The religion you rejected - why did you reject it?

[Wildswanderer]

Reality to you, is your subjective experience of it. It's nothing you think about

Speak for yourself.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Personally, I believe Christians are rude and arrogant for saying that their God is the only real one and the only true God, and that all other gods are either false or are not real. I'm ashamed to say that I was once one of these Christians when I was still an evangelical Christian. However, I no longer hold that Christianity is superior to other religions and is the only authentic religion or that the Bible is "God's Word" and is infallible and inerrant. Contrarily, after careful examination, study, and research, I now believe that the Bible not only contains numerous inconsistencies but also contains stories—particularly the stories about Jesus—that have been adapted from ancient paganism and Greek mythology, which predate the Bible and Christianity. I realized that Christianity isn't unique in its beliefs.

I regret how I used to treat non-Christians and other Christians who had different beliefs from mine. If I've learned anything since leaving Christianity, it's that I should be more sympathetic and not be judgmental towards someone who's trapped in a religious cult and who can't see the forest for the trees. I seriously doubt that any of the people I tried to proselytize when I was an evangelical Christian benefited from me trying to shove my Christian beliefs down their throat while I warned them of hellfire and "God's wrath against sinners." I certainly don't benefit from Christians accusing me of worshiping the devil because I'm a Wiccan or telling me that I'm conversing with demons instead of the spirits of dead people. I don't benefit from their trying to convert me back to Christianity either, and then, when I don't comply, they resort to threatening me with hellfire. I guess what goes around comes around. I've told them that their tactics won't work on me because I know how this game is played because I used to play it too. I have told them that I never want to be a Christian again. I believe that letting go of my belief in God and quitting Christianity was the best thing I have ever done for my mental health. My life has significantly improved since I let go of my belief in God and disavowed my Christian faith.

I was too. They are so focused on butts in seats that they can't fathom that other people might have another valid view. If it's not all that and a bag of holy crackers, then they might have made the wrong decision, and that can't happen. I wish I could apologize to people that I was rude to by being narrow minded.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I was too. They are so focused on butts in seats that they can't fathom that other people might have another valid view. If it's not all that and a bag of holy crackers, then they might have made the wrong decision, and that can't happen. I wish I could apologize to people that I was rude to by being narrow minded.

I wish I could apologize to all the people that I was rude to as well.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

During your journey did you study arguments like the Kalam Cosmological Argument or the Fine Tuning argument? (My 2 favorite)

Why did you reject them? What flaws did you see?

Yes, the problem with the Kalam is that the conclusion only gets to a god, not any specific god. Also the premise that everything has a cause is just asserted without evidence that this is actually true. If the premise cannot be demonstrated to be true then the argument is flawed.

Fine tuning. So here are a couple of issues:

1. If you can ask me what is the reason behind the constants, why are they what they are, then I can ask you what is the reason behind God's existence. It is the same question. The physical constants are what they are because this universe exists. Gods properties are what they are because he exists.
2. Fine tuning is an argument against design not for it. As an engineer I do not design systems with variables that are on the knifes edge. If one things is just a tiny bit off the whole system does not work. That is bad design.
3. Life is a result of the parameters of the universe. Humans adapted to the universe not he universe was designed for us. It is the puddle analogy.
4. Also, highly improbable things happen everyday. In Texas the odds of getting all 6 numbers correct in the lottery is 1 in 25,827,165. This happens several times a year and is not unexpected. The universe has the constants it does because it just does. If a universe comes in to existence by whatever means, then it has to have some properties. Ours just has properties to keep it together and supports life. Maybe there was many universes before ours that were destroyed because the constants were different.

 

[leroy]

Yes, the problem with the Kalam is that the conclusion only gets to a god, not any specific god.

Well that should be enough to become a theist

Also the premise that everything has a cause is just asserted without evidence that this is actually true. If the premise cannot be demonstrated to be true then the argument is flawed

.

well William lane creig has a summery with 3 reasons for why premise 1 is likelly true of course you can always go to more robust sources for more detail..................why arent these 3 reasosn good enough to support premise 1

Let me give three reasons in support of premise (1'):

1. Something cannot come from nothing. To claim that something can come into being from nothing is worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, at least you’ve got the magician, not to mention the hat! But if you deny premise (1'), you’ve got to think that the whole universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever. But nobody sincerely believes that things, say, a horse or an Eskimo village, can just pop into being without a cause.

2. If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn’t come into being from nothing. Think about it: why don’t bicycles and Beethoven and root beer just pop into being from nothing? Why is it only universes that can come into being from nothing? What makes nothingness so discriminatory? There can’t be anything about nothingness that favors universes, for nothingness doesn’t have any properties. Nor can anything constrain nothingness, for there isn’t anything to be constrained!

3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1'. The science of cosmogeny is based on the assumption that there are causal conditions for the origin of the universe. So it’s hard to understand how anyone committed to modern science could deny that (1') is more plausibly true than false.

Besides the alternative is to claim that things can pop in to existence from nothing, that seems like a high price to pay,

 

[leroy]

1. If you can ask me what is the reason behind the constants, why are they what they are, then I can ask you what is the reason behind God's existence. It is the same question. The physical constants are what they are because this universe exists. Gods properties are what they are because he exists.

