Questions for Atheist in America

[quote]davidcox1 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]davidcox1 wrote:
It is true for Newtonian physics, but not cosmology.[/quote]

Cosmology ostensibly adheres to the principles of physics unfailingly and eternally. “Cosmology” is, after all, just a word we use to describe the comings and goings of big rocks and balls of fire in space. They operate under the governance of physical law in the same way that pool balls do.[/quote]

Black holes, space/time warps and cosmic inflation are hardly about a bunch of rocks floating around space. These concepts are part of cosmology. Throw in super string theory and physics gets tossed on its head. Indeed, physics begins to look very religious at that point.[/quote]

Not religious, philosophical. I find String theory and it’s variants fascinating in that if they are correct, then matter is basically an illusion, it’s all energy.

[quote]talldude wrote:

If god can exist without a cause, why not the universe?
[/quote]
By definition, God, or when arguing in this vain I prefer ‘Uncaused-Cause’ is necessarily true because the premises make it so. By definition and uncaused-cause cannot be caused, or it’s not uncaused. If God is this Uncaused-cause, he cannot be caused because it would be impossible for him to be otherwise.

[quote]
You’ll notice I’m arguing both sides of this - I do not know if there is a god. I remain open to the possibility, but currently we do not have any proof positive of the existence of a creator.[/quote]
I you ask I will try to answer.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]davidcox1 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

  1. Nothing is in motion without being set in motion by an external force.

[/quote]

I don’t consider the movement of electrons around the nucleus of an atom to set in motion by an external force. I believe your premise is flawed. It is true for Newtonian physics, but not cosmology.[/quote]

Ok, what set them in motion then?[/quote]

My answer to your last question is the same as my answer above. Logicians would call what you have done “begging the question.”

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]belligerent wrote:
I keep my atheism to myself. [/quote]

Not sure if you’re joking but I actually agree with you. We should keep it to ourselves.[/quote]

Then again, preaching it is not a full time job either.

There is no God!

See, done.

[quote]pat wrote:

By definition, God, or when arguing in this vain I prefer ‘Uncaused-Cause’ is necessarily true because the premises make it so. By definition and uncaused-cause cannot be caused, or it’s not uncaused. If God is this Uncaused-cause, he cannot be caused because it would be impossible for him to be otherwise.
[/quote]

Oooookkkkay, so I simply postulate that the universe is uncaused and viola, case closed.

Becaaauuuussse, if you say that everything needs a cause and then simply invent an uncaused cause, who has no cause, because that is how you defined him, I can do that too.

You can choose between the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and the universe itself.

Circular reasoning is circular.

[quote]davidcox1 wrote:<<< Logicians would call what you have done “begging the question.” >>>[/quote]How would they, or you, propose to avoid such a thing?

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

By definition, God, or when arguing in this vain I prefer ‘Uncaused-Cause’ is necessarily true because the premises make it so. By definition and uncaused-cause cannot be caused, or it’s not uncaused. If God is this Uncaused-cause, he cannot be caused because it would be impossible for him to be otherwise.
[/quote]

Oooookkkkay, so I simply postulate that the universe is uncaused and viola, case closed.

Becaaauuuussse, if you say that everything needs a cause and then simply invent an uncaused cause, who has no cause, because that is how you defined him, I can do that too.

You can choose between the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and the universe itself.

Circular reasoning is circular.

[/quote]
3
That is freaking hilarious! We at least agree on something!!

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]davidcox1 wrote:<<< Logicians would call what you have done “begging the question.” >>>[/quote]How would they, or you, propose to avoid such a thing?
[/quote]

I used the example of electrons circling the nucleus of an atom to exhibit something that was not set in motion by something else. The latter was the premise I was refuting. To counter my refutation would require either proving that something indeed sets electrons into orbit around the nucleus of an atom or abandon the position that everything that is in motion was set that way by something else. Instead, I got the same question back at me: “What sets the electrons in motion then?” Since my point is that nothing sets them in motion, it does no good to ask me what sets them in motion. Are we having fun yet?

[quote]orion wrote:

Circular reasoning is circular.

[/quote]

Wait a minute . . . who’s on first?

[quote]davidcox1 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Circular reasoning is circular.

[/quote]

Wait a minute . . . who’s on first?[/quote]

Man 1: You remind me of a man.

Man 2: What man?

Man 1: The man with the power.

Man 2: What power?

Man 1: The power of voodoo.

Man 2: Who do?

Man 1: You do.

Man 2: I do what?

Man 1: You remind me of a man.

Man 2: What man?

Man 1: The man with the power.

etc

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I can say nothing here. I am speechless. What ever twists and turns you face, I hope they turn out well. Peace be upon you SMH, in what ever form it comes.[/quote]

Thanks man, and right back at you. Though we frequently find ourselves at odds on the subject, in the end I think we see eye to eye more than one would think.[/quote]

I agree. I don’t mind good hard discussions, though. So I say we keep at it. Let me know if you ever come to the ATL, we could do some lunch and bullshit about this stuff…I’ll show you mine, if you show me yours… :slight_smile: [/quote]

You’ve got yourself a deal good sir.

[quote]davidcox1 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]davidcox1 wrote:<<< Logicians would call what you have done “begging the question.” >>>[/quote]How would they, or you, propose to avoid such a thing?
[/quote]

I used the example of electrons circling the nucleus of an atom to exhibit something that was not set in motion by something else. The latter was the premise I was refuting. To counter my refutation would require either proving that something indeed sets electrons into orbit around the nucleus of an atom or abandon the position that everything that is in motion was set that way by something else. Instead, I got the same question back at me: “What sets the electrons in motion then?” Since my point is that nothing sets them in motion, it does no good to ask me what sets them in motion. Are we having fun yet?[/quote]Yeah, yeah, yeah and by what ultimate standard do you so much as even purport that any examination of electrons is valid. Or that there ARE electrons at all? Come on don’t lemme down now. Let’s hear about the scientific method.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

By definition, God, or when arguing in this vain I prefer ‘Uncaused-Cause’ is necessarily true because the premises make it so. By definition and uncaused-cause cannot be caused, or it’s not uncaused. If God is this Uncaused-cause, he cannot be caused because it would be impossible for him to be otherwise.
[/quote]

Oooookkkkay, so I simply postulate that the universe is uncaused and viola, case closed.

Becaaauuuussse, if you say that everything needs a cause and then simply invent an uncaused cause, who has no cause, because that is how you defined him, I can do that too.

You can choose between the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and the universe itself.

Circular reasoning is circular. >>>[/quote]Ultimately I agree. A vanilla uncaused first cause is as good as idolatry by itself. I do exaggerate a bit to make a point. (but just a bit) God is indeed the uncaused first cause of all save for Himself alone. However, meeting unbelievers on their own home turf of autonomous human logic to proclaim theistic “proofs” ultimately ends where we are here every time when confronted by any half competent heathen.

It’s not that the thomistic evidentialsts are morons at all. It’s that their weapons are wholly inadequate. Or more accurately, simply not fitted to the job. This is the result of a deficient view of sin wherein my fellow theists mistakenly believe that there is enough life in their unregenerate opponents so that if only they are presented with a compelling enough intellectual argument they will cry uncle and fall on their face before the thrice holy God and tearfully repent of their rebellion.

This is biblically untrue. They are not sick in need of some intellectual medicine. They are dead, in need of a supernatural resurrection which is available only in the risen Christ who is Himself the second person of the triune Godhead. The only eternally begotten Son of the Father.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
What are you guys smoking?
Gravity is art of universe. Creation of universe can’t star with part of universe.

You guys are worse than the religious literalists trying to talk circles around bible verses.[/quote]

Clearly your understanding of Newtonian and quantum physics is even worse than mine. There’s a whole lot of weird guys in bow ties who write pages of funny symbols and numbers and shit who disagree with you. All of them can kick your arse in mathematics/physics. Don’t argue with them. Without them you wouldn’t have the internet, television, radio or even electricity.[/quote]

No, I have a decent understanding. And a lot of the smart guys agree with me. I studed quantum and modern physics at one of the top engineering schools in the nation. All “creation” theories start with something. Starting with something isn’t the begining.
[/quote]

How are you defining ‘nothing’? Remember space and time didn’t exist prior to the big bang and the spontaneous matter/anit-matter creation theories posit that matter/energy/anti-matter/dark energy didn’t exist either. If space, time, matter/energy, anti-matter/dark energy didn’t exist what did? Also keep in mind that gravity is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime(which didn’t exist). Please explain.[/quote]

Matter and gravity existed before the big band. Hawking starts with gravity. No theory starts with nothing.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
It’s so cute. The believers always insist “science will never answer everything!!!1!” and then failing that, they will try to drag lack of belief in a personal God into the dirt with belief in a personal God.

It’s also kind of sad. And it’s always the same people.[/quote]

Then answer the simple question I asked or shut your mouth. You resort to personal attacks when you run out of mental realestate.

Science cannot know everything. That is part of science. Fact. Period. People who contend such are worse than the religious nuts who ignore logic and reason.[/quote]

Science doesn’t know everything. I don’t know why you’d think I’d insist otherwise. Science is a way to know more, not know everything.

It’s not a personal attack either, it’s a simple statement of facts.[/quote]
Then you are agreeing with me and saying guys saying science will know everything are wrong?
t[/quote]

Another absolute. I don’t know if science will know everything. I think it’s highly unlikely science will solve everything. If you are saying science knows all, especially at this stage in human history, then you are just as bad as those who fill gaps in knowledge with God.[/quote]

Science is a system for investigating and modeling phenomena in the universe. It cannot ever work for things outside the universe. If there is a god, he isn’t subject to scientific inquiry. Like I pointed out before, there are many questions that cannot even be asked scientifically, much less investigated and solved.

I’m also confident composers won’t unravel the mysteries of the universe with a song. It isn’t what they do.

[quote]davidcox1 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]davidcox1 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

  1. Nothing is in motion without being set in motion by an external force.

[/quote]

I don’t consider the movement of electrons around the nucleus of an atom to set in motion by an external force. I believe your premise is flawed. It is true for Newtonian physics, but not cosmology.[/quote]

Ok, what set them in motion then?[/quote]

My answer to your last question is the same as my answer above. Logicians would call what you have done “begging the question.”
[/quote]

No it’s not. That’s ‘Asking a question’. Begging the question would be saying: ‘Electrons move around the nucleus, because they do.’ ← That’s begging the question. You cannot ‘beg the question’ with a question.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

By definition, God, or when arguing in this vain I prefer ‘Uncaused-Cause’ is necessarily true because the premises make it so. By definition and uncaused-cause cannot be caused, or it’s not uncaused. If God is this Uncaused-cause, he cannot be caused because it would be impossible for him to be otherwise.
[/quote]

Oooookkkkay, so I simply postulate that the universe is uncaused and viola, case closed.

Becaaauuuussse, if you say that everything needs a cause and then simply invent an uncaused cause, who has no cause, because that is how you defined him, I can do that too.

You can choose between the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and the universe itself.

Circular reasoning is circular.

[/quote]

No, you simply don’t understand the argument. Not that I am shocked. The premises necessitate the answer, just like 2+2 necessitates the answer is 4.
Misunderstanding is not a debunking…Do some research so you don’t say stupid shit.

[quote]garcia1970 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

By definition, God, or when arguing in this vain I prefer ‘Uncaused-Cause’ is necessarily true because the premises make it so. By definition and uncaused-cause cannot be caused, or it’s not uncaused. If God is this Uncaused-cause, he cannot be caused because it would be impossible for him to be otherwise.
[/quote]

Oooookkkkay, so I simply postulate that the universe is uncaused and viola, case closed.

Becaaauuuussse, if you say that everything needs a cause and then simply invent an uncaused cause, who has no cause, because that is how you defined him, I can do that too.

You can choose between the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and the universe itself.

Circular reasoning is circular.

[/quote]
3
That is freaking hilarious! We at least agree on something!![/quote]

That you don’t know shit about cosmology? Yep, I agree…Two peas in a pod.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

By definition, God, or when arguing in this vain I prefer ‘Uncaused-Cause’ is necessarily true because the premises make it so. By definition and uncaused-cause cannot be caused, or it’s not uncaused. If God is this Uncaused-cause, he cannot be caused because it would be impossible for him to be otherwise.
[/quote]

Oooookkkkay, so I simply postulate that the universe is uncaused and viola, case closed.

Becaaauuuussse, if you say that everything needs a cause and then simply invent an uncaused cause, who has no cause, because that is how you defined him, I can do that too.

You can choose between the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and the universe itself.

Circular reasoning is circular. >>>[/quote]Ultimately I agree. A vanilla uncaused first cause is as good as idolatry by itself. I do exaggerate a bit to make a point. (but just a bit) God is indeed the uncaused first cause of all save for Himself alone. However, meeting unbelievers on their own home turf of autonomous human logic to proclaim theistic “proofs” ultimately ends where we are here every time when confronted by any half competent heathen.

It’s not that the thomistic evidentialsts are morons at all. It’s that their weapons are wholly inadequate. Or more accurately, simply not fitted to the job. This is the result of a deficient view of sin wherein my fellow theists mistakenly believe that there is enough life in their unregenerate opponents so that if only they are presented with a compelling enough intellectual argument they will cry uncle and fall on their face before the thrice holy God and tearfully repent of their rebellion.

This is biblically untrue. They are not sick in need of some intellectual medicine. They are dead, in need of a supernatural resurrection which is available only in the risen Christ who is Himself the second person of the triune Godhead. The only eternally begotten Son of the Father.
[/quote]

Strawman Tirib…The argument is perfectly linear. You cannot debunk the argument by by calling it a sin and therefore it’s wrong. That’s not the argument. Idolatry is holding something other then God in the same regard as God himself. This is not what this is. This is one piece of the puzzle and a damn important one. It’s the one thing that links everything to God. Uncauased-cause isn’t some thing other than God, but that lies down the road.
If you did some research yourself you realize it’s true. God doesn’t exist in a book, He’s real and his creation reflects that.
I suggest if you want to disprove cosmology, then you do your homework. You don’t want to accidentally deny the truth and reality of God do you? Stubbornness leads to ignorance don’t fall into the trap.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
What are you guys smoking?
Gravity is art of universe. Creation of universe can’t star with part of universe.

You guys are worse than the religious literalists trying to talk circles around bible verses.[/quote]

Clearly your understanding of Newtonian and quantum physics is even worse than mine. There’s a whole lot of weird guys in bow ties who write pages of funny symbols and numbers and shit who disagree with you. All of them can kick your arse in mathematics/physics. Don’t argue with them. Without them you wouldn’t have the internet, television, radio or even electricity.[/quote]

No, I have a decent understanding. And a lot of the smart guys agree with me. I studed quantum and modern physics at one of the top engineering schools in the nation. All “creation” theories start with something. Starting with something isn’t the begining.
[/quote]

How are you defining ‘nothing’? Remember space and time didn’t exist prior to the big bang and the spontaneous matter/anit-matter creation theories posit that matter/energy/anti-matter/dark energy didn’t exist either. If space, time, matter/energy, anti-matter/dark energy didn’t exist what did? Also keep in mind that gravity is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime(which didn’t exist). Please explain.[/quote]

Matter and gravity existed before the big band. Hawking starts with gravity. No theory starts with nothing.[/quote]

Led Zep or the Beatles??? :slight_smile: