Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[ratiocinator]

Ok, but that doesn’t imply that things can come in to existence without a cause………………….do you think that things can come in to existence without a cause? Yes or no?.

Yes. Not that it matters much, as we are talking about the universe that didn't come into existence at all (according to GR).

WELL what is wrogn with the 4 arguments described by WLC in favor of a finite past?

When we are talking about cosmology and physics, I'll take the word of experts in those fields over a philosopher with an agenda. An infinite past is perfectly possible (not that the particular hypothesis means that exactly, since the past becomes the future). There are also many other hypotheses, such as starting in a closed time-like loop, time being basically circular, various cyclic models, and so on. All of them are scientific hypotheses extrapolated from what is known ans not some made up magic.

It's a long article you linked, so I'm not sure what four things you referred to, but I noticed "An actual infinite cannot exist.", which is drivel. Even in classical physics, there are an infinite number of positions between any two distinct points in space.

Here is the issue, people like WLC don’t claim “it´s true because I say so” they provide reasons and evidence in support for each premise and step of the argument………………..you might disagree. …you might think that the evidence if false, fallacious or wrong……….. but you have to support it

Of course, I don't. Craig appears to be all but scientifically illiterate and relying on out-dated philosophy that was dodgy even before modern science.

Again begin to exist simply means that there was a first moment (or moments)……such that there was no “before” that moment of time………..this is also explained in detail I the source that I shared prissily to avoid semantic tricks

It's not semantics - it's physics, it appears that you simply don't understand the modern conception of time. The 'first moment' (if there was one) has no more significance to the existence of 4D space-time than the North Pole has to the existence of the 3D planet Earth.

Again, regardless of if time is finite in the past direction through it, the space-time did not start to exist (if GR is a good model, which it appears to be).

 

[YoursTrue]

Just read about it as per "Descartes' evil demon". Remember it is about doubt.

Ok.

 

[leroy]

Kalam and the special pleading of turtles.
problems with the kalam

You are linking me to Google, was that your intent?

 

[YoursTrue]

Just read about it as per "Descartes' evil demon". Remember it is about doubt.

Ok I looked it up on Wikipedia. Right at beginning I have thoughts. I'm guessing Descartes had ability to read Bible, don't know. What do you think? I don't know if it was translated in his language yet. Sounds interesting altho yes Satan the devil who approached Eve is certainly very smart. And still alive and functioning. But will not always be.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok I looked it up on Wikipedia. Right at beginning I have thoughts. I'm guessing Descartes had ability to read Bible, don't know. What do you think? I don't know if it was translated in his language yet. Sounds interesting altho yes Satan the devil who approached Eve is certainly very smart. And still alive and functioning. But will not always be.

Well, how do you know that an evil demon is not tricking you?

Descartes doubted whether what he experienced was real or if he was tricked by an evil demon. He couldn't figure out if it was the one or the other. So he did something else.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm sorry. The subject is Descartes and demons?

I believe you are misrepresenting this in the context of the current discussion.

 

[shunyadragon]

I've always wondered about that. Cells have structure...what, they popped up? Talk about magic, hmm?

They di not just pop up there is evidence of the evolution of primitive cells,

 

[shunyadragon]

You are wrong, the reason for why I won’t find that level of detail it because nobody knows those details (except for you apparently)

arguing from ignorance again . . .

 

[leroy]

When we are talking about cosmology and physics, I'll take the word of experts in those fields over a philosopher with an agenda. An infinite past is perfectly possible

Yes but your burden is to show that it is more probable (not just possible)

(not that the particular hypothesis means that exactly, since the past becomes the future). There are also many other hypotheses, such as starting in a closed time-like loop, time being basically circular, various cyclic models, and so on. All of them are scientific hypotheses extrapolated from what is known ans not some made up magic.

Ok

1 pick your favorite hypotheiss

2 explain how that hypothesis (if true) would imply that the universe is infinite in to the past

3 explain why that hypothesis is better than say the big bang model (the universe began 14B years ago)

It's a long article you linked, so I'm not sure what four things you referred to, but I noticed "An actual infinite cannot exist.", which is drivel. Even in classical physics, there are an infinite number of positions between any two distinct points in space.

no sure what you mean but Yes, if you show that there is an actual infinit number of possitions between 2 points, the argument woudl fail and you would "win" the argument

It's not semantics - it's physics, it appears that you simply don't understand the modern conception of time. The 'first moment' (if there was one) has no more significance to the existence of 4D space-time than the North Pole has to the existence of the 3D planet Earth.

Again, regardless of if time is finite in the past direction through it, the space-time did not start to exist (if GR is a good model, which it appears to be).

Then explain why , develop an argument or provide a source, at this point it seems just semantics to me

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes but your burden is to show that it is more probable (not just possible)

Probability does not apply here is the Laws of Nature,

Ok

1 pick your favorite hypotheiss

2 explain how that hypothesis (if true) would imply that the universe is infinite in to the past.

It is not an hypothesis. It is simply possible that our universe or our physical existence is potentially infinite. Like Aristotle I agree Actual infinites do not exist, They are closed sets of infinities and have no relationship into the possible nature of our universe.

3 explain why that hypothesis is better than say the big bang model (the universe began 14B years ago)

No possible hypothesis proposed here for a math question. What you are describing is a possible closed set of an actual infinity. The question involves whether an actual infinity can be described between two points, maybe an infinitely divided segment.

The Big Bang proposal does not propose a beginning of our universe. It proposes the beginning of our universe as a singularity in a greater Quantum existences or a boundless possibly cyclic universe as described by Penrose-Hawking

It is a fact in cosmology today there is no known evidence for the absolute beginning of our universe.

no sure what you mean but Yes, if you show that there is an actual infinit number of possitions between 2 points, the argument woudl fail and you would "win" the argument

This would relate to flawed argument for an actual infinity, which is a highly flawed Kalam argument. You are ignoring the fact that our universe is potentially infinite.

Then explain why , develop an argument or provide a source, at this point it seems just semantics to me

argument presented and you have failed to respond,

 

[Pogo]

I've always wondered about that. Cells have structure...what, they popped up? Talk about magic, hmm?

And only you and the ID crowd posit that, that is why their numbers are meaningless.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, how do you know that an evil demon is not tricking you?

Descartes doubted whether what he experienced was real or if he was tricked by an evil demon. He couldn't figure out if it was the one or the other. So he did something else.

You do not remotely understand Descartes argument. I was most likely sarcasm he was a rational naturalist and did not believe in Gods or Demons.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I saw this. I believe the important note of this research is:

"In seemingly stable environments, there is significant fluctuation in the frequency of gene variants known as alleles at specific chromosomal regions over time, even if the overall strength of selection remains near zero on average over many years. This suggests that such genetic variation allows populations to remain adaptable to environmental changes.

"This study has, for the first time, given us a glimpse into the kinds of temporal changes in gene frequencies that occur even in seemingly constant environments, a sort of ongoing churn of genetic variation distributed across the genome," says Michael Lynch, lead author of the new study."

I noticed exactly that part of the article and immediately thought of you and your latest posts. That was actually the main reason that I posted it here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And only you and the ID crowd posit that, that is why their numbers are meaningless.

I find that supporters of ID use the wrong words in their acronym. I have never seen any evidence for ID, just more arguments from ignorance. If anything I have only seen evidence for Incompetent Design. Now there is an acronym that I could get behind.

 

[Pogo]

You are wrong, the reason for why I won’t find that level of detail it because nobody knows those details (except for you apparently)

Not knowing every movement in the construction of Queen Victoria's cake does not mean that we cannot reconstruct a cake that fits the criteria without magic or a millimeter by millimeter reconstruction of the the bakers movements. Your redefining of everything to your personal whims is just absurd.

 

[Pogo]

You are linking me to Google, was that your intent?

You wanted a list of things that are wrong with the Kalam argument, it was a few points for you to consider.

You are like a kid who insists Santa exists because you got a picture book with him in it last Christmas.

Physics is what physicists say it is, not what you think it is because it fits your preconceptions. Circles don't have a beginning and end. Definitions are set by consensus of the users not your personal whim etc.

 

[leroy]

If you hold the view that the existence of god(s) is unknown and/or unknowable, then you might be an agnostic.
Whether or not you believe in a god is a question of a/theism.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

ok

and how about answering my question
hen what would the proper word for this possition ? “I dont know and I have no reason to think that one view is more likely to be true than the other”


And even more important, does that position represents you?

 

[leroy]

Not knowing every movement in the construction of Queen Victoria's cake does not mean that we cannot reconstruct a cake that fits the criteria without magic or a millimeter by millimeter reconstruction of the the bakers movements. Your redefining of everything to your personal whims is just absurd.

Granted, but in this case, you (nor any scientist) cannot reconstruct the evolution of the eye


Would you grant that the evolution of the eye is analogous to the pyramids in Egypt? …….we know that these pyramids where built by someone, and we know the general clues of how it was done……………but we don’t really know the specific details for how could this be done.

 

[leroy]

You wanted a list of things that are wrong with the Kalam argument, it was a few points for you to consider.

You are like a kid who insists Santa exists because you got a picture book with him in it last Christmas.

Physics is what physicists say it is, not what you think it is because it fits your preconceptions. Circles don't have a beginning and end. Definitions are set by consensus of the users not your personal whim etc.

The link didn’t get me to any list…………..it lead me to the Google search engine………….was that your intent?

 

[leroy]

I find that supporters of ID use the wrong words in their acronym. I have never seen any evidence for ID, just more arguments from ignorance. If anything I have only seen evidence for Incompetent Design. Now there is an acronym that I could get behind.

From previous conversations it is obvious that you do not understand many of the arguments