God doesn't seem to exist!

Post Reply New Topic

About all that can be gleaned from the above is that the Abrahamic anti-god has not gained even a smidgin of virtues like honesty and integrity in thousands of years.

"your own personal judgment" is formed, presented to you; not created by you. You cannot choose something you do not know exists. Your choices are entirely limited to accepting some good presented to you or rejecting it (them).

The only alternative is the absurd proposition that you are creating yourself.

In the case of your hypothetical "First Cause" model, it's the only important attribute - especially as it is the only attribute present within the model.



Creation is an action, as is causation. One cannot create or cause without acting, and actions can only be part of a physical system, requiring both energy and time. Either your "First Cause" is capable of change, or it is incapable of acting and cannot be a cause of anything.



Logic is a tool used in the pursuit of science, but not a science in and of itself. Like many tools, it is oft misused by amateurs. If one wishes to invoke science, one must take care to ensure one's hypothesis is compatible with established scientific theory - your flawed model is not.

Much of science relies on thing we didn't know existed until someone figured it out. The same can be said about anyone's imagination. We create mythologies all the time. Simply look at religion...

All necessary attributes are important because they are what makes a thing what it is. Even one at a time seems to be more than you can comprehend.

Our First Cause is "pure act" and not a series of results of proximate or distal secondary causes. We are talking about the ultimate cause of physical systems which cannot cause themselves.

My contention is that "established scientific theory" is not science at all since it is not based on observation and logic. It is a fantastic invention of runaway egos.

Amateurs mistake flawed reason based on illogical premises for logic. Backwards, or circular reasoning is not logic or logical. Logic is about non-contradiction. Any line of reasoning based on a self-contradictory premise is absurd... i.e. it is not logical no matter how popular the superstition is or becomes.

Established scientific theory is not science at all. Are you simply stupid or just ignorant? You have no idea and no way to even understand all of science. For you to make such a claim is the height of arrogance...

@pcuser: So I guess you would rather stay in your comfort zone, eh? And that appears to be swatting down arguments against the basis of scientific theory with (surprise, surprise) yet more ad homs and unsupported assertions, rather than addressing any compelling challenges. Well, outside of your apparent comfort zone I have another challenge for you, on top of the one you haven't addressed (that there are no epistemological grounds for your ethics, which you deflect with ad homs rather than answer):

Why does the scientific method represent the best knowledge gathering process? What are it's underpinning assumptions? What is empiricism and how does it justify it's claims? If you can't answer these then you are in no position to criticize anyone who doesn't accept Empiricism. And this is coming from an Empiricist who is confident he can play devil's advocate and make mincemeat of your vaunted claim to the only rational, modern option. We're a few quotes from Descarte's Meditation On First Principles away, from a Rationalist quandary that you don't appear to be in any position to answer.

For clarity's sake, here is the definition of an ad hominem argument:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

Or you've used argumentum ad ridiculum instead of ad hominem. Both are red herrings regardless, one being along the lines of "you must be stupid", and the other along the lines of "look how ridiculous this position is, I don't even need to bat it down", both of which are obvious fallacies.

You know, you try to simply overwhelm people with deep sounding verbiage and make claims that would take a book to answer. Then when people don't rise to your bait, you claim they are out of their comfort zone. Consider evolution. The first comprehensive understanding of it took a textbook to explain. Then people like you make claims without the underlying foundations in place. You then want what you call proof. Take a damn course before you start spouting off about things for which you have little knowledge...

I disagree. Yes, we do learn from our surroundings. I don't see how one book can be that relevant to what we learn. Also, some things that we are taught, we decide that we don't agree with it. We aren't programmed robots. I also think that most of our morals come from what we personally want.. I don't want to be killed, so I don't kill. I don't want to be stolen from, so I don't steal. These aren't religious principals. They're human principals. I don't think that you have to be taught to treat others as you'd want to be treated, to know that's what you should do. Of course, some people still want to hurt others, but raising someone to be religious, doesn't seem to prevent them from doing bad things.

And yet you've only provided one attribute - which is a logical impossibility within the model you put forward.

As for your petty slur: we're both fully aware that the only reason you haven't provided any further parameters for your "First Cause" is because any claim to knowledge beyond what is physically observable can be readily dismissed for the fantasy it is.



And what's your specific evidence for the specific existence of anything outside a physical system?



In that case, let's see your peer-reviewed disputation of existing scientific theory.



Correct. Just like your still under-defined "First Cause" which is capable of acting without changing.

Try to remember, your 'logical' assertions of the properties of this "First Cause" were based on 'observations' within a physical realm. By limiting your evidence to the physically observable, you set the boundaries for your "First Cause". Or do you claim to know the properties of anything that exists beyond space-time?

