Really? I mean, someone could believe that an agent created the universe for no reason, but I don't think that is a common stance at all. Sure, maybe a good chunk of deists believe that, but deism is much different from theism.

Everyone believes in purpose, for example, an airplane was built with the purpose to fly. It is pretty silly to refute that. Humans do a lot of things for their their own reasons, that is also considered purpose. But humans were not created for a purpose. Animals were not created for a purpose. At least that is what seems most logical to me, given the evidence. I.e., 99.9% of species that ever lived on Earth are now extinct, the ridiculous amount of suffering around the world in both human and animal life.

The difference comes when people think the universe was created for a purpose, which seems quite evidently not true.



I see what you mean here, but it is interesting that you get into Biblical morality. I think that is many peoples main gripe with religion. People who are religious are often in power, and do what they think the bible is telling them to do. That is where the problem comes in, and why it often gets taken off the back burner. What someone believes is moral is extremely important, and I think it should be thought out and discussed, not reliant on old writings.




That explains the view, but there is no evidence whatsoever for this. We cannot tell what exists outside the space time continuum, so really this is all speculation. And on top of that, it raises more questions than it answers. How can a thinking agent exist outside of space or time? How can it do anything? Is it omnipotent? Then why so much suffering? "God works in mysterious ways"? Well I wouldn't want to worship a god so cruel. Not omnipotent? Then it is impotent and/or stupid and/or cruel, for creating the universe the way it is.

I am an optimist, but also a realist. I believe in subjective truth. I definitely have it much better than most humans let alone animals, and I am extremely thankful for that. What someone believes is not more important than what is true.



As I mentioned above, I think the question you mentioned is just one of the many that arise from this assumption that there was an thinking agent that created the universe.

I don't think it is more rational than the "causeless ex nihilo". This quote from Lawrence Krauss pretty much sums it up-

Lawrence Krauss-"If you add up the total energy of the universe looks like it is 0. And in fact if you asked yourself what would be the characteristics of a universe created from nothing, just by the known laws of physics, it would be precisely the characteristics of the universe we live in. That doesn't prove it, but it makes it very plausible."

From this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R16cXQBndQ




I am going to make your 3 options simpler, but I don't think I am changing what you meant:

A) time-space manifested without cause or agency
B) time-space has always existed without a first cause,
C) time-space manifested with cause by an agent

The principle of sufficient reason is not even close to a good enough reason to deny the first. That's silly, earlier you said you put purpose on the back burner, but here your reason for denying the first claim is because there is no purpose behind the universe.

If the principle of sufficient reason is not universal by any means. It certainly cannot be proven. What is the purpose of the Loa Loa AKA African Eye Worm. It's pretty self-explanatory so I will spare you the details lol. What is the purpose of mosquitoes? What is the purpose of Jupiter? Every asteroid? Every grain of sand?

The principle of sufficient reason is a philosophical guess, which seems like it is pretty based in religion in the first place.

The word "Nothing" is much more complicated than most think. When the top physicists in the world take space and try to remove everything from it they can(particles, radiation, everything), they find it still weighs something. We consider that nothing, right? Well there is still something in that space of nothing otherwise it couldn't weigh something.

The universe coming from nothing explains a lot more about the way the universe is than the universe being cause by a transcendent agent. The universe coming from nothing makes sense, it doesn't raise more questions. The universe having a transcendent being simply creates more questions, and doesn't have any explanatory or predictive power.

I cannot accept the third because it forces me to wonder why such an agent would create such a sloppy world. It goes back to is this agent impotent, stupid, cruel, or all three? One or a combination of these must be true, otherwise we would live in a much more harmonious and peaceful world.

I cannot accept the third claim because it raises more questions than it answers.

I cannot accept the third claim because it is unnecessary to explain what we see in front of us. It can all be explained without god. An if it cannot yet, it will be eventually. (from an article in The Wall Street Journal by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow):

"In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of providential design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also greatly influenced by Aristotle, who believed "in an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design."

That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244

I do believe in ultimate purpose within the universe. I just think it's another debate for another day.

