Is it possible to talk with an atheist?

[leibowde84]

So, I have presented the nose in our face for evidence that the universe has a beginning, and you let you present your brain as evidence of the universe not having a beginning.

The nose on our face is not evidence that the universe had a beginning. Please present evidence that supports your claim that the universe had a beginning.

Keep in mind, just because a component of the universe had a beginning in no way supports the argument that the universe itself had to have a beginning.

 

[leibowde84]

because it is a part and parcel of the universe; so, as all the components of the universe have a beginning, it follows that the universe has a beginning

This is not true. Just because a component of the environment had a beginning in no way means that the universe itself had a beginning by necessity.

 

[columbus]

The nose on our face is not evidence that the universe had a beginning. Please present evidence that supports your claim that the universe had a beginning.

Possibly more to the point, the nose on your face doesn't actually have a beginning.
It's shape was determined by the information in your DNA and the materials it was shaped from came from nutrients in your mother's environment and the energy that fueled the transformation came from the sun. All of that can now be traced back to the singularity in various different ways.
The premise that the singularity is also a product of a transformation, rather than ex nihilo creation, is the logical inference. But we simply do not yet have incontrovertible evidence on that subject.
Tom

 

[Vorkosigan]

@leibowde84
@siti



Here is again my proof from evidence that God exists in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning.




Dear lei and siti, for now just pay attention to step 1 and step 2.

Step 1 is the concept in our mind, step 2 is the expedition into the realm of realities outside our mind and independent of our mind, to look for all instances of things with a beginning.

So, what is circular in my transit from the concept in my mind of God as creator of everything with a beginning, to my expedition into the realm of realities outside and independent of my mind, to look for everything like babies and roses and the moon and the sun which all have a beginning, therefore are pieces of evidence for God in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning?

There, steps 3, 4, 5, 6 follow.

By defining god as "the creator of everything with a beginning", you are assuming everything with a beginning MUST have a creator. Why?

 

[leibowde84]

@siti
@leibowde84
@columbus


Dear siti, you say:
“Here is my evidence for the universe not having a beginning...(drum roll)...my arse...ta dahh!!!! Yes I win! Hooray! Three cheers for me.”

Now, I tell you, You are not going to seek escape with bringing in matters that you find in my latest posting, but I will insist that you keep to your arse, and I to the nose in our face: because that is where we are at present.


Your arse is the evidence by which you are certain that the universe has no beginning.

And I, it is the nose in our face that is the evidence by which I am certain that the universe has a beginning.

Explain how your arse evidence ascertains to you that the universe has no beginning, i.e. it has always existed.

From my part I am explaining to all readers, but in particular to you, that the nose in our face is one piece of evidence that confirms for me and readers that the universe has a beginning, i.e., it has not always existed.

How?

Like this, as everything in the universe has a beginning, for example, the nose in our face, it follows that the universe which is the totality of everything with a beginning, it is itself with a beginning.

Now, your turn: You explain, how starting with your arse, you come to the ultimately the ascertainment that the universe has no beginning, i.e., it has always existed.

So, no dice, dear siti, with your attempt to bring me away from the present concern between you and me:

1. You declare that you have your arse for an example of evidence by which you ascertain that the universe is without beginning, explain how.

2. I declare that the nose in our face that is with a beginning is an example of evidence that the universe has a beginning: because it is a part and parcel of the universe; so, as all the components of the universe have a beginning, it follows that the universe has a beginning - it is simple logic, when all the parts of a whole are with a beginning, then the whole, i.e., the universe, is wholly with a beginning.

When you deny that not everything in the universe has a beginning, then present something in the universe that is without a beginning.


I am not going to get derailed by you from the present concern, so don't waste time and effort trying to divert me from the present concern in No. 1 and No. 2 above.


Dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness how siti is going to try next, when he is cornered by me into No. 1 and No. 2 above: for I am not going to get diverted by him into whatever he is leading me [into], but certainly away from the present concern which is No. 1 and No. 2 above.

Nice try at diversion, dear siti, but no dice, I am not falling for your diversionary gimmick.

Keep to your arse as I keep to the nose in our face, you are still with your arse and I with the nose in our face.

Tom provided a good explanation as to why your evidence for the universe having a beginning is invalid.

Possibly more to the point, the nose on your face doesn't actually have a beginning.
It's shape was determined by the information in your DNA and the materials it was shaped from came from nutrients in your mother's environment and the energy that fueled the transformation came from the sun. All of that can now be traced back to the singularity in various different ways.
The premise that the singularity is also a product of a transformation, rather than ex nihilo creation, is the logical inference. But we simply do not yet have incontrovertible evidence on that subject.
Tom

 

[columbus]

By defining god as "the creator of everything with a beginning", you are assuming everything with a beginning MUST have a creator. Why?

