eternal existence to be true, and your argument is founded on spontaneous being impossible. Thus, you take zero evidence for spontaneous to be "proof" it cannot happen, but then you do exactly what you accuse me of here - you ignore that there is zero evidence for eternal.
I am NOT doing that. I have ONLY rejected eternal in statements satirising your position, and indeed in my first I post I stated "My personal opinion is that something eternal is more likely than something spontaneous", so clearly I do not reject something existing eternally.
The claim that I reject eternal existence is a straw man, and the claim that I ignore "no empirical evidence for popping out of nothing" is your projection.
Pix
You are confusing an argument with the laws of logic. An argument can use the laws of logic, but it is not the same thing.
We could have an argument that employs the laws of logic about the world of the Lord of the Rings. The logic could be perfect, but the conclusion would not tell us anything our world, because the argument is based on premises from another world.
Frankly, it is bizarre that this has to be explained to you.
Joe: (2) You just beat your own argent since your stamen means portentous creation does not apply to our world.
I beat a fallacious argument that I contrived to satirise yours. Both my satirical argument and your argument are flawed - for exactly the same reason. However your faith has blinded you, and you can only see the flaws in one.
Joe: (3) Deductive argumemt can include empirical knowledge as a premise.
More than that: If they are to have any meaning about our world then they necessarily have to.
Joe: we can count that out since you know it's BS but I have disprove your replacement. I give two reasons to abort spontaneous creation you have no answer.
Two reasons that can as readily be applied to your pet theory. But your faith has blinded you, and you are consequently unable to see that.
All of this is a great follow-on from what I said on the other post about apologetics in general. Apologetics is about the facade of a good argument. It just has to look reasonable to a casual glance. No Christian will ever look behind the facade - not even the author of the argument - because their faith blinds them from it flaws.
Joe: We know time begs with the big bang so that is proof of empirical beginning, since definitive reasoning tells us nothing can change in timeless void the timeless void for witch spontaneous creation would come proves nothing could come to be,
We do not know time began then. It is certainly possible, but we do not even know for sure that the universe began then. From Wiki:
Jim Peebles, awarded the 2019 Nobel Prize in Physics for his "theoretical discoveries in physical cosmology",[138] noted in his award presentation that he does not support the Big Bang theory, due to the lack of concrete supporting evidence, and stated, "It's very unfortunate that one thinks of the beginning whereas in fact, we have no good theory of such a thing as the beginning."
Joe: You measly want God not to be true.
May be but that has not clouded my judgement, hence your inability to counter my arguments.
Joe: Atheist are so bleeding stupid to think they can expansion motivations for experience they have not had.
I can only go on what I see.
There is no evidence for spontaneous existence, and you use that to assert that it is impossible.
There is no evidence for eternal existence, and yet you nevertheless assert that to be the case.
Why the inconsistency? I feel pretty confident saying that it is because the former disagrees with your religious position and the latter affirms it.
Pix
If there is an X sch that this X is the only such X that can be, any references to that X are in fact references to the same thing regardless the words used to refer to it.
Great, you plucked another ad hoc rationalisation out of your ass!
The simple fact is that words have actual meaning. You do not get to say a table is something with four legs, therefore my dog is a table. Something in only a table if it possesses all the attributes of what people understand a table to be.
The word "god" is consistently understood to mean a powerful and intelligent agency (and there is more to it than that). Furthermore, creator of the universe is not a defining feature of a god; most of the pagan gods were not creators - but they were intelligent.
If you have discovered something that spawned the universe but is not intelligent then it fails to meet the definition of a god.
Joe: obviously there is since any creator that loves us would necessary be a loving creator. Only Mnemosyne who had not experienced the reality of God can say that.
Okay. But look back at your argument - there is no mention of love there.
If you can prove the existence of a loving creator then fair enough. Such a being would be powerful, having created the universe, and intelligent, given it can feel and act on love. But you have not done that.
Joe: No its the proof of my argument, it the empirically basses rational warrant,the same experience is at the core of all religions, their experiences are the same and their reactions are the same regardless of the words they use,
But "the same experience is at the core of all religions" are not part of your argument!
In fact, you are tacitly admitting here that your argument is flawed. The proof of a good argument is the argument itself. The proof of a flawed argument has to come from elsewhere, as you concede here.
Pix
BK: Third, since you are apparently taking the argument that if something is possible it is a sufficient argument, then let me just say "it is possible that God exists." There we go. I have just refuted your counter-arguments.
Please explain how "it is possible that God exists" refutes my counter-arguments. All of them? Are you suggesting this is a magic wand you can wave over atheist arguments and just make them disappear?
