Fighting Two Fronts

[Meow Mix]

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.

Ben, did you skip over the posts about quantum fluctuation and the Casimir Effect? I can teach you how to build a device to measure the effect of uncaused particles popping in and out of existence. Your computer relies on this effect, as do all other electronics. In particular your microwave uses these uncaused particles to warm your food.

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.

That's because some atheists have epistemic integrity.

 

[PolyHedral]

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.

Virtual particles do not have a cause. Quantum fluctuations allow almost anything to appear from nothing, so long as it disappears again fast enough.

Before you ask for evidence of this, they are predicted by the same theory that lets us build electronics. Denying it denies the computer you are sitting at.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuations

 

[Ben Masada]

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

First, we live in the Planet Earth and not in a place elsewhere which we need to visit to check the kind of place we would be stepping on. That's what I mean the universe being made out of matter. Second, Sicence has proved the death of stars. Therefore, genesis is taken for granted where there is death. That's what I mean by matter has not always existed. Now, whose argument has fallen apart?

 

[PolyHedral]

First, we live in the Planet Earth and not in a place elsewhere which we need to visit to check the kind of place we would be stepping on. That's what I mean the universe being made out of matter. Second, Sicence has proved the death of stars. Therefore, genesis is taken for granted where there is death. That's what I mean by matter has not always existed. Now, whose argument has fallen apart?

Yours. Stars are not the same thing as matter, and their dissolution has absolutely nothing to do with matter itself. Conservation of mass-energy is one of the most fundamental laws of physics, and has not been violated, ever. There are no possible circumstances where energy can disappear.

 

[Ben Masada]

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

No, I don't see "me."

 

[Ben Masada]

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.

And you who have answered that the universe always existed and had no beginning. You can never prove such an assertion. But you love to discard that the Creator does not exist.

(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.

Why do you see yourself with the right to cite anyone you want to prove your assertions but criticise me when I cite the lscriptures? If my sources are opinions of man, yours are no less.

(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.

Too bad for your disappointment. The universe is not eternal and it did have a beginning, according to the Scriptures. The opposite you can imply only with basis in theories which are born and die as such without never reaching the level of facts.

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.

Your assertions are based on hypothesis. We are two people who understand certain
facts differently. Welcome to plurality of thought. While I have the Scriptures and Logic to support my assertions, you have only human opinions as a result of their understanding of theories.

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

Aristotle supports this argument. Do you suppose to be more intelligent than Aristotle? False presumption. Also fallacy.

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.

I rather pity you for trusting your faith on the opinions of Phisicists' understanding of theories that die as theories and never become facts. Talking about evidence and Logic, that's what Atheists lack the most.

If you believe in the scriptures for some logical reason, then make that argument. Do you see how you're assuming your conclusion? You're assuming the universe is a creation. We don't know that. 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.

What about Einstein? This was a learnt Jew who knew how to differenciate between the anthropomorphic god of religions and the Spirit and Incorporeal Creator of the universe. Once he was asked if he believed in God. He answered and said that his whole life was to catch God at His work of creation. He believed in the expansion of the universe. That, in his mind, could be the real God at His work of creation. And what about Theist, Deist and Agnostic Philosophers? Philosophers are Philosophers period. Their aversion was and still probably is against the anthropomorphic gods of religions.

 

[Meow Mix]

I'm done here, all we'll ever get are special pleading fallacies and argument from authority fallacies.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm done here, all we'll ever get are special pleading fallacies and argument from authority fallacies.

You weren't expecting something intellectually legitimate, were you?

 

[JustWondering]

What confuses me is why Ben preaches bible scriptures to Atheists to support his claims.

 

[Autodidact]

First, we live in the Planet Earth and not in a place elsewhere which we need to visit to check the kind of place we would be stepping on. That's what I mean the universe being made out of matter.

This is incorrect. The universe is made of matter, energy, and matter/energy. The sum total of all matter and energy never changes.

Second, Sicence has proved the death of stars. Therefore, genesis is taken for granted where there is death. That's what I mean by matter has not always existed. Now, whose argument has fallen apart?

If a star comes into existence, it does so out of the matter/energy already present in the universe. If it dies, its energy/matter remains, in an altered state. This is very basic science.

 

[Meow Mix]

You weren't expecting something intellectually legitimate, were you?

Honestly, yeah. Sometimes I get fooled by people who know how to punctuate and spell. I assume that since they know how to do that, they know at least the basics of debate and how to avoid fallacies. It's a bad assumption. I need to stop it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Honestly, yeah. Sometimes I get fooled by people who know how to punctuate and spell. I assume that since they know how to do that, they know at least the basics of debate and how to avoid fallacies. It's a bad assumption. I need to stop it.

Yeah, your assumptions will adapt and evolve over time. When I first started posting here, I posted long, thorough debates which rationally addressed people's posts point-by-point. Now, I pretty much limit myself to pithy witticisms for entertainment purposes.

 

[Autodidact]

And you who have answered that the universe always existed and had no beginning.

No, what I said was,

Current evidence suggests that the universe may be eternal

You can never prove such an assertion.

It doesn't matter. I'm not making it. I'll make a deal with you. We can agree that right this minute, we don't know for sure whether the universe is eternal, or had a beginning. Congratulations. You lose. Your argument fails.

Why do you see yourself with the right to cite anyone you want to prove your assertions but criticise me when I cite the lscriptures? I mine sources are opinions of man, yours are no less.

Oh, feel free. First make an argument for the validity that does not assume their validity. Otherwise it's just circular. Your entire point is to prove that God exists, first, and then many steps after that you would perhaps manage to piece together an argument for the scripture telling us about God. You have stumbled on step one.

