Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[ratiocinator]

Yes I understand and grant that (atleast for the sake of this discussion) however that doesn’t changes the fact that my birth is a consequence of a *causally prior* chain of events………which could have not been infinitely long……

Why not?

The point of premise 2 is that you where not born as a consequence of an infinitely long chain of causally prior events ……. If “begin to exist “ is not the correct term, then please feel free to use any other term.

If the universe is finite in past timelike directions, then that is the correct term. Kalam fails because the space-time did not begin to exist, as a whole, it is timeless. WLC himself realised he had a problem with relativity, so perhaps you should take note. He tried to reformulate it. Even if he'd managed it, it wouldn't remove the logical possibility of the philosophical eternalism view of time, so the argument would still be unsound.

Of course, the second part of it is pure fantasy anyway, when he tries to get a cause for the universe to mean God in the classical monotheistic sense.

Like all other arguments for God, it's a bit of a joke.

You can use supernatural or any other label, the point is that if you don’t reject claim that “something” is the reason for the universe, then you are not rejecting the conclusion of the KCA...

I don't know is there is a reason for the universe, but there is a fundamental problem with this sort of endless 'why' questions:

Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Why Is There Something, Rather Than Nothing?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The lack of ability, not the unicorns.

Can you expand on that?

 

[GoodAttention]

Can you expand on that?

The inability to consider a belief in an unknowable God that cannot be realized.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can you expand on that?

The inability to consider a belief in an unknowable God that cannot be realized.

Well, I do consider such beliefs as an atheist. How do you know that I can't do that?

 

[GoodAttention]

Can you expand on that?


Well, I do consider such beliefs as an atheist. How do you know that I can't do that?

Since you have consider the belief, next is,

Should you believe in an unknowable God that cannot be realized?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Since you have consider the belief, next is,

Should you believe in an unknowable God that cannot be realized?

And to that question I personally answer no.

 

[ratiocinator]

Should you believe in an unknowable God that cannot be realized?

Didn't realise the thought police were a thing (yet)....

 

[GoodAttention]

Didn't realise the thought police were a thing (yet)....

Or getting locked up in a thought prison

 

[ratiocinator]

Or getting locked up in a thought prison

That's sad but it looks like some people prefer it to doing the hard work of thinking rationally.

 

[GoodAttention]

That's sad but it looks like some people prefer it to doing the hard work of thinking rationally.

For some people the only rationality they understand is self preservation.

 

[leroy]

Like I said, when you have sufficient education and understanding to be able to deal with the answer.

I can't explain calculus to a 5 year old and we can't explain your errors to you because you just don't have the background.
Find a local adult education location and take a basic probability course, your latest mistake will be one of the first things covered.

Ok then you will be ignored

 

[leroy]

Everybody is guessing when it comes to the reason for existence.


You could conclude intent regardless of what balls are picked in this case. That's what humans do. If they'd closed their eyes and rummaged around in the bowl one could conclude that the intent was to try to randomise the pick. If they keep their eye open and pick balls out while paying attention, then it's intentional, regardless.

This is all irrelevant to the point.

This is all irrelevant to the point

No this is not irrelevant, the point of this argument is to show that what you call the "main problem" (god could do anything) is not really a problem.

In this case the guy with intent who is grabbing the balls "could do anything" in the sense that he could grab any number and any combination of balls


However the fact that he could no anything doesn't make the intent hypothesis invalid , there are some observations that would support the intent hypothesis over the random hypothesis.


Do you admit that your "main problem" for god hypothesis is not really a problem?


Just for context this us the main problem according to you
"The main problem you run into with evidence for God is that god could have done anything "

 

[ratiocinator]

No this is not irrelevant, the point of this argument is to show that what you call the "main problem" (god could do anything) is not really a problem.

In this case the guy with intent who is grabbing the balls "could do anything" in the sense that he could grab any number and any combination of balls

Look, this is really, really, really simple. With the universe, we can only observe the result (the 'picked' balls), we have no idea if there was a 'bowl', or an intention. You can't infer intent from the result, which could have been literally anything even with intent.

However the fact that he could no anything doesn't make the intent hypothesis invalid , there are some observations that would support the intent hypothesis over the random hypothesis.

Such as what? And, no, the 'fine-tuning' garbage is not sound because we have no idea if anything could have been different (because we don't have a 'theory of everything'), and, even they could have been different, we have no idea if there is a wider context, and if so, what it is.

As I observed before, you seem to be quite happy to embrace tentative hypotheses and conjectures, if they suit you, but will try to argue your way out of well tested theories when they don't.

This is the opposite of rational investigation. You have decided on your conclusion first.

 

[PureX]

Look, this is really, really, really simple. With the universe, we can only observe the result (the 'picked' balls), we have no idea if there was a 'bowl', or an intention.

You just said yourself that God could have done anything (picked any color balls). And yet he chose to create exactly THIS universe (picked only the red balls). A very specific and complex expression of existence. And this is why most humans perceive existence as being the result of intent.

You can't infer intent from the result, which could have been literally anything even with intent.

BUT IT WASN'T ANYTHING. If God could have intended anything, and this is what God did, then this is what God intended.

Such as what? And, no, the 'fine-tuning' garbage is not sound because we have no idea if anything could have been different (because we don't have a 'theory of everything'), and, even they could have been different, we have no idea if there is a wider context, and if so, what it is.

We know that existence as we experience it depends on maintaining all kinds of equilibrium. And that requires that "fine tuning" that's being discussed.

As I observed before, you seem to be quite happy to embrace tentative hypotheses and conjectures, if they suit you, but will try to argue your way out of well tested theories when they don't.

He is presenting basic logic. While you are desperately trying to fight it at every point.

This is the opposite of rational investigation.

Then stop it.

 

[leroy]

Look, this is really, really, really simple. With the universe, we can only observe the result (the 'picked' balls), we have no idea if there was a 'bowl', or an intention. You can't infer intent from the result, which could have been literally anything even with intent.


Such as what? And, no, the 'fine-tuning' garbage is not sound because we have no idea if anything could have been different (because we don't have a 'theory of everything'), and, even they could have been different, we have no idea if there is a wider context, and if so, what it is.

As I observed before, you seem to be quite happy to embrace tentative hypotheses and conjectures, if they suit you, but will try to argue your way out of well tested theories when they don't.

This is the opposite of rational investigation. You have decided on your conclusion first.

Ok but these are all different objections , different from your original objection of god could do anything


Do you agree on that your original objection, which you label as the main problem for god hypothesis is not really a problem?



You might have 100 other objections....but do you agree on that this particular objection fails?


You are saying
If A can do anything then A can't be a hypothesis for B.
All I am saying is that this statement is wrong as my red and green balls example shows

You can't infer intent from the result,

could have been literally anything even with intent.

But we are inferring intent when 100% of the balls where red (and you seem to agree)

 

[Pogo]

Ok then you will be ignored

And you will keep making the same errors.

 

[leroy]

And you will keep making the same errors.

How do you know these are errors if you don't even understand the argument?

 

[ratiocinator]

Ok but these are all different objections , different from your original objection of god could do anything

No, it isn't. Intention can produce any result, so you can't infer intention from the result.

But we are inferring intent when 100% of the balls where red (and you seem to agree)

No. I said we could infer intention regardless of the result if we knew that was a human, paying attention, and picking balls out of a bowl.

Either you're not paying attention, or you're just not thinking it through.

 

[leroy]

No, it isn't. Intention can produce any result, so you can't infer intention from the result.

Really? Think twice


If an archer hits the center of a bull's eye , would you infer "intent"? Would you infer that his intent was to hit that spot

 

[ratiocinator]

You just said yourself that God could have done anything (picked any color balls). And yet he chose to create exactly THIS universe (picked only the red balls). A very specific and complex expression of existence. And this is why most humans perceive existence as being the result of intent.

Another ad populum fallacy. If the intention was for humans to exist, the universe we observe is a terribly wasteful way of doing it. And somebody else who don't understand that we don't know what or if there is some wider context than this universe.

You're playing a bind guessing game until you get to something that is anthropocentric and contrived.

If God could have intended anything, and this is what God did, then this is what God intended.

Begging the question fallacy. So much more Mr Logic.

He is presenting basic logic.

Looks like you wouldn't know basic logic if it slapped you in the face with a wet fish. And if it had hands and access to wet fish, it probably would.....