Cambrian Explosion - Proof of Intelligent Design

[darsemnos]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Now you can make this claim of other things, but you would have to demonstrate how, by definition, the other thing(s) are without cause and therefore could not have ‘why’ asked of them. [/quote]

And it can be done the same way that you do with god–by definitional assertion. There is no valid argument for god’s uncausedness that cannot logically be transferred to the universe itself. Notice that I said “logically.” This is not to make a judgement on metaphysical possibility. It may be so that the universe cannot have been uncaused, but this is assumptive and therefore unproved, as was the plain conclusion of the Proof of God Thread.
[/quote]
No you cannot simply transfer this claim to the universe or anything else for that matter. It’s not that simple, because you cannot explicitly derived the uncausedness of something. You couldn’t even do it with God. You could not explicitly derive that God is uncaused, there is no logical method in which to do so.
Of course, now we are back to the cosmological forms and the arguments there of. The arguments do not set out to prove God is uncaused. The arguments purpose is to solve the causal chain. It just happens to solve the problem of causal regress with an uncaused, transcendent Causer. It just so happened that that was the only solution to the problem. Aristotle, initially didn’t necessarily believe in God nor sought to prove the existence of God, he was trying to solve the problem of an infinite causal regress.
Hell, to him the conclusion wasn’t all that big a deal for all we know. It was just another line of logic he put forth, likely, little knowing the implications it would have over the centuries.

This conclusion is not simply transferable. One cannot just say ‘Well it’s as likely the Universe as God or anything else.’ That is not a correct assumption and there are many problems with it.
First, we cannot deductively prove the universe exists. The universe is an a posteriori derivation. It’s existence is established by senses, by observation. One cannot deduce deductively it exists. Though it’s existence is highly probable, the epidemiological limitation on it, is that it cannot be proven not to be a figment of my imagination, that and everything in it cannot be proven not to be a grand hallucination. I am not saying it’s any of that, I am saying it’s not a deductive, logical assertion. The information about it is received through our senses and our senses are fallible and limited. We firm up these conclusions by consensus, that many others agree to observe and sense the same things we do. This makes the universe highly probable and while it may get ever closer to the line of certainty, it can never hit it absolutely.
That makes a huge problem when trying to apply the conclusion of a deductive argument to an object of induction. You simply cannot make that shift.

Second, the universe is a contingent entity. Assuming what we know about the universe to be true, the universe is one of the most contingent, caused things in existence. It’s contingent upon the things that make it up, matter, energy, information. Without matter, energy and information you have no universe. It’s also contingent upon natural law. The ‘rules’ that this matter, energy and information are contingent upon, cause the universe to exist, to be what it is.

So it’s impossible that the universe is an uncaused-cause. It’s existence is established inductively, not deductively. You cannot conclude a deductive argument with an inductive entity or maxim. And the universe, assuming it exists, is a contingent entity there for it cannot be a non-contingent entity. It cannot be caused and then be an uncaused-cause.

As an aside, the “can you as ‘why’” point is incoherent, and it can only be furthered by assertion. You haven’t proved that god exists, so you certainly haven’t proved that one can’t ask why he exists.

Whether or not it’s understandable is not an issue. We don’t have to understand it conceptually for it to be true. That’s the conclusion of the various cosmological arguments, the premises for those arguments are sound and the conclusion is the only possible solution to the given premises.

Again, that doesn’t mean there haven’t been objections, but the objections have not unseated, debunked, or disproven the arguments. They raise important questions, but they don’t disprove them.

I cannot make you believe or disbelieve the arguments, but they stand soundly on their own. Belief or disbelief is not required.[/quote]

There is no evidence that the uncaused cause has to be a who rather than a what. How do you know it can’t be a what? Anyway, a who is still a what.

[darsemnos]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[I’m combining the two points from the two posts here, to save time, which I presently have little of.]

[quote]pat wrote:

Second, the universe is a contingent entity. Assuming what we know about the universe to be true, the universe is one of the most contingent, caused things in existence. It’s contingent upon the things that make it up, matter, energy, information. Without matter, energy and information you have no universe.[/quote]

This is a fundamentally flawed view of the universe. The universe is defined as “the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated.” It is matter, energy, information, planets, stars, galaxies, black holes–everything. It is precisely those things, and nothing more. Thus, if it is contingent on those things–those things being it itself–then it is contingent on itself, and is, by your own definition, God.