That's been my approach to forum debating for the last five years. There's just so little time and energy, so these days, I only argue the most essential premises. Even as I write this, ***Shameles Plug*** I've been watching the Toryuken archive and taking notes for the next episode of Warrior Shrine ***/Shameless Plug***. So I'm using the concept of God as my starting point. If someone can't buy into that first premise, then none of the other arguments really matter.

That said, I'm defining purpose in the above context as "the motive behind a cause." Basically, a designated function. This is not the same "purpose" referenced in PSR. That's going to be very important for one of the points below.


Oh, of course. Ethics is HUGE. Outside of a religious context, I argue ethics all the time.

Here's the thing, though. When I used to argue Biblical ethics on forums, I started to realize it made zero difference to people if my points were valid or not. If people didn't agree with my reasoning, that was all good and well. And yet the moment they DID see any substance in my argument, they would just say "well, that argument would have a lot more weight if the concept of God wasn't asinine to begin with!"

Eventually, I just said "Fuck it. I'm only gonna argue cosmology." With peers outside the net, I argue the other topics constantly. On the internet, it just isn't worth it. It's not worth the time/energy to argue argument B if people are just gonna dismiss it by saying argument A is bullshit.


Well, it's a reductio. If you have three options, and two of them violate logical axioms, you're stuck with the third. Can one truly say "you're just speculating that the logically impossible option if false."

These are the cards we're dealt. That said, I don't think there's zero evidence for God's existence, but let's assume there was. I would choose the model that most fits the principle that govern the world as I observe it. The minute something contradicts logical or mathematical truth, I have to throw it out.


I could write entire books responding to that one. Trust me, I wouldn't worship God if I thought he was cruel.

It's not a topic I'm going to tap here, but I want to at least give some further material for reference. C.S. Lewis's "The Problem of Pain" is a really good face value response, and Alvin Plantiga's "God, Freedom, and Evil" is probably the ultimate text on the subject of evil and God.

Granted, I keep bitching about how much time/energy I don't have, so I'm definitely not saying "Read up. K. Thanks." But if you want reference material, those two are some of the best.


It still doesn't address the problem of agency. Unless we're willing to say that objects and events can manifest without cause, then we're no closer to plausibility of causless ex nihilo.

If Krauss believes that near zero value of the energy of the universe removes the requirement for cause, then I have to question if he's aware of PSR at all.


We gotta hit the brakes here. Purpose and cause are not the same thing. The second references the event which brought an object/state of affairs into being. The first addresses the motive behind the event.

Purpose is important, and I even feel it may relate to PSR, but it's not what's being questioned here. Purpose does have a place in the argument because we eventually have to explain why God created universe X and not universe Y. It just isn't the immediate concern of the topic.


The minute you throw out PSR, everything else kinda goes to hell. If we start conceding that events can happen without cause, then it's not just religion that's going to take a hit. It's science, too. It's everything.

It's one of the original laws of logic. Thousands of years before we were born, Greeks were debating PSR. If we're going to start saying some events can occur without cause or explanation but others can't, it doesn't solve the problem: it just takes it back a stage. WHAT decides which events can occur without cause? If it's not PSR, then there's not going to be an alternative that resolves the issue and yet doesn't suffer from the exact same criticisms.


This may be the point where we have to agree to disagree. If you think PSR is false, then the above model works. If you believe it's true, then the above model doesn't work.


Sure, it does raise questions. I would take questions over contradictions any day. Questions may eventually be answered. The minute we start allowing exceptions to logical axioms, we're not really discovering truth anymore. We're designing a replica that fits our worldview. I don't want the replica, though. I want the real thing.

It's true that the world is kind of a shithole. It's a subject that certainly matters. If we agreed that a transcendent being was at least possible, then that would probably be the very next topic we tackle.

Not yet, though. If we're going to debate whether Charles killed Meredith, I want to at least agree that Charles is someone who happens to exist.

I think most people believe in some form of a higher spiritual being. And I agree with what you said in the original post, about there not being anything to debunk it one way or the other.

