I’m interested to see how people respond to this.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, you’re fortunate. Though you may know a great many religious folks, you’re still free to feel as if your existence is completely futile.[/quote]
Conjuring straw men again I see.
You’re very good at it.[/quote]
How is basically saying he’s entitled to his opinion a strawman? You doing ok lately?[/quote]
When you start to make up things about what other people think about existence, you basically fail. The spin routine, trying to make everyone believe atheists are inherently immoral/nihilistic/suicidal/whatever doesn’t cut it.[/quote]
Make up what he thinks about existence…Uh, did you even read his post? Lol. You do realize I used his own words, don’t you? [/quote]
EDIT: Fuck it. If you don’t understand what happens when you talk to someone who uses English as a second language, I can’t be bothered.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
…I can’t be bothered.[/quote]
Ok.
The Kalam argument has flaws in the causal premise.
“…there is a priori no good reason why a sheer origination of things, not determined by anything, should be unacceptable, whereas the existence of a god with the power to create something out of nothing is acceptable.” – J. L. Mackie.
Also:
B = things that begin to exist
C = things that are caused
u = the universe
- all B is C
- u is B
- u is C
Because the universe is all that has ever begun to exist, “all B” is equivalent to “u”, thus rendering the actual argument circular:
- u is C
- u is B
- u is C
Leibnizian argument: Debunking Christianity: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
And the the Cosmological argument about the First Cause, it’s exemption from cause is essentially special pleading. You’ll have to explain how or why the First Cause is exempt.
Mak has succeeded in proving to himself that he does not believe in the thing that he does not believe in . . . congratulations Mak!
It would’ve been a sacrifice if he had actually died. No point boasting about someone’s sacrifice when the end result of it is that they supposedly FLY INTO THE HEAVENS!
Ah, look - I gave my only son … for a couple of days. He’s recovered now. No biggie.
Fuck me, do people not get the stupidity?
[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
It would’ve been a sacrifice if he had actually died. No point boasting about someone’s sacrifice when the end result of it is that they supposedly FLY INTO THE HEAVENS!
Ah, look - I gave my only son … for a couple of days. He’s recovered now. No biggie.
Fuck me, do people not get the stupidity?[/quote]
Oh indeed we do. I have stated in practically every post in this thread how idiotic I know the gospel sounds to you, though it has nothing to do with intelligence. Yours or mine. However, what you have here is not the gospel just in case you care.
[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
It would’ve been a sacrifice if he had actually died. No point boasting about someone’s sacrifice when the end result of it is that they supposedly FLY INTO THE HEAVENS!
Ah, look - I gave my only son … for a couple of days. He’s recovered now. No biggie.
Fuck me, do people not get the stupidity?[/quote]
yes, having sex with you would be stupid . . . wait . .what?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
There are 2 species of man in the world since the fulfillment of the law in Christ. Those who by free grace(this cannot be emphasized enough) have been born again into the life and mind of the resurrected Son of God and those who have not and remain for the moment dead in trespasses and sins.
[/quote]
Hey now, what about Catholics, I was not born again. ;)[/quote]
Yes you were. It’s a daily occurrence if you understand the meaning.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
The Kalam argument has flaws in the causal premise.
“…there is a priori no good reason why a sheer origination of things, not determined by anything, should be unacceptable, whereas the existence of a god with the power to create something out of nothing is acceptable.” – J. L. Mackie.
Also:
B = things that begin to exist
C = things that are caused
u = the universe
- all B is C
- u is B
- u is C
Because the universe is all that has ever begun to exist, “all B” is equivalent to “u”, thus rendering the actual argument circular:
- u is C
- u is B
- u is C[/quote]
I don’t think you watched the video since the argument is presented not as a syllogism but as 3 exhaustive dilemmas . The first quote only has weight against the causal premise in an empirical approach or an inductive generalization of reality only if your argument “the universe is the only thing that began to exist” stands. It has no weight against the causal premise in a metaphysical approach or as a necessary truth that applies to all reality and logic especially when one considers what nothing really is. It isn’t a dark “empty” void as many of us imagine as there is still space-time, zero point energy and a rich sea of sub atomic particles resulting from the properties of the space. Nothing is literally nothing, at the singularity there is no space, time etc…
Second for your argument that the universe is the only thing that began to exist. You have to hold that nothing else came into existence since then or that things coming into existence is equivalent to the universe coming into existence. I did not exist when the universe began to exist, but I began to exist and exist now. The stuff I am made of doesn’t make me who I am since all the atoms of our body are replaced periodically over time. I would watch the video and if you want to go to where your objection is answered go watch at 38:00.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Leibnizian argument: Debunking Christianity: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
And the the Cosmological argument about the First Cause, it’s exemption from cause is essentially special pleading. You’ll have to explain how or why the First Cause is exempt.[/quote]
The First Cause is exempt by definition. For something to cause and yet not be caused it cannot have any sort of a cause. If it did, it would not be the first cause, it would be the second or third. And uncaused-cause, necessarily must not be cause and yet be able to cause. Which is the case here.