This is another problematic aspect of the OP's claim. I was going to wait to bring it up until we had discussed "beginnings" more thoroughly.

I use the word "reason" instead of Creator, as in "God is the reason that there is something, rather than nothing" very deliberately. Creator implies agency. It implies that there is a god who chose to bring material reality into existence the way it is. I see no reason to believe that god has agency or chooses anything, any more than gravity does. Gravity is the reason that the earth stays in orbit around the sun, but gravity doesn't decide that. Gravity just is, like God.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Can we all at least agree that the OP title question has been answered?

That the answer is "Yes, you can talk to atheists. Getting theists to talk back is the problem. "

Tom

 

[Sanmario]

Thanks everyone for your presence and participation.

Now, here is again my explanation for why the universe has a beginning, see Annex below but I will reproduce the text of concern right away as follows:

From my part I am explaining to all readers, but in particular to you, that the nose in our face is one piece of evidence that confirms for me and readers that the universe has a beginning, i.e., it has not always existed.

How?

Like this, as everything in the universe has a beginning, for example, the nose in our face, it follows that the universe which is the totality of everything with a beginning, it is itself with a beginning.

[...]

I declare that the nose in our face that is with a beginning is an example of evidence that the universe has a beginning: because it is a part and parcel of the universe; so, as all the components of the universe have a beginning, it follows that the universe has a beginning - it is simple logic, when all the parts of a whole are with a beginning, then the whole, i.e., the universe, is wholly with a beginning.

When you deny that not everything in the universe has a beginning, then present something in the universe that is without a beginning.

All right, dear readers, let us now as per routine sit back and await with bated breath for our corresponding posters to send their comments, on my explanation why the universe has a beginning, i.e., it has not always existed.

Annex

@siti
@leibowde84
@columbus


Dear siti, you say:
“Here is my evidence for the universe not having a beginning...(drum roll)...my arse...ta dahh!!!! Yes I win! Hooray! Three cheers for me.”

Now, I tell you, You are not going to seek escape with bringing in matters that you find in my latest posting, but I will insist that you keep to your arse, and I to the nose in our face: because that is where we are at present.


Your arse is the evidence by which you are certain that the universe has no beginning.

And I, it is the nose in our face that is the evidence by which I am certain that the universe has a beginning.

Explain how your arse evidence ascertains to you that the universe has no beginning, i.e. it has always existed.

From my part I am explaining to all readers, but in particular to you, that the nose in our face is one piece of evidence that confirms for me and readers that the universe has a beginning, i.e., it has not always existed.

How?

Like this, as everything in the universe has a beginning, for example, the nose in our face, it follows that the universe which is the totality of everything with a beginning, it is itself with a beginning.

Now, your turn: You explain, how starting with your arse, you come to the ultimately the ascertainment that the universe has no beginning, i.e., it has always existed.

So, no dice, dear siti, with your attempt to bring me away from the present concern between you and me:

1. You declare that you have your arse for an example of evidence by which you ascertain that the universe is without beginning, explain how.

2. I declare that the nose in our face that is with a beginning is an example of evidence that the universe has a beginning: because it is a part and parcel of the universe; so, as all the components of the universe have a beginning, it follows that the universe has a beginning - it is simple logic, when all the parts of a whole are with a beginning, then the whole, i.e., the universe, is wholly with a beginning.

When you deny that not everything in the universe has a beginning, then present something in the universe that is without a beginning.


I am not going to get derailed by you from the present concern, so don't waste time and effort trying to divert me from the present concern in No. 1 and No. 2 above.


Dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness how siti is going to try next, when he is cornered by me into No. 1 and No. 2 above: for I am not going to get diverted by him into whatever he is leading me [into], but certainly away from the present concern which is No. 1 and No. 2 above.

Nice try at diversion, dear siti, but no dice, I am not falling for your diversionary gimmick.

Keep to your arse as I keep to the nose in our face, you are still with your arse and I with the nose in our face.

 

[columbus]

Now, here is again my explanation for why the universe has a beginning, see Annex below but I will reproduce the text of concern right away as follows:

So.
As usual you ignore all the many responses to this assertion of yours and repeat it.
DO NOT TAG ME IN ANY MORE POSTS! IF I CARE ENOUGH TO RESPOND I WILL.
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

Thanks everyone for your presence and participation.

Now, here is again my explanation for why the universe has a beginning, see Annex below but I will reproduce the text of concern right away as follows:


All right, dear readers, let us now as per routine sit back and await with bated breath for our corresponding posters to send their comments, on my explanation why the universe has a beginning, i.e., it has not always existed.