What I personally don't agree with though is institutionalized religion....Do I believe in God, yes, but I certainly don't believe I'm going to hell for not going to church every Sunday, or for eating meat on fridays during lent. it's BS like this that I don't agree with, that is made up by institutionalized religions. Same with the christian political movement and their crap on abortion, homosexuality, etc. It's what has led to stuff like that, along with terrorist in radical Muslim religion. Institutionalized religion IMO has just been a shield, to allow people to do bad things. The Roman Catholic church's cover up of pedophilia amongst priests is evident enough of that.

Of course I cannot buy into that first premise. We've got to stay before you assume god exists. We have got to go back to that neutral stance you mentioned. Lets make the options different, because there is a 4th and 5th, and I did a little research on PSR.

A) Universe manifested without agent or cause
B) Universe manifested without an agent, but had a cause
C) Universe always existed
D) Universe manifested by an agent from a cause
E) Universe manifested by an agent with no cause

So, I would fit into B. Obviously there was a cause, and that cause was the laws of physics in this universe. Particles are spontaneously appearing all around us out of nothing. One could say mistakenly say that means no cause. But the cause is technically the laws of physics. An agent being behind it makes more problems. "Causeless Ex-Nihilo" is simply wrong, and any top physicist would tell you the same. You can get something from nothing.

The PSR is very broad considering its history. Some versions simply say for every fact there has to be a reason why that fact is true. Some versions say for every entity there must be an initial cause for that entity. Some versions say everything must have a reason for it being here. Some versions, such as Kant's, restrict it to human experience. All of that said, none of which is contradicted by statement B.

Please show me why you cannot accept statement B, then maybe we will be getting somewhere. Another one of my gripes is that you have to agree with your first statement for any of your other statements to hold much ground. There is no reason for us to believe an agent exists outside of our universe, and the only reason you have given me for one is a reductio which I think was oversimplified.



As I said above PSR is broad, and I think we might have to get a little bit more specific here.



Perfectly understandable, that is very frustrating and it does happen the other way around too. EX. It isn't that someone disagrees with my reasoning, instead they go "Well the bible says this so ha!"

That's fine though, let's focus on argument A. I think that was the whole point in the first place. Nonetheless, it is very related and quite intertwined, hard to stray away from. That said, argument A shouldn't be dependent on argument B. By that I mean I can argue what is moral or immoral whether a god exists or not. It doesn't change my arguments, what I think is right is still right and what I think is wrong is still wrong for the same reasons. It isn't the same the other way around. You have to buy into argument A to proceed to argument B. Its not quite the same from the other perspective. Whether the god exists or not, it is still up to us to figure out our morality. To refute this is illogical, considering many people following the same bible come out with drastically different morals, and both will say "My morals come from the bible" even though they are different. Clearly, these people used their own agency to decide what is right and wrong, they didn't just read the bible.

What I hate is when people use the bible or biblical quotes as a trump card.



I think I have done a much better job of deconstructing your reductio this time around. I think you oversimplified it.



Ok, here's where we run into a problem. Again, your oversimplified reductio leads to a simplified conclusion. I cannot see how a god fits the principles that govern the world as we observe it. The only type of rational argument you gave for the existence of a god was the reductio you made. I somewhat agree with the last statement. Now, I wouldn't say "throw it out". Keep your options open, maybe you got something wrong. Keep the other options unless it is proven or pretty much proven to be wrong.

I also don't believe in things that contradict logical or mathematical truth.

You think there is proof for god's existence?! Veeerrrryy bold claim, and you had to know this was coming: What evidence? Please show and tell, evidence for the proof of god is what I have been looking for ever since I became an atheist.



Okay, well you have to realized just reading these are extremely biased, no? I read the introduction the Plantiga's book and to call it "The ultimate text on the subject of evil and god" disturbs me. Especially since it basically starts with "You must trust in god, not just believe he exists"

From it: "The theist believes that God has a reason for permitting evil; he doesn't know what that reason is. But why should that mean that his belief is improper or irrational? Take an analogy. I believe that there is a connection of some sort between Paul's deciding to mow the lawn and the complex group of bodily movements involved in so doing. But what connection, exactly?[...] But does it follow that it is irrational or unreasonable to
believe that this decision has something to do with that series of motions?"


