Is it possible to talk with an atheist?

[Sanmario]

@siti
@leibowde84
@Willamena
@Posters
@Readers


Dear readers here, do you read any falsifiable concept of God from leibowde84?

I specifically ask him to give an example of a falsifiable concept of God, because he says:

"Without a falsifiable concept of God, defining not only what God is, but also what God isn't and cannot be, there is no discussion possible of God's existence. Just saying that God is the creator of everything with a beginning isn't enough, as it is not falsifiable. But, I guess we can start there." Post 136 from leibowde84.​

And I explicitly ask him to present an example of a falsifiable concept of God:

"Thanks for reading my thread and contributing your message.
Now, you say:

"How do you define God? I think it is necessary to start with a falsifiable concept of God and define what God is and isn't in order to have any kind of meaningful discussion as to whether or not God exists."

Dear leibowde84:
I am sure you have come to concepts of God, as you bring in "falsifiable concept of God," may I suggest you give me an example of a falsifiable concept of God, so that we will not be talking about different things. Sanmario Post 125​

So, dear leibowde84. are you going to deliver your example of a falsifiable concept of God, or not?

When you mention a term like a falsifiable concept of God, that it is very important to the discussion of God exists or not, you must also be ready and keen to define the term and also give an example.

Otherwise don't mention it, just say what is your concept of God and omit that word falsifiable, unless you are in the habit of dropping terms but not able to define it and much less to give an example of it, that is not to my mind an admirable habit.


Okay, readers here, let us sit back and await with bated breath for leibowde84 to deliver an example of a falsifiable concept of God, he is I notice or he seems to be a master of falsifiable concepts.

Without a falsifiable concept of God, defining not only what God is, but also what God isn't and cannot be, there is no discussion possible of God's existence. Just saying that God is the creator of everything with a beginning isn't enough, as it is not falsifiable. But, I guess we can start there.

Btw, my concept of God is not falsifiable, so I would never try to claim any logical argument for God's existence. My belief is based on faith, not reason.

But, if you want to support your claim that God exists, you would have to show that 1. the cosmos (everything in existence at this point) had a beginning ... and we don't know that for sure at this point. 2. you would have to show that an uncaused cause is a possibility. If the universe has to have a beginning, you have to explain why God doesn't need a beginning (and, obviously, just repeating your claim that God is the uncaused cause doesn't cut it).

 

[columbus]

@siti
@leibowde84
@Willamena
@Posters
@Readers


Dear readers here, do you read any falsifiable concept of God from leibowde84?

I specifically ask him to give an example of a falsifiable concept of God, because he says:

"Without a falsifiable concept of God, defining not only what God is, but also what God isn't and cannot be, there is no discussion possible of God's existence. Just saying that God is the creator of everything with a beginning isn't enough, as it is not falsifiable. But, I guess we can start there." Post 136 from leibowde84.​

And I explicitly ask him to present an example of a falsifiable concept of God:

"Thanks for reading my thread and contributing your message.
Now, you say:

"How do you define God? I think it is necessary to start with a falsifiable concept of God and define what God is and isn't in order to have any kind of meaningful discussion as to whether or not God exists."

Dear leibowde84:
I am sure you have come to concepts of God, as you bring in "falsifiable concept of God," may I suggest you give me an example of a falsifiable concept of God, so that we will not be talking about different things. Sanmario Post 125​

So, dear leibowde84. are you going to deliver your example of a falsifiable concept of God, or not?

When you mention a term like a falsifiable concept of God, that it is very important to the discussion of God exists or not, you must also be ready and keen to define the term and also give an example.

Otherwise don't mention it, just say what is your concept of God and omit that word falsifiable, unless you are in the habit of dropping terms but not able to define it and much less to give an example of it, that is not to my mind an admirable habit.


Okay, readers here, let us sit back and await with bated breath for leibowde84 to deliver an example of a falsifiable concept of God, he is I notice or he seems to be a master of falsifiable concepts.

If this is your level of response I probably won't be responding to you either.
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

@siti
@leibowde84
@Willamena
@Posters
@Readers


Dear readers here, do you read any falsifiable concept of God from leibowde84?

I specifically ask him to give an example of a falsifiable concept of God, because he says:

"Without a falsifiable concept of God, defining not only what God is, but also what God isn't and cannot be, there is no discussion possible of God's existence. Just saying that God is the creator of everything with a beginning isn't enough, as it is not falsifiable. But, I guess we can start there." Post 136 from leibowde84.​

And I explicitly ask him to present an example of a falsifiable concept of God:

"Thanks for reading my thread and contributing your message.
Now, you say:

"How do you define God? I think it is necessary to start with a falsifiable concept of God and define what God is and isn't in order to have any kind of meaningful discussion as to whether or not God exists."

Dear leibowde84:
I am sure you have come to concepts of God, as you bring in "falsifiable concept of God," may I suggest you give me an example of a falsifiable concept of God, so that we will not be talking about different things. Sanmario Post 125​

So, dear leibowde84. are you going to deliver your example of a falsifiable concept of God, or not?

When you mention a term like a falsifiable concept of God, that it is very important to the discussion of God exists or not, you must also be ready and keen to define the term and also give an example.

Otherwise don't mention it, just say what is your concept of God and omit that word falsifiable, unless you are in the habit of dropping terms but not able to define it and much less to give an example of it, that is not to my mind an admirable habit.


Okay, readers here, let us sit back and await with bated breath for leibowde84 to deliver an example of a falsifiable concept of God, he is I notice or he seems to be a master of falsifiable concepts.

Falsifiable = Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is the inherent possibility that it can be proven false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates the statement in question.

In regards to God, the definition of God would have to be open to being proven false. In other words, there must be an observation or argument that, if true, would prove that God does not exist.

I don't think God is a falsifiable concept. I have never seen God defined in a way that can be falsifiable. Therefore, it seems inappropriate to try to prove or disprove God's existence. It cannot logically be done unless God is falsifiable. That is why I asked you to provide a falsifiable definition of God ... because I cannot and have never come across any.

Can you provide your definition of God beyond "the creator which creates everything with a beginning"?

 

[leibowde84]

@siti
@leibowde84
@Willamena
@Posters
@Readers


Dear readers here, do you read any falsifiable concept of God from leibowde84?

I specifically ask him to give an example of a falsifiable concept of God, because he says:

"Without a falsifiable concept of God, defining not only what God is, but also what God isn't and cannot be, there is no discussion possible of God's existence. Just saying that God is the creator of everything with a beginning isn't enough, as it is not falsifiable. But, I guess we can start there." Post 136 from leibowde84.​

And I explicitly ask him to present an example of a falsifiable concept of God:

"Thanks for reading my thread and contributing your message.
Now, you say:

"How do you define God? I think it is necessary to start with a falsifiable concept of God and define what God is and isn't in order to have any kind of meaningful discussion as to whether or not God exists."

Dear leibowde84:
I am sure you have come to concepts of God, as you bring in "falsifiable concept of God," may I suggest you give me an example of a falsifiable concept of God, so that we will not be talking about different things. Sanmario Post 125​

So, dear leibowde84. are you going to deliver your example of a falsifiable concept of God, or not?

When you mention a term like a falsifiable concept of God, that it is very important to the discussion of God exists or not, you must also be ready and keen to define the term and also give an example.

Otherwise don't mention it, just say what is your concept of God and omit that word falsifiable, unless you are in the habit of dropping terms but not able to define it and much less to give an example of it, that is not to my mind an admirable habit.


Okay, readers here, let us sit back and await with bated breath for leibowde84 to deliver an example of a falsifiable concept of God, he is I notice or he seems to be a master of falsifiable concepts.

An example of a falsifiable claim:

"The earth is flat, not spherical." This is a falsifiable claim because it is possible to prove it false. For example, you could look at pictures of the earth taken from space and see that the earth is spherical.

 

[siti]

@Sanmario - OK - I'm back (against my better judgement). For the record, I did not run away, I simply put you on ignore for 24 hours because your trolling was very irritating.

Your argument (repeated ad nauseum) is that God is the creator of everything that has a beginning ("like", you said, "the universe"). My challenge, warning and "stink bomb" were all responses to this. I did not suggest that you could not write coherent sentences, I simply stated the fact that you had not done so in defending your claim that the universe had a beginning. In response, you have launched a barrage of gratuitous ad hominen (haughty, boastful, arrogant...etc. etc.) in my direction, including in a thread I had not even contributed to - this is generally considered very bad form in discussion forums - but I will excuse your bad manners for the sake of discussion.

I have repeatedly requested that you post a coherent argument that proves logically that the universe had a beginning.

You have a duty to do this because you have posted an argument for God's existence based on the premise that the universe had a beginning. If you cannot prove your premise, your entire argument fails and so far you have posted no such argument.

This is not siti being arrogant or haughty - it is just how logical deduction works. And my warning was not haughtiness either - the task of proving this premise has evaded the most brilliant philosophers since antiquity - in fact for all but about half of the 20th century, an eternal universe was the standard scientifically accepted conception and it is very much back in vogue in scientific circles in the early 21st century with the growing acceptance that whilst Big Bang theory provides a good explanation for what exists in the bit of the universe we are able to observe, it tells us nothing at all about what may or may not have existed before and beyond that.

Anyway, its your turn again, please post a coherent argument that proves logically that the universe had a beginning.

 

[leibowde84]

@siti
@leibowde84
@Willamena
@Posters
@Readers


Dear readers here, do you read any falsifiable concept of God from leibowde84?

I specifically ask him to give an example of a falsifiable concept of God, because he says:

"Without a falsifiable concept of God, defining not only what God is, but also what God isn't and cannot be, there is no discussion possible of God's existence. Just saying that God is the creator of everything with a beginning isn't enough, as it is not falsifiable. But, I guess we can start there." Post 136 from leibowde84.​

And I explicitly ask him to present an example of a falsifiable concept of God:

"Thanks for reading my thread and contributing your message.
Now, you say:

"How do you define God? I think it is necessary to start with a falsifiable concept of God and define what God is and isn't in order to have any kind of meaningful discussion as to whether or not God exists."

Dear leibowde84:
I am sure you have come to concepts of God, as you bring in "falsifiable concept of God," may I suggest you give me an example of a falsifiable concept of God, so that we will not be talking about different things. Sanmario Post 125​

So, dear leibowde84. are you going to deliver your example of a falsifiable concept of God, or not?

When you mention a term like a falsifiable concept of God, that it is very important to the discussion of God exists or not, you must also be ready and keen to define the term and also give an example.

Otherwise don't mention it, just say what is your concept of God and omit that word falsifiable, unless you are in the habit of dropping terms but not able to define it and much less to give an example of it, that is not to my mind an admirable habit.


Okay, readers here, let us sit back and await with bated breath for leibowde84 to deliver an example of a falsifiable concept of God, he is I notice or he seems to be a master of falsifiable concepts.

Just to address this ludicrous reply, I never said that I could provide a falsifiable definition for God. That would be your job, as you are trying to argue, logically, that God exists. But, I'm always open to being wrong ... so, now it's up to you to provide a falsifiable definition for God (I provided the meaning of "falsifiable" in my last post, btw). If you can't do this, then you cannot logically argue for the existence of God.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... it's up to you to provide a falsifiable definition for God (I provided the meaning of "falsifiable" in my last post, btw). If you can't do this, then you cannot logically argue for the existence of God.

That is simply nonsense. In what sense is the first cause argument not *logical?

* and please, please, make an effort to understand what the term 'logical' implies.

 

[leibowde84]

That is simply nonsense. In what sense is the first cause argument not *logical?

* and please, please, make an effort to understand what the term 'logical' implies.

It could be logical, but first certain things would have to be defined/proven.
1. God must be defined in a way that differentiates God from other potential causes.
2. It must be shown that the universe had a beginning.
3. It must be shown that God does not need a beginning/creator.

It would be logically fallacious to assume these things in your definition of God. You can't say God is the cause of the universe's beginning, he is an uncaused cause, and he is the only potential cause for the universe.

 

[siti]

That is simply nonsense. In what sense is the first cause argument not *logical?

In the sense that the conclusion refutes the premises. When that happens, its a dead giveaway that your argument is not logically sound.

P1. Everything has a cause/beginning
P2. There cannot be an eternal sequence of causes/beginnings
Conclusion: the first cause must be causeless/beginningless and therefore violate premise 1

 

[leibowde84]

In the sense that the conclusion refutes the premises. When that happens, its a dead giveaway that your argument is not logically sound.

P1. Everything has a cause/beginning
P2. There cannot be an eternal sequence of causes/beginnings
Conclusion: the first cause must be causeless/beginningless and therefore violate premise 1

Well put.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In the sense that the conclusion refutes the premises. When that happens, its a dead giveaway that your argument is not logically sound.

P1. Everything has a cause/beginning
P2. There cannot be an eternal sequence of causes/beginnings
Conclusion: the first cause must be causeless/beginningless and therefore violate premise 1

You don't understand (or purposely misstate) the premise. Try again.

 

[leibowde84]

You don't understand (or purposely misstate) the premise. Try again.

What is the premise, just so we can be on the same page?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It would be logically fallacious to assume these things in your definition of God. You can't say God is the cause of the universe's beginning, he is an uncaused cause, and he is the only potential cause for the universe.

Please learn a little about logic (and logical fallacies) before embarrassing yourself further.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What is the premise, just so we can be on the same page?

In the case of Kalam: "Whatever begins to exist has a cause."

 

[siti]

You don't understand (or purposely misstate) the premise. Try again.

OK - here's William Lane Craig's version in his own words: "The argument is really very simple and consists primarily of three steps. (1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. (2) The universe began to exist. (3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. And then in premise (4) we conceptually unpack what some of the principal attributes would be of a cause of the universe's existence." and here's his "unpacking" of the attributes of the "first cause": "4. If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent."

Check it for yourself here if you want to.

So I admit mine is not as flowery, but essentially - logically - its identical.

 

[leibowde84]

Please learn a little about logic (and logical fallacies) before embarrassing yourself further.

Right back at ya. Nothing incorrect with what I wrote. That's why you avoided pointing to any specific mistake. But, please ... give it a shot. Actually provide an explanation for your insult ... or you can just troll away.

 

[leibowde84]

In the case of Kalam: "Whatever begins to exist has a cause."

Ok, but that doesn't mean that the universe had a beginning. No beginning, no cause.

 

[siti]

In the case of Kalam: "Whatever begins to exist has a cause."

How is that different from what I said?

 

[columbus]

In the case of Kalam: "Whatever begins to exist has a cause."

All Kalam logically demonstrates is deism. It's why I am one.
What consistently happens after that is people add other, unsupported, notions and characteristics to the deist god and invent religion.
"The universe exists and God is the reason " doesn't support any religious ideology at all. It doesn't even demonstrate that god currently exists.
Tom

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

@siti

Everything has a cause/beginning​

Kalam:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.​

@siti, if you do not see a difference then you should probably just bow out of the discussion.