Annex

Our face does not have a beginning. It develops based on DNA, which is passed down from parents through procreation. The same goes for our noses, ears, arms, etc. So, it seems that you have yet to provide any evidence of anything with a beginning.

So, can you answer my question now?

What evidence do you have that proves God is the creator of everything with a beginning?

 

[leibowde84]

Thanks everyone for your presence and participation.

Now, here is again my explanation for why the universe has a beginning, see Annex below but I will reproduce the text of concern right away as follows:


All right, dear readers, let us now as per routine sit back and await with bated breath for our corresponding posters to send their comments, on my explanation why the universe has a beginning, i.e., it has not always existed.

Annex

You aren't being reasonable in this discussion. Here's why:
You presented a concept/definition of God that is circular in logic. I pointed that out many times, yet you refuse to even attempt to address the issue. All you have to do is answer the following question:

Why is God necessarily the creator of everything with a beginning?

Until you answer that question, your argument cannot continue.

 

[leibowde84]

*** post moderated ***

I explained why a face does not have a beginning. Our face develops based on DNA passed down from our parents. It doesn't "begin", it develops gradually. You have provided absolutely no reason why God would be necessary. Can you do that?

Also, can you answer my question now? This will be at least the 10th time I've asked it.

What proof do you have that God is the creator of everything with a beginning?

 

[leibowde84]

*** post moderated ***

Are you not aware of what circular reasoning is? That is surprising, as it is common knowledge. In an argument, you cannot assume your conclusion in your premise.

With your definition of God as "the creator of everything with a beginning" you are assuming that God exists. If we accept your concept of God as being true, which we don't, we would have to accept that God exists. There would be no need for an arguement. Thus, it is your responsibility to first prove that God is the creator of everything with a beginning.

I assume you are unable to do that.

 

[leibowde84]

Okay, when did the nose begin to 'gradually' develop from a point of no nose to the point where you can already see the nose clearly?

See below (from Embryology of nose and paranasal sinuses by drtbalu) - No God necessary in this process.

Developmentally nose and paranasal sinuses are interlinked. They are always considered together developmentally. Developmentally the various sinuses may follow different calendars, their origin is the same.

Development of head and neck along with face, nose and paranasal sinuses takes place simultaneously in a short window span. At the end of 4th week of development branchial arches, branchial pouches and primitive gut makes their appearance. This is when the embryo gets its first identifiable head and face with an orifice in its middle known as the stomodeum.
The stomodeum (primitive mouth) is surrounded by mandibular and maxillary prominences bilaterally. These prominences are derivatives of first arch. This arch will give rise to all vascular and neural supply of this area. The stomodeum is limited superiorly by the presence of frontonasal eminence and inferiorly by the mandibular arch.
The frontonasal process inferiorly differentiates into two projections known as “Nasal Placodes”. These nasal placodes will be ultimately invaded by growing ectoderm and mesenchyme. These structures later fuse to become the nasal cavity and primitive choana, separated from the stomodeum by the oronasal membrane. The primitive choana forms the point of development of posterior pharyngeal wall and the various paranasal sinuses.
The oronasal membrane is fully formed by the end of 5th week of development. It gives rise to the floor of the nose (palate develops from this membrane).

 

[leibowde84]

*** post moderated ***

I've already explained what circular reasoning is several times. Here it is again:

Circular Reasoning: A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared.
X is true because of Y.
Y is true because of X.

Example:
"God is the creator of the universe"
"The universe exists, thus God exists"
or
"God is the creator of everything with a beginning"
"Things in existence have a beginning; thus, God exists"

In order to accept your concept of God as being the creator of everything with a beginning, one must assume that God exists. Since, you are arguing for God's existence, you cannot expect us to accept your concept of God, as it is only possible if God exists. It is a circular argument.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Thanks everyone for your presence and participation.

Now, here is again my explanation for why the universe has a beginning, see Annex below but I will reproduce the text of concern right away as follows:

From my part I am explaining to all readers, but in particular to you, that the nose in our face is one piece of evidence that confirms for me and readers that the universe has a beginning, i.e., it has not always existed.

How?

Like this, as everything in the universe has a beginning, for example, the nose in our face, it follows that the universe which is the totality of everything with a beginning, it is itself with a beginning.

[...]

I declare that the nose in our face that is with a beginning is an example of evidence that the universe has a beginning: because it is a part and parcel of the universe; so, as all the components of the universe have a beginning, it follows that the universe has a beginning - it is simple logic, when all the parts of a whole are with a beginning, then the whole, i.e., the universe, is wholly with a beginning.

When you deny that not everything in the universe has a beginning, then present something in the universe that is without a beginning.

All right, dear readers, let us now as per routine sit back and await with bated breath for our corresponding posters to send their comments, on my explanation why the universe has a beginning, i.e., it has not always existed.

Annex

If I may.