How does this hold any value? If someone thinks a god exists who is omnipotent and benevolent, then it only follows that god would do great things for this world. Eye-eating worms, Tsunami's, innocent deaths... God permits or enforces these. He allows or forces children of a very young age to live a life of suffering for a couple years just to die a horrible death. This is unrelated to Paul's decision to mow his lawn and the physical movements associated with it. Paul is not claimed to be omnipotent, wholly good, or overseer of our world. We don't put our "full trust and belief" in Paul. Paul isn't responsible for the universe, god, apparently is. The analogy is ridiculous.

I don't care why. If he exists, he clearly does terrible things to innocent people. I live a pretty damn privileged life, but a lot of people don't. If evil is necessary for good, then god overdid the evil without enough good. That's certainly true on Earth, anyways.

Now considering what you said about time, I don't expect you to take this up, but try "God is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens or "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. I read a little bit of C.S. Lewis's work before and I cannot even get through it. This, is from the book you suggested:

“To enter heaven is to become more human than you ever succeeded in being on earth; to enter hell, is to be banished from humanity.”

He's guessing. Not only is there no way to know that, it isn't based on anything. Its complete Hooey. Yet he says it as if it is fact. I find this kind of stuff disgusting.




If that's the best reference material for the defense in the evil god does then I think I have this one in the bag. 1940 and 1976 these were published. Nothing better has come since then? No more developments? I don't think I will be reading the whole thing but they are pretty hard to get through.



Yes it does address the "problem of agency," because it demonstrates how agency is unnecessary for the world to begin. We started with 0 energy, we are still at 0 energy. The cause of what we see is the laws of physics. And the laws of physics say we can get something from nothing. Agency is not required for a "cause".

You question Krauss all you want, I will be taking his word (when it comes to physics) before any one else's. He is one of the top physicists in the world, he knows what he is talking about .



I think I have pretty much cleared that up in this post



And again, this is where we have to be pretty specific. What is the exact claim from PSR that you throw out and everything goes to hell. If you are simply saying things must have a cause, it is easy to attribute one to anything, and agency is not necessary for a cause. I can mesh with everything must have a cause. Agency? Obviously not. Where is the agency behind a Tsunami? Earthquake?

It's one of the original laws of logic. Thousands of years before we were born, Greeks were debating PSR. If we're going to start saying some events can occur without cause or explanation but others can't, it doesn't solve the problem: it just takes it back a stage. WHAT decides which events can occur without cause? If it's not PSR, then there's not going to be an alternative that resolves the issue and yet doesn't suffer from the exact same criticisms.


You can have nothing, and then, due to the laws of physics as we know them, that nothing turns into something. That doesn't violate PSR in the sense that everything must have a cause. The cause is the laws of physics. You didn't address the fact that a transcendent agent has no explanatory power and simply requires more questions to be asked. Some of which are unanswerable questions.



What contradictions? Especially now that I have remodeled your reductio again? I want to discover truth as well, I do not want a replica.

However if we rely solely on those logical axioms without thinking about how we apply them and if they are even applicable we can fool ourselves. English is a funny language.

The problem with it raising more questions is that it doesn't explain anything. It doesn't explain anything about our universe when we assume that god made it. This isn't true the other way around EX. claim B above. Universe coming from nothing has explanatory power, meshes with the laws of physics, and does mesh with the PSR. An agent outside of space-time being the cause of the beginning of our universe is ridiculous when compared with the idea that the laws of physics themselves made the universe what it is today. Mine explains the world around us, yours creates contradictions to the laws of physics, depending on your definition of god.

Oddly enough, you seem to be in the minority compared to your religious mates. Most religious people seem to think what you believe is more important than what is true. And given how much the bible emphasizes "you must believe/trust/ have faith in god" that isn't surprising. Believing he exists is more important than thinking about whether or not it is logical. I must admit, it is refreshing to talk to someone who actually thinks about this stuff instead of simply believing and having faith.

Yup
Oh yeah


I do not know enough about the universe to say that it is impossible for a transcendent being to exists. I find it extremely unlikely of course, but we live in a material world, so if there were transcendent being(s) it wouldn't be easy for us to detect. You can get me that far. That said, especially after this post, I hope you see how your reductio is misleading and understand I certainly don't agree that there is one.



No, I am not conceding that a god exists. Transcendent beings, meaning beings outside of the material world, do no have to be omnipotent, good, let alone powerful enough to create a universe.

