Jack Kamm

Eh, my response is quite long, so I think I'll split it into two posts.

Part 1:

What's your point? What does this analogy prove?



Again, what's your point? There is very little we know with absolute certainty, so we have to settle with reasonable certainty, which of course, can be wrong in rare cases. (notice the emphasis on rare)



I suggest you study evolution.



Why not? Animals have brains. Of course, their brains are not as advanced as our's, but neither is their capacity for intelligence and love.

And what reason do you have for proposing intelligence and love are not made up in our heads? Have you ever observed an intelligent and loving meteor?

Jack Kamm

Part 2:

No, you did not. You are applying a critical view to atheistic explanations for the origin of the universe. And guess what? You're right. They're as groundless as theistic explanations for the origin of the universe (when I talk about atheistic explanations, I do not mean scientific theories. I mean "there is no god somewhere along the chain of causality that caused the universe" vs "there is a god somewhere along the chain of causality that caused the universe"). And the nature of these claims is such that both will probably remain groundless. But just because in that one aspect, atheism is as groundless as theism, it does not follow that atheism is as unreasonable as theism.

Besides, the burden of proof is on the theist. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the claim that a nonspaciotemporal personal being exists is wildy extraordinary.



If you can't sufficiently explain something, why debate whether it exists? And don't tell me that you're trying to argue against atheism, not for theism, because atheism is by definition a rejection of theism. So arguing against atheism (rejecting theism) boils down to arguing for theism.



And what are these similarities?

haverbob

You said this:
I said this: you said this:What is being used to create spontaneous and phyical proceeses? Where do these things that create spontaneous physical processes come from??? Yes it's spontaneous, and I can perform a spontaneous action. So what? My spontaneous reaction comes from somewhere doesn't it?? If you believe that it comes from nowhere (and the term "we can't explain where it comes from does not mean nowhere", it means somewhere that we can't explain), then you would have to believe that David Copperfield's magic could actually be magic. You would have to believe that it's possible for something to come from nothing. You may have all of these complcated explanations, but at the end of the day, you can't say it's IMPOSSIBLE for Copperfield to create something out of nothing if you believe in spontaneous whatever. Do you subscribe to that?? Something has to exist to create spontinaity. If you say that indescribable forces cause this spontinaneuosness, then what caused or created those indescribable forces?? God I know I spelled spontaneous..whatever, wrong every time. Who cares??
Sounds like a rule to me. Sounds like an absolute rule to me. Did you think that way when you were two years old, or did somebody teach you that along the way? Who taught you that? Are they truely correct?? Nobody HAS to do anything, let alone "settle" as you put it.
I have, but I won't anymore until someone PROVES it's right (just to steal your style). Are you certain that a better explanation will never come along?? And yet you implore me to study what is still a theory as if it could never be denied. Are you sure about that?? If you look at Darwin correctly, he did not claim to have the truth. He merely claimed to have observations for study. It's the morons that grabbed ahold of his stuff and suggested that it seems to be the final explanation that taught you that. Even Darwin would not agree with that. That's the little assumption that your Science teacher told you because someone told him, who told him, who told him...
I was talking about their ability to make stuff up in their head like humans can do. If you think they can, then let me be a scientific little fellow and ask you to prove it. I don't think they know how to make stuff up in their head, otherwise they could lie, create theories and possibly create inventions and move forward from their current state. Kind of like Planet of the Apes. So, they appear to be intelligent enough to make decisions and to love, but it doesn't appear that they can make this shit up for themselves as humans can obviously do
Because animals, as you said, have these qualities. Did they make it up in their head??
No. I don't remember claiming that a meteor was God, a human or an animal. Maybe you know something that I don't.
Yes the purple frib is more reasonable then the yellow frab.
Yes, that's the way you were trained to think, just as theists were trained to think another way. Do you really think you think thoughts other than your father, mother, teacher, friends, professor, boss. favorite scientist have taught you to think?? You may think you have your own thoughts, but I gaurantee they are not your own whether you know it or not. Those thoughts are theirs (the previously mentioned), as was their thoughts someone else's. Shit rolls down hill.
That's funny. If you read other posts in this thread, you will find that some atheists eventually (after some prodding) explain that atheism not as a rejection of God, but more of a "I don't know until it's proven". I've had a few explain that of course it's possible for there to be a God, but they won't believe it until it's proven. So atheism, according to them simply says "I don't know" rather than the "rejection" of theism. So go talk to them.
Love and purpose.

Jack Kamm

I'm a bit busy right now...I'm traveling to the east coast on Sunday and need to do a bit of buying and packing. Also, my parents aren't letting me use internet until I finish packing, fix my desk, find out when my school is selling the textbooks for next year, etc. (I was able to sneak on for a sec b/c my parents let me use their comp to check my email). So hopefully I'll be able to post a reply tomorrow, if not I'll try to find easy access to a computer in Washington DC.

dshimel

Skipping all this middle stuff, and getting back to the original question.

The argument was basically this:

1) Has the universe always existed,
2) if not, did it start without a cause, OR
3) God.

