Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.

[Magical Wand]

That's fascinating. Thanks for sharing. ... Even though so much of what you said is obvious conjecture. I'm assuming you're doing that on purpose.

Yeah, I think the Kalam argument isn't even a conjecture; it is simply not a sound argument. But I'm giving you the opportunity to deal with it as an atheist who is interested in the subject of God's existence.

The wording of the Kalam is a form of special pleading on the part of the theist. The argument makes [the] unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to regress. Everything must have a cause, but an exception is made for God but not for the natural universe as a whole?

There is no special pleading for God (being uncaused) since the argument postulates that only things that began to exist must have a cause. God was defined as eternal by theologians for millennia. If the natural universe were also eternal, then it would obviously not be subject to the argument, which would mean it had no cause.

Also, it's assumed that all events have causes. I've already detailed the fallacy of composition. Let me know if this would be sufficient to deter people who use an ancient and worn out creatio ex nihilo approach to apologetics.

Yeah, and I have already presented the response Craig would give to refute your argument.

Well, it might commit the fallacy of composition in another sense. For instance, cosmologist Don Page argued that causality is only valid for things inside the universe, but not for the universe as a whole. But I'm not at all sure his objection is strong. I wouldn't use it if I was in a debate against a sophisticated opponent.

 

[Tiberius]

Well, that may be so. But unfortunately this observation isn't sufficient to refute the argument unless you can show God began to exist. God has been defined by theologians as eternal for many centuries (even millennia).

Sorry, I may have been unclear. My problem was with the phrasing "begins to exist" in order to make it apply to the universe but not to God. I'd often heard it as "anything that exists needs a cause," but now it seems that they have arbitrarily changed it to "begins to exist" just so they can claim that it applies to the universe but not to God.

I agree with that, but Craig is aware of this argument and has written two papers with a physicist named James Sinclair in which both argued for the old big bang model that requires an initial singularity that represents the beginning of space, time and matter. In any case, I didn't mention the Big Bang, but rather the 2nd law of thermodynamics and logical arguments that (allegedly) show an infinite past is impossible. So, even if the universe extends prior to the Big Bang (contra Craig), one could still argue it must have a beginning at some point due to the 2nd law and paradoxes. As a consequence, the argument can be run again to that point.

Only if time existed in whatever the universe was prior to the Big Bang. If there was no time, then there was no beginning and we can easily say the universe is eternal.

 

[Truthseeker]

As a sufi, i have no wish or need to convince you of anything, nor do i have a wish to convert you.
Because the only one who can awaken to the spiritual truth is your self. No matter what I would tell you it would have no value to you. Because what I speak of is my own personal experience study sufi teaching and the quran.
So your path in a spiritual practice would be your experience not mine.

I can not teach you to become a believer, only you can become a believer if you practice a spiritual teaching.

I believe in every thing you say except for the last sentence, after the comma. I would say you have to investigate for yourself. There are both outer and inner reasons for belief when you investigate for yourself. If you practice your religion, your belief will get stronger.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Lol that's true. So you still convinced my mind can't be changed? Or do you have evidence you'd like to present in the affirmative? If not, that's fine. Up to you.

I do not believe it is my job to convince you of anything. believe God calls those he chooses. If you do not believe, it is because God has not called. You have not rejected God, God has rejected you.

 

[infrabenji]

(With foreknowledge that this was asked of someone else)

There are many, as the term "Pagan" is an often unagreed upon Umbrella Term for non-Abrahamic religions. I myself find that to be too broad to be of any use, and hinging a religious movement upon a synonym for "non-Christian" seems lacking.

Myself, I define "Paganism" (adherent: Pagan) as Modern revivals of the pre-Christian cultural beliefs and traditions of Europe, the Mediterranean, and West Asia. I am aware not all agree with this definition, but it is what I see consistently represented. This covers the cultures and pantheons of the following peoples: Germanic (Saxon, Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian and Norse), Celtic (Irish, Pictish/Scotish, Welsh, Gaulish), Greek, Roman, and Slavic peoples and gods. Properly the term is "Modern Paganism" (with "Ancient Paganism" being applied retroactively,) but factually it's not a term the ancient peoples would have used. Often they didn't really have a "religion" as we tend to think of it today, and some of these sub-groups (e.g. Forn Seid) follow with this non-religious model of theism.

Kemeticism (Egyptian polytheism) isn't included because Kemeticists themselves don't identify organizationally as Pagan. Hinduism for the same, and they are of their own rich culture. Taoism and Shintoism as well, though also in that (sadly) their theologically represented numbers are dwindling. Indigenous American (North and South) beliefs, as well, are not included under this umbrella for much the same; they do not self-identify under the umbrella of Paganism, and I personally feel their culture is too endangered by colonialism to try and force inclusion for inclusion's sake.

Wicca, while often crossing paths with Paganism, is more closely associated with Occultism than it is any authentic root of pre-Christian cultural tradition. Though they hold to the term "Neo-Pagan", I do not see them as Paganism.

Thank you so much for the clarification. That was so interesting. I can't wait to share this with my fiancé.

 

[infrabenji]

Yeah, I think the Kalam argument isn't even a conjecture; it is simply not a sound argument. But I'm giving you the opportunity to deal with it as an atheist who is interested in the subject of God's existence.



There is no special pleading for God (being uncaused) since the argument postulates that only things that began to exist must have a cause. God was defined as eternal by theologians for millennia. If the natural universe were also eternal, then it would obviously not be subject to the argument, which would mean it had no cause.



Yeah, and I have already presented the response Craig would give to refute your argument.

Well, it might commit the fallacy of composition in another sense. For instance, cosmologist Don Page argued that causality is only valid for things inside the universe, but not for the universe as a whole. But I'm not at all sure his objection is strong. I wouldn't use it if I was in a debate against a sophisticated opponent.

Thank you so much for taking the time to go through that with me. I found that to be a thought provoking and robust exercise. I hope I get the opportunity of your insight again in the future. Have an awesome day!

 

[infrabenji]

I do not believe it is my job to convince you of anything. believe God calls those he chooses. If you do not believe, it is because God has not called. You have not rejected God, God has rejected you.

Lol I'm the OP on a forum I started called debate an atheist. Did you just come to troll. Sounds like your grossly unequipped to engage in a polite and good natured discourse. If it's the christian god, I'm glad, that guys a phsyco. Allah too.

 

[VoidCat]

My path is uniquely my own. I have no wish to debate or convert you. However if you wish to learn more about my beliefs I could start a private convo or a public post(whichever you prefer where you ask me questions about my beliefs and we discuss them. So you could see a viewpoint you might not have heard before that you may disagree with.

 

[infrabenji]

I'm sure his answer is to one question is that it doesn't bother him. Personal experiences are not useless to the person who's experiencing them as to the existence of God.

Do you care about what's true? Do you want your model of reality to match actual reality? Everyone from every religion says this. Are they all correct? Does each personal god visit each person and gift them with secret knowledge? How reliable are personal experiences? Are memories static, not subject to influence? Look, if you care about what's true you give intellectually honest answers not fallacious reasoning and unsupported science. We can and have tested these things and found them to be unreliable. The brocas portion of the brain is responsible for that little voice in your head. When scientists tested people from different religious disciplines and asked them to talk to their various gods and to respond when they heard the voice of their gods, the brocas part of the brain was activated. We know that the Brocas section is responsible for the voice in your head. Outside of the publication I've confirmed this with my best friend who is a cognitive scientist. I'd love to hear how personal experiences are a reliable metric to prove the existence of god.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Isn't this forum a spin-off from Christian Forums? I joined CF in 2004. I could be mistaken but I see a lot of the same Atheists here with the same names.

Same format but no. I was on christian forums and they were a lot worse given any disagreement even among its own members against each other were sins...gets you banned. Also,CF from what I remember is privately owned,had mods there of the same faith, and didn't know how to welcome a non trinitarian only to treat them as they do atheist.

No. Stick here awhile more than a year. No where compared.

Carry on

 

[Magical Wand]

Look at P2 in the second syllogism. That's the non sequitur. For starters, he assumes that such qualities such as changelessness or timelessness are required in a creator, assumptions he hasn't established, and are easily refuted.

He hasn't assumed that. The arguments against an infinite past show (if correct) that the past can't be infinite. And yet, whatever begins to exist has a cause (so the universe cannot be uncaused). But if that's the case, then something must have caused the universe and at the same time be eternal (since something cannot come from nothing). But how can it be "eternal" if an infinite past is impossible? Easy! That eternity must be non-temporal/timeless. Therefore, the creator must be timeless. This demonstrates there is no non-sequitur.

You may challenge the premises (e.g., that an infinite past is impossible, that something coming from nothing is impossible, that whatever begins to exist has a cause), but then you're already conceding the point that P2 isn't a non-sequitur; you would simply be challenging the soundness of the premises.

Existence itself implies being in time. Existence is occupying a series of consecutive instants. Does this god think or create? These each require a before and after state.

It is true that material existence implies being in time since the temporal dimension is an essential property of the physical world. However, the same hasn't been demonstrated on the case of a supernatural deity that is radically different from the physical world. Regarding the claim that to create, God must be in time (before and after), Craig would reply the creation is simultaneous. God's act and the effect happen at the same time. Kant also argued for simultaneous causation, for example.

And he has unjustifiably dropped the multiverse from his list of candidate conclusions.

Incorrect. Craig's infinity paradoxes would also apply to the multiverse.

You can't judge by experience, because all human experience occurs within the universe. Furthermore, we have quantum physics, which says that submicroscopic reality is not deterministic, and that particles can come into existence or transform as with radioactive decay without cause. The early universe is thought to have existed at this scale.

What is true of the subset is not necessarily true of the collective. What is true about objects in the universe isn't necessarily true about the universe itself.

"The fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy that arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. The fallacy of composition can apply even when a fact is true of every proper part of a greater entity, though: "No atoms are alive. Therefore, nothing made of atoms is alive." This is a statement most people would consider incorrect, due to emergence, where the whole possesses properties not present in any of the parts. More examples: If someone stands up out of their seat at a cricket match, they can see better. Therefore, if everyone stands up, they can all see better. Some people can become millionaires with the right business concept. Therefore, if everyone has the right business concept, everyone will become a millionaire. If a runner runs faster, he can win the race. Therefore, if all the runners run faster, they can all win the race."

We see this when we consider the quantum world and the world we occupy with the unaided senses. The rules for the two scales of existence are different. Rules that are valid in one are not necessarily valid in the other.

Two quick remarks. First, Craig would say not all interpretations of QM are non-deterministic. In the Bohmian interpretation, for example, quantum events are entirely deterministic (the Everett interpretation is another example). And given that all interpretations allegedly account for all empirical observations, we must be agnostic about which interpretation is correct. Second, the composition argument is not always a fallacy. For example: 1. I have a wall of ordinary Lego bricks; each individual brick is red. 2. Therefore the wall is red. How is this a fallacy? It is clearly sound.

 

[Magical Wand]

Sorry, I may have been unclear. My problem was with the phrasing "begins to exist" in order to make it apply to the universe but not to God. I'd often heard it as "anything that exists needs a cause," but now it seems that they have arbitrarily changed it to "begins to exist" just so they can claim that it applies to the universe but not to God.

I see. Thanks for the clarification. That may still be true and the argument still valid and sound, though.

Only if time existed in whatever the universe was prior to the Big Bang. If there was no time, then there was no beginning and we can easily say the universe is eternal.