I ask because the possibility of spontaneous existence refutes Joe's argument in a very specific way. His argument is founded on this premise:
2. Whatever exists does so either because it exists eternally or because it's existence is dependent upon some prior cause or set of circumstances.
He is basing his arguing on the claim that anything that exists has only two possibilities; that is to say, that there is NO possibility of something existing spontaneously. The claim is wrong if it is possible for something to exist spontaneously.
It does not have to be true, it only has to be possible, because Joe's claim is based on it not being possible.
Now, can you point to anything I have said that becomes wrong if we admit that it is possible God exists? No I have not (other than where I satirised Joe's position, which I hope is clear from the context!). And there is a reason for that; I fully concede that it is possible. I can no more rule out God existing than Joe can rule out something existing spontaneously.
Pix
I have ruled out spontaneous creation I have given two reasons you have answered neither,
(1) Argument from temporal beginning.
there can be no change in a timeless void. something has to make change happen.
(2) no empirical example
(3) It's magic but atheists reject magic when supports God bt how you accept i when its your on;y chance of evading God.
(4) everything we observe in reality has a cause
you have not answered one
You are confusing an argument with the laws of logic. An argument can use the laws of logic, but it is not the same thing.
You don't know shit about logic. arguments are based upon the laws of logic, period. arguments must conform to logic.
We could have an argument that employs the laws of logic about the world of the Lord of the Rings. The logic could be perfect, but the conclusion would not tell us anything our world, because the argument is based on premises from another world.
True but that is not analogous to this argument. First you are mis-characterizing my argument. I did not say logic determines realty. Nor did I say logic tells us about the world, arguments must conform to logic,an argument with fallacious logic is a lost argument.
Frankly, it is bizarre that this has to be explained to you.
It's bizarre that you don't get the relationship between logic and argument,
Joe: (2) You just beat your own argent since your stamen means portentous creation does not apply to our world.
I beat a fallacious argument that I contrived to satirise yours. Both my satirical argument and your argument are flawed - for exactly the same reason. However your faith has blinded you, and you can only see the flaws in one.
You have not demonstrated a reason too believe in magic. atheists reject miracles when hey imply God but magic is ok.
Joe: (3) Deductive argumemt can include empirical knowledge as a premise.
More than that: If they are to have any meaning about our world then they necessarily have to.
fine because nothing in our world ever comes into being without a cause, noting in our observation ever pops out of nothing,that's magic, we don;t ;ole magic,
Joe: we can count that out since you know it's BS but I have disprove your replacement. I give two reasons to abort spontaneous creation you have no answer.
Two reasons that can as readily be applied to your pet theory. But your faith has blinded you, and you are consequently unable to see that.
God never comes into being out of nothing so he doesn't need a cause. God is eternal necessary being, All temporal aspects are contingent,
You have not answered any of my arguments. Your understanding of loigc is superficial.
Joe: We know time begins with the big bang so that is proof of empirical beginning, since definitive reasoning tells us nothing can change in timeless void the timeless void for witch spontaneous creation would come proves nothing could come to be,
Pix: We do not know time began then. It is certainly possible, but we do not even know for sure that the universe began then. From Wiki:
we sure as hell do know that, see the book Time The familiar stranger, I leader this in a secular gradate program in his of science,
Jim Peebles, awarded the 2019 Nobel Prize in Physics for his "theoretical discoveries in physical cosmology",[138] noted in his award presentation that he does not support the Big Bang theory, due to the lack of concrete supporting evidence, and stated, "It's very unfortunate that one thinks of the beginning whereas in fact, we have no good theory of such a thing as the beginning."
that's interesting. More interesting that you can't see how this is ore damaging to your arguments than to mine. It puts you even further behind on corroboration evince, Notice his reason is the need for empirical evidence of which h you have none.
Joe: You measly want God not to be true.
Pix:May be but that has not clouded my judgement, hence your inability to counter my arguments.
You have no understanding of logic your so called judgement is based upon belief in magic and wishful thinking,
Joe: Atheist are so bleeding stupid to think they can expansion motivations for experience they have not had.
I can only go on what I see.
where do you see universes popping into existence?
There is no evidence for spontaneous existence, and you use that to assert that it is impossible.
I have no reason to accept an idea for which there is no evidence,
There is no evidence for eternal existence, and yet you nevertheless assert that to be the case.
clearly there is since the universe must have a source that is necessary and not continent,
Why the inconsistency? I feel pretty confident saying that it is because the former disagrees with your religious position and the latter affirms it.
I think you simply do not understand the concepts and you are not willing to listen
(1) Argument from temporal beginning.
there can be no change in a timeless void. something has to make change happen.
(2) no empirical example
(3) It's magic but atheists reject magic when supports God bt how you accept i when its your on;y chance of evading God.
(4) everything we observe in reality has a cause
you have not answered one
As I keep saying to you, all of these apply just as easily to your pet eternal existence theory.
(1) Argument from temporal beginning.
there can be no change in a timeless eternal entity. something has to make change happen.
(2) no empirical example
(3) It's magic, but theists reject magic when it refutes God - but you accept it when its your only chance of proving God.
(4) everything we observe in reality has a cause
Two of those I did not even have to re-word! What you typed applies exactly to your pet theory, but your heads is so far up your backside you cannot see it.
Joe: You don't know shit about logic. arguments are based upon the laws of logic, period. arguments must conform to logic.
That in no way addresses what I said. But you knew that.
Joe: True but that is not analogous to this argument. First you are mis-characterizing my argument. I did not say logic determines realty. Nor did I say logic tells us about the world, arguments must conform to logic,an argument with fallacious logic is a lost argument.
I never said it was analogous to your argument. This is about the importance of empirical evidence - and your response clearly is not. Again, you have failed to address what I actually said.
Joe: You have not demonstrated a reason too believe in magic. atheists reject miracles when hey imply God but magic is ok.
You have not demonstrated a reason too believe in magic. Theists reject miracles when they imply no God, but magic is ok.
See, every argument for eternal existence can be flipped to apply instead to spontaneous existence (and vice versa).
Joe: fine because nothing in our world ever comes into being without a cause, noting in our observation ever pops out of nothing,that's magic, we don;t ;ole magic,
And again:
Fine because nothing in our world exists eternally, nothing in our observation exists eternally, that's magic, we don't accept magic.
Joe: God never comes into being out of nothing so he doesn't need a cause. God is eternal necessary being, All temporal aspects are contingent,
So? How does this support your argument?
Joe: we sure as hell do know that, see the book Time The familiar stranger, I leader this in a secular gradate program in his of science,
No we do not. Science has moved on since you took that secular gradate program.
https://earthsky.org/space/what-happened-before-the-big-bang
https://www.livescience.com/65254-what-happened-before-big-big.html
https://www.sciencealert.com/astronomers-devise-a-way-to-test-predictions-of-a-pre-big-bang-universe
https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/
Joe: that's interesting. More interesting that you can't see how this is ore damaging to your arguments than to mine. It puts you even further behind on corroboration evince, Notice his reason is the need for empirical evidence of which h you have none.
Correct, I have no evidence. Nor do you.
But I am not insisting spontaneous existence must be true.
(1) Argument from temporal beginning.
there can be no change in a timeless void. something has to make change happen.
(2) no empirical example
(3) It's magic but atheists reject magic when supports God bt how you accept i when its your on;y chance of evading God.
(4) everything we observe in reality has a cause
you have not answered one
As I keep saying to you, all of these apply just as easily to your pet eternal existence theory.
I have demonstrated that you have not. None of them apply to something existing eternally,
(1) Argument from temporal beginning.
there can be no change in a timeless eternal entity. something has to make change happen.
(2) no empirical example
(3) It's magic, but theists reject magic when it refutes God - but you accept it when its your only chance of proving God.
(4) everything we observe in reality has a cause
Two of those I did not even have to re-word! What you typed applies exactly to your pet theory, but your heads is so far up your backside you cannot see it.
asserting it is not proof,you cannot demonstrate it. Just take no 1. No change in timeless void. That means that a timeless void with nothing in it has to remain nothing. But a timeless void filled by timeless mind must remain timeless mind..
that disproves everything you said.
That in no way addresses what I said. But you knew that.
it contradictions exactly what you said.
Joe: True but that is not analogous to this argument. First you are mis-characterizing my argument. I did not say logic determines realty. Nor did I say logic tells us about the world, arguments must conform to logic,an argument with fallacious logic is a lost argument.
Pix: I never said it was analogous to your argument. This is about the importance of empirical evidence - and your response clearly is not. Again, you have failed to address what I actually said.
I cut your argument to pieces,you not eve cognizant of your on words
Joe: You have not demonstrated a reason too believe in magic. atheists reject miracles when hey imply God but magic is ok.
pxYou have not demonstrated a reason too believe in magic. Theists reject miracles when they imply no God, but magic is ok.
Pix:See, every argument for eternal existence can be flipped to apply instead to spontaneous existence (and vice versa).
You really haven idea what Logic is about. Theists never claim that miracles imply no God. This just proves you don't understand the issues
Joe: fine because nothing in our world ever comes into being without a cause, noting in our observation ever pops out of nothing,that's magic, we don;t ;ole magic,
And again:
Fine because nothing in our world exists eternally, nothing in our observation exists eternally, that's magic, we don't accept magic.
WE don't have to observe something existing eternally no know it's necessary,that is proven deductively. you don't know what that means do you?you can't prove spontaneous creation deductively because its a contradiction to what we know. The disproof of your stupid ploy about mimicing my words is you can;t Nepali why and i can
So? How does this support your argument?
eternal existence can be deduced without empirical proof but spontaneous Creation can't be, it requires empirical deceiving. Because it's not necessary.
Joe: we sure as hell do know that, see the book Time The familiar stranger, I leader this in a secular gradate program in his of science,
No we do not. Science has moved on since you took that secular gradate program.
I'e been folkowingthis arguent akhetimneI;;veapoogeics becauseiobviouslyi;s amajorissue sinceihae CA and yoiur fulloifshit, here aresomepeoplewho argue but Big Bangis still he leadingheory
https://earthsky.org/space/what-happened-before-the-big-bang
https://www.livescience.com/65254-what-happened-before-big-big.html
https://www.sciencealert.com/astronomers-devise-a-way-to-test-predictions-of-a-pre-big-bang-universe
https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/
show me one quotation fro, any of that mess that says we can prove universe popped out of absolute nothing,
Joe: that's interesting. More interesting that you can't see how this is ore damaging to your arguments than to mine. It puts you even further behind on corroboration evince, Notice his reason is the need for empirical evidence of which h you have none.
Correct, I have no evidence. Nor do you.
wrong. I have 40 year old body of work in science wit over 100 studies backing my postilion,read my book.
the trace of God
But I am not insisting spontaneous existence must be true.
I have proven it's a contradiction to rational thought,
Pix: ... (2) no empirical example ...
Joe: I have demonstrated that you have not. None of them apply to something existing eternally,
You are so full of it! Give me one "empirical example" of "something existing eternally".
If you say God, then your argument is based on the assumption God exists - exactly as I said in the previous discussion. You either have to admit your argument is circular or concede that your claim here was false, that at least one of them does in fact apply to something existing eternally.
I am not even going to bother with the rest of your posts. This is sufficient to prove you are talking nonsense.
Pix
the answer is not that God is an example of something we see that is eternal. The answer is we don't need empirical evidence to prove eternal existence because its proven with deductive reasoning.
you are the one advancing the standard of empirical proof not me. I have deductive proof of eternal necessary being and deductive disproof of spontaneity.
You clearly stated "None of them apply to something existing eternally," to a set of claims that includes "no empirical example". Either you were spouting BS or you produce an empirical example of something existing eternally.
Well, it seems you cannot produce an empirical example of something existing eternally.
Therefore you were spouting BS.
It is as simple as that. Some of your argument might be good, but when you are reduced to spouting BS to support it, it is clear that it is fundamentally flawed - and on some level you know it. Next time, try to not spout BS and you might end the debate with some credibility.
Joe: the answer is not that God is an example of something we see that is eternal. The answer is we don't need empirical evidence to prove eternal existence because its proven with deductive reasoning.
YOU are the one who brought up empirical evidence. YOU reject spontaneous existence because there is no empirical evidence of it. And yet you embrace eternal existence, even though you admit there is no empirical evidence for that either.
You hold you own claims to one standard, and opposing claims to another. Hence, I say again that your argument is ad hoc. You have decided what conclusion you want to reach, and apply one set of rules to claims that support your opinion, and a quite different set to those that refute it.
And your religion has blinded you so you cannot see that you are doing it.
Pix
You clearly stated "None of them apply to something existing eternally," to a set of claims that includes "no empirical example". Either you were spouting BS or you produce an empirical example of something existing eternally.
Please try thinking. Since argumet was that things can't pop into existence out of nothing something must have always existed, we dmt need an eproical example..
Well, it seems you cannot produce an empirical example of something existing eternally.
I don't need on because the argument is proven deductively, You don't know what deductive means do you?
Therefore you were spouting BS.
explain! how does that work?
It is as simple as that. Some of your argument might be good, but when you are reduced to spouting BS to support it, it is clear that it is fundamentally flawed - and on some level you know it. Next time, try to not spout BS and you might end the debate with some credibility.
I said I don't need empirical proof because it's proven with deductive reasoning, now where is the BS? You haven't given me a reason to think my deduction is wrong, Your so called enlargements are full of shit because you don't even know why you think empirical is better than deductive,
Joe: the answer is not that God is an example of something we see that is eternal. The answer is we don't need empirical evidence to prove eternal existence because its proven with deductive reasoning.
YOU are the one who brought up empirical evidence. YOU reject spontaneous existence because there is no empirical evidence of it. And yet you embrace eternal existence, even though you admit there is no empirical evidence for that either.
empirical evidence does apply there, we have empirical observations of the world, We don't have empirical observation of God.
Atheist can never follow the logic of an argument. I gave four reasons to think spontaneous Creation is impossible, you have not answered one of then,
You hold you own claims to one standard, and opposing claims to another. Hence, I say again that your argument is ad hoc. You have decided what conclusion you want to reach, and apply one set of rules to claims that support your opinion, and a quite different set to those that refute it.
that is total bull shit, you can't answer the specific logic of any of my arguments calling them "ad hoc" means nothing,
And your religion has blinded you so you cannot see that you are doing it.
You have proven again atheists can;t reason
(1) Argument from temporal beginning.
there can be no change in a timeless void. something has to make change happen.
(2) no empirical example
(3) It's magic but atheists reject magic when supports God bt how you accept i when its your on;y chance of evading God.
(4) everything we observe in reality has a cause
you have not answered one
But your argument for "things can't pop into existence out of nothing" is that there is no empirical example of that. You are then using the lack of an empirical example to rationalise why you do not need an empirical example for your prefered theory!
Your argument is:
There are no empirical examples of things can't pop into existence out of nothing
Therefore there must be something that exists eternally
But if ones prefered theory was things do pop into existence out of nothing, one could use the same logic:
There are no empirical examples of things that exist eternally
Therefore there must be something that pops into existence
The two arguments are equivalent. They are equally valid (or equally not), equally based on what we know of the universe. The only difference is that YOU want the first to be true and the second to be false. This is just special pleading, and, as I keep saying, your religious faith is blinding you to that.
Joe: Atheist can never follow the logic of an argument. I gave four reasons to think spontaneous Creation is impossible, you have not answered one of then,
I accept I have not answered them. However, I have pointed out they they also apply to eternal existence, and you have not answered that.
For example, both eternal existence and spontaneous existence have the fact that there are no empirical examples.
You are adamant that that disproves spontaneous existence, but you turn a blind eye to that for eternal existence. Thus, your argument is ad hoc.
Joe: that is total bull shit, you can't answer the specific logic of any of my arguments calling them "ad hoc" means nothing,
I am not merely calling them "ad hoc", I am explaining why.
Pix
The reality is that universe origins are well beyond our every day experiences. We only have one universe to look at, and we do not know its origin, so claims about empirical examples are highly dubious in the first place. We only have to look at quantum mechanics to know that our common experiences are only reliable in a specific situation - knowledge of how objects behave at the macroscope scale is not a good guide to how they behave at the quantum scale. It is therefore likely that they are also not a good guide to how the universe started - especially given we know even QM breaks down at that time.
We have no empirical examples of spontaneous existence or eternal existence, but that does not rule out either - or something even more weird.
The other big issue, which we have let slip but I will mention again, is that an eternal something that spawned the universe is not necessarily God, as God has a bunch of other attributes that are not implicit in being eternal, such as intelligence.
Pix
Joe: Please try thinking. Since argumet was that things can't pop into existence out of nothing something must have always existed, we dmt need an eproical example..
Pix:But your argument for "things can't pop into existence out of nothing" is that there is no empirical example of that. You are then using the lack of an empirical example to rationalise why you do not need an empirical example for your prefered theory!
Your argument is:
There are no empirical examples of things can't pop into existence out of nothing
Therefore there must be something that exists eternally
Pix I have made four arguments: I repeated them for you in the last go around, you still have not answered them them,
(1) Argument from temporal beginning.
there can be no change in a timeless void. something has to make change happen.
(2) no empirical example
(3) It's magic but atheists reject magic when supports God bt how you accept i when its your on;y chance of evading God.
(4) everything we observe in reality has a cause
But if ones prefered theory was things do pop into existence out of nothing, one could use the same logic:
There are no empirical examples of things that exist eternally
Therefore there must be something that pops into existence
you have a real misconception about the way logic works. just saying I can use the same logic for your thing does not invalidate my thing;I did not use the same logic for my argument,I've said it every time it;s deductive. Its irrelevant that you think you can,
The two arguments are equivalent.
I just showed they are not Just did right there,
They are equally valid (or equally not), equally based on what we know of the universe.
Ignorant, stop ignoring what I said,. I; beaten you you lost, try reading the word instead of regurgitating bull shit,
this thread is closed. in one hour i will have a new argument I expect you to deal with it, try actually thinking about my ideas this time