I don’t think the author did a sufficient job of debunking the argument. He argued extensively about the Principal of Sufficient reason, which is a long way of saying that if it exists, it must have been caused by something else. You cannot assume anything like a “contingent yet independent” being with out some sort of a priori proof. Saying they do is simply not sufficient…You need to identify that which is exists and is not caused or effected. He uses an example of ‘matter-energy’ but that doesn’t make sense either, where did this ‘matter energy’ come from. If it just is, then prove that. First, we don’t “know” matter-energy to exist in the first place. Second, if we did “know” we would have to further prove that all it’s properties exists with out cause, for no reason. He also argues the principals like ‘triangles have three angles’ stand alone, but that’s simply not true. While the principal sufficiently explains something about triangles, it does not necessarily mean that it stands alone…Actually it is born of mathematical principles. Angles are something and triangles are something, so right there you have at least two necessities required exist for that statement to be true and if you want to get really high and think about the properties with in the statement, ‘triangles have three angles’ you can see that the principle does not stand alone, but that it is assembled from other things.
Lastly, he seems to ignore the basics of the Cosmological form that is a breaking down of “things” or “beings”. You cannot rip things apart eternally you either run out of ‘material’ or your run in to something that cannot be broken apart. The latter being more likely.
He made some legit criticisms about the Principal of Sufficient reason, but it hardly does away with the Cosmological form. The biggest problem is with the name, “Sufficient” is not necessary. Necessity is what’s needed. It is the basis on which the theoretical science of cosmology is based. It is what atheist cosmologists try and yet fail to debunk, at least so far have.
Atheists have an easy job, they have to prove that something can come from nothing. All they need is one example of it. Problem is, that does not exist. Since we cannot emulate nothingness, it can never be empirically tested.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
The Kalam argument has flaws in the causal premise.
“…there is a priori no good reason why a sheer origination of things, not determined by anything, should be unacceptable, whereas the existence of a god with the power to create something out of nothing is acceptable.” – J. L. Mackie.
Also:
B = things that begin to exist
C = things that are caused
u = the universe
- all B is C
- u is B
- u is C
Because the universe is all that has ever begun to exist, “all B” is equivalent to “u”, thus rendering the actual argument circular:
- u is C
- u is B
- u is C[/quote]
I don’t think you watched the video since the argument is presented not as a syllogism but as 3 exhaustive dilemmas . The first quote only has weight against the causal premise in an empirical approach or an inductive generalization of reality only if your argument “the universe is the only thing that began to exist” stands. It has no weight against the causal premise in a metaphysical approach or as a necessary truth that applies to all reality and logic especially when one considers what nothing really is. It isn’t a dark “empty” void as many of us imagine as there is still space-time, zero point energy and a rich sea of sub atomic particles resulting from the properties of the space. Nothing is literally nothing, at the singularity there is no space, time etc…
Second for your argument that the universe is the only thing that began to exist. You have to hold that nothing else came into existence since then or that things coming into existence is equivalent to the universe coming into existence. I did not exist when the universe began to exist, but I began to exist and exist now. The stuff I am made of doesn’t make me who I am since all the atoms of our body are replaced periodically over time. I would watch the video and if you want to go to where your objection is answered go watch at 38:00.[/quote]
I wish people would not even refer to Kalam Cosmological argument. It is the worse form of it.
…obviously you believe i’m damned?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Yes, sometimes those with power are corrupted with Pride, and that is a sad fact that it happens, but that is not the Truth of the Christianity.[/quote]
…what is the truth of christianity?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…obviously you believe i’m damned?
[/quote]
I do. If I am to take Jesus Himself seriously I must. And that for the same reasons I was. I was and am no more or less deserving of His grace than you are.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…obviously you believe i’m damned?
[/quote]
I do. If I am to take Jesus Himself seriously I must. And that for the same reasons I was. I was and am no more or less deserving of His grace than you are.[/quote]
…it must also mean that everybody that does not believe in Jesus/the christian God [and were exposed to the bible in some way or other] is damned too, right? That’s probably close to a billion people you believe are damned. How does that make you feel?
…my older sister became a Jehova’s Witness, and she goes door to door [as they’re supposed to]; is she damned? I ask this because it confuses me how within one religion different claims of truth exist. How do you see that, and is there a difference in truth between denominations?
Someone name me something that has been proven to exist without physical evidence? Even objects that we cannot see are proven true by the effects they have on other objects:
For instance:
- Even though Black holes cannot be seen, they can be located based on the gravitational pull on the objects around them.
It is difficult to use pure logic to prove the existence of God as we have no way of verifying this. Previous logical arguments we’ve made into the existence of objects we cannot see can be proven or dis proven by their effects on other things.
And going along with the logical argument for God:
Why can we say God has always existed, but not use the same logic and say the universe has always existed?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…obviously you believe i’m damned?
[/quote]
I do. If I am to take Jesus Himself seriously I must. And that for the same reasons I was. I was and am no more or less deserving of His grace than you are.[/quote]
…it must also mean that everybody that does not believe in Jesus/the christian God [and were exposed to the bible in some way or other] is damned too, right? That’s probably close to a billion people you believe are damned. How does that make you feel?
…my older sister became a Jehova’s Witness, and she goes door to door [as they’re supposed to]; is she damned? I ask this because it confuses me how within one religion different claims of truth exist. How do you see that, and is there a difference in truth between denominations?[/quote]
are you asking if there are versions of “christianity” that do not hold the truth and are thus included with the damned?