That's true. However, Craig argues the universe is essentially temporal due to quantum fluctuations. Quote: "from the changelessness of the First Cause, its immateriality follows. For whatever is material involves incessant change on at least the molecular and atomic levels, but the uncaused First Cause exists in a state of absolute changelessness." (BCNT, p.192)

Craig is referring to the fact that space and fields are constantly vibrating/fluctuating; there are always perturbations. (Craig, p.107)

You may argue the whole nature of the cosmos was different prior to the Big Bang, but that's very ad hoc, and less parsimonious since his view doesn't require the known laws of physics to change at some point in the past.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It depends on people at how they approach magic. If they do ''magic'' to win the lottery, or fall in love, or other nonsense, then it's mumbo-jumbo. The real definition of magic is simply timing and insight. It's a matter of approaching the world, nothing to do with wishes or commands.

Really? I thought it required a "familiar," usually a cat. If named Piewacket, so much the better.

 

[leroy]

I'm the OP. I understand another poster asked you to direct your questions towards me. Please do. I'm here to answer any questions you have.

sure, if you want evidence for God, I just want to know how do you define "evidence" so that i can provide it.

 

[infrabenji]

I'm sure his answer is to one question is that it doesn't bother him. Personal experiences are not useless to the person who's experiencing them as to the existence of God.

sure, if you want evidence for God, I just want to know how do you define "evidence" so that i can provide it.

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. The standard of evidence is the degree to which the affirmative must prove its evidence to succeed. The burden of proof is on the affirmative, and the standard required of them is that they prove the evidence against the negative “beyond reasonable doubt”.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. The standard of evidence is the degree to which the affirmative must prove its evidence to succeed. The burden of proof is on the affirmative, and the standard required of them is that they prove the evidence against the negative “beyond reasonable doubt”.

Not necessarily:

Evidence of absence - Wikipedia

 

[infrabenji]

Not necessarily:

View attachment 52767

Evidence of absence - Wikipedia

In this case, as you know, in debates the affirmative is the person making the claim the opposite chair is the negative. In law the burden of proof lies on the prosecutor not the defendant. The affirmative being the prosecutor and defendant the negative. I believe this is common arrangement in a religious debate. You see how the burden of proof would be reversed if I in turn made a claim or assertion. Plus I am not static. As I've said, presented with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt I would adjust my position accordingly.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

In this case, as you know, in debates the affirmative is the person making the claim the opposite chair is the negative.

No. Doesn't work like that. Sounds like you need to do a bit more study on how debate works

In law the burden of proof lies on the prosecutor not the defendant.

Yes. Though in the case of lawsuits, it can get more complicated than that. The Plaintiff and Defendant can both have claims against each other. One example of how crazy things get: You sue me for $1000. I counter sue for $2000 for frivolous lawsuit. If you didn't have a law degree, you might get confused and drop the case. Yet I can keep my case for the $2000. If I'm misunderstanding, correct me - you're the person with the law degree.

As I've said, presented with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt I would adjust my position accordingly.

But only if it's on your terms and not playing by the rules of formal debate.

 

[infrabenji]

No. Doesn't work like that. Sounds like you need to do a bit more study on how debate works



Yes. Though in the case of lawsuits, it can get more complicated than that. The Plaintiff and Defendant can both have claims against each other. One example of how crazy things get: You sue me for $1000. I counter sue for $2000 for frivolous lawsuit. If you didn't have a law degree, you might get confused and drop the case. Yet I can keep my case for the $2000. If I'm misunderstanding, correct me - you're the person with the law degree.



But only if it's on your terms and not playing by the rules of formal debate.

Bold statement Kat to assume what would change my mind. I don't know what would change my mind. I look forward to finding out.

 

[infrabenji]

No. Doesn't work like that. Sounds like you need to do a bit more study on how debate works



Yes. Though in the case of lawsuits, it can get more complicated than that. The Plaintiff and Defendant can both have claims against each other. One example of how crazy things get: You sue me for $1000. I counter sue for $2000 for frivolous lawsuit. If you didn't have a law degree, you might get confused and drop the case. Yet I can keep my case for the $2000. If I'm misunderstanding, correct me - you're the person with the law degree.



But only if it's on your terms and not playing by the rules of formal debate.

Do you think the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim?