Is it possible to talk with an atheist?

[leibowde84]

1. God does not exist in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning [or whatever they have against God existing].
2. The universe has no beginning.

You still have not provided any evidence for either of these things. You claim that pointing to noses, faces, etc. as having beginnings means that the universe has a beginning, but that just isn't true.

 

[icehorse]

To Icehorse, you now know several concepts of God, so choose one that you deny existence to, and I will see what I should or how I should react to you - period.

Ok, I pick the christian god. If that doesn't suit, I'm equally unconvinced of Allah. Oh wait, it turns out that from a pure statistical perspective I have to be even less convinced of the Mormon god.

Any of those will do nicely.

 

[crowfeather]

God is not a concept. Unless that's what God is, to the human mind. In which case, God is not God at all; only a human concept.
But God does not exist within the human mind, because the human mind can not conceive of God.
It is necessary to do the unthinkable, to know God: to exit one's mind and go on without it.
Ditching everything that one has, that one is, that one thinks, that one thinks one knows, God may be merged with.
It takes place far beyond the human mind, while not moving a millimeter.
That is 'knowing God'.

 

[siti]

...my conclusion is founded on the fact that when all parts of a whole have a beginning, it follows that the whole has a beginning.

This is a fallacy of composition - incorrectly inferring that a property of the parts must be possessed of the whole. This is not a valid logical conclusion. Try again!

 

[siti]

@Sanmario

You now have two options:

1. Since you claim that the universe had a beginning and your "proof" is now shown to be fallacious - i.e. your conclusion - that the universe had a beginning - is not a valid conclusion according to the normal rules of logic, you may present an alternative (non-fallacious) argument or otherwise prove that the universe does indeed have a beginning...or

2. Since you also claimed that the Laws that govern everything in the universe had a beginning, you might demonstrate by evidence or logical argument exactly how and when 1+1 began to equal 2.

Best of luck!

 

[siti]

Dear everyone here, we have in siti a guy who is really so diputs [read that backward] or really a 100% pure-blooded cheater...

Dear siti, either you are really so naive or you are really a cheater.

I say all parts of a whole, not a property of the parts.

Oh dear, oh dear! You really are out of your depth aren't you. OK - I'll try to explain about properties (I'm putting the bit about properties in parentheses so you can see that I am not changing what you said - or being a 'cheater' as you put it):

A property is an attribute, quality or characteristic of something.

You claimed that every part of the universe has (the property of having) a beginning. (In fact we don't know that this is true either, but we'll leave that problem aside for now)

You then concluded that this proves (logically) that the whole universe must therefore have (the same property of having) a beginning.

This is not a valid logical conclusion - in fact it is such a well-known and commonly repeated mistake there is even a name for it - it is called the fallacy of composition - which is defined as incorrectly inferring that the whole must have some particular property because some (or all) of the parts have that property.


Now - to your challenge (repeated even though I have already answered it several times) to show you one thing that doesn't have a beginning. I know @Sanmario will not understand this, but it might be interesting to those who are inclined to think about things a little bit. (Try to grasp the notions and concepts rather than focussing on the words)

The universe doesn't have a beginning. And the reason it doesn't have a beginning is precisely because everything in it does (it seems) have a beginning. A beginning is a change. The universe is a process of change - it encompasses everything and everything is always changing. If there were ever a time when there was no change occurring, what could possibly change to start it off again? Of course the answer is it could not - you can't get change from unchangeableness - it is paradoxical to suggest that this could happen. And yet for the universe to have had a beginning that is exactly what must have happened - change emerged from unchangeableness. Impossible! So I conclude that the universe (change) had no beginning.

 

[leibowde84]

@crawfeather one
@icehorse
@columbus
@dgirl1986 Big Queer Chesticles!
@siti
@leibowde84
@ALL who use reason to examine observation and thus arrive at intelligent conclusion.


Dear everyone here, we have in siti a guy who is really so diputs [read that backward] or really a 100% pure-blooded cheater.




Dear siti, either you are really so naive or you are really a cheater.

I say all parts of a whole, not a property of the parts.


Stop being so diputs [read that backward] or being a cheater with your tricks of fallacies!


Dear readers, siti is being irrelevant, what we want to get from him is something in the universe without a beginning.

So dear siti, will you just stop talking about fallacies all inside your brain, come out into the universe and point out one thing there that is without beginning.

Didn't I tell you, dear readers here, my opponents will always bring up fallacies, but these things are all inside their brain, what we want them to do is present something outside their brain in the universe that is without any beginning.


Okay, siti, stop being a fallacious cheater or diputs, to the issue by hiding inside your brain with your list of fallacies, etc., no one is impressed at all, come out and be brave, bring up one thing part of the universe that has no beginning.

Otherwise siti and you guys of the same ilk are like fighting wars inside your brain, dishonestly or stupidly manipulating words and concepts, by combination and permutation of words and concepts, and never coming out to engage even in just a boxing bout with another guy.

Siti is right. You are using the logical fallacy of composition. It means that your reasoning is not sound.

fal·la·cy of com·po·si·tion
noun

1. the error of assuming that what is true of a member of a group is true for the group as a whole.

In your case, you are assuming that because parts of the universe have beginnings that the universe as a whole had a beginning. That is not sound reasoning.

Why do you ignore logical fallacies? Do you not know about them? Or, do you just not think that they matter?

 

[crowfeather]

The tao has no beginning. It is the container of all that exists within it. It is, as Lao Tzu observed: older than God.
Why this should matter is unclear. Which is most likely exactly as it should be.

 

[siti]

don't waste the time of readers to read your vacuous and inane verbiage

Sorry - I forgot that was your job.

Anyway, is this how you want it:

Here is something that has no beginning: the universe.

Now prove that I am wrong.

 

[icehorse]

Dear @Sanmario

Since we're in the philosophy forum, I anxiously await your response to my query: What axioms are you using as your foundation for this discussion? It's only fair to reveal your axioms to us.

I'll tell you mine:

- I value logic, evidence, critical thinking, parsimonious explanations, and the joy of discovery
- It's "good" to pursue the well-being of conscious creatures

 

[columbus]

Dear readers, to date Columbus aka Tom has not yet presented his concept of singularity,

If you want to know more than various posters have already explained to you (and you seem not to have noticed) I suggest Wikipedia.
Simply put, the singularity is the point in time and space from which everything that has objective existence can be traced. That includes the nose on your face. It doesn't include abstract concepts like fictional characters in books. Which is why I think that God has a beginning, but not objective existence.
Tom

 

[columbus]

ar Tom, so you concede that the universe has a beginning, that is explicitly contrary to your insistence that the universe has no beginning.

No I don't, which is why I didn't say that. The singularity is just as far back as we can go with current methods and understanding. You are the one who doesn't understand the singularity, so you add things to what I said.

Really, I am pretty tired of your unwillingness to converse. Please stop tagging me in your posts.
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

@crawfeather one
@icehorse
@columbus
@dgirl1986 Big Queer Chesticles!
@siti
@leibowde84
@ALL who use reason to examine observation and thus arrive at intelligent conclusion.


Dear readers here, do you see any of my opponents bringing up something from the universe with no beginning?

I don't.


So dear opponents, just bring up something in the universe outside your mind, like the nose in our face, babies, roses, the sun and the moon, stars from galaxies, and sub-atomic particles, that is unlike them, i.e. something without beginning.

And I am still waiting for Columbus to tell mankind what is his concept of the singularity.

When you have something outside your mind that is without beginning, put it right at the very top of your posts, don't waste the time of readers to read your vacuous and inane verbiage, to no purpose but to get them distracted from the challenge that you bring up something in the universe that is without beginning.

The first thing that I will look for at the top of your posts, is the short sentence: Here is something [name the something] in the universe without a beginning.

That is what dear readers you should insist on, namely, seeing at the top of my opponents' succeeding posts, something in the universe without a beginning, otherwise don't bother with reading their vacuous inane verbiage.


You see, the debate has filtered down to the challenge from yours truly to my opponents to produce something in the universe without a beginning.

It's like they want to have my daughter for a wife, and I challenge them, Don't talk. Show me your balls.

But, a star, moon and planet don't "begin" out of nothing. They don't pop into existence. Like the nose, they develop from already existing matter. And, matter can neither be created nor destroyed. So, the parts of the universe you are noting here develop from already existing other parts of the universe. So, there is no real beginning.

A star only becomes a star when it fits the man-made definition of the term "star". So, that would be an artificial "beginning".

 

[leibowde84]

@crawfeather one
@icehorse
@columbus
@dgirl1986 Big Queer Chesticles!
@siti
@leibowde84
@ALL who use reason to examine observation and thus arrive at intelligent conclusion.


Dear readers, to date Columbus aka Tom has not yet presented his concept of singularity, by which singularity he bets that the universe has no beginning, therefore my nose has no beginning either [ridiculous!], and of course God not needed in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning.

I will be monitoring Columbus Tom for when he will come up with his concept of what is the singularity by which the universe according to him has no beginning, and therefore God in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning is not needed.

See the quote below in bold, italic, underscore, and in big size font.


Annex

You seem to use the argument, "____ is an example of something with a beginning. I know this because it has a beginning, it is ridiculous to doubt me even though I can't present any evidence. If you disagree you are being ridiculous."

Getting really old to tell you the truth.

 

[leibowde84]

Okay, siti and leibowde84, you maintain that the universe, which to you is everything, does not have a beginning, but everything in the universe changes, and therefore you concede that everything in the universe for undergoing changes have beginnings recurrently continuously.

I never claimed anything like this, but I agree except for the last line. Everything in the universe is constantly changing matter, which can neither be created or destroyed. Therefore nothing in the universe actually has a beginning, as defined by you.

 

[leibowde84]

Okay, dear readers here, let us await with bated breath to read how Tom will now react to his own statement: "Simply put, the singularity is the point in time and space from which everything that has objective existence can be traced," to the effect that they do not communicate to readers that they say the universe has a beginning!!!!!!!

This does not necessarily mean that the universe had a beginning.

 

[columbus]

Dear columbus, you say:
"Simply put, the singularity is the point in time and space from which everything that has objective existence can be traced."


Let us work on what is a beginning, okay? the concept, please.

OK.
You ask me to repeat the answer to a question for the severalth time. I do.

You ignore that response and go on to another question. I don't care enough to keep answering your questions only to have you ignore the responses.
So. Why don't you stop tagging me in your posts? You ask for discussion but then won't discuss anything. Stop it.
DON'T TAG ME IN ANOTHER POST!
Tom

 

[siti]

Okay, siti and leibowde84, you maintain that the universe, which to you is everything, does not have a beginning, but everything in the universe changes, and therefore you concede that everything in the universe for undergoing changes have beginnings recurrently continuously.

Is that correct?

I don't know - is it? You maintain that the universe had a beginning and yet you have failed to produce a single piece of evidence to support it. I maintain, that given the obvious lack of evidence one way or the other it is objectively impossible to determine whether the universe had a beginning or not. That fact alone sinks your argument.

If we decide to examine the universe logically rather than objectively, then the one fact we can be sure of is that everything in the universe is always changing - the nose on your face, the roses in your garden, your cat, the sun, our galaxy...there is nothing in the entire universe that is exactly the same now as it was two minutes ago when I began typing this comment. Not one thing. If you track back through time - which is exactly what we do whenever we look at anything and when we look at the images from the best telescopes (like Hubble) we are tracking back billions of years - that has always been the case. There has never been a time without change, there has never been anything with objective(ly verified) existence that was not changing.

Now you have to do a little thought experiment: suppose all that change were suddenly to stop. How could it possibly get started again? How could change (itself) come from no change? The beginning of change IS a change - in fact if it had ever happened, it would be the most momentous change that could possibly ever have happened. And it follows that something (even more significant) must have changed to make THAT change possible...and so ad infinitum...IOW, the fact that there is change means that change must be eternal (at least in the past) - it can have no beginning (though it is logically possible that it could have an end - like the "heat death" of an entropy-seeking universe perhaps - but if that happens, it really will be the end).

Of course all this might be wrong (unlikely IMO, but it might be) and your guess that it was all created by God might be right. But the point is you certainly cannot prove it by logic or observation. I can, however, prove that an eternal universe is more logical than a created one - as I have indeed done in the previous paragraph. But God need not be bound by logic and certainly cannot be observed. So between us, we have proved precisely nothing! And no matter how cleverly (or not as the case may be) we devise our arguments, we never will be able to either prove or disprove God's existence as Creator.

in particular of course siti, because he is the more dubiously versatile with words and concepts

Why thank you - I'm taking that as a compliment!

 

[sayak83]

I don't know - is it? You maintain that the universe had a beginning and yet you have failed to produce a single piece of evidence to support it. I maintain, that given the obvious lack of evidence one way or the other it is objectively impossible to determine whether the universe had a beginning or not. That fact alone sinks your argument.

If we decide to examine the universe logically rather than objectively, then the one fact we can be sure of is that everything in the universe is always changing - the nose on your face, the roses in your garden, your cat, the sun, our galaxy...there is nothing in the entire universe that is exactly the same now as it was two minutes ago when I began typing this comment. Not one thing. If you track back through time - which is exactly what we do whenever we look at anything and when we look at the images from the best telescopes (like Hubble) we are tracking back billions of years - that has always been the case. There has never been a time without change, there has never been anything with objective(ly verified) existence that was not changing.

Now you have to do a little thought experiment: suppose all that change were suddenly to stop. How could it possibly get started again? How could change (itself) come from no change? The beginning of change IS a change - in fact if it had ever happened, it would be the most momentous change that could possibly ever have happened. And it follows that something (even more significant) must have changed to make THAT change possible...and so ad infinitum...IOW, the fact that there is change means that change must be eternal (at least in the past) - it can have no beginning (though it is logically possible that it could have an end - like the "heat death" of an entropy-seeking universe perhaps - but if that happens, it really will be the end).

Of course all this might be wrong (unlikely IMO, but it might be) and your guess that it was all created by God might be right. But the point is you certainly cannot prove it by logic or observation. I can, however, prove that an eternal universe is more logical than a created one - as I have indeed done in the previous paragraph. But God need not be bound by logic and certainly cannot be observed. So between us, we have proved precisely nothing! And no matter how cleverly (or not as the case may be) we devise our arguments, we never will be able to either prove or disprove God's existence as Creator.

Why thank you - I'm taking that as a compliment!

You should put this argument out in a new thread so that more people can investigate it. Looks promising. I know this OP writer from before in CARM, selling the "nose had a beginning" nonsense followed by insults in the same kind of discursive posts 5 years ago. Not worth the time in my opinion.

 

[Sanmario]

Dear leibowde84, siti, icehorse, and all opponents to me here, you all lapped up from the same masters of deceits and peddlers of lies, so what I tell columbus applies also to you all.


But I have a lot to talk with you all about, in re fallacies, because you guys lapped up your knowledge of fallacies from your masters of deceits and peddlers of lies, so you now have become in turn masters of deceits and peddlers of lies.

And I can also see you all to have become reason perverts like as in sex perverts; so I will take this thread to likewise divest you of your deceits and lies on fallacies, in particular the fallacy of from leibowde84, circular reasoning, of fallacy of composition from siti, and fallacy of moved goalpost from icehorse, and other fallacies you reason perverts will bring up against God existing: for all you have are charges of fallacies on the thesis of God existing in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning, and also on the sub-thesis, the universe has a beginning.

To people who are accustomed to read critically, you guys are into nothing of any genuine direct examination of the issue itself, God exists or not, in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning.

That is why you all expose yourselves to be talking from both corners of your mouth in opposite directions, feeling so smugly arrogant, that you are terrific manipulators of words and concepts; yes, of course, by which you can only fool yourselves without even realizing it, you are terrific but damned self-deceivers.


Okay, addressing columbus, are you going to be first or me, to present the concept from each of us on what is the meaning of beginning? let me know.