• 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!

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

infrabenji

Active Member
Nice post. I wonder what you think about William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument. :)

(I don't endorse the argument, but I think that this is one of the best arguments for the existence of God, and so any atheist -- who wants to explore the question of God's existence -- must deal with it).
Isn't he that presuppositionalist apologetics guy? Not even sure if I'm spelling that correctly. No disrespect.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Science said the alien UFO is their God beginnings advice with earth God mass stone they converted to build machine. Particles.

Science God earth planet philosophers for the love wisdom said God is the natural earth only.

UFO causes effect man with earth machine. Builds caused attack.

Asteroids coldest sun mass in a void travelled wandering to earth. Burning gas projectiles release particles of stone also not burning.

As the scientist burnt out earth gas mass in heavens a new voided channel formed. Accumulation of asteroid particles amass. Form UFO stone mass body that reignited burning by natural gas light.

Vacuum void tries to remove it coming in.

We see UFO building forming a stone amassed created new asteroid by science beginngs moment of earth machine. Particle accumulator as if man invented all things.

If ignited the UFO portrayed forming by psyche human advice in movies falls as a radiating symbol etched by machine science designed parts as a stone UFO mass. Hitting earth falling as it burns.

Why day light in a void was important.

How earth heavens in space womb Kept life safe.

His science abominated all life on earth. He reinvented by science a UFO asteroid. What copying theism caused.

Known.

As first reinvented pyramid science confessed and knew that science of man had sent all life to gods hell. Told everyone they knew yet did not stop science practicing until Jesus event.

Why science said there is no God.

Consciousness tells as much known truths as it does lying.
 

infrabenji

Active Member
Nice post. I wonder what you think about William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument. :)

(I don't endorse the argument, but I think that this is one of the best arguments for the existence of God, and so any atheist -- who wants to explore the question of God's existence -- must deal with it).
I'm not sure how that get's us to god. I think that would be my biggest issue. The fallacy of composition, A priori, equivocation all these are pretty quickly identified in the reading of the argument. The cosmological argument has been around forever. William lane craig putting a little spin on it is like putting lipstick on a pig.
 

Magical Wand

Active Member
Isn't he that presuppositionalist apologetics guy? Not even sure if I'm spelling that correctly. No disrespect.

No. :) In the book "Five Views on Apologetics", Craig argued against presuppositionalism (along with the majority of apologists). He endorses evidentialist apologetics.

But that doesn't answer my question.

Here's the argument.

P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause (he claims this is a metaphysical principle, but it can be argued inductively -- probabilistically -- as well given our experience of cause-and-effect).
P2. The universe began to exist (he uses the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the Wall theorem and infinity paradoxes)
C. Therefore, the universe has a cause (follows from premises 1 and 2).

Conceptual analysis: since "universe" is defined by Craig as that which is spatio-temporal and material, and it began to exist, only something non-spatio-temporal and non-material could be the cause of the universe -- this is true by definition if one concedes Craig's argument. Turns out that is how the Christian God was defined by theologians for centuries: as the non-material and non-spatial creator of the physical world.

How do you respond? :)
 

infrabenji

Active Member
No. :) In the book "Five Views on Apologetics", Craig argued against presuppositionalism (along with the majority of apologists). He endorses evidentialist apologetics.

But that doesn't answer my question.

Here's the argument.

P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause (he claims this is a metaphysical principle, but it can be argued inductively -- probabilistically -- as well given our experience of cause-and-effect).
P2. The universe began to exist (he uses the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the Wall theorem and infinity paradoxes)
C. Therefore, the universe has a cause (follows from premises 1 and 2).

Conceptual analysis: since "universe" is defined by Craig as that which is spatio-temporal and material, and it began to exist, only something non-spatio-temporal and non-material could be the cause of the universe -- this is true by definition if one concedes Craig's argument. Turns out that is how the Christian God was defined by theologians for centuries: as non-material and non-spatial creator of the physical world.

How do you respond? :)
Who said the universe had a cause or when it started. Physics breaks down at the singularity. The only honest answer we can give about what happened before and up to the big bang is we don't know. Philosophical conjecture doesn't prove a god did it or that a god or gods is even possible. Again a lot of logical fallacies as listed in my previous post and that's at a glance. Let me crib Dan Barker "The first premise refers to every "thing," and the second premise treats the "universe as if it were a member of the set of "things." But since a set should not be considered a member of itself, the cosmological argument is comparing apples and oranges." This is in part an explanation for the horrible composition of the argument that makes it fallacious. This really is philosophical conjecture. It doesn't go anywhere as far as I can tell. Do people actually use this argument for the existence of a god or gods? Wild.
 

Magical Wand

Active Member
Do people actually use this argument for the existence of a god or gods? Wild.

Oh yeah. This is a big one. It is used by virtually every disciple of evidentialist apologists (and is attacked in basically every atheist book that discusses the issue of God's existence). :facepalm:


Who said the universe had a cause or when it started.

That it had a cause is a metaphysical principle, Craig would argue, since it is evidently true that nothing can come into existence without a cause. In addition, all (or most) the examples we have of beginnings involve causes and this is strong reason to look for a cause of the beginning of space-time and its matter content.

Physics breaks down at the singularity.

Craig would happily agree with that since he is proposing a non-physical cause. The alleged fact that physics breaks down there is reason to look for something metaphysical.

The only honest answer we can give about what happened before and up to the big bang is we don't know.

That's why I didn't mention the Big Bang at all. I mentioned infinity paradoxes, namely, the impossibility of an actual infinite existing in reality and the impossibility of the traversal of an infinite past. I also mentioned the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is entirely independent of Big Bang cosmology. Even if there was a phase prior to the Big Bang, Craig would argue, it must have a beginning as well given these problems discussed above.

Philosophical conjecture doesn't prove a god did it or that a god or gods is even possible. ... This really is philosophical conjecture. It doesn't go anywhere as far as I can tell.

You have to prove it is a conjecture or speculation by pointing out problems with the premises or conceptual analysis, otherwise you're begging the question.

Again a lot of logical fallacies as listed in my previous post and that's at a glance.

Well, I'll ask you to explain to us how the argument commits these fallacies. It is not enough to claim it is fallacious.

The first premise refers to every "thing," and the second premise treats the "universe as if it were a member of the set of "things." But since a set should not be considered a member of itself, the cosmological argument is comparing apples and oranges.

The argument is that since we know a subset of things that began to exist and had a cause, we're in our epistemic rights to believe that other members of the set (in this case, space-time, which is a thing) also had a cause. :)
 

Marcion

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
I can't be of service to you with religious debate because I don't believe in religion.
My relationship with Baba (God) is not based on any type of belief, so there is nothing to convince you of.
He cannot be objectified in any way but rather is the Supreme Subject, hence looking for any objective evidence of Him remains for ever futile.
You however are His object and He has to take care of you and love you, whether you appreciate that or not.
May you find happiness and peace in your life.
 
Last edited:

infrabenji

Active Member
Oh yeah. This is a big one. It is used by virtually every disciple of evidentialist apologists (and is attacked in basically every atheist book that discusses the issue of God's existence). :facepalm:




That it had a cause is a metaphysical principle, Craig would argue, since it is evidently true that nothing can come into existence without a cause. In addition, all (or most) the examples we have of beginnings involve causes and this is strong reason to look for a cause of the beginning of space-time and its matter content.



Craig would happily agree with that since he is proposing a non-physical cause. The alleged fact that physics breaks down there is reason to look for something metaphysical.



That's why I didn't mention the Big Bang at all. I mentioned infinity paradoxes, namely, the impossibility of an actual infinite existing in reality and the impossibility of the traversal of an infinite past. I also mentioned the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is entirely independent of Big Bang cosmology. Even if there was a phase prior to the Big Bang, Craig would argue, it must have a beginning as well given these problems discussed above.



You have to prove it is a conjecture or speculation by pointing out problems with the premises or conceptual analysis, otherwise you're begging the question.



Well, I'll ask you to explain to us how the argument commits these fallacies. It is not enough to claim it is fallacious.



The argument is that since we know a subset of things that began to exist and had a cause, we're in our epistemic rights to believe that other members of the set (in this case, space-time, which is a thing) also had a cause. :)
That's fascinating. Thanks for sharing. I can easily explain any of the fallacies I've Identified. Using deductive reasoning the premises and conclusion must be true. Right? So, if we can show even one premise doesn't support the conclusion would that suffice? Even though so much of what you said is obvious conjecture. I'm assuming you're doing that on purpose. Thank you. I'm happy to give specific examples of where I think this argument falls apart. Let me put on my lawyer hat. The wording of the Kalam is a form of special pleading on the part of the theist. The argument makes 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? 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.
 