In other words, I am not agreeing Charles exists because for some reason you won't show me any I.D., no pictures of him, No birth certificate. No house where he used to live, no family, nothing but words to say about him. Show me any of these, and sure I will admit Charles exists. Show me anything that demonstrates there is such a person, and I will certainly change my mind and believe this guy exists.

I am simply saying yes, it is possible for Charles to exist. In the case of Charles, a man, it is likely he does exist since I know there are many men in this world named Charles. God doesn't carry that same likelihood

What does a computer program know of the user?

It`s not that you get something from nothing, Energy can not be created or destroyed. Energy condenses into physical matter.

So how much energy would it take to conjure a crowbar into existence?
I`d say crowbar instead of a baseball bat, as that would`ve had to be a living tree first, and all the complications that would arise in that conjuring process.

This is where we get into magical crap.
Why doesn`t more shit maifest physically?
Why haven`t new universes spontaniously burst into existence?



Ka-Tra

The idea that we are a simulation pretty well contradicts the idea of a "God". The computer isn't alive. We created computers, unlike natural processes.

Random analogies and appealing to our lack of knowledge doesn't help or solve anything.



Yet the total energy of the universe is 0.... most people consider 0 nothing.

Yes, physics is complicated. I don't pretend to understand it completely, but I've read the work of people who do.

As I also mentioned before, English is a funny language. People make their own definitions sometimes, and lots of words have multiple definitions. "Nothing" is a lot more complicated than most people think.



Did I say crowbar's or other things like it are "conjured"? Certainly not. You wouldn't expect a crowbar to come from the laws of physics... its a man made creation. Now how much time, energy, what conditions, etc. etc. it would take for the Earth to manifest is a much more valid question than the ridiculous one you posed.

Yeah, we get into magical crap when we say "No, It wasn't just the laws of physics that created this universe, it was an agent acting outside of the universe that wanted it to be created, and to be created in this exact way. This magical agent made the universe happen. This agent conjured the universe."

That is magical crap. Laws of physics are not magical crap.




What makes you think they don't? How would we know if they did or not? In the quantum world physical matter manifests out of "nothing" constantly.

I mean obviously we wouldn't have a universe inside of a universe, that doesn't make any sense. However if there were a universe outside of our observable universe... well... think about it. It's just like "god". He supposedly exists outside the universe, therefore we will never be able to definitively prove he exists. At least with the idea of other universes, we have our universe to study from. We don't have any sort of god that can be studied.

What evidence is there that our only choices are limited to the three above mentioned choices? I can easily imagine a few more options:

-the universe fundamentally operates on principles we cannot or will not, or do not yet know. These principles can possibly account for our current inconsistencies.

-existence existed before the beginning of time. There was something that might have prompted the universe, just not before because time did not exist yet. We cannot fathom this, as we cannot think outside of chronological boundaries, therefore paradox.

Keep in mind, just because something is paradoxical, it might not actually be nonexistent. Mathemathical paradoxes DO exist. I can prove that 1 equals 0. So what keeps us from physical paradoxes?

-the universe is unknowable or a more provoking possibility: what we experience is just a temporal consistency. For a lack of words, the universe might be utterlz random chaos that existed, exists, existed/exists in different forms, causality might not exist, the universe might not actually exist.

-there is no solution for hard-solipsism: can you prove that everything that exists is not a figment of your own imagination/mind? Easier analogy: can you prove you are not a mind wired into a VR machine?


My point is, you cannot make absolute statements. There is nothing that bars other possibilities Temp. I do not have to believe any of your prerequisites.



-

By definition, a paradox is true. It is really just a statement that seems contradictory even though it really isn't. English is weird.



PROVE IT! I'm curious lol.



Personally, I find this easier to believe than that we are a creation of a sky daddy who watches over us and is all powerful and all knowing. Though I don't believe either, us being a simulation seems more reasonable to me than us being created by an omnipotent being.

On that note, I find Deism a much more reasonable position that Theism. This is pretty common coming from an atheist, but I think it is worth bringing up.

Deism= You believe there is some sort of "god". You believe that there is an agent that created us, basically.

Theism= You believe in a religion, which normally includes some sort of god. You follow and believe in the religion and all that comes with it.

There is a big difference here. To think that a book written by a man is the word of an omnipotent being? That is complete nonsense to me, and needs A LOT of evidence in order to convince me. Which I have asked for a lot and have yet to see.

Contrary to popular belief, atheism is the neutral stance. Atheism is simply saying you don't believe what these religions are preaching. Some atheists are deists.

I would certainly need more proof that the "truths" preached by these religions are actually true before I start to believe them.

I know it's technically not about it, and I don't believe in Evolution anymore, but can we talk about it, and a lot of the fossils and stuff?

Not "is it true" or "here are flaws" but just the fossils themselves. Ancient creatures interest me without a doubt, especially with how odd they are.

I don't know as much about evolution as I would like to, but I do find it very interesting. If you think there are flaws, I would love to hear them. Again, simply out of curiosity, I won't try to pick what you think apart and try to prove you wrong. But it would provide insight and I find it interesting because there hasn't been any evidence that is widely accepted by the scientific community to contradict evolution.

I watched a video awhile ago that showed one of the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park (I think the velociraptors, I can't remember which ones they tried to make look scary) and what they would actually look like. They found out they would much more likely have had feathers and arms more like wings, which makes them look a lot more like ostriches than the scary incarnation they had in Jurassic Park... let me try to find the picture:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02529/dinos_2529995b.jpg

I found that pretty funny. Also what do you think of the "Christians Against Dinosaurs" group? lmao I didn't believe it when I first read about it.

x = y.
Then x2 = xy.
Subtract the same thing from both sides:
x2 - y2 = xy - y2.
Dividing by (x-y), obtain
x + y = y.
Since x = y, we see that
2 y = y.
Thus 2 = 1, since we started with y nonzero.
Subtracting 1 from both sides,
1 = 0.

Or....



INTEGRAL (1/x) dx

Perform integration by parts: let
u = 1/x , dv = dx
du = -1/x2 dx , v = x

Then obtain:
INTEGRAL (1/x) dx = (1/x)*x - INTEGRAL x (-1/x2) dx
= 1 + INTEGRAL (1/x) dx

Technically neither are faulty, but there are overlooked stuff in order to accomplish this.A truly hard core mathemathical/physical paradox is a singularity for example.

So in that case both x and y = 2. Problem solved? Especially since afterward a step was "dividing by (x-y)" we are dividing by 0? I dunno, I am definitely rusty on my math, that's for sure. The other one you totally lost me lol.



Yeah I don't know as much about this stuff as I would like to either. Is matter truly infinitely dense at the center of a black hole? How can we know this? I am sure even if it is known it would be too complicated for me at this point, given my limited understanding in this area.

Well, two things.

First off, laws are not agents. More specifically, the laws of physics aren't even really laws. They're regularities. When an act of nature occurs consistently without exception, then we call it a law, but we're not actually referencing any mechanism here.

So let's really break down the semantics. The statement "particle manifestation is caused by a law physics" can only mean one of two things:

A) The law of physics is an agent, an actual entity, and causes particles into existence

B) There is no cause behind particle manifestation

We can throw out (A) cause i know that's not what you meant. The problem with (B) is that it operates on a dangerous level of presumption. On the surface, an event without cause and the same event with unobservable cause looks identical.

Really, ALL cause is unobservable. All we can actually see is the agent and the effect. You can't know fire burns you until your told such or until you touch it. That's just the nature of causation.

So whenever someone says "this particle emerged without cause," anyone can just counter with "or the cause isn't detectable with modern instruments." Scientists are no strangers to this problem. Hell, a good portion of the objects/activities in quantum mechanics has never been directly observed. They're posited to exist based on what know.

That's problem #1. Problem two is that if we're going to argue the laws of physics are active mechanisms that created matter at point x before point y, then we're back into the time regress. The laws of physics mean nil if measurable units of time aren't a thing yet. If there was point A (particle did not exist yet) that lead into point B (particle manifests and now does exist), that requires two units of time. You don't get that luxury yet, lol.

More basically, you can't solve the origin of the time-space contingency by assuming the conditions of the time-space contingency. That's circular.

You can say that version B doesn't violate any version listed of PSR. It clearly violates all of them because your "cause" is not a cause at all. It's not even a reason. It's an observed regularity. You're essentially saying, "This has happened before without exception, and THAT'S why this happens." Can you see the problem here?


I would agree. That's the thing about philosophy: argument #1 is never going to be resolved. If it was, it wouldn't be philosophy anymore. Hence, we move on to argument #2 based on possible conclusions of argument #1.

If there was time, we'd cover the gauntlet. Morality, theories of mind, miracles... we'd paint this forum with debates. But even years back, it was still hard to keep the momentum. I swear, the moment I clicked submit, I think I could already hear Chrome or Shoe typing.



The syllogism is simple, yes. That's kinda why I stick to cosmology: the basic principles tend to be simple, and they're often things very few people disagree.


Well, I didn't say proof, lol. I believe there's EVIDENCE for God's existence. Towers of it. Any true proof of God is going to be similar to the reductio I presented because even if we saw God tomorrow with our own eyes and ears, everyone would appeal to secular explanation the moment the instance couldn't be repeated.

And for everyone who wasn't there to experience it, it wouldn't be proof at all. It would just be testimony. We already have buckets of that.



The bias is ultimately irrelevant if his syllogisms are properly defended. I treat the style of a book and the logic of a book in two separate categories.

I should also point out that you're not going to get the spirit of the books by reading snippets. I think you know this, but it bears articulating.


Well, that's how philosophy works. Hence, why we still read Kant in philosophy classes. It's not because it's good literature (cause holy shit, it isn't); it's because it is some of the best texts on epistemology to date. One of the most important epistemology pieces ever written was "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" by Gettier. That thing shook the foundation of the philosophical community, and it's not even 5 pages long, lol. And it was written in 1960's!

I do want to note that "Problem of Pain" wasn't a breakthrough for the field. It was just an apologetic work brought down to the layman's level done really well. Plantiga's work, however, WAS a breakthrough. That pretty much killed the deductive problem of evil. Most atheists in the philosophical community now adhere to the inductive problem of evil (which has its own issues).


You didn't explain it. You just observed it. Well, technically, you didn't even do that. For all we know, there is an agent is this scenario and we just can't detect it with our instrumentation. It's the same way the ancients weren't able to detect bacteria.

But let's assume these instances are truly occurring without cause: you still haven't satisfied PSR. The law of physics isn't a satisfactory explanation because it isn't an explanation at all: every law of physics is just an observed regularity that occurs without exception. You're essentially saying matter can manifest without cause because matter is able to manifest without cause. That's circular.


Let's take the most liberal definition possible: there is an identifiable reason for every event. Hate to beat a dead horse here, but the law of physics doesn't function as a reason. To reiterate, saying a regularity occurs without exception because it's a regularity that occurs without exception is not a satisfactory explanation.


It's interesting because divorcing worldly truth and religious truth is sort of a new trend. Even the early protestants who put all theological authority on the Bible preached that faith and reason were compliments. It wasn't really until the late 1700's/early 1800's that Christian thinkers started downplaying reason. Though I think a lot of that had to do determinism started dominating both religious and secular thought.

Speaking from my own perspective, I just couldn't bring myself to care about religion if I didn't think it was true.


I had something to say here, but I had to pull a Joss Whedon and edit it out for time. I do think there's a lot to be said here because these are interesting margins. I feel like once a person finds themselves in this stance, there's a few different ways they could proceed.


Well, this is taking the metaphor further than my original intention... but there's something interesting here. Let's say I did show you an I.D. for Charles. You could turn around and say the I.D. could be fake. Let's say I drive you to his house and introduce his family. You could just say they're mistaken, delusion, or even liars (that's essentially what we do to ALL people claiming to experience the supernatural, isn't it?).

That's why I take the reverse route. I try to say "let's assume Charles doesn't exist: then who killed Meredith?" That's where we reach the point where the metaphor kinda fails because there's over 6 billion potential suspects, but you see what I mean. There's so little room for debate in daily life that you have to stick to the essentials.

