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

[Heyo]

If it had an important message for us and it was remotely just and fair, why wouldn't it make itself known clearly and unambiguously?

I think @cOLTER was quite clear. There is no god outside of peoples minds. That's why you have to search for it within (your mind). (And you won't find it if you don't want to.)

 

[Heyo]

Stay under water for too long. Go out in the height of Summer without sunscreen. Hardmode: no water either. Take a casual stroll in Death Valley or the Sahara. Don't drink water for a week or so. Don't eat anything for a couple days. Lie on your back and cough wrong. Look at a gorilla the wrong way. Tickle a grizzly. Get a moose drunk.

Honestly I could go on for ages.

Visit Australia.

 

[Heyo]

It doesn’t sound like it’s life that’s trying to kill you mate.

It is. Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I really have to give my opinion. One atheist says he wants to be convinced about religion. Most of the people who reply also have little or no religion. How can they help him learn about religion? Just a bunch of atheists out to prove Christians are wrong.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I really have to give my opinion. One atheist says he wants to be convinced about religion. Most of the people who reply also have little or no religion. How can they help him learn about religion? Just a bunch of atheists out to prove Christians are wrong.

I've been quite active here, and speaking for myself I'm the farthest thing from an Atheist that there is. Fact of the matter is, I don't know where to begin trying to "convert" or convince someone that my faith is correct or true, as that's nowhere in my culture.

 

[Colt]

Why do you think the result would be any different? Why would I even want to find 'god' if it exists and insists on playing childish games of hide-and-seek?



And others thinking that they have (as I did) doesn't mean they actually have.

God isn't hiding from you, he's waiting patiently for you to get over the disappointment of discovering your earlier concepts were childish.

 

[Colt]

I think @cOLTER was quite clear. There is no god outside of peoples minds. That's why you have to search for it within (your mind). (And you won't find it if you don't want to.)

The mind is where the spirit is to be found. All reality is a subjective observation of the objective world. Your opinion of me came from within your conscious mind which transcends the purely physical world.

 

[Truthseeker]

Ad hominem? Really? At least give the reasoning behind your claim. Stating that I cannot be convinced is demonstrably false as for one you cannot know that with any certainty and two you haven't seen all 90+ conversations I've had since I came to this forum. I am a genuine seeker of the truth. I came here to test the validity and soundness of my arguments. The framework of my beliefs. I haven't seen in any of our interactions the same intellectual honesty from you. As far as materialism is concerned you couldn't be farther from the truth. See I grew up in the slums of Bali and Jakarta 30 years ago. I defecated in ditches, slept in chicken coups, ate dog over hubcap, was sold into child labor, worked 30 hours a week in a textile factory, and never knew when I would get fresh water. I slept on the devils pillow and suffered unimaginable abuses. I am totally disconnected from the material world. My disconnection from the material world largely influenced my personal success. I live a simple and humble life full of passion, vibrancy, and love. I volunteer 10-20 hours a week in my community. I volunteer with the elder benevolence society and indigenous youth programs. My children are doing village restoration and infrastructure development in Africa. Don't pretend you can know anything about me. This looks more like projection of your own inability to have an intellectually honest debate. Again ad hominem by comparison to Carl Sagan. I've never been more complimented. If you wanna test the validity of your beliefs like I do you know where to find me.

I'm saying that people like you deny the spiritual world, not that you are are interested in getting a lot of material things. Sorry I didn't express myself very well to make myself clear. I admire Carl Sagan for the way he educated the world about science. He did good things. But he did not believe in anything spiritual, and like you God had to be proven beyond any doubt.

 

[Tiberius]

No. There is no evidence at all for them at all. They are what happens to the equations of general relativity when we apply it to certain situations, like black holes and the 'start' of the universe (i.e. we extrapolate backwards in time). There is very good evidence both for black holes and the big bang theory, which means the history of the universe expanding from a very hot and dense state about 13.5 billion years ago, but none at all for singularities per se.

You say there's no evidence for singularities, then go on to say there is very good evidence for black holes and that the equations call for singularities in black holes, but then claim again there is zero evidence for singularities?

So, you are saying there is zero evidence for A, but that we have very good evidence for B, and B is almost certainly caused by A. But no, not a shred of evidence for A.

Is that right?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

“An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god.” -Carl Sagan

 

[Tiberius]

It does not.

Huh?

You say that Craig will happily accept a singularity as the beginning of the universe - the Big Bang.

You also say that, according to Craig, a singularity is a missing point of space time.

Thus, it follows that Craig believes that space time came from a missing point of space time.

That's the whole point of his argument! Given that space-time ends (or rather, begins) at some point in the past, it must have a non-spatio-temporal cause, and this increases the probability of theism given that God was defined by theologians that way (namely, as non-spatio-temporal) for millennia.

And notice he doesn't even have to argue for the singularity since you're already giving it to him. So, you're making his job easier.

That's ridiculous.

By this logic, I can make up anything I want to explain some currently unexplained phenomenon, and then claim that the fact my fantasy fits means it is more likely to be correct.

There is a ton of evidence the Big Bang theory is correct, but that's not evidence of an initial curvature singularity. Anyway, I shouldn't have mentioned this since isn't relevant to the present discussion. The relevant point is that you already concede to Craig that singularities are real.

I never disputed the existence of singularities. What on earth gave you the impression I did?

 

[infrabenji]

I'm saying that people like you deny the spiritual world, not that you are are interested in getting a lot of material things. Sorry I didn't express myself very well to make myself clear. I admire Carl Sagan for the way he educated the world about science. He did good things. But he did not believe in anything spiritual, and like you God had to be proven beyond any doubt.

Thanks for the clarification. What is the standard of evidence it would take for you to believe a magical wish granting sky wizard existed if that was my claim. What is your standard of evidence required to warrant belief? I'm genuinely curious. Is it possible that I set my standard of evidence to high?

 

[infrabenji]

@infrabenji , Hi, nice to meet you. Apologies for the lengthy reply. My intention was to give you a complete argument in support of supernatural phenomena so that you know precisely where I'm coming from.

What I gather from your posts in this thread is that your position is: there are no reasons to believe in God, gods, or the supernatural. As has been pointed out by others, evidence for God or gods ( if they exist ) is subjective, therefore there is no objective evidence to support any claim of their existence. However I haven't seen anyone approach the claim that supernatural phenomena don't exist.

The first challenge for me, as someone who is taking the affirmative position on the existence of supernatural phenomena, is to define supernatural in manner which is agreeable for both of us.

For me, for this discussion, supernatural and spiritual are unexplainable unpredictable phenomena. If we can agree on this definition I invite you to do a thought experiment with me regarding whether or not spiritual / supernatural events are real.

The thought experiment is this: Is there a finite end to the number discoveries which can be observed in the natural world? I say, no. Not only that, but in some fields making one objective repeatable discovery leads to many more unanswered questions. In these cases, even though knowledge is objectively increasing, the unknown, the mysteries of reality, are increasing at a faster rate. If this is true, then isn't it logical to conclude that there will always be phenomena which do not appear to fit within what is considered natural, or repeatable, or observable?

This is essentially a God-of-the-gaps argument, but replace God with supernatural, and add to it the one-to-many relationship between a new discovery and the many unanswered questions which result from it. From this point of view, the unexplainable , the mysteries of the real world, is net increasing even though scientific discovery is increasing too. The question is: which is increasing at the greater rate. I propose that as knowledge increases, the mysteries increase faster, which is a plausible reason to believe in spiritual/supernatural phenomena. I'm not attempting to prove this; I'm only trying to provide a valid reason for this belief.

It's true that the things in the past which were considered supernatural ( illness for example ) have been demystified. This, imo, does not discredit the thought experiment above. It takes some imagination, but, if one discovery often leads to many new unanswered questions, then it's reasonable to infer that there will always be unanswered questions, unrepeatable phenomena which is deemed supernatural. These would be a set of both natural phenomena which can be explained at some later date as well as unexplainable supernatural phenomena.

Again, the reason to believe in supernatural events comes from the deviation between the rate of increase between what is known and what is unknown. I can't predict the future, but I can assess the trend. If there is always much much more unknown than known **and** if the known contributes to the unknown; then that is a valid reason to conclude that there are phenomena which will never be explained by material, natural, physical causes. In summation, imo, the unknown will always eclipse the known.

Granted, this is just a thought experiment. Even if we agree that these ideas have merit, without objective examples it's still a weak argument in favor of supernatural events. Because of this, I'd like to supplement the thought experiment with three examples of what I deem to be supernatural phenomena. At this time, as far as I know, there is no material scientific explanation of these events. Also, I think you'll agree, if there is ever discovered the how and why these things occur, the discoveries would trigger many many more questions thus supporting the thought experiment provided above.

In order from strongest to weakest:

1) Tibetian Tummo. Have you heard of it? It's being able to raise one's body temperature through breathing and mental visualization. It's been tested and verified in the 80s; you can look it up. There's a wikipedia article on it: link. There's also a practitioner named Master Zhou Ting Jue who has demonstrated heating his hands to 190 deg F. There's a TV show on History channel which attempted to debunk Master Zhou Ting Jue and was unable to do so. I posted a thread here to discuss him specifically: link. Unfortunately the History Channel expose was taken down off youtube; but the other video posted in the thread shows clearly what is done. Please note that Master Zhou Ting Jue does not appear to be exherting himself to accomplish the temp increase.

2) Past Life Experiences: there are about 4-5 very convincing examples of people who with astonishing detail are able to recall events, places, and people from their past lives. In addition to these 4, there is a list floating around out there documenting many of these past life experiences which were researched and published as unexplainable. I think this list has been posted here a few times in the past. If there is interest I can look it up. The point is, in rare cases memories do not end with mortality.

3) Love: This is in my opinion the least convincing example, but still worthy of mention. My assertion is that Love in all its various forms is completely unpredictable and often unexplainable. This qualifes it as supernatural / spiritual. Even if there is a discovery of the fundamental neuro-chemical causes for all types of Love, I have a hard time believing that delivering this to people would result in predictable relationships.

So, that's it. I cannot prove there is a God, or gods. But there are reasons to believe in the supernatural. This is based on the trajectory of scientific discoveries which lead to more unanswered questions in perpetuity a well as a few objective unexplained phenomena which are so bizzarre I doubt that they will every be completely understood as natural.

I look forward to reading your reply if you choose to do so.

Sincerely,

edit: Master Zhou Ting Jue is demonstrating Qi-Gong, which is Chinese, not from Tibet.

Holy smokes. I love it. Thank you so much for for the effort you put into this. I will take my time with the material and give it the due diligence it deserves. Today is my Fiancés birthday. So I'm not going to get a lot of computer time lol. But, tomorrow I will review. Thanks in advance for your insight. Look forward to continuing our conversation.

 

[Truthseeker]

Thanks for the clarification. What is the standard of evidence it would take for you to believe a magical wish granting sky wizard existed if that was my claim. What is your standard of evidence required to warrant belief? I'm genuinely curious. Is it possible that I set my standard of evidence to high?

It would be very high for me for that. I know of no evidence for that. How do I know you are not fabricating your evidence?

 

[Magical Wand]

You say that Craig will happily accept a singularity as the beginning of the universe - the Big Bang.

You also say that, according to Craig, a singularity is a missing point of space time.

Thus, it follows that Craig believes that space time came from a missing point of space time.

A missing point is not an object; it means the absence of space-time. Therefore, saying space-time came from a missing point is the same as saying it had a beginning. No contradiction.

By this logic, I can make up anything I want to explain some currently unexplained phenomenon, and then claim that the fact my fantasy fits means it is more likely to be correct.

You can claim that, of course, but that would be ad hoc since your explanation was only postulated after the phenomenon has been observed; it would be a "postdiction" instead of a prediction. Craig, on the other hand, did not make up this definition only after the alleged discovery that the universe had to have a non-spatio-temporal cause. So, this was not just made up to explain some unknown phenomenon.

I never disputed the existence of singularities. What on earth gave you the impression I did?

I never disputed that you disputed the existence of singularities. I simply pointed out that Craig would gladly concede that point (contrary to what most cosmologists think).

 

[infrabenji]

It would be very high for me for that. I know of no evidence for that. How do I know you are not fabricating your evidence?

Have to run my god daughter into town. But, I'll be back and I have a great answer to this question. I study law so the standards of evidence is right in my wheelhouse.

 

[Tiberius]

A missing point is not an object; it means the absence of space-time. Therefore, saying space-time came from a missing point is the same as saying it had a beginning. No contradiction.

It's very unclear. How can anything come from something if that something is missing?

You can claim that, of course, but that would be ad hoc since your explanation was only postulated after the phenomenon has been observed; it would be a "postdiction" instead of a prediction. Craig, on the other hand, did not make up this definition only after the alleged discovery that the universe had to have a non-spatio-temporal cause. So, this was not just made up to explain some unknown phenomenon.

Okay. So I'll just invent a magical dragon, wait until some new scientific discovery is made that doesn't have an explanation, and then say my magical dragon can explain it, and since the magical dragon PREDATES the discovery, then it's a prediction, not a post diction.

I never disputed that you disputed the existence of singularities. I simply pointed out that Craig would gladly concede that point (contrary to what most cosmologists think).

No, you didn't say that Craig would concede the point to me, you said that I was conceding the point to him.

You're not being very clear.

 

[Magical Wand]

You haven't proven that the universe cannot be uncaused, that it had a beginning, or that eternity can be timeless.

Actually, I mentioned the reasons Craig gave in order to justify these assertions. First, it is self-evident that something cannot from nothing, the same way it is self-evident 40+40 doesn't equal 3. That's his first argument; it is a metaphysical truth that we all know to be true. I can't prove to you that a contradiction is impossible, for example. I have to trust your rational faculty will realize that alone; the same applies to the causation principle. Second, the law of causation is always confirmed by experience and never disconfirmed. Ergo, we should generalize this empirical finding to the beginning of the universe in the absence of defeaters.

Regarding the claim that it had a beginning, Craig would present his Hilbert's Hotel, the impossibility of reaching the present from the infinite past, and other Kalam proponents would present more paradoxes (the Grim Reaper Paradox, for example). These arguments (if correct) should convince you that logic rules out the possibility of an infinite past. If you deny logic in this case, then why not deny in others? We are free to believe whatever logical absurdity (even contradictions) once it is denied in this case without any good justification.

Nor have you refuted the argument that Craig's conclusion isn't a non sequitur by virtue of either never considering the multiverse or unjustifiably dropping the multiverse from his analysis ... [Craig] doesn't even consider the possibility of a multiverse, which is why he never mentions it or tries to rule it out, hence his non sequitur argument that jumps to the conclusion he prefers.

As long as the multiverse is postulated to be temporal and beginningless, it is subject to the same paradoxes a single universe is (namely, the Hilbert's Hotel, Grim reaper and so on). So, it is ruled out by these arguments. Also, Craig says his theorems apply to the multiverse as well. Quote:

"In 2003 Long Island University mathematician Arvind Borde, MIT physicist Alan Guth, and Tufts University cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin proved that any universe that is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning. Their proof holds regardless of the physical description of the very early universe, which still eludes scientists, and applies even to any wider multiverse of which our universe might be thought to be a part."

But even if Craig doesn't discuss the multiverse, the argument wouldn't be a non-sequitur since the premises would follow from the conclusion even if they are not sound (because no defense has been given).

It seems to me you think the content of the second premise of the second syllogism must be in the first syllogism but that's unjustified. You can add whatever you want in some of the premises as long as one of them also contains the conclusion of the first syllogism. So, you failed to show any non-sequitur.

The second syllogism is building up on the conclusion of the first syllogism, but premise 2 is defended separately. Its defense comes from a conceptual analysis of the cause. I'll repeat. If whatever is material and temporal began to exist (per the 2nd premise of the first syllogism), and it had a cause (conclusion of the 1st syllogism), then only something non-material and non-temporal can be the cause. Regarding "personal", Craig wrote:

“[The first cause] must be personal as well. Why? Because the cause must be beyond space and time, therefore it cannot be physical or material. Now, there are only two kinds of things that fit that description: either an abstract object, like numbers, or else a personal mind. But abstract objects can’t cause anything. Therefore it follows that the cause of the universe is a transcendent, intelligent mind.” (Hitchens and Craig, 2009).

Perhaps only our universe exists, and had existed as a singularity infinitely back in time before expanding. Perhaps that singularity and our universe did come into existence uncaused. How do you rule any of those ideas out? Craig seems to have done just that.

A singularity, Craig would say (and I agree), is a missing point of the manifold. It is not a physical state. It represents a hole where the space-time breaks down. For example, a (potential) singularity inside of a black hole is the point where space-time breaks; it is a missing point. The same applies to the (alleged) initial singularity. As cosmologist George Ellis explained:

"A space-time singularity is a dramatic affair, where the universe (space, time, matter) has a beginning and all of physics breaks down..."

It cannot come into existence uncaused for the reasons I have before (according to Craig).

In the other quote you said Bohmian mechanics is ruled out by Bell's theorem but that's not correct. Bell's theorem only rules out local hidden variables; not all kinds of hidden variables. That's why this is not a serious problem (no problem at all actually) to the Bohmian view.

 

[Magical Wand]

How can anything come from something if that something is missing?

Exactly! Therefore, only something that is not missing (namely, the non-spatio-temporal cause) can be responsible for creating space-time. Jackpot!

Okay. So I'll just invent a magical dragon, wait until some new scientific discovery is made that doesn't have an explanation, and then say my magical dragon can explain it, and since the magical dragon PREDATES the discovery, then it's a prediction, not a post diction.

Great. As long as you define your dragon in a certain way (that is, in a way that makes very specific predictions prior to the discovery), this will significantly increase the probability that your magical dragon is the right explanation of the phenomenon.

 

[leroy]

We haven't even started the debate and you're already shifting the burden of proof. Doesn't it bother you? That I'm willing to be convinced with out 100% certainty and yet you are 100% certain that god exists? As far as convincing each other by argument I'm by far the more generous of the two of us. Giving you a margin of error that you have not given to me. So let's not shift the burden of proof. I've never made the claim that nature is all there is. Let's tackle the fine tuning argument real quick. I've found many problems with this argument. Here are a couple I'd like to point out that definitely outline major flaws in the argument. I have about 20 more problems with the fallacious reasoning supporting this argument that I can show you. I thought it made more sense not to over load you. I don't think that would be fair. If you also find the problems with the argument worrisome we can try another one or keep going. It's up to you.

The fine tuning argument is based on the dichotomy of:

• The parameters of the universe are a "happy coincidence"
• or God selected the parameters to fulfil some purpose.

This is a false dichotomy. A better fork would be:

• The parameters of the universe are a "happy coincidence",
• or God selected the parameters to fulfil some purpose,
• or the universe could not be other than it is,
• or some unknown natural process caused the universe to be as it is.

The problem is it is almost impossible to rule out the last two options, making the argument an argument from ignorance and god of the gaps. It's easy to confuse natural processes with random processes, which leads them to equate them. The argument is essentially the same as saying "lighting occurs and Thor is the best explanation" at a time before the understanding of electricity.

An Invalid use of Probability
"Premise 2. The existence of the fine-tuning is very improbable under the atheistic single-universe hypothesis."
"Astrophysicist [and creationism apologist] Hugh Ross has calculated the probability that these and other constants-122 in all-would exist today for any planet in the universe by chance (i.e., without divine design). Assuming there are 1022 planets in the universe (a very large number: 1 with 22 zeros following it), his answer is shocking: one chance in 10138-that’s one chance in one with 138 zeros after it!"
The argument assumes that there is a certain range of values that each physical constant could assume. The greater these ranges, the more unlikely that a given set of constants would have assumed the values we observe. However, to simply imagine a certain range of possible numerical values that each constant could assume and calculating the probability that this value would be arrived at by mere chance is fallacious for two reasons. Currently, we have no access to data that would tell us a) what range the constants could possibly assume in reality and b) how many trials there were in which the constants assumed certain values (Texas sharp shooter fallacy). If in a lottery one number were drawn from a pot of five numbers, then winning the lottery would become comparatively likely. Likewise, even if a trial with an extremely unlikely outcome - say winning an actual national lottery - were repeated a sufficient number of times, the outcome would become likely to occur overall.

To avoid an argument from ignorance, you must rule out all other hypotheses, including as yet unknown hypotheses, to make an argument by elimination. It is almost impossible to rule out all undiscovered hypothesis in a field so far removed from human experience. However, without doing this, you inevitably make an argument from ignorance and commits god of the gaps.

or the universe could not be other than it is,

imagine that you look at the sky and the clouds suddenly arrange and spell the words " Good Morning" in 10 different languages

would you conclude design? (obviously yes)

now let's say that scientists discovered that given the wind, the volume, mass the initial position of the clouds etc. this pattern of letters was unavoidable (the good morning sign was fully determined by the laws of nature)....... would you still conclude design at some level? (obviously yes)

so my point is that it doest matter if laws where fully determined and the values could have not been different, that wouldn't harm the FT argument....... you would still need an explanation for why the values are precisely within the life permitting range.