1) silly,
2) silly,
Therefore: God.


There are 2 separate logical fallacies you are using.

First, you set up a false dicotomy. That is, you create a list of possible choices, then act as if it is a complete list.

Am I a maritan, or do you owe a billion dollars. I'm not a martian. When will I be getting that check for the money you owe me?

There are infinate number of possibilities. All points of reference are within our universe. We have no idea what, if anything is outside our universe. We have no idea if there are other unicerses. We don't know if this is all just a dream I'm having. We don't know all the possible explainations for an infinately old universe, a caused universe, an uncaused universe, or God.


The second, larger problem is an arguemt from ignorance. Since we don't know what, if anthing, caused the universe, it must be God.

Are you defining God, then saying God caused the universe? Or, are you just naming the cause "God".


Let's go way hypothetical. An increadibly huge star burns out, collapses into to a black hole, which creates a sub-space singuarity of such immense energy that it ripps the very fabric of space-time. Ripping new dimension(s) into the fabric of space time, all the mass of the star/black hole explodes into an entirely new universe. Is the black hole God? Or is God an intelligent, all powerful, all knowing, all good creator of the universe?


In this example, has the new universe always existed? Is it caused by the original universe's cause?




The answer, though I know you won't like it, is this:

We don't know.

We have NO WAY of know what, if anything caused the universe. There infinate number of possibilites, none of which can be rulled out. Deciding to call something "God" doesn't give it the defined characteristics associated with that name.

This is the CORE of atheism. Not only do we not know, but we can't know, and we know no one else can know. Therefore, we do not believe in an undefined god, and disbelieve Gods others define.

haverbob

I thought that I asked someone to add to the list if they could in my first post. Read it again. You missed that part. So far, no one has added to that list. I didn't notice where you did either (maybe I missed it). Also, the silly, silly, God, is not correct. It can be said silly, silly, silly as well. So I guess you feel silly can be more silly than silly. I don't agree. Silly is silly. That's my point. Theists get looked at as ridiculous for their belief in God, but it's no more silly than the atheist explanation when it comes down to it. Maybe the atheist gets some sort of proud satisfaction by saying "I don't know, therefore I'm better than the theist". Just remember, if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

Speaking of silly. Anyway, see above.
That's an asuumption. May be correct or maybe not, but an assumption nonetheless. Infinite is just a concept that we create to explain the unexplainable and it doesn't really explain anything. It's just a word, Theists say God (timeless entity with no beginning or end) and atheists say "infinite: which is equally unexplainable. So what?
Well it is, but not in the physical sense as you probably meant in your example, it's in the perceptual sense. I'm not gonna' get more in to that right now. Takes too long to explain. Maybe later.
No the black hole is not God. Black holes have a reason, cause or origin. We just don't know what that is. The concept of "God" inherently means no reason, cause or origin. Someone asked on this board once, "can God have a creator?". My answer was no. If God did, then surely we are not speaking about God. It would be something that we thought was God, but the moment we identify a reason, cause or origin, that can no longer be God. So we look to this reason, cause, origin to see if that's God instead (which goes on and on and on....
I would say it is caused by the original universe in conjuction with the black hole which were both caused by something else which was caused by something else and so on, so on......God
A little of both. I am naming the cause "God" but I am also attaching the attributes of love and purpose or plan which differentiates the God answer a little bit from the "infinity" or "I don't know" answers.
This is a reasonable statement. I agree. In fact, I'll take Christianity as an example and say that one is asked to "believe", never "know". That's why it's called "belief" in God not "knowing" God. Duh. Let's take a ball. I say it's red and you come by and say it is not red. So then I say, if it's not red, then what color is? At which point I'm expecting you to say green or some other color. Instead I get an answer that says, I don't know what color that is, maybe the ball doesn't have a color at all (impossible), but I KNOW for a FACT that the ball is not red, because I know what red looks like. So substitute the "red" with God. You know it's not red (God) because you know what red (God) is, and it surely isn't what I think it is because you know better.

Randy X

haverbob, i'll divide my posts into two sections.

We have what we think is the most plausable set of rules to be obeyed at present.Thus far they have succeeded in explaining most of the occurances in our world.This is also how we communicate to each other, in both our logic and reasoning.

Now what is proof to one person is not necessarily proof to another.Usually because people apply different standards of proof.Here are different standards

1)Proof beyond any doubt whatsoever.

2)Proof beyond any reasonable doubt.

3)Proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

4)Strong evidence

5)Good evidence

6)Poor evidence

7)Pitiful evidence,

8)No evidence at all

These different standards are applied all the time in different circumstances.To simply question the credibility of rules that have been formulated for many centuries, is quite simply ludicrous.Killing is wrong, and we are taught not to kill, so we abide those rules.Based on your logic, there's no point in attending school, or learning about quantum mechanics or anything else, simply because you assume that they could be incorrect.If you think this way, then you can also doubt everything that you have ever known about the physical world.You could also question morality as well.This eventually leads to your insanity.

