[quote]Sloth wrote:
Look, you want to take a look at sources, grouping folks together? Then let’s do it. Let’s roll up our sleeves and do it. That reasoning ability, your source, has been the very same source used by men like Stalin. You drew different conclusions, but you used the same damn source. Same source, different conclusions, same absolute moral weight, zero.[/quote]
No, I don’t want to lump everyone together because it makes no sense which is what I was trying to point out. Equating Christianity and Islam’s moral system is just as absurd as linking secular humanism to Stalin.
As far as lumping together, I’ve only lumped the Christians on this board together - Catholics, evangelicals, etc.
[quote]kamui wrote:
The cosmological argument from the point of contingency is pretty sound actually
[/quote]
No, it really isn’t.
Everything needs a creator
Make up a creator that doesn’t need a creator, spitting in the face of the above
Ignore the possibility that the universe also could exist without a creator (much like a hypothetical ‘prime mover’)
???
Profit[/quote]
There’s also the possibility of the universe being infinitely old. Concepts like that are too hard for most humans to comprehend so god is the next best thing.
[quote]pat wrote:
Don’t we have this conversation already?
No morality is not a human construct, nor is it relative. For morality to be relative you have to be able to justify evil, not matter how evil it is. Since, nobody is able to do that, it lends credibility to the fact that it is not relative. No matter how hard you try, you can make a wrong, right.[/quote]
Nobody is able to justify evil?
What planet do you come from kind Sir and would you take me with you when you return home?
Tell me, If the cosmological argument can serve as an indirect proof of existence of God [meaning if God does not exist we run into a contradiction] will you except it? Others mentioned arguments as well. not surprisingly, they aren’t good enough for you. no argument can convince an atheist due to him acting as the supreme judge of the soundness of the argument itself.[/quote]
If the cosmological argument were indeed valid I would change my position. It’s not, read the criticisms of it. I make my decision based on reason and evidence. Pat is doing himself no favours by peddling this bad argument.
[/quote]
Correct, the cosmological argument has been ripped to shreds by very informed and highly intelligent philosophers.
Pat chooses to ignore this.[/quote]
Like I said, it should be no problem to prove it, or me wrong…Go nuts.
Oh wait! I should just take your word for it??? Nah, back your shit up.
[/quote]
I’m not claiming to be a “very informed and highly intelligent philosopher”, you would be smashed in a debate with one by the way. Don’t let your ego get too big.
Anyhoo…
In a nutshell, the argument can be put more formally as follows:
Every thing has either been caused to exist by something else or else exists uncaused.
Not every thing has been caused to exist by something else.
Therefore, at least one thing is itself uncaused.
There are several problems with this argument. The most crucial objection to the argument itself is that unless we know that premise 2 is true, the argument fails. If the universe is infinitely old, for instance, every thing could indeed be caused by something else before it; the series of causes could go back forever. But perhaps more importantly, one could hold that the argument succeeds without believing that God exists. There could be multiple uncaused causes (multiple gods) or the uncaused cause could be an unintelligent, impersonal force. Finally, the argument holds that God is required to explain the existence of the universe, but offers no explanation for why God exists. If you invoke God to answer the question “Why is there a universe rather than nothing?” you raise the further question “Why is there a God rather than nothing?” The fundamental question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” remains unanswered either way; so why invoke a potentially nonexistent God to explain a universe which we know exists?[/quote]
So you missed the part where I spoke of the argument from the point of contingency? You must of missed the whole post as I was very specific about the contingency part.
Kalam, which is the version you pasted, is indeed flawed and a bad rip-off from Aristotle.
The argument from contingency, removes time from the equation, that’s the reason I chose that form.
Now, above you massacred the argument. Seriously, “Every thing has either been caused to exist by something else or else exists uncaused.” ← Uh, fuck no. That’s garbage. I am not going to let you massacre the argument like that. It’s calls the principle of sufficient reason, which basically says, for that which exists, there is a sufficient (or necessary) reason that ‘it’ exists.
The second premise is even funnier…“Not every thing has been caused to exist by something else.” ← LOL…what? whether that’s a premise or a conclusion I am not sure, but that doesn’t even belong in the cosmological form.
Do I need to go over the fact that the conclusion is a non-sequiter? How the hell do you get “…at least one thing is itself uncaused.” from those premises?
So here is an overview of the forms of the arguments and counter arguments:
Dig all you want, it has never been refuted.
[/quote]
Pat, all versions of the cosmological argument have been shown to have flaws (critics).