Deidre

Well-Known Member
I had once identified as an atheist, and how I explained it then was....indifference. I didn't ''hate God'' ...I simply had an indifference to theology, and anything relating to deities. I've returned to faith, but not the faith of my parents. For me, that was my issue, and what led me to leave faith completely. I was living their ideas of God, and really hadn't explored enough on my own.

It has been a journey and as you'll see, most on here have had different journeys ...seeking faith and simply exploring. I don't know if anyone can ''convince'' you because faith in my opinion, comes from experiences, and seeking, not necessarily others' experiences and journeys. Kind of like how you can't run someone else's race.

Welcome to RF! :sunflower:
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Hello, I'm new to online forums. I chose this one specifically because I think it is very thought provoking. I love understanding and questioning different religious beliefs. I hope to have a debate that is robust, intriguing, and intellectually honest. I'm happy to debate anyone from any religious discipline and educational background. I currently do not have anyone to debate. I'll edit my title post, if possible, once the affirmative position has been occupied. Thanks in advance to anyone who will agree to debate. I'm ready to be convinced. Are you?
Hi infrabenji and welcome to RF,

as I've seen you already found an interlocutor and I'm having a guest for the next few days anyway. But when your debate with KAT-KAT has come to a conclusion, I'm challenging you to a debate you might not be prepared for: Why Agnosticism is superior to atheism (and you should upgrade your non-belief). Interested?
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
It's My Birthday!
I think I'm an atheist because there isn't another word that I feel accurately describes my position on the claim that there is a supernatural or a god or gods of any kind. I typically stick to the simple definition as someone who has rejected the claim that a god or gods of any kind exist due to a lack of evidence. I simply say "I don't know" in the absence of evidence. I don't believe in absolute certainty. I'm always prepared to be wrong. If you have evidence, present it.
Are you looking for objective, as in the public arena, evidence that God exists as opposed to subjective evidence which is inside each person? I believe that if I tried to present objective evidence of God only I would not convince you. I believe in God both on the basis of objective and subjective evidence. If you want only objective evidence I would have to bow out. All of the atheists I have encountered want objective evidence only, as in the public arena.

Part of subjective evidence is does it appear to you that the Writings of my Faith appear reasonable to you, which does have a subjective basis. Do the Writings inspire you? From what you can determine from the life of the Bab, Baha'u'llah, and Abdu'l-Baha did they live holy lives? Of course you would have to investigate the above not just here from what I present you. My opinion on any of this should be taken with a grain of salt.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Nice post. I wonder what you think about William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument. :)

(I don't endorse the argument, but I think that this is one of the best arguments for the existence of God, and so any atheist -- who wants to explore the question of God's existence -- must deal with it).
Hence, in the Bible is declared "I Am, that I am"
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
I am a former atheist turned non-dual (God and and creation are not-two) Hindu (Advaita). I'll debate you one-on-one.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I'm ready to be convinced. Are you?
The thing is, that you should (actively) convince yourself:cool:, and not be (passively) lazy, and waiting to have others convince you;), IF you are really interested to know the truth about "God":)
 

infrabenji

Active Member
Hi infrabenji and welcome to RF,

as I've seen you already found an interlocutor and I'm having a guest for the next few days anyway. But when your debate with KAT-KAT has come to a conclusion, I'm challenging you to a debate you might not be prepared for: Why Agnosticism is superior to atheism (and you should upgrade your non-belief). Interested?
Personally, I'm not sure there is a significant enough difference between us for an interesting debate. My neighbors told me recently there is such a thing as radical atheists. I don't think I'm one of those. I didn't even know atheists had different labels et al. Definitionally, aren't we both just saying "We don't know". As such I withhold belief until sufficient evidence warrants it? Do you? Maybe I could assume the position of one of these radical atheists ( whatever that means ) as the negative team? Online forums and debates are brand new for me. I look forward to your insight and experience on the forum.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I don't know if anyone can ''convince'' you because faith in my opinion, comes from experiences, and seeking
That's exactly the key one needs to solve this

Don't be 'lazy', asking others to do the heavy lifting, or in this case "letting go the heavy burden"
 
Top