Many beliefs about the physical world cannot be supported with logical arguments.Our evidence for them depends not on deduction but on induction as well.But thinking about induction suggests that very few beliefs about the physical world can be absolutely certain.So it is unlikely that either our beliefs about morals or our beliefs about the world around us can ever be absolutely certain.But some beliefs are much more reasonable than others.If we really were fundamentally wrong about the universe, and about right and wrong, then would we ever find out? Whats the point of anything? Many people grow up with a very definitive set of religons and moral beliefs, which structive their lives, this is obvious.Without them, they would be lost.If you have grown up in such an atmostphere of certainty, then you will not trust beliefs that are not certain.Ideally, you want to show that your own religious and moral beliefs are absolutely certain.

Thats the boldest claim that i've heard in a long while.Okay, for the sake of this discussion, provide evidence to support these assertions?

Regards

Randy X

I assume that you assume that I assume that you assume, ad infinitum[smily].We all assume in certain situations, but so what.You are assuming that God could exist, so whats your point.I assume that God doesn't exist, and its an assumption that gives me ample reason to believe with full confidence.He is irrelevant to me, until concrete evidence supports his existance.So you get correct and incorrect assumptions, whats the point exactly.Words are created by humans, just like everything else, so again what specific point are you trying to conjure up?

You can use this explanation whenever you feel the need.You can use this excuse that every possible explanation was created by human reasoning.You could also doubt all reason and logic, since they were both formulated by human minds, but they are needed to provide explanations for the occurances in the world.Hell, you can doubt your own existance, but then you will shortly go insane

Or perhaps you can believe for the sake of believing it, and then it carries on, and on, and on ad infinitum.Some individuals believe that God created the beginning, and then all other events transpire from natural occurances.In this scenerio, God is a spectator.Its also an assumption, however unsupported, but its still ends up an assumption anyway.However I do not support these assumptions in the least, so its irrelevant to me.

An assumption.But why stop at God? You assume that God could never be created by another creator, but neither you or them or more correct.How certain are you that God was not created? Can you provide any evidence to support your earlier assertion? Something could have created God, and then something else, and so on, so on ad infinitum.Thats the way of reasoning under these principles.Although I certainly do not believe in such a fictional being, but I certainly would confidently associate him with Santa Clause and the Easter bunny.All fictional character share a common trait, they aren't real.

So in other words you are implying that atheists are delusional[smily].The colour red is evidently objective not subjective, although colour-blind individuals might see it differently(pun intended)

Sorry for the long posts.

Regards

haverbob

I'm not going to answer all of your points because many of them are rehash of what others have said, just in different words. I'm kind of getting weary of the thread. It comes down to this. Theists believe out of need. Atheists don't believe out of pride. They get the self satisfaction of saying "at least I have a clear head", "at least I say "I don't know". Well congrats, you really accomplished something there didn't you. Maybe today's clear head won't be tommorow's. You use a framework of thought (not really your own) that is very useful for creating facts. Facts will never ultimately lead to the truth, although they can be quite useful and perhaps get us closer to the truth (or maybe further). There's an old arab phrase that says something like "One needs a donkey to travel to the friend's house, but one must leave the donkey before one can enter the front door" Consider the donkey as facts and the front door as truth. Do you know what us "smart, wise and objective" humans do? We realize that the donkey can't get through the door, so we travel around the friends house for a while and come back to the door with a much wiser and more experienced donkey, but we still can't get in. So "if once we do not succeed, we try, try again because we just can't accept the fact that the thing that got us to the house (donkey/facts) can't also get us through the front door.
You already did:
"Many people grow up with a very definitive set of religons and moral beliefs, which structive their lives, this is obvious.Without them, they would be lost"

So did these people create these, or did someone else create it for them??? And these created thoughts are the essential building blocks for all those thoughts you think are your own.
Take another gander at the thread, (maybe the first post might do) I'm tired of re-explaining it.
Yes, I write a computer program and execute it and sit back while it works. I don't have to do anything because I wrote those actions and/or reactions in the program. So is this "nature" taking the wheel? Maybe, but I told nature (my program) what to do or how to take the wheel.
How did you miss the other part of that post where I answered this??? Maybe you don't like to read, but just try and read this

"The concept of "God" inherently means no reason, cause or origin. Someone asked on this board once, "can God have a creator?". My answer was no. If God did, then surely we are not speaking about God."

The whole concept of God is supposed to be that of "the final answer"
Yes because of the dogfood version of god that you have been taught. Try to read the scant amount of attributes that i attributed to God, for the sake of the argument, in my first post In another post, I referred to the dogfood version of God as "Santa Claus with a whip". Who could believe in that garbage? We ask for things but we get nothing but coal in our stockings, so why not disbelieve?? Here's a good example. In communist Russia they used to tell children to wish to God for a peice of candy. Then they tell them to wish to Kruschev for a peice of candy and suddenly they get one. Definite proof there is no God, right??
If you have to read that example that you are responding to over a hundered times before you get it, then please do. Atheists are no more delusional than theists. That "I don't know, Darwin/Bio something thing a ma jiggy", is no more delusional than God. A purple frib cannot be more delusional than a yellow frab.