1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by infrabenji, Jul 15, 2021.

  1. Heyo

    Heyo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    8,073
    Ratings:
    +7,136
    Religion:
    none
    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.)
     
  2. Heyo

    Heyo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    8,073
    Ratings:
    +7,136
    Religion:
    none
    Visit Australia.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  3. Heyo

    Heyo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    8,073
    Ratings:
    +7,136
    Religion:
    none
    It is. Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
  4. lostwanderingsoul

    lostwanderingsoul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    4,107
    Ratings:
    +1,373
    Religion:
    seeking
    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.
     
  5. The Kilted Heathen

    The Kilted Heathen Torolf Brucesson

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2017
    Messages:
    4,094
    Ratings:
    +3,231
    Religion:
    Heathenry
    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.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. cOLTER

    cOLTER Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2020
    Messages:
    1,633
    Ratings:
    +500
    Religion:
    Disciple
    God isn't hiding from you, he's waiting patiently for you to get over the disappointment of discovering your earlier concepts were childish.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. cOLTER

    cOLTER Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2020
    Messages:
    1,633
    Ratings:
    +500
    Religion:
    Disciple
    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.
     
  8. Truthseeker9

    Truthseeker9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2018
    Messages:
    1,384
    Ratings:
    +969
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    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.
     
  9. Tiberius

    Tiberius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    4,285
    Ratings:
    +978
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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?
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. The Kilted Heathen

    The Kilted Heathen Torolf Brucesson

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2017
    Messages:
    4,094
    Ratings:
    +3,231
    Religion:
    Heathenry
    “An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god.” -Carl Sagan
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. Tiberius

    Tiberius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    4,285
    Ratings:
    +978
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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 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.

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

    infrabenji Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2021
    Messages:
    391
    Ratings:
    +219
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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?
     
  13. infrabenji

    infrabenji Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2021
    Messages:
    391
    Ratings:
    +219
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Truthseeker9

    Truthseeker9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2018
    Messages:
    1,384
    Ratings:
    +969
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    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?
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  15. Φᅠᅠ

    Φᅠᅠ Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2021
    Messages:
    444
    Ratings:
    +211
    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.

    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 that you disputed the existence of singularities. I simply pointed out that Craig would gladly concede that point (contrary to what most cosmologists think). :)
     
  16. infrabenji

    infrabenji Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2021
    Messages:
    391
    Ratings:
    +219
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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.
     
  17. Tiberius

    Tiberius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    4,285
    Ratings:
    +978
    Religion:
    Atheist
    It's very unclear. How can anything come from something if that something is missing?

    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.

    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.
     
  18. Φᅠᅠ

    Φᅠᅠ Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2021
    Messages:
    444
    Ratings:
    +211
    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.

    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).

    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.
     
    #418 Φᅠᅠ, Jul 17, 2021
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2021
  19. Φᅠᅠ

    Φᅠᅠ Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2021
    Messages:
    444
    Ratings:
    +211
    Exactly! Therefore, only something that is not missing (namely, the non-spatio-temporal cause) can be responsible for creating space-time. Jackpot! :)

    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. :D
     
  20. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    4,540
    Ratings:
    +399
    Religion:
    christian

    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.
     
Loading...