The religion you rejected - why did you reject it?

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The issue is that someone who claimed to have looked at the evidence from both sides objectively and has looked at the FT argument specifically is not expected to ask these question.

You are expected to understand what FT means in this context. (otherwise, why are you affirming that the argument fails)

This is ridiculous. So if I don't say exactly what you expect you will not engage in conversation. ok.

"Fine-tuning refers to the fact that small changes to the constants or values of nature would have resulted in a universe incapable of supporting life." using this defintion FT doesnt implies the existance of a tunner, and has nothign to do with the fact that 99.999999999% of the universe is hostile to life.

Then I don't care if you call it fine tuning.

The teleological argument and th4e FT argument are the same arguments (in this context)

They are not the same.

ok the supporting evidnece for this particular premise is
1
1 Every sing le observation that has been made confirms that things don’t begin to exist without causes (and no good reasons to make an arbitrary exception with the universe has ever been given)

But do you agree with an exception for God? Or did God have a cause? My objection is how have you ruled out that the Cosmos has always been here and did not have a beginning? If you can claim God has always been around then I can claim the Cosmos has always been around. Do you claim that God had a cause?

2 things don’t come from nothing , that is metaphysically absurd, otherwise you would have to pay a high price, you would have to accept that things can simply pop in to existence out of nothing, for no reason, you would have to abandon science and reason.

3 (the best argument in my opinion) if things can come it to existence from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why only universes pop in to existence out of nothing, why not horses or dogs,, or cars come it to existence out of nothing?.............. Nothing by definition cant have any properties (otherwise it wouldn’t be nothing) so nothing cant have any properties that would allow it to discriminate cars over universes.

This is just an assertion and an argument from incredulity. I am not asserting that something can come from nothing. What I am saying is that how have you demonstrated this to be true?

Why aren’t these reasons good enough to suggest that premise 1 is probably true?

So you say it is probably true. You don't have sufficient evidence to warrant a belief that it is true just like me.

 

[leroy]

But do you agree with an exception for God? Or did God have a cause? My objection is how have you ruled out that the Cosmos has always been here and did not have a beginning? If you can claim God has always been around then I can claim the Cosmos has always been around. Do you claim that God had a cause?

I haven’t rule it out, because that concerns premise 2 and as far as I understand you are objecting to premise 1

Once you grant premise 1, we can go to premise 2 (agree?) or do you suggest a different way to engage?

This is just an assertion and an argument from incredulity. I am not asserting that something can come from nothing. What I am saying is that how have you demonstrated this to be true?

Well I think I did demonstrate it. My best argument being:

If some things can come from nothing (like universes) then everything could (and should) come from nothing . including cars, talking snakes, and apples.

“Noting” by definition can’t have any properties, so there couldn’t be anything that would allow “nothing” to discriminate apples over universes.




So you say it is probably true. You don't have sufficient evidence to warrant a belief that it is true just like me.[/QUOTE]

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I haven’t rule it out, because that concerns premise 2 and as far as I understand you are objecting to premise 1

Once you grant premise 1, we can go to premise 2 (agree?) or do you suggest a different way to engage?

I do not grant premise 1. You have not demonstrated it is true.

Well I think I did demonstrate it. My best argument being:

If some things can come from nothing (like universes) then everything could (and should) come from nothing . including cars, talking snakes, and apples.

“Noting” by definition can’t have any properties, so there couldn’t be anything that would allow “nothing” to discriminate apples over universes.

So instead of addressing my objections you just restate your argument as a rebuttal? I already answered these arguments as to why they are flawed.

 

[leroy]

So instead of addressing my objections you just restate your argument as a rebuttal? I already answered these arguments as to why they are flawed.

Yes your objection was that it is an argument from ignorance , your accusation is wrong is because I am not arguing from ignorance, I am making a positive argument showing that the idea of “nothing” creating universes is metaphysically absurd

My argument being

Even if we assume that “nothing” can create universes, the shouldn’t be anything that prevents “nothing” to create apples, snakes or computers ………. What prevents “nothing” form creating apples in my desk in this moment?

To affirm that “nothing” creates a universe 13B years ago and that “nothing” didn’t create apples in my desk in this moment, would imply that “nothing” has properties (properties that allow it to create universes but nor apples)

But “nothing” by definition can’t have any properties, (otherwise it wouldn’t be “nothing”) it wouldn be something

(logical contradiction in red)

Kindly explain this argument with your own words, and then explain why it fails

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Let's put it this way, if someone said to you they were a Christian, and they believed Jesus was an extra terrestrial space alien and taught that stealing was good and that Donald Trump was God's Messiah for the Age, would you recognize them as Christian?

I would, yes. A rotten apple is still an apple.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Yes your objection was that it is an argument from ignorance , your accusation is wrong is because I am not arguing from ignorance, I am making a positive argument showing that the idea of “nothing” creating universes is metaphysically absurd

My argument being

Even if we assume that “nothing” can create universes, the shouldn’t be anything that prevents “nothing” to create apples, snakes or computers ………. What prevents “nothing” form creating apples in my desk in this moment?

To affirm that “nothing” creates a universe 13B years ago and that “nothing” didn’t create apples in my desk in this moment, would imply that “nothing” has properties (properties that allow it to create universes but nor apples)

But “nothing” by definition can’t have any properties, (otherwise it wouldn’t be “nothing”) it wouldn be something

(logical contradiction in red)

Kindly explain this argument with your own words, and then explain why it fails

This does not address my objection. My question is how have you ruled out that the universe could have always existed. You state the universe (cosmos) must come from nothing or from something. There is another possibility that it has always been here. How have you ruled this out?

 

[leroy]

This does not address my objection. My question is how have you ruled out that the universe could have always existed. You state the universe (cosmos) must come from nothing or from something. There is another possibility that it has always been here. How have you ruled this out?

Because we are dealing with premise 1 and your objection concerns premise 2…that is why i havent adrees that objection. Once you grant premise 1 we can move to premise 2 and deal with your objections to that premise

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Because we are dealing with premise 1 and your objection concerns premise 2…that is why i havent adrees that objection. Once you grant premise 1 we can move to premise 2 and deal with your objections to that premise

I guess we are done then.

 

[leroy]

I guess we are done then.

Well our conversation went like this

1 You said premises 1 is flawd

2 I support premise 1

3 you present objections to premise 2

4 I say, “no first let´s deal with premise 1”)

5 you said “no no we are done”

Obviously you are not the type of person who objectively and critically looked at the evidence and concluded that the evidence and arguments for God are not good enough, ……….. you seem to be the type of person that decided to become an atheist because being an atheist is “modern” “progressive” “cool” and currently on fashion

 

[paarsurrey]

Inspired by this thread: The religion you believe in - Why did you choose to believe that religion?

I'm not talking about religions where a passing familiarity was enough for you decide they weren't for you. I'm talking about religions that you were once immersed in: the ones you seriously considered a participated in, or where you were a full member.

If you are no longer a part of a religion you were once in - or were at least on a path toward - why did you reject the religion?

Second Coming has informally given an elaborate Methodology of "claim" and "gist of reason/s" and has demonstrated it in a treatise named :
The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam
It is on its first two pages and starts with the heading:
"It is necessary that a claim and the reasons in support of it must be set forth from a revealed book."
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf
I name this golden principle of comparative religions as "Religious Method" , and it can easily be extended to every and all denominations of Religions and No-Religions, please. Right?

Regards

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Well our conversation went like this

1 You said premises 1 is flawd

2 I support premise 1

3 you present objections to premise 2

4 I say, “no first let´s deal with premise 1”)

5 you said “no no we are done”

Obviously you are not the type of person who objectively and critically looked at the evidence and concluded that the evidence and arguments for God are not good enough, ……….. you seem to be the type of person that decided to become an atheist because being an atheist is “modern” “progressive” “cool” and currently on fashion

I have real objections to the Kalam that you refuse to address because you believe it only is addressed in premise 2. I think it pertains to both premises. But who cares, all you have to do is address the objection.

This is dishonest because these are not the reasons why I became an atheist.

If you want to address my objection that is fine, if not that is also fine but please don't tell me the reasons why I believe or do not believe, I don't do that to you.

 

[Muffled]

Inspired by this thread: The religion you believe in - Why did you choose to believe that religion?

I'm not talking about religions where a passing familiarity was enough for you decide they weren't for you. I'm talking about religions that you were once immersed in: the ones you seriously considered a participated in, or where you were a full member.

If you are no longer a part of a religion you were once in - or were at least on a path toward - why did you reject the religion?

I believe I followed the religion I was raised in until I received Jesus as Lord and Savior which basically was the same religion. By the time I looked into other religions I was already saved and didn't need anything else.

 

[Muffled]

God told me to.
Yes, I used to have conversations with God, maybe God, a creation of my subconscious but they felt real.
Anyway, "God" told me that all religions were the creation of man. None of them had any real knowledge about God.
Yes, some felt they had received knowledge from God and started religions.
While I understand this feeling, having had such conversation myself, I had come to understand that God was beyond man's ability to comprehend.
Whatever man thinks they know about God is wrong. So no point in following any religion.

I believe that which presented itself as God to you was a false spirit meant to deceive you. Not all religions are the creation of man, although often men attach there own thinking to religions of God at times. The thing is to not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[Muffled]

But did you ever reject a religion you belonged to?

I once turned to evil because it appeared those who were evil were winning but then I could no longer stand what I had become. Then God said to me: "Are you part of the problem or part of the solution?"

 

[leroy]

I have real objections to the Kalam that you refuse to address because you believe it only is addressed in premise 2. I think it pertains to both premises. But who cares, all you have to do is address the objection.

I am just proposing an organized conversation, if you have problems with both premise 1 and premise 2, I suggest that we first address the objections to premise 1

The fact that you ignored my responses and moved to premise 2 strongly suggest that you no longer have problems with premise 1 .,….is this correct?

This is dishonest because these are not the reasons why I became an atheist.

It is my understanding that you became an atheist because you don’t think there is good evidence for the existence of God............this I missunderstood? why did you became an atheist then?

 

[Revoltingest]

I once turned to evil because it appeared those who were evil were winning but then I could no longer stand what I had become. Then God said to me: "Are you part of the problem or part of the solution?"

Winning is a poor goal if it means violating one’s morals.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I am just proposing an organized conversation, if you have problems with both premise 1 and premise 2, I suggest that we first address the objections to premise 1

The fact that you ignored my responses and moved to premise 2 strongly suggest that you no longer have problems with premise 1 .,….is this correct?

I told you the objections to premise one and two. You won't address it because you only think it applies to premise 2.

It is my understanding that you became an atheist because you don’t think there is good evidence for the existence of God............this I missunderstood? why did you became an atheist then?

This is the reason I don't believe. But that is not what you said in the post. Here is what you said:

Obviously you are not the type of person who objectively and critically looked at the evidence and concluded that the evidence and arguments for God are not good enough, ……….. you seem to be the type of person that decided to become an atheist because being an atheist is “modern” “progressive” “cool” and currently on fashion