This is especially true in person. When you're at a party or a gathering and someone wants to toss out the question of God, there's NO WAY I could get all this cosmological shit out before 15 other people interjected. So I throw in the most basic and meatiest syllogism I can find.

Even now, I know you're reading this, but is anyone else? That's the sucky part: we're the only two dudes left at the party. DG1OA THREW the damn party, and his ass is long gone, lol.

(though to be fair, that's probably because he was throwing 5 parties a day in the MKX section)

Reminder: we are discussing wether religion is valid or not, not wether deities exist or not.

Don`t confuse God`s word, with the people who CLAIM to represent him.

The crowbar example was about elemental iron being easier to manifest than wood, a once living, complex multi elemental structure. The man made shape wasn`t the point, the constituent material was.



Ka-Tra

Funny how god seems more like us. Because if it would somehow turn up to be existing, I would call it out on numerous accounts on moral bullshit. As would any sane person do.

Abrahams god deserves two things:

A., nonexistent: a place in our history books.
B. existent: above and also total and absolute condemnation.

Part of why you should know God in your heart, and mind is meant to be a provision for the various times when the Word was outlawed.

So if the Jews returning to Jerusalem, and making the land fertile again as written isn`t proof enough for Newt...

So the Iraqis run from ISIS a second time... Jeremiah 51:30, anyone?

Is Iraq today the Babylon of Jeremiah 50-51?

Jeremiah speaks yet today

Blood Moons
Who rules the Heavens, and the Earth? Jehovah!

Google search for ``Jeremiah 51:30 Iraqis flee ISIS



Ka-Tra

I do love to study the Theory. I can't say I know the most ever about it, but to say I know very little of it would be inaccurate. My first real studying of it came from Physical Anthropology in college. They had replicas of skulls going from the Homo genus, to the Australopithecus genus, to Ardipithecus ramidus, down to Aegyptopithecus zeuxis. It was a fun class. At points they spoke of things as early as the pre-Cambrian. That was when I first started to believe in it. After I lost faith in it years later, I still studied it, because why not? It wasn't a quick change of mind, or one particular large thing, it was over-time. If I went over everything it would take forever, though one of them was simply how Evolution is supposed to work on the genetic level and the change of information in DNA/RNA, though I have no doubt Natural Selection, Gene Flow, Genetic Drift are undisputable.

I find the "Christians Against Dinosaurs" group either a really bad joke, a troll, or very, VERY un-informed group, to put it lightly.

Velociraptor fossils are small and waist high. I don't think the picture on the right is a raptor at all. It has a beak. The Velociraptors in Jurassic Park were based on the Deinonychus, because it seemed more threatening, and called them Velociraptors by mistake, or because it sounded cool.

Russell Wolfe, producer of faith-based crap like "God's not dead", just died aged only 50.

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni58648249?ref_=hm_nw_TP1

God's not dead, but this asshole sure is, heh. Guess the good lord didn't think he needed to live a long life. Why? God works in mysterious ways, lol.

The worms are gonna have a feast. He was useless in life, but in death, he'll finally be useful.

...wow

You know, I am all for ridiculing stuff that is obviously deserving of ridicule, but decency is non-negotiable when it comes to it.

Of his damage-doing bz propagating faith I have no doubt, does not reflect on the entirety of his character, though.

I think religion does have some validity, but when used the right way can help people find comfort to things they don't understand or used to help others. When used the wrong way, it can create wars, discriminatory measures against groups and cult like experiences. For example, the leaders of the American Civil Rights movement were religious people like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr and it's opponents also used religion as an excuse to discriminate against people they didn't like.

Just my two cents on the issue.

And to me, needing religion for comfort is just weak. Particularly since most if not all religions come with overly strict rules, and make a sin out of harmless things. People find comfort in that?

Losing my religion didn't feel like a loss at all, but rather as if I just lifted a huge weight off my chest. No longer worrying about God, about what he'd think.

I also don't see why people fear there being nothing after death. If there is nothing, then there may not be happiness, but there also wouldn't be suffering. Essentially, everyone gets something close to an happy ending. That to me is better than something like the christian heaven where we mindlessly worship jesus or god or whoever for all eternity. Or the muslim heaven, that is a misogynist's wet dream.

By the nine divines!