[quote]pat wrote:
We were discussing an argument I made[/quote]

Yes, we were discussing an argument you made, but it didn’t fail because of some defect in your ability to formulate logical arguments–it failed because these arguments will invariably reduce to assumption or fallacy or circularity or an amalgam of the three. The reason that thread was so frustrating for you was that you were fighting a battle from a position of nearly unthinkable disadvantage, and I was fighting a battle that I really couldn’t lose if I were the least competent thinker hereabouts. All it takes is the challenge–prove this premise, prove that premise, prove yon premise–to show that these are, as the best theist philosophers readily admit, strong arguments and not settled proofs.

As for the strength of the arguments, I agree with you. It is this very topic that makes me an agnostic (who leans, ever so slightly, toward theism) and not an atheist. But I cannot say, and no one has ever in good faith and in objectively demonstrable verity been able to say, that “God is true it can be proved without assumption, beyond the possibility of doubt.”

As for your reformulated argument, I would love to get into it, though I may be slow to respond in the coming weeks.[/quote]
Agnostics ARE atheists. If you’re not a theist, you’re an atheist. You’re just an agnostic atheist, or a weak atheist, rather than a strong one. A strong one would be one who asserts there is no god.

[darsemnos]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:
Craig is a documented liar. If you watched the videos I posted you’ll see that. I can’t speak to all theists.
[/quote]
Pure bullshit. Documented liar? A double doctorate, a scholar with well over 30 published works? lol, that’s desperate.

I do hate all Abrahamic religions. They’re death cults. And they all condone genital mutilation.

Well that just proves you don’t know shit about Abrahamic religions, at all. That’s a completely ignorant statement.[/quote]

How is it desperate? Doctorates don’t prove anything.

Watch the videos I posted which show Lawrence Krauss objectively proving Craig’s deceit. Craig gave false representation of Dawkins and tried to make Dawkins seem worse to a bunch of credulous listeners who didn’t see the clip he was talking about. He couldn’t have said this if he hadn’t seen the clip. But if he saw the clip he’s know Dawkins wasn’t the one asking the question, when Craig said he was in order to make Dawkins look bad.

Then tell me he’s not a documented liar.

The Abrahamic religions look forward to the end of the world and all condone, though Christianity doesn’t command, the non-medical excision of healthy, functional erogenous tissue from the genitals of children without anesthetic, aka, mutilation.

[darsemnos]

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Because the universe comprises matter/energy that must’ve be set in motion - i.e. the Big Bang. The singularity, or whatever came first must have been created by something/someone immune from infinite regress. The matter/energy cannot be immune from infinite regress due to the first law of thermodynamics: matter/energy cannot be lost or created in a closed system.[/quote]

None of these arguments can be made without assumption, and few of them can be made without special pleading, which is why you will not find credible theist philosophers (Platinga, Craig, etc.) referring to their conclusions as proved, but rather “argued” or “strongly argued,” or “it is reasonable to believe X” and the like.

It is even possible that God exists and yet He exists beyond the reach of human reason and cannot be logically “proved” without assumption.[/quote]
Craig? Credible? LOL
[/quote]

Perhaps my assumption is wrong, but your posts give the strong impression that you do not see ANY theist as credible (I am not speaking of the CvE debate, this is philosophy), so singling out Craig is rather silly and you should just come out and say “all theists” like you said “all abrahamic religions” in another thread. Not thzt there’s anything wrong with that…but it does mean you can’t single one guy out.
[/quote]

Craig is a documented liar. If you watched the videos I posted you’ll see that. I can’t speak to all theists.

I do hate all Abrahamic religions. They’re death cults. And they all condone genital mutilation.
[/quote]

Not exactly what I said. I’m not a great fan of Craig but that’s not what I was getting at. Your posts imply you believe that there are NO credible theists at all, and thus it is wrong to single one out if you believe there are none credible. [/quote]

You referred to Craig as credible. I felt the need to correct you based on the fact that he is proven to lie when it suits him and I provided explicit objective evidence for.

He also thinks children that were slaughtered when Israel was taking over the promised land got a free pass to heaven, thus they weren’t wronged. Of course, this principle means he should be a zealous advocate for abortion. If children get a free pass to heaven, a doctrine with no biblical basis whatsoever, and biblical basis against in fact (Jacob I loved, and Esau I hated), then he should be happy when someone has an abortion, because that means the child is guaranteed heaven, whereas if the child was born, odds are they’d live to grow up and not be a Christian. Not having an abortion becomes irresponsible in Craig’s bizarro world.