1. Your "logic" is flawed.
example A. "because it is a part and parcel of the universe; so, as all the components of the universe have a beginning, it follows that the universe has a beginning - it is simple logic, ". Nope. It does not follow. A page is made of paper. Therefore it follows that all writing materials are/always have been/and always will be made of paper. Right? Same simple logic.
Same flaw.
example B. "When you deny that not everything in the universe has a beginning, then present something in the universe that is without a beginning.". Time.

2.a. You have left your stated ambition behind.
The title of the thread is funny/slightly insulting, but you seem to have started with a well intentioned OP. You stated that you wish to better understand how atheist think, and thus make yourself a better thinker. That's easy.
Atheists (for the most part), along with Agnostics like myself, tend to discuss topics of philosophy, science, mythology, cooking, mathematics, and automobile hood hood ornaments..........based on factual evidence. That's it.
Present hard evidence for a viewpoint that you wish to discuss, and the doors (as well as minds: including your own) will open.

2.b. You have fallen far enough away from your own original intent that you have begun insulting your guests, and while your thread is proving that it IS possible to talk with Atheists, you are adding weight to the thought that it may just NOT be possible to talk with Theists. Basically, from what I see on these last couple of pages you are not trying to talk WITH Atheists, but are rather talking AT Atheists.
@leibowde84 has been more than patient and pleasant with you, and has asked you to present your own thoughts so as to discuss them. You know....back and forth, like in a conversation.
By the way.....that whole beginning of the universe meme is how my friends and I discussed religion back in grade school.
"....well then, how did the matter for the big bang come to exist? It had to be God.".
".....Really? Then how did God first come to exist, eh? How was He made?"
.......and round-n-round ya go.
Try moving to a topic that can be presented with evidence. Not silly philosophy major "logic" (which usually never is). - see the end of 2.a. above.

 

[Sanmario]

Welcome, stranger.

Now, as you came just now, suppose you just tell everyone here what is your concept of God; you see this thread from yours truly is on "Is it possible to talk with an atheist?"

Of course I welcome anyone even not atheist.

The talk is about the existence of God, and I always ask active readers to first work with me as to concur on the concept of God.

Here is my concept of God, God in concept is first and foremost the creator of everything with a beginning.

Or in very few words, God is the creator of everything with a beginning.

I am now talking with leidbowde84 in re circular reasoning.

So, when you care to join us at this point, please do, otherwise what is your concept of God?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

@Sanmario Please go back to page 16 and read @leibowde84 's post #319 in this thread.
The ball is in your court sir.

BTW - in these forums you can type the @ sign then the other forumite's name (no space in between sign and name), and the system will pull up a little icon of possible matching names that you can then click on. It saves typing, avoids misspelling, and has the added bonus of alerting the iconed forumite that they have been mentioned in a thread, to which they can then click right to.

 

[Sanmario]

Dear stranger, when you give links for me to go to, please just reproduce what is the most important texts there that you want me to read, and of course don't neglect to put their links as well, together with the texts.

That is my request all the time, and when posters don't do that, I don't bother with their links.

Now, I ask you to present your concept of God, do it when you next write a post addressed to me: because it is very useful for us both, that first and foremost we get to work together as to concur on the concept of God, about Whom we are going to talk [about] - otherwise we are wasting readers' time for talking past each other's head.

Welcome, stranger.

Now, as you came just now, suppose you just tell everyone here what is your concept of God; you see this thread from yours truly is on "Is it possible to talk with an atheist?"

Of course I welcome anyone even not atheist.

The talk is about the existence of God, and I always ask active readers to first work with me as to concur on the concept of God.

Here is my concept of God, God in concept is first and foremost the creator of everything with a beginning.

Or in very few words, God is the creator of everything with a beginning.

I am now talking with leidbowde84 in re circular reasoning.

So, when you care to join us at this point, please do, otherwise what is your concept of God?

 

[leibowde84]

Dear leibowde84, first I apologize for using unkind words on you, there; now, let us we two think together on reason focused on observation, and thus making intelligent conclusions.

Read the the text below I put in bold, have you complied with that request?

I've complied with this request 5 times now, as I have repeatedly explained what circular reasoning is and how your concept/argument for God's existence is guilty of it.

But, I will comply one more time:

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. They are assuming their conclusion in their premise.

In your argument, you start with the assumption that God is the creator of everything with a beginning. IF your concept that God is the creator of everything with a beginning is accepted, THEN God must exist. So, your conclusion is assumed in your premise that God is the creator of everything with a beginning. That is logically fallacious.

Therefore, you must first prove that God is the creator of everything with a beginning. You cannot assume that as fact in an argument for God's existence without proving it to be true.

So, what is your evidence that God is the creator of everything with a beginning?