Fighting Two Fronts

[Ben Masada]

L. Ron Hubbard said evil alien spirits are the cause of mental illness. Are you going to tell me L. Ron Hubbard was crazy?

Of course he was! There is no such a thing as alien spirits.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

We do not know whether the universe ever came into existence. Many scientists believe it did not, but always existed.

Like Christians who believe that Jesus was God.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Quantum Physics shows that this is false. Your entire argument is invalid.

Who are you that I should take your word for it? Prove it that someting can come out of nothing and we are settled.
Ben

 

[PolyHedral]

Who are you that I should take your word for it? Prove it that someting can come out of nothing and we are settled.
Ben

Wikipedia knows all: Quantum fluctuation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Specifically,

That means that conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for small times. This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles.

 

[Autodidact]

We don't know whether the universe is eternal or not. It may well be. At most, you cannot show that it is not. Therefore your argument just evaporated.

Since we don't know, the most it can get you agnosticism.

 

[Autodidact]

Like Christians who believe that Jesus was God.
Ben

No, not like that. The point is, since we don't know (yet) whether the universe had a beginning or not, your argument doesn't even get off the ground. It just lays there, flopping around like a fish in the bottom of the boat.

Remember, it's your argument and your assertion. You're missing premise #1 from your argument. The burden is on you to support it, which you can't do.

That's without attacking the validity of the argument itself. It's dead before you get there.

If you ever prove that the universe had a beginning, then we can look at your argument. Let me know if you do that.

 

[Meow Mix]

Who are you that I should take your word for it? Prove it that someting can come out of nothing and we are settled.
Ben

The ironic thing is that the transistors in your computer operate on the principle Poly is speaking of.

In effect, you just used a medium which relies on the fact that particles appear out of nothing in order to express doubt about it :drool:

We can even measure the pressure of particle pairs popping in and out of existence. It's called the Casimir Effect.

In fact I can easily show you how to make your own device with which you can measure the Casimir Effect for yourself if you suspect scientists are off their rockers, supposing you have a small budget and a local electronics store.

 

[Penumbra]

...and absolutely not satisfactory.

Of that I am sure.

Perhaps you have crossed the the line of no return.

But your answer and the answer of theists in general is not satisfactory either. In fact, it's arbitrary.

You're saying that the universe cannot have created itself, and that it must have had a creator, but that the creator doesn't need to have a creator. It can simply exist. You have asserted this with no support and have denied the idea that the universe or existence in general may have simply always existed, again without support.

Rather than simply make up a non-satisfactory answer such as you have done and hold onto it even when it doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny, is it not better to admit that one does not know such things at the current time, and to continue looking? By adhering to an unquestioned answer rather than accepting the existence of unanswered questions, it seems as though you desire comfort rather than truth.

At least, that much you know.

You are mistaken. Aristotle is my support. And Moses Maimonides too.

Appeal to authority is a common logical fallacy. Aristotle and Maimonides are not your support unless you explain specific arguments made by them that show that the universe could not have always existed and show that a creator could have always existed. Since you haven't done that, all you've done is present a logical fallacy in the form of appealing to authority.

Prove that I am wrong.

It doesn't work like that. My "proof" against your argument is that it lacks substance and primarily consists of logical fallacies. You're the one asserting a claim; I'm the one refuting the claim. I suggest you read up on Russel's Teapot and get back to me about this.

Proving a negative is a virtually impossible thing outside of pure mathematics. I can't prove the nonexistence of Athena, Zeus, Bigfoot, the tooth fairy, or your god Yahweh.

What I can do is cut down unsupported arguments, show internal inconsistencies, external inconsistencies, and lack of evidence. I've showed you where you have based your entire worldview on two completely unsupported and arbitrary conclusions.

My atheism, and the atheism of many people, is based on the observation that theists don't have support for their claims. It's a refusal or an inability to accept a claim that is asserted without proof, support, need, or consistency. For many atheists, it's also based on direct evidence against certain god concepts or metaphysical concepts.

True. Could man have created the universe? You are learning.

Not too far from being a nice Jewish guirl. You make me glad.

Condescending tone noted.

He created the universe; otherwise, you did not exist yourself. What a pit!

The universe would not exist.

It has. Now, you are underestimating what we have achieved so far. God is absolutely One, Spirit and Incorporeal. (John 4:22)

Ben

Ben, this all comes down to the same basic problem I've already mentioned.

You've been unable to explain why the universe could not have always existed or come from nothing. You've also been unable to explain why a creator could have always existed or have come from nothing. And yet your worldview is based on the unsupported claim that the universe requires a creator and that the creator doesn't need a cause or even any explanation whatsoever.

It's a lack of intellectual honesty, and basically tantamount to a god of the gaps. The creator you've presented is a placeholder without substance.

-Lyn

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But your answer and the answer of theists in general is not satisfactory either. In fact, it's arbitrary.

You're saying that the universe cannot have created itself, and that it must have had a creator, but that the creator doesn't need to have a creator. It can simply exist. You have asserted this with no support and have denied the idea that the universe or existence in general may have simply always existed, again without support.

Rather than simply make up a non-satisfactory answer such as you have done and hold onto it even when it doesn't hold up to logical or scrutiny is not, is it not better to admit that one does not know such things at the current time, and to continue looking? By adhering to an unquestioned answer rather than accepting the existence of unanswered questions, it seems as though you desire comfort rather than truth.


Appeal to authority is a common logical fallacy. Aristotle and Maimonides are not your support unless you explain specific arguments made by them that show that the universe could not have always existed and show that a creator could have always existed. Since you haven't done that, all you've done is present a logical fallacy in the form of appealing to authority.


It doesn't work like that. My "proof" against your argument is that it lacks substance and primarily consists of logical fallacies. You're the one asserting a claim; I'm the one refuting the claim. I suggest you read up on Russel's Teapot and get back to me about this.

Proving a negative is a virtually impossible thing outside of pure mathematics. I can't prove the nonexistence of Athena, Zeus, Bigfoot, the tooth fairy, or your god Yahweh.

What I can do is cut down unsupported arguments, show internal inconsistencies, external inconsistencies, and lack of evidence. I've showed you where you have based your entire worldview on two completely unsupported and arbitrary conclusions.

My atheism, and the atheism of many people, is based on the observation that theists don't have support for their claims. It's a refusal or an inability to accept a claim that is asserted without proof, support, need, or consistency. For many atheists, it's also based on direct evidence against certain god concepts or metaphysical concepts.


Condescending tone noted.


Ben, this all comes down to the same basic problem I've already mentioned.

You've been unable to explain why the universe could not have always existed or that it could have come from nothing. You've also been unable to explain why a creator could have always existed or have come from nothing. And yet your worldview is based on the unsupported claim that the universe requires a creator and that the creator doesn't need a cause or even any explanation whatsoever.

It's a lack of intellectual honesty, and basically tantamount to a god of the gaps. The creator you've presented is a placeholder without substance.

-Lyn

This, effectively, ends this thread.

 

[Jacksnyte]

Who are you that I should take your word for it? Prove it that someting can come out of nothing and we are settled.
Ben

Again, I refer you to quarks!

 

[Ben Masada]

Again, I refer you to quarks!

Well, I think I can see who are you.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well, I think I can see who are you.

Well, do you think that you can see who are me?

 

[Autodidact]

Ben: I went on at length about what I see as your first problem: It has not been established that the universe had a beginning.

I think your second problem is special pleading. If you assert that everything that has a beginning must have a cause/creator, that applies to your creator as well. You're just pushing the causation question back one level.

The third problem, as Jaksnyte and others have mentioned, is that if the physicists are to be believed, and I for one am too ignorant to say they're not, then at least at a quantum level there are uncaused events. And who knows, from the perspective of infinity, the entire universe may be an uncaused quantum event!

Basically, you're venturing to the edge of our knowledge, and we cannot profitably speculate about what's beyond that edge, whether your God, and Invisible Pink Unicorn, Nothing, or Something we can neither understand nor imagine. So doing that is not going to get you to a proof, or even a good argument, for God.

So--welcome to Atheism!

 

[Meow Mix]

The third problem, as Jaksnyte and others have mentioned, is that if the physicists are to be believed, and I for one am too ignorant to say they're not, then at least at a quantum level there are uncaused events. And who knows, from the perspective of infinity, the entire universe may be an uncaused quantum event!

"The universe may well be the ultimate free lunch." - Paul Davies

At one point the universe was indeed small enough to be subject to quantum effects, just throwing that out there.

 

[Ben Masada]

But your answer and the answer of theists in general is not satisfactory either. In fact, it's arbitrary.

Just as yours is IMO.

You're saying that the universe cannot have created itself, and that it must have had a creator, but that the creator doesn't need to have a creator. It can simply exist. You have asserted this with no support and have denied the idea that the universe or existence in general may have simply always existed, again without support.[/quote

Can you prove that the universe has always existed? No, you cannot. You have equally no support evidence for your assertions.

Rather than simply make up a non-satisfactory answer such as you have done and hold onto it even when it doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny, is it not better to admit that one does not know such things at the current time, and to continue looking? By adhering to an unquestioned answer rather than accepting the existence of unanswered questions, it seems as though you desire comfort rather than truth.

In search of the truth is all that my life has been about. Einstein has also said that all his life was to try to catch God at His work of creation. He was in the same position of David when this said that the universe shows the handiwork of God. [Psalm 19:1) But of course, for you, this is evidence of nothing. Who was Einstein if not after all, just another Jew?

Appeal to authority is a common logical fallacy. Aristotle and Maimonides are not your support unless you explain specific arguments made by them that show that the universe could not have always existed and show that a creator could have always existed. Since you haven't done that, all you've done is present a logical fallacy in the form of appealing to authority.

It could be, as you suggest to me to read Russel's Teapot. Is he one of your authorities to prove how fallacious are your assertions and his? The universe is made out of matter; and matter has not always existed, as it suffers genesis and destruction. No wonder your Logic is so fallacious because of your appealing to authorities like Russel and others.

It doesn't work like that. My "proof" against your argument is that it lacks substance and primarily consists of logical fallacies. You're the one asserting a claim; I'm the one refuting the claim. I suggest you read up on Russel's Teapot and get back to me about this.

And you are the one asserting an opposite claim without any logical scientific research. Read "The Guide for the Perplexed" and likewise get back to me about it.

Proving a negative is a virtually impossible thing outside of pure mathematics. I can't prove the nonexistence of Athena, Zeus, Bigfoot, the tooth fairy, or your god Yahweh.

Yahweh is just a name. The real God Creator of the universe is easily proved through the creation of the universe. (Psalm 19:1) You won't bother seeing this as an evidence of His existence because your pre-conceived notions of hatred to the idea of God won't allow you that much.

What I can do is cut down unsupported arguments, show internal inconsistencies, external inconsistencies, and lack of evidence. I've showed you where you have based your entire worldview on two completely unsupported and arbitrary conclusions.

The first thing to cut down here are the Atheistic inconsistences about creation without a Creator, which sounds terribly illogical.

My atheism, and the atheism of many people, is based on the observation that theists don't have support for their claims. It's a refusal or an inability to accept a claim that is asserted without proof, support, need, or consistency. For many atheists, it's also based on direct evidence against certain god concepts or metaphysical concepts.

The very same works for me. It has become real frustrating that to observe how much lack of support Atheists have for their claims of an eternal universe. It seems to me I am debating nothing different from a religious Christian faction. Consistency is what lacks the most. Aha! So they have direct evidence against certain god concepts. Not more than I do. The problem is that you are dealing with anthropomorphic gods and don't even know the difference between one and the Primal Mover of the Philosophers.

You've been unable to explain why the universe could not have always existed or come from nothing. You've also been unable to explain why a creator could have always existed or have come from nothing. And yet your worldview is based on the unsupported claim that the universe requires a creator and that the creator doesn't need a cause or even any explanation whatsoever.

And you have been absolutely unable to explain why the universe could have always existed or come from nothing. The Creator, I have already explained more than several times, and here it goes again: It has existed from eternity to eternity. Read Psalm 90:2. The issue here is that I believe in the Scriptures and you only on theories which most of them die as theories. If the universe, being a creation, does not require a Creator, why don't you decide one and for all to apply your wisdom and tell us how the universe created itself without the Primal Mover? Perhaps you know better than the Philosophers.

It's a lack of intellectual honesty, and basically tantamount to a god of the gaps. The creator you've presented is a placeholder without substance.

Interesting that I had the same thought about your intellectual dishonesty to easily discard what you hate to thnk about without having no evidence for what you could provide as an option for lack of knowledge of the subject.