[smh_23]

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

Agnostics ARE atheists. If you’re not a theist, you’re an atheist. You’re just an agnostic atheist, or a weak atheist, rather than a strong one. A strong one would be one who asserts there is no god. [/quote]

Of course you know that at this level of semantics, there is great variability of interpretation. People have been trying to define and redefine the word “atheist” for a good long time. The simplest definitions of the three, and the ones I use, are these:

Question: Is there a God?

Theist: Yes.

Atheist: No.

Agnostic: I don’t know.

Or we can take this definition, under which I am similarly absolved of the charge of atheism, because I do not disbelieve in God:

Definition of ATHEISM

[darsemnos]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

Agnostics ARE atheists. If you’re not a theist, you’re an atheist. You’re just an agnostic atheist, or a weak atheist, rather than a strong one. A strong one would be one who asserts there is no god. [/quote]

Of course you know that at this level of semantics, there is great variability of interpretation. People have been trying to define and redefine the word “atheist” for a good long time. The simplest definitions of the three, and the ones I use, are these:

Question: Is there a God?

Theist: Yes.

Atheist: No.

Agnostic: I don’t know.

Or we can take this definition, under which I am similarly absolved of the charge of atheism, because I do not disbelieve in God:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism[/quote]

The prefix “a-” means not. If you are a-theist, you are NOT a theist. An agnostic is not a theist, therefor he is an atheist. QED

[Sloth]

Sectarian unbeliever debate!

/grabs popcorn

[darsemnos]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sectarian unbeliever debate!

/grabs popcorn

[/quote]
The debate just ended.

[smh_23]

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

The prefix “a-” means not. If you are a-theist, you are NOT a theist. An agnostic is not a theist, therefor he is an atheist. QED
[/quote]

Surely you don’t think that you have a monopoly on the discipline of English definition. Words take their meanings socially and culturally as well as etymologically, and they do this to such a great extent that there are entire academic departments–and I mean in the most reputable universities on the planet–devoted to the study of linguistic and definitional evolution.

More importantly, I have just linked to one of the two or three most reputable English-language dictionaries in circulation, and in doing so I have proved myself correct, and you incorrect, beyond the possibility of doubt. Just in case things aren’t clear enough, I will lay things out so that no further confusion will be possible:

1. You say, as if your assertions constitute objective truth about the highly subjective and fluid thing we call language, that “agnostics ARE atheists.”

2. I tell you that language is a use-dependent and subjective endeavor, and that I happen to use, for the relevant terms, a particular set of definitions X, Y, and Z. In support of this, I offer a link to a dictionary of high repute. From it I quote:

A : a disbelief in the existence of deity
B : the doctrine that there is no deity

As I am sure you can see, the quoted excerpt could not be more consistent with my own set of definitions. If I am permitted redundancy, this proves your claim to absolute authority on the subject of the definition of the word “atheism”–well, it proves it plainly wrong. Beyond doubt.

your definition of “atheism” as somehow “wrong.” That would be, you know, [u]stupid[/u] of me, given the nature of language and the variability of meaning from which almost no spoken or written word is immune. What is important in debate is to ensure that all parties are operating under a common set of definitions. What is silly is for one combatant to yearn for authority and, unable to find any in the realms of logic and verity, reach into his ass instead.]

So, yes, the debate is indeed over, as you told Sloth. But it isn’t over in quite the way you meant.

[xXSeraphimXx]

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

Agnostics ARE atheists. If you’re not a theist, you’re an atheist. You’re just an agnostic atheist, or a weak atheist, rather than a strong one. A strong one would be one who asserts there is no god. [/quote]

Of course you know that at this level of semantics, there is great variability of interpretation. People have been trying to define and redefine the word “atheist” for a good long time. The simplest definitions of the three, and the ones I use, are these:

Question: Is there a God?

Theist: Yes.

Atheist: No.

Agnostic: I don’t know.

Or we can take this definition, under which I am similarly absolved of the charge of atheism, because I do not disbelieve in God:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism[/quote]

The prefix “a-” means not. If you are a-theist, you are NOT a theist. An agnostic is not a theist, therefor he is an atheist. QED
[/quote]

Fuck off with this. They are different. It is getting ridiculous with all the kinds of atheism. At this point there are probably more than there are religions.

[smh_23]

I have always found the beating of dead horses to be a distinctly underrated pastime, so:

agnostics ARE atheists

Atheism: b: The doctrine that there is no deity

Agnostic: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not

Merriam-Webster: America's Most Trusted Dictionary

[espenl]

And Agnostic Atheist: There is probably no god.