You're free to use anything you want, in your own thinking. But here you're trying to make an argument. To do that you need premises that are agreed on. Since we haven't agreed that your particular scripture is true, you can't use it as a premise until you establish that it is.

btw, do you accept all scripture, or only yours?

Too bad for your disappointment. The universe is not eternal and it did have a beginning, according to the Scriptures.

I see. So your argument is completel circular?

The opposite you can imply only with basis in theories which are born and die as such without never being proved as facts.

Of course not. It's science. Do you accept science?

Your assertions are based on hypothesis. We are two people who understand certain
fact differently. Welcom to plurality of thought. While I have the Scriptures and Logic to support my assertions, you have only human opinions as a result of their understanding of theories.

Look, if your argument was that God exists because the Tanakh says so, why didn't you say so in the first place? I thought you were saying that if your argument was not valid, you were ready to become an atheist. Your argument had nothing to do with scripture. I will agree that if the Tanakh is true, then God exists. Now you have only to establish that the Tanakh is true.

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

Aristotle supports this argument. Do you suppose to be more intelligent than Aristotle? False presumption. Also fallacy.

Sorry--what fallacy? Yours is called argument from authority. I didn't realize that Aristotle was Jewish. Because you follow Aristotle, right? Do you suppose to be more intelligent than Aristotle? If not, then how can you be Jewish?

I rather piy you for trusting your faith on the opinions of Phisicists' understanding of theories that die as theories and never become facts. Talking about evidence and Logic, that's what Atheists lack the most.

I haven't even stated an argument. You have. And your argument rests on a premise you cannot demonstrate to be true. End of story. You failed. I look forward to you changing your religion on your profile here.

What about Einstein?

I don't know, you brought him up.

This was a learnt Jew who knew how to differenciate between the anthropomorphic god of religions and the Spirit and Incorporeal Creator of the universe. Once he was asked if he believed in God. He answered and said that his whole life was to catch God at His work of creation. He believe in the expansion of the universe.

Einstein was a Jewish as Spinoza. He was a Deist. Unless you're a Deist, you are rejecting his authority and saying you're more intelligent than him?

And what about Theist, Deist and Agnostic Philosophers? Philosophers are Philosophers period. Their aversion was and still probably is against the anthropomorphic gods of
religion.

Hypocritical much? We should all submit to the authority of the philosophers who agree with you, but you should not submit to the authority of the philosophers who disagree with you? I suggest you drop your arguments from authority--it's a fallacy.

 

[Ben Masada]

I'm done here, all we'll ever get are special pleading fallacies and argument from authority fallacies.

That's not too bad. It means less fallacies with your leaving. Good luck then.

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben, did you skip over the posts about quantum fluctuation and the Casimir Effect? I can teach you how to build a device to measure the effect of uncaused particles popping in and out of existence. Your computer relies on this effect, as do all other electronics. In particular your microwave uses these uncaused particles to warm your food.

That's because some atheists have epistemic integrity.

No, IMO, they behave thus when they are cornered and unleash their dogs of ad homnems without any consideration about who is on the other side.

Regarding your post on quantum fluctuation and the Casimir Effect, I think you are right that I missed it. I'll look for it. I was familiar with quantum fluctuation. The Casimir Effect is new to me; I mean, the name. Are they a sysnonym of each other?

 

[Meow Mix]

No, IMO, they behave thus when they are cornered and unleash their dogs of ad homnems without any consideration about who is on the other side.

Regarding your post on quantum fluctuation and the Casimir Effect, I think you are right that I missed it. I'll look for it. I was familiar with quantum fluctuation. The Casimir Effect is new to me; I mean, the name. Are they a sysnonym of each other?

The Casimir Effect is a consequence of quantum fluctuation. It's a pressure caused by particles popping in and out of existence between two plates in its simplest form.

View from the side, with arrows meaning lines of force and | being metal plates:

-------> | <-> | <-------

Air pressure pushes on the outside, but there is a pressure pushing outward from the inside (which is a vacuum). How can there be outward pressure in a vacuum? Because quantum particles are appearing and disapearing between the plates. Transistors in every electronic device rely on this effect.

 

[Meow Mix]

That's not too bad. It means less fallacies with your leaving. Good luck then.

Well, let's stop accusing each other of fallacies and try to earnestly work this out, maybe?

 

[Ben Masada]

For the first three paragraphs above, which I had to erase, you are not serious at all.

btw, do you accept all scripture, or only yours?
I see. So your argument is completel circular? Of course not. It's science. Do you accept science?

I accept all of my Tanakh but not literally; I accept 20 per cent of the NT; and of Science only what is logical and makes sense to me.

Look, if your argument was that God exists because the Tanakh says so, why didn't you say so in the first place? I thought you were saying that if your argument was not valid, you were ready to become an atheist. Your argument had nothing to do with scripture. I will agree that if the Tanakh is true, then God exists. Now you have only to establish that the Tanakh is true.

The truth of the Tanakh, except for the Historical part, is hidden behind metaphorical language. One has to have some philosophical initiation to reach for it. Religions usually go for the literal where the truth is not.

I don't know, you brought him up. Einstein was a Jewish as Spinoza. He was a Deist. Unless you're a Deist, you are rejecting his authority and saying you're more intelligent than him? Hypocritical much? We should all submit to the authority of the philosophers who agree with you, but you should not submit to the authority of the philosophers who disagree with you? I suggest you drop your arguments from authority--it's a fallacy.

This has been the worst post of yours. You might either be joking or have run out of what to say. I don't know why I had to write a reply on it. Since I have already done it, I will let it go.

 

[Ben Masada]

Well, let's stop accusing each other of fallacies and try to earnestly work this out, maybe?

Maybe

 

[LuisDantas]

That's not too bad. It means less fallacies with your leaving. Good luck then.

May you give one single example?