 

[Meow Mix]

Just throwing out that Einstein was a pantheist and certainly didn't believe in your god. Einstein's god wasn't personal or even a conscious being, but rather the universe. (His God is the god of Spinoza)

Secondly, nobody is arguing the universe always existed; they're just saying that it could have, and that your assumption that it's a creation is unwarranted. You consistently choose not to comprehend what's typed to you in plain English though.

 

[PolyHedral]

The universe is made out of matter; and matter has not always existed, as it suffers genesis and destruction.

Unless you can support this, your argument falls apart. Please do so.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You consistently choose not to comprehend what's typed to you in plain English though.

Choice falsely implies the ability to comprehend.

 

[Autodidact]

Can you prove that the universe has always existed? No, you cannot. You have equally no support evidence for your assertions.

We're not the ones making any assertions--you are. You are asserting that at some point the universe did not exist. You cannot show this. Therefore your argument fails. That's the end. You're done. You have failed. You may stop any time now. Welcome to your life as an atheist.

The very same works for me. It has become real frustrating that to observe how much lack of support Atheists have for their claims of an eternal universe.

(1) I provided a cite to an important contemporary physicist and his work which tends to show that the universe is probably eternal. Can you refute him? I know I can't.
(2) If we don't know whether the universe is eternal or had a beginning, then your argument fails. At best, you have established agnosticism. Welcome to your life as an agnostic.

And you have been absolutely unable to explain why the universe could have always existed or come from nothing.

You're the one who must show why it must have had a beginning. Remember--you're the one making an argument here. In any case, my tenuous understanding is that the universe has certain features which are explained by and consistent with the theory that it has always existed.

The Creator, I have already explained more than several times, and here it goes again: It has existed from eternity to eternity.

But doesn't your argument rest on the assertion that nothing comes from nothing? Special pleading--it's a fallacy.

Read Psalm 90:2. The issue here is that I believe in the Scriptures and you only on theories which most of them die as theories.

Oh, I thought you were making an argument. If the issue is that you, for no reason whatsoever, believe in the scriptures, then more pity you, is all I can say. I believe in evidence and logic. If you believe in the scriptures for some logical reason, then make that argument.

If the universe, being a creation, does not require a Creator, why don't you decide one and for all to apply your wisdom and tell us how the universe created itself without the Primal Mover?

Do you see how you're assuming your conclusion? You're assuming the universe is a creation. We don't know that.

Perhaps you know better than the Philosophers.

You mean the theist philosophers, don't you? You seem to think you know better than all the Atheist, Deist and Agnostic philosophers. Oh, and Einstein.

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben: I went on at length about what I see as your first problem: It has not been established that the universe had a beginning.

I am not too sure I have a problem. I believe the lscriptures and you believe in theories which are being born and dying as theories. The universe shows the handiwork of God, according to David in Psalm 19:1, and Moses in Psalm 90:2. Whom are you waiting to establish that the universe had or not a beginning? Rhetorical question. Anyways, good luck!

I think your second problem is special pleading. If you assert that everything that has a beginning must have a cause/creator, that applies to your creator as well. You're just pushing the causation question back one level.

What you are trying to bring up here as a second problem of mine is only your own assertion that the Philosophers, especially the classic ones were stupid morons to stop in their chain of regressive analysis back to the Primal Mover, whom they would forbid themselves to try an explanation.

The third problem, as Jaksnyte and others have mentioned, is that if the physicists are to be believed, and I for one am too ignorant to say they're not, then at least at a quantum level there are uncaused events. And who knows, from the perspective of infinity, the entire universe may be an uncaused quantum event!

Uncaused events? Would you please give me an example as an evidence for an uncaused event? Remember that I did not say as a creation of God. There are caused events as a result of accidents of matter. Remind me of an event not caused by matter. Would you please? Even in the realm of the Spirit there are no uncaused events. I am ready to be persuaded by an uncaused event in the physical realm.

Basically, you're venturing to the edge of our knowledge, and we cannot profitably speculate about what's beyond that edge, whether your God, and Invisible Pink Unicorn, Nothing, or Something we can neither understand nor imagine. So doing that is not going to get you to a proof, or even a good argument, for God.

That's what satisfies me to hear from Atheists, their humble lack of ability to understand or even imagine what is regressively beyond the existence of the universe which somehow has caused the universe to spring, and not the insolence to declare that there is no God, as if they knew anything of the sort.