[smh_23]

But, darsemnos, if you’re really itching to get into an infuriatingly trivial semantic debate to which some demonstrable truths can apply, consider this:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

The prefix “a-” means not. If you are a-theist, you are NOT a theist. An agnostic is not a theist, therefor he is an atheist. QED
[/quote]

…and note that the word “therefor” is–in contradistinction to my definition of “atheism”–being entirely and objectively misused.

So, you were right in the end: There was a minor semantic error in need of correction. You simply attributed it to the wrong debater.

[pat]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[I’m combining the two points from the two posts here, to save time, which I presently have little of.]

[quote]pat wrote:

Second, the universe is a contingent entity. Assuming what we know about the universe to be true, the universe is one of the most contingent, caused things in existence. It’s contingent upon the things that make it up, matter, energy, information. Without matter, energy and information you have no universe.[/quote]

This is a fundamentally flawed view of the universe. The universe is defined as “the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated.” It is matter, energy, information, planets, stars, galaxies, black holes–everything. It is precisely those things, and nothing more. Thus, if it is contingent on those things–those things being it itself–then it is contingent on itself, and is, by your own definition, God.
[/quote]
The universe is contingent upon those things which make it up and you forgot space and time. If all those things are what make up the universe then those are in fact the contingencies on which it is based. matter, energy, information, planets, stars, galaxies, black holes, space and time are all contingent entities as well. They did not come from nothing and they do not just exist. Those things are not only caused, but caused in the classical sense where the cause precedes the effect. So if the universe is, as you say ‘those things’ then by definition the universe is the sum total of it’s make up and that is causal.
Further, God isn’t contingent upon himself (which is circular reasoning), God is non-contingent. There is no cause, there is no contingency. Causation with regards to God cannot be reasonably approached, his entity lacks the property of causation, by definition.
So the universe likewise is not contingent upon itself, first because such a statement is circular and second you just listed a whole set of causes of the universe: matter, energy, information, planets, stars, galaxies, black holes, space and time. The universe is caused by what’s in it. It’s defined by the things that make it up. That’s a contingency and there is no way around it.

[quote]pat wrote:
We were discussing an argument I made[/quote]

Yes, we were discussing an argument you made, but it didn’t fail because of some defect in your ability to formulate logical arguments–it failed because these arguments will invariably reduce to assumption or fallacy or circularity or an amalgam of the three. The reason that thread was so frustrating for you was that you were fighting a battle from a position of nearly unthinkable disadvantage, and I was fighting a battle that I really couldn’t lose if I were the least competent thinker hereabouts. All it takes is the challenge–prove this premise, prove that premise, prove yon premise–to show that these are, as the best theist philosophers readily admit, strong arguments and not settled proofs.

No, it was the argument. Like I said, I think I have it fixed and eliminated the pitfalls of the original. The problem with throwing out arguments is that they do not justify the premises, they just state them. That’s why philosophy books have very few arguments posited in them and then pages and pages of justification of the premises. The argument was flawed and it was my error. The logical justification is more important than the argument itself. The argument presents a framework, but it does not justify the premises. The process is not inherently flawed.

As far as theistic philosophers, and philosophers in general tend to be too polite when it comes to defending arguments, be it theirs or somebody elses. There are certain things which are deductively and necessarily true and there is no reason to be shy about being definitive when it comes to those matters. It’s simply a fact when it comes to deductive arguments, that if the premises are true and the conclusion follows from the premises to the exclusion of all others, then the argument is necessarily true.
It is interesting to me that some atheistic philosophers are more definitive and less polite while defending bad, sometimes terrible arguments. Dawkins always comes to mind when I say such things because his arguments are terrible. He may be a great scientist, I don’t know, but his philosophic prowess is lacking to put it politely.

As for the strength of the arguments, I agree with you. It is this very topic that makes me an agnostic (who leans, ever so slightly, toward theism) and not an atheist. But I cannot say, and no one has ever in good faith and in objectively demonstrable verity been able to say, that “God is true and it can be proved without assumption, beyond the possibility of doubt.”

Eh, that’s a debatable point. I didn’t do a good job defending it last time, but I do believe there are deductive truths that are perhaps disputable, but not refutable.
Kamui did bring up an interesting point from Kant that is true, that while something may be deductively true, you cannot escape completely from empiricism because we are physical beings and interact in a physical way. So while an argument may be totally deductively sound, we are still approaching it through eyes, ears, fingers, mouths and brains. It’s an inescapable paradigm we have to deal with.