[/quote]
Critics aren’t “flaws” and their criticisms don’t stick. If they did, we would be talking about it now. Pick one, any one. None of them refute it, period.
I am simply saying, put your money where your mouth is. If you think it’s been debunked, prove it. It’s really that simple. Showing me a page of criticisms that don’t debunk the argument, is not a counter argument or proof of any kind.
I gave it to your all ready. It’s called the Cosomological argument from the point of contingency. Just google it and learn it. Then bring your best counter arguments.
[quote]kamui wrote:
The cosmological argument from the point of contingency is pretty sound actually
[/quote]
No, it really isn’t.
Everything needs a creator
Make up a creator that doesn’t need a creator, spitting in the face of the above
Ignore the possibility that the universe also could exist without a creator (much like a hypothetical ‘prime mover’)
???
Profit[/quote]
Come on Mak, that’s not the argument and you know it. You’ve seen it enough to probably repeat every thing I have ever said and predict my responses. And you know also, it’s never been refuted.
[quote]kamui wrote:
The cosmological argument from the point of contingency is pretty sound actually, but it’s not a christian argument, and, strictly speaking, it’s not even a theistic argument.
And Pat already know that. I gave him this answer in my very first post on PWI. (in the “Atheism-o-phobia” thread).
He just use this line as a jab to pass the guard of his atheist opponents.
When they are in bad philosophical shape or not used to this kind of sparring, it’s sometimes enough to knock them down.
Just tell him “there may be a first cause but we can’t know anything about it” and you save your agnosticism. You can throw a “now, prove this first cause is actually Jesus” punch, but don’t expect an easy fight. Pat has an impressive stamina.
[/quote]
Thanks for the heads up.[/quote]
Which is why I have always said the connection to first cause is inferred, but not because we cannot know anything about the first-cause. The argument itself tells us somethings about it. However, the reason it’s an inference is because you have to know who or what God is to make the connection prior to making it.
[quote]kamui wrote:
The cosmological argument from the point of contingency is pretty sound actually
[/quote]
No, it really isn’t.
Everything needs a creator
Make up a creator that doesn’t need a creator, spitting in the face of the above
Ignore the possibility that the universe also could exist without a creator (much like a hypothetical ‘prime mover’)
???
Profit[/quote]
There’s also the possibility of the universe being infinitely old. Concepts like that are too hard for most humans to comprehend so god is the next best thing.[/quote]
And that doesn’t matter in the in the argument from contingency. It takes time out of the equation.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Look, you want to take a look at sources, grouping folks together? Then let’s do it. Let’s roll up our sleeves and do it. That reasoning ability, your source, has been the very same source used by men like Stalin. You drew different conclusions, but you used the same damn source. Same source, different conclusions, same absolute moral weight, zero.[/quote]
No, I don’t want to lump everyone together because it makes no sense which is what I was trying to point out. Equating Christianity and Islam’s moral system is just as absurd as linking secular humanism to Stalin.
As far as lumping together, I’ve only lumped the Christians on this board together - Catholics, evangelicals, etc.
[/quote]
Which is absurd in it’s own right. Why don’t you take us as individuals? We are way different.
Sloth has a point. If you lump us together in heap, then we can lump you which puts you in the racks of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Se Tung, etc. So if you lump, we lump. We end up with a better crowd though.
[quote]kamui wrote:
The cosmological argument from the point of contingency is pretty sound actually
[/quote]
No, it really isn’t.
Everything needs a creator
Make up a creator that doesn’t need a creator, spitting in the face of the above
Ignore the possibility that the universe also could exist without a creator (much like a hypothetical ‘prime mover’)
???
Profit[/quote]
There’s also the possibility of the universe being infinitely old. Concepts like that are too hard for most humans to comprehend so god is the next best thing.[/quote]
And that doesn’t matter in the in the argument from contingency. It takes time out of the equation.[/quote]
“Aquinas’s argument from contingency allows for the possibility of a Universe that has no beginning in time.”
and
“Thus, according to Aquinas, there must have been a time when nothing existed.”
That does not make sense. If the universe has no beginning in time, then there was never a time when it did not exist.
Which is absurd in it’s own right. Why don’t you take us as individuals? We are way different.
Sloth has a point. If you lump us together in heap, then we can lump you which puts you in the racks of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Se Tung, etc. So if you lump, we lump. We end up with a better crowd though.[/quote]
You spent so much time talking about Sola scripture and consensus among Christians and now you’re saying this?
Really?
Which is absurd in it’s own right. Why don’t you take us as individuals? We are way different.
Sloth has a point. If you lump us together in heap, then we can lump you which puts you in the racks of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Se Tung, etc. So if you lump, we lump. We end up with a better crowd though.[/quote]
You spent so much time talking about Sola scripture and consensus among Christians and now you’re saying this?
Really?[/quote]
I think you got me confused with somebody else. I disagree with sola scriptura… It yields more division than unity. But I do agree in many cases that Christians should spend more time on what brings us together rather than what separates us, though.
There are three major ideologies among Christians. You have the apostolic traditions which includes Roman and Orthodox Catholicism, Anglicanism which encompasses the mojarity of Christians world wide. Then Evangelicalism (a.k.a. Sola Scriptura)which has two major splits, Arminianism which encompasses most evangelicals and Calvinism which encompasses folks like, the Presbyterians and Reformed Baptist…Then on the fringe you have kooks like Westboro who are just complete morons and would be closer to God if they were atheists.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Push, I think the puddy tat is gone.
I forget…are you the godless pagan and I the bible butcher, or vice verse?[/quote]
Can someone please explain to me how pushharder can be so involved with Christianity but then go out and have foursomes?[/quote]
Read the bible. Abe and Isaac passed off their wives as their sisters. Rachel was a babe but the Lord rewarded Leah with children. If you heathens want to debate the bible at least get some of the basics down pat. I’m not going to try to defend or oppose Push’s interpretation of scripture but if I was going to do so I would read the bible first so at least I could sound like I know what I’m talking about.[/quote]
Agreed. It seems to me the bible is the only book you are allowed to criticize and critique with out having read the damn thing.
Of course then you have the ones who say they read it, but mysteriously doesn’t know a damn thing about what it says. Those are my favorites.[/quote]
It would still be pointless for the most part.
Every sect, heck even individuals have their own individual interpretation of scripture. Even if I read and studied the book fully and found passages that went against his lifestyle choice, he could simply state he interprets them another way.
The same is seen w/ respect to Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. You can find passages that go against his position, and he can find passages that support his position.
[/quote]
True. You could do the same with any book really if you cherry pick and take things out of context, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.
And yes, people do do that to justify the most abominable crap. But that is a misuse of the Bible not a use of it. Hell, some people have gone so far as to change the bible to make it say what they want. Again, it’s a misuse not a proper study.
I do not believe the bible can be used to justify anything and everything. People do it, but its wrong and it does a great deal of harm when it is done. There is plenty of room for personal meaning with out having to change it’s meaning.
I would argue that Fred Phelps doesn’t know shit about the bible. The crap he spews just ain’t in there in context. That’s just a fact. Being able to repeat some words in the bible doesn’t constitute “knowledge”.
Now to your point, the ragged “sola scriptura” experiment has yeilded some 36,000 protestant denominations most are in agreement on most things, illustrate a problem when you lack central authority and a core set of beliefs and values. Unity does matter.[/quote]
Actually we Christians are more unified than you think. Just because a family fights it doesn’t mean they aren’t a family. Just because Christians fight, it doesn’t mean we aren’t unified. You mess with the bull you get the horns.[/quote]
Actually we Christians are more unified than you think. Just because a family fights it doesn’t mean they aren’t a family. Just because Christians fight, it doesn’t mean we aren’t unified. You mess with the bull you get the horns.[/quote]
[/quote]
I don’t understand your point? All I am saying is don’t stereotype us. Just like you having a belief similar to somebody else doesn’t make you exactly like them, we though we have some similar beliefs aren’t exactly alike and don’t presume we are…That’s it.
[quote]kamui wrote:
The cosmological argument from the point of contingency is pretty sound actually
[/quote]
No, it really isn’t.
Everything needs a creator
Make up a creator that doesn’t need a creator, spitting in the face of the above
Ignore the possibility that the universe also could exist without a creator (much like a hypothetical ‘prime mover’)
???
Profit[/quote]
There’s also the possibility of the universe being infinitely old. Concepts like that are too hard for most humans to comprehend so god is the next best thing.[/quote]
And that doesn’t matter in the in the argument from contingency. It takes time out of the equation.[/quote]
“Aquinas’s argument from contingency allows for the possibility of a Universe that has no beginning in time.”
and
“Thus, according to Aquinas, there must have been a time when nothing existed.”
That does not make sense. If the universe has no beginning in time, then there was never a time when it did not exist.[/quote]
Hmmm, I missed this initially. The argument from contingency allows either for a time contingency or not. Aristotle’s initial argument was time dependent because the understanding of causal succession occurred in time. Contingency takes time out of it because it mere posits that A is a function of B, not necessarily needing a succession of time. If I say A caused B, a passing of time is implied.
The key to understanding cosmology is to understanding causation.
For the said universe example, it really doesn’t matter if the universe always was, or did start. Time is a function of matter and space. Supposing there was not matter and no space in the beginning, there would have also been, no time. Like I said time itself is contingent, and hence not a boundary or guiding law for cosmology.
[quote]kamui wrote:
The cosmological argument from the point of contingency is pretty sound actually
[/quote]
No, it really isn’t.
Everything needs a creator
Make up a creator that doesn’t need a creator, spitting in the face of the above
Ignore the possibility that the universe also could exist without a creator (much like a hypothetical ‘prime mover’)
???
Profit[/quote]
There’s also the possibility of the universe being infinitely old. Concepts like that are too hard for most humans to comprehend so god is the next best thing.[/quote]
And that doesn’t matter in the in the argument from contingency. It takes time out of the equation.[/quote]
“Aquinas’s argument from contingency allows for the possibility of a Universe that has no beginning in time.”
and
“Thus, according to Aquinas, there must have been a time when nothing existed.”
That does not make sense. If the universe has no beginning in time, then there was never a time when it did not exist.[/quote]
Hmmm, I missed this initially. The argument from contingency allows either for a time contingency or not. Aristotle’s initial argument was time dependent because the understanding of causal succession occurred in time. Contingency takes time out of it because it mere posits that A is a function of B, not necessarily needing a succession of time. If I say A caused B, a passing of time is implied.
The key to understanding cosmology is to understanding causation.
For the said universe example, it really doesn’t matter if the universe always was, or did start. Time is a function of matter and space. Supposing there was not matter and no space in the beginning, there would have also been, no time. Like I said time itself is contingent, and hence not a boundary or guiding law for cosmology.[/quote]
God is not bound to logic. Trying to explain God with Logic is like trying to explain Quantum Mechanics with Newtons Laws.
The Christians attempt to convince the Atheists with logic. The Atheists try to convince Christians with Bastardized scripture. One plays scissors against rock, the other plays Paper against Scissors. Can scissors pierce the heart of a non-believer if his heart is hardened like a rock?
‘Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.’-Hebrews 3:15
Can reading the Bible like its paper fight against one who’s armed with scissors? Bastardized Scripture is paper. But Scripture unveiled is like a Divine Sword. It is written:
‘I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword’ -Matthew 10: 34
‘From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.’ -Revelation 19: 15
[quote]kamui wrote:
The cosmological argument from the point of contingency is pretty sound actually
[/quote]
No, it really isn’t.
Everything needs a creator
Make up a creator that doesn’t need a creator, spitting in the face of the above
Ignore the possibility that the universe also could exist without a creator (much like a hypothetical ‘prime mover’)
???
Profit[/quote]
There’s also the possibility of the universe being infinitely old. Concepts like that are too hard for most humans to comprehend so god is the next best thing.[/quote]
And that doesn’t matter in the in the argument from contingency. It takes time out of the equation.[/quote]
“Aquinas’s argument from contingency allows for the possibility of a Universe that has no beginning in time.”
and
“Thus, according to Aquinas, there must have been a time when nothing existed.”
That does not make sense. If the universe has no beginning in time, then there was never a time when it did not exist.[/quote]
Hmmm, I missed this initially. The argument from contingency allows either for a time contingency or not. Aristotle’s initial argument was time dependent because the understanding of causal succession occurred in time. Contingency takes time out of it because it mere posits that A is a function of B, not necessarily needing a succession of time. If I say A caused B, a passing of time is implied.
The key to understanding cosmology is to understanding causation.
For the said universe example, it really doesn’t matter if the universe always was, or did start. Time is a function of matter and space. Supposing there was not matter and no space in the beginning, there would have also been, no time. Like I said time itself is contingent, and hence not a boundary or guiding law for cosmology.[/quote]
God is not bound to logic. Trying to explain God with Logic is like trying to explain Quantum Mechanics with Newtons Laws.[/quote]
You are not understanding what’s going on. Nobody is trying to ‘explain God’ with logic. Just trying to establish existence with logic. That’s not binding God with anything. Once existence is established it’s finished.
Logic is a tool, not an end in itself.