Face it. You lack the courage of your convictions to even give a name to your "First Cause", let alone provide the evidence for your claimed knowledge of the properties of hypothetical realms of existence and the beings therein.

Neither can I, and that is because it is absolutely wrong, and the vast majority of decent people understand this fact. The moral relativists, on the other hand, may say, "Well, it depends on circumstances, culture, how you define 'rape', et cetera".

The source has to be something that transcends petty humanity, that which gives order, meaning and is the source of the reality we all share. As someone once said, "The man who says that it is okay to rape children is just as objectively wrong as the man who says that two plus two equals five (or any number other than the correct one)". I don't have a "subjective moral position", thank you very much! You must have been referring to yourself and others like you.



Well, are you a moral relativist? We "should feel free to decide for yourself what is right and wrong" - oh, come on! Seriously? What about the criminal, or the psychopath? The mass murderer is, as you put it, feeling free to decide for himself what is right, and he seems to believe that killing people is all fine and swell. You see what I mean here about refusing to recognise absolute moral standards? You've fallen into your own trap.



Western civilisation - began in Greece circa fifth century B.C., continued through the Romans, Medieval Europe, the Renaissance, Reformation, the modern world. Geographical extent Europe, North America, South America, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa. It's a very loose term I will agree, but it suited my purposes to use it.



We should stand up for what is right, and your accusation of emotionalism is rather strange coming as it does from someone who believes that we should do what feels right for us personally.



By the standard that is absolute. The fact that they may not, or don't, recognise absolute moral standards is due to their own defective upbringing or psychology, and when people like this make it into positions of power and influence we wind up with gulags, concentration camps, and abortion on demand.



I'm not pretending anything here. The point I made about not having the time to sift through the mountains of information, trying to find the rare diamonds amongst the manure, means I have other things to do that are more important. I have seen enough evidence to justify the claims I make above. Isn't that enough?



Ad hominem alert! I'm not blind, but I see nothing inherently wrong in being a traditionalist. Do you? If you do, how do you justify your bigotry?



Nope, that's not me. Even though I have my very own copy of the Bible (King James Version, of course, the others being too politically correct and not patriarchal and traditional enough), I don't actually believe in any of it. It's mythology, just like Jason and the Argonauts.

Isn't it strange how atheists will accuse others of being emotional, but will - when it suits their purposes - indulge in it themselves?

Never mind, moving on. The (highly emotional) outburst wasn't addressed to me, but maybe I can be of assistance. Ahem!

a) Our physical reality, which we call ‘the universe’, is contingent (i.e. it could have had other properties and constants, or not existed at all). The ‘multiverse hypothesis’ not only has no evidence in its favour whatsoever, but actually does not address the issue of ultimate causes, for one has to then ask why there is a multiverse rather than nothing, and if one then postulates in order to account for this level of reality yet another level of (physical) reality, then one will never actually reach the ultimate source for all there is (see ‘infinite regression’, below).

b) Contingent entities are generally recognised to have causes, whether the cause is efficient or material, contingent or necessary, temporal or atemporal (W. L. Craig). A ‘cause’ can either precede the ‘effect’, or be temporally co-existent (atemporal causality).

The common objection that causality itself is an aspect of the physical reality we know, and that because of this there was no time ‘before’ the universe began, and therefore the universe did not ‘begin’ in that sense, does not take into account the fact that an effect need not follow in a temporal sequence the cause that brought it into existence; the two - the cause and the effect - can be simultaneous. For example, the very table that I am now currently sitting next to sustains the objects that rest upon it in a relationship that places those objects a certain distance above the ground. If the table in question were to somehow magically pop out of existence, all that rests upon it would instantaneously fall to the ground due to the force of gravity. We can say, therefore, that the table is the contingent, atemporal cause of the current configuration of the objects that rest upon it, the simultaneity of both the cause and the effect demonstrating that time, in this specific example and as we understand it, is not required for such a situation to be. In the very same way it is said by theologians that God ‘sustains in existence’ the physical reality that, in its absence, would simply not exist. All that is physical is also contingent; physical entities, processes and phenomena are of limited duration and extent, are explicable, and required (or requires) the existence of something else external to it that one can consider to be its cause.

c) Entities, whether physical or non-physical (ex. consciousness), are never responsible for their own existence, for this would require they have some form of existence prior to their actually coming into existence, which is impossible. Any entity, process or phenomenon that had somehow created itself, would also have violated the principles of both temporal and atemporal causality.

d) That which exists, however one defines ‘existence’, requires an explanation for its existence, whether the explanation in question is contained within that which is being explained (i.e. it exists necessarily), or whether there is an exterior one that provides a context within which the entity in question can be accounted for (i.e. it exists contingently). An example of an aspect of reality that is necessary and therefore self-explanatory, is the mathematical entity known as the triangle. A triangle, by definition, is a polygon that only ever has three sides and interior angles that sum to 180 degrees in Euclidean space. The explanation for what a triangle is and why it is so, is found not in anything external to it, but within the entity itself. It matters not whether the triangle is isosceles, equilateral, right or scalene, the above requirements still apply, the definition still holds. So it is with other mathematical concepts, and with God too. They exist necessarily, because they simply could not fail to exist in the manner they do.

e) Any ultimate explanation for why there is something rather than nothing must be necessary, if only because the postulation of yet another contingent explanation for what there is and why, would inevitably lead to the absurdity of an infinite regression of causes (J. P. Moreland). Can an infinity of moments actually be crossed? The answer according to theologians such as J. P. Moreland and others, is that no, they cannot.

The past, as something that is said to exist in a real and meaningful way, has at least one boundary that we are all aware of (i.e. the present), and however one decides to define exactly what is meant by a ‘moment in time’, it is generally agreed that such moments, however brief in duration they may be, cannot be infinite in number for the simple reason that the past would have no lower bound; that is, it would have taken an unlimited amount of time to reach what we call the present, and the problem arises when one considers the fact that one of the defining characteristics of the infinite, as a concept, is that no number, however large, that is added to or subtracted from it, can alter its basic, boundless nature. The past, being infinite in extent, would have ensured that we could never have reached the moment in time where we are now.

Cont. from above -

f) Reality (i.e. the physical universe) exists, is contingent, and cannot in any way, shape or form, violate either causality or the laws of logic, and requires an explanation for both its existence and why it exists in the manner it does. This cause must be necessary, not contingent.

Conclusion: There must necessarily exist a foundational base that is necessary (not contingent), provide an explanation for why there is something rather than nothing, and be the atemporal cause for all we understand to be reality, due to the fact that this reality cannot violate the rules of logic and create itself.

Q.E.D.

So the source of your objective morals is your subjective belief. How delightfully circular.



You're confusing moral standards with ethical standards. Just because you and I (and the majority of people in our society) believe that raping a child is morally unsound, it does not logically follow that our moral position is objectively the right one. As for the killing of people, there's nothing close to a consensus on whether killing is justifiable in (e.g.) the United States, which still has a death penalty in multiple states and is responsible of hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq.



The phrase underlined was "Western civilisation is collapsing". I shall accept your evasion of the question as an admission that this was mere hyperbole.



I accused you of making an emotional plea, not of exhibiting emotion. I shall rephrase the question. Who is the "we" in your statement "How did we ever become so weak, so reluctant to stand up for what is right?"



The same moral absolute for which you could not provide a source for beyond your own subjective belief?



Really? This was the original statement you made.



So which is it? Is there only a single book, or are there mountains of information on the subject?



Is it enough to discount any evidence in opposition to your subjective beliefs? Not for me personally. Clearly your standards differ from my own.



Did you miss the conditional qualifier? I've both bolded and underlined it to make it more obvious for you. In case there's still some confusion, my implication is that a "subscriber to the 'zeitgeist' [would] label you a hate-filled dinosaur" and that I am not such a subscriber.



Then which "God" were you alluding to here:





I find it fascinating that you've chosen to refer to a carefully phrased, written sentence as an "emotional outburst". As the only existing authority on my emotional state at the time of writing, let me assure you that the sole emotion I experienced during the act of typing those words into the reply box was mild disdain.

As I was asking Oldavid to provide the parameters that define his "First Cause" and not your own, your assistance is neither pertinent nor required.

Oh come on 'adifferentname', is that the best you can do? Attribute motives to me that clearly don't exist? The source of my objective morals isn't a subjective belief, but an objective fact, and I explained why this was a fact within the post that followed which you (obviously) just ignored.

Face it - God exists. Stop living in denial, and accept what is real. I understand that atheists, and secularists in general, don't really like the idea of God for personal, emotional reasons, but there is no getting away from something that is as obvious as the ground beneath your feet. I mean, it's bad enough that we now have people trying to, in all seriousness, tell us that something can come from literally nothing (S. Hawking, L. Krauss), and next they will be telling us that they don't believe we even have minds, but those people are clearly biased and have an agenda of their own. People should stop spouting Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and their ilk, and actually learn to think for themselves for a change.

Look, it's rather obvious that you just don't care about an open and impartial examination of the reasons why people believe what they do. You can believe whatever you like, you can believe we are all Martians for all I care, but just don't accuse those of us who don't agree with you of being evasive, because most of us do our best to respond to the, often inane, objections directed to us by the so-called 'brights' in our midst.