[quote]
As for your reformulated argument, I would love to get into it, though I may be slow to respond in the coming weeks.[/quote]

You sure about that? I can present it, but whether right, wrong or indifferent I would not like to spend a tremendous amount of time on it.

[pat]

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:
Craig is a documented liar. If you watched the videos I posted you’ll see that. I can’t speak to all theists.
[/quote]
Pure bullshit. Documented liar? A double doctorate, a scholar with well over 30 published works? lol, that’s desperate.

I do hate all Abrahamic religions. They’re death cults. And they all condone genital mutilation.

Well that just proves you don’t know shit about Abrahamic religions, at all. That’s a completely ignorant statement.[/quote]

How is it desperate? Doctorates don’t prove anything.

Watch the videos I posted which show Lawrence Krauss objectively proving Craig’s deceit. Craig gave false representation of Dawkins and tried to make Dawkins seem worse to a bunch of credulous listeners who didn’t see the clip he was talking about. He couldn’t have said this if he hadn’t seen the clip. But if he saw the clip he’s know Dawkins wasn’t the one asking the question, when Craig said he was in order to make Dawkins look bad.

Then tell me he’s not a documented liar.
[/quote]
That’s a documented proof?
Objectively pointing out Craigs deceit? LOL! Dr. Krauss is very, very far from objective. There is no objectivity with regards to Dr. Krauss. Seriously, calling him out for listening to a pirated copy of something? Like everybody doesn’t watch pirated movies or pirated music? That’s the big slam dunk? Whatever. Pointing out that Dr. Craig made a mistake he later apologized for? Perhaps I should ring my bullshit buzzer here. I watched all three Australian debates and the one from North Carolina State University and Krauss gets his ass kicked each time. He constantly and rudely interrupts all the time, so much so that the moderators had step in and tell him to knock it off several times and he couldn’t answer any of Craig’s points, particularly with regards to his altered definition of ‘nothing’.
And Dawkins needs no help besmirching his reputation, he does a fine job of that. So much so, that even many atheists are backing off from him.

Here’s how he feels about infanticide:

- YouTube

The Abrahamic religions look forward to the end of the world and all condone, though Christianity doesn’t command, the non-medical excision of healthy, functional erogenous tissue from the genitals of children without anesthetic, aka, mutilation.

Speaking analyzing and criticizing movies you haven’t seen or books you haven’t read, don’t you think it’s a bit disingenuous to misrepresent a book you never read and a religion you know nothing about?

[pat]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:
They both know far more physicist than you or me, so I think their word has some merit.
[/quote]

I highly doubt this.[/quote]

You don’t know who you are talking to here. Your ‘heros’ are Dr. Matt’s colleagues. He sent me an email from CERN once and he wasn’t on a tour.
Dr. Matt, they are far more ‘physicist’ than you…lol

[pat]

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

God is because god is. That doesn’t solve anything any more.
[/quote]
Nobody says that and it was never meant to ‘solve’ anything.

[quote]
Actually, as I understand it, we were driven to the multiverse hypothesis by math, not the desire to bury god. So it’s scientific in the sense that it’s supported by the language of science, mathematics, but we just lack the means to verify it, for now. But the same was once true of black holes. Now we know they exist. There may be a time in the future when we figure out how to prove there are other universes even though we can’t see them directly. We can’t see black holes directly either, but we know they are there. [/quote]

There are lots of mathematical potentialities that can be interpreted in various ways leading to many hypothesis. I never said it was designed to bury God. I said it’s the counterclaim that many atheists use against the Fine Tuning theory. The theory of Black Holes had a lot on antecedent empirical evidence with regards to other phenomenon in the Universe that supported the mathematical claims. There is no such evidence with regards to the multiverse theory. It’s just not a strong theory.

[smh_23]

[quote]pat wrote:
About the universe’s contingency
[/quote]

I think you and I are in agreement with regard to this: The universe is, literally and precisely, X–X being all that is observed or postulated to be, including everything we’ve mentioned (particles, energy, fields, space, time).

If the universe is X, then [the universe] and are exactly interchangeable. Therefore, if [the universe] is contingent upon , then is contingent upon , i.e., is self-contingent.

There is a way around this, getting into the philosophy of identity (we touched on it a bit when we talked of what makes a circle a circle), but it is very complicated and open to much interpretation, and I think that’s best left for another day. With that in mind, I move on to this:

[quote]pat wrote:
Eh, that’s a debatable point. I didn’t do a good job defending it last time, but I do believe there are deductive truths that are perhaps disputable, but not refutable.[/quote]

And I note that we are in near-perfect agreement here–in fact this is exactly my point when I say that they are strong and worthy of consideration, but not settled. I do not mean that they can be refuted–as in, proved incorrect by a refutational argument that is valid and sound. [Well, some can, but I’m talking here about the ones than can’t.] What I mean instead is that they will necessarily rely on premises that, though seemingly very reasonable, can be doubted without fallacious argumentation.

Kamui did bring up an interesting point from Kant that is true, that while something may be deductively true, you cannot escape completely from empiricism because we are physical beings and interact in a physical way. So while an argument may be totally deductively sound, we are still approaching it through eyes, ears, fingers, mouths and brains. It’s an inescapable paradigm we have to deal with.

This is exactly what I mean when I say that it is not necessarily true that the finite, sensorily-imprisoned human mind is capable of actually proving, in an epistemologically certaint sense, that God exists, even if He does.

So, we agree more than it initially appeared.

[pat]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
About the universe’s contingency
[/quote]

I think you and I are in agreement with regard to this: The universe is, literally and precisely, X–X being all that is observed or postulated to be, including everything we’ve mentioned (particles, energy, fields, space, time).

If the universe is X, then [the universe] and are exactly interchangeable. Therefore, if [the universe] is contingent upon , then is contingent upon , i.e., is self-contingent.
[/quote]
It’s not self contingent, science does not even support this notion. It has a source, and origin, a reason for being that is not itself. If it were, scientists wouldn’t be trying to figure out where it came from. It’s circular reasoning which is fallacious.

There is a way around this, getting into the philosophy of identity (we touched on it a bit when we talked of what makes a circle a circle), but it is very complicated and open to much interpretation, and I think that’s best left for another day. With that in mind, I move on to this:

Agreeing on terminology is half the battle.

[quote]pat wrote:
Eh, that’s a debatable point. I didn’t do a good job defending it last time, but I do believe there are deductive truths that are perhaps disputable, but not refutable.[/quote]

And I note that we are in near-perfect agreement here–in fact this is exactly my point when I say that they are strong and worthy of consideration, but not settled. I do not mean that they can be refuted–as in, proved incorrect by a refutational argument that is valid and sound. [Well, some can, but I’m talking here about the ones than can’t.] What I mean instead is that they will necessarily rely on premises that, though seemingly very reasonable, can be doubted without fallacious argumentation.

On the surface this seems true, but if we dig deeper these contradictory claims are usually logically impossible.
The two main counter claims to cosmology is:
-Things exist uncaused that are not the Uncaused-cause.
-An infinite regress is possible.

The former point, I think can be worked out as false. But it does take work.
The second is false outright for reasons previously mentioned.
I think it’s easier to prove the former false by trying to prove it’s true, rather than trying to prove that everything outside the Uncaused-cause is caused.
Trying to prove something else uncaused is logically impossible to do.

[quote]

Kamui did bring up an interesting point from Kant that is true, that while something may be deductively true, you cannot escape completely from empiricism because we are physical beings and interact in a physical way. So while an argument may be totally deductively sound, we are still approaching it through eyes, ears, fingers, mouths and brains. It’s an inescapable paradigm we have to deal with.

This is exactly what I mean when I say that it is not necessarily true that the finite, sensorily-imprisoned human mind is capable of actually proving, in an epistemologically certaint sense, that God exists, even if He does.

So, we agree more than it initially appeared.[/quote]

Yes, but we can know things to be true, without having to know everything. It’s whittling through what you can know, vs. what you think and that is a difficult task at the higher levels, but I think it’s doable.

I have always thought we agree more than we disagree, but discussing our agreements isn’t much fun. ‘X is true’. ‘I agree’. ‘OK’.

[ZJStrope]

[quote]pat wrote:
About the universe’s contingency

It’s not self contingent, science does not even support this notion. It has a source, and origin, a reason for being that is not itself. If it were, scientists wouldn’t be trying to figure out where it came from. It’s circular reasoning which is fallacious.
[/quote]

This isn’t entirely true. There is a school of thought that the Universe (as defined by smh) has always existed. The Big Bang description of a “singularity” isn’t exactly as it’s described in layman’s terms. Simply, no one knows what it is or what it looked like.

Further, we cannot go back pass this time, but if we could, it’s very possible the Universe was expanded and something caused it to contract into what we refer to as the “singularity”. When it contracted as much as it could, it expanded again and here we are.

Check this out. It was very eye opening.

Science, Religion, and the Big Bang