The thing is that the universe doesn’t had to be FT, it is easy to imagine a universe that is not FT, so I don’t think it´s accurate to say the FT of the universe is just a necessary attribute of it.




2. Fine tuning is an argument against design not for it. As an engineer I do not design systems with variables that are on the knifes edge. If one things is just a tiny bit off the whole system does not work. That is bad design.




3. Life is a result of the parameters of the universe. Humans adapted to the universe not he universe was designed for us. It is the puddle analogy.
4. Also, highly improbable things happen everyday. In Texas the odds of getting all 6 numbers correct in the lottery is 1 in 25,827,165. This happens several times a year and is not unexpected. The universe has the constants it does because it just does. If a universe comes in to existence by whatever means, then it has to have some properties. Ours just has properties to keep it together and supports life. Maybe there was many universes before ours that were destroyed because the constants were different.[/QUOTE]
That seems like a naïve understanding of the argument, that doesn’t seem to be the things that someone who has done “detailed research” would make

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Well that should be enough to become a theist

Not when premise one is flawed.

well William lane creig has a summery with 3 reasons for why premise 1 is likelly true of course you can always go to more robust sources for more detail..................why arent these 3 reasosn good enough to support premise 1

What are these reasons? Ok I went to his website.

Reason 1 Something cannot come from nothing: This is just asserted not demonstrated to be true. Even if it is true that cause does not have to be a god.
Reason 2 If something comes from nothing then why don't we see this happen? This is a statement based on reason 1 being true, which he does not demonstrate with good evidence.
Reason 3 Common experience and scientific evidence. Cosmology is based on causal conditions for the universes origins. Sure, science agrees that something caused the u universe to come into existence. He never gives evidence that there was nothing before the universe came into existence.

Besides the alternative is to claim that things can pop in to existence from nothing, that seems like a high price to pay,

I don't claim that. Why is that the only alternative? Why can't there have always been something? I assume you believe God has always existed, why not something else has always existed that caused the universe?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The thing is that the universe doesn’t had to be FT, it is easy to imagine a universe that is not FT, so I don’t think it´s accurate to say the FT of the universe is just a necessary attribute of it.

I disagree with the assertion that it is fine tuned. You have not demonstrated that it is. 99.9999999999% of the universe is hostile to human life.

That seems like a naïve understanding of the argument, that doesn’t seem to be the things that someone who has done “detailed research” would make

Ok, then explain to to me why my points are wrong?

 

[leroy]

What are these reasons? Ok I went to his website.

Reason 1 Something cannot come from nothing: This is just asserted not demonstrated to be true. Even if it is true that cause does not have to be a god.

Well yes, If all you did was read the title, then yes it would be just an assertion, if you want more details you can read books, or journals

Reason 2 If something comes from nothing then why don't we see this happen? This is a statement based on reason 1 being true, which he does not demonstrate with good evidence.

You didn’t understand the point, the point is that if “nothing” can create universes, then why not horses or root beer?......... what makes nothing so discriminatory in favor of universes? (this would imply that nothing has properties, which would therefore wouldnt be "nothing"

Reason 3 Common experience and scientific evidence. Cosmology is based on causal conditions for the universes origins. Sure, science agrees that something caused the u universe to come into existence.

The only point is that if alllllllllll observations show that things that begin to exist have causes , why making an arbitrary exception with the universe?

He never gives evidence that there was nothing before the universe came into existence.

Why can't there have always been something? I assume you believe God has always existed, why not something else has always existed that caused the universe?

Those comments concern premise 2, (which you haven’t denied)

I don't claim that. Why is that the only alternative?

Well things ether have a cause or the don’t, there are only 2 alternatives

The point is that if you want affirm that premise 1 is false, you would have to argue that things just pop in to existence without a cause……….. so why do you have problems with accepting the idea of talking snakes, talking donkeys, or talking bushes? (as the bible claims) under your view talking snakes can simply appear without a cause

 

[leroy]

I disagree with the assertion that it is fine tuned. You have not demonstrated that it is. 99.9999999999% of the universe is hostile to human life.

That is a stramwan, again, you don’t seem to have looked at the arguments with detail , that is the type of arguments that youtubers make (but no scholar would )

[E]Ok, then explain to to me why my points are wrong?

Fine tunning simply means that if you change the values life would have been impossible (even in the remaining 0.0000000000000000000001% of the universe………….for example if gravity would have been 1% the whole universe would have collapsed in a black hole and life would have been impossible.

This is what it is meant by FT,

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Well yes, If all you did was read the title, then yes it would be just an assertion, if you want more details you can read books, or journals

I have read up on the argument. But you are making the claim something cannot come from nothing. Why don't you then provide the evidence.

You didn’t understand the point, the point is that if “nothing” can create universes, then why not horses or root beer?......... what makes nothing so discriminatory in favor of universes? (this would imply that nothing has properties, which would therefore wouldnt be "nothing"

So you can demonstrate that everything has a cause? Then please do it.

The only point is that if alllllllllll observations show that things that begin to exist have causes , why making an arbitrary exception with the universe?

I don't, I believe the universe started with a cause. Just labeling it god is not useful.

Those comments concern premise 2, (which you haven’t denied)

No, I flat out admitted I believe the universe had a cause.

Well things ether have a cause or the don’t, there are only 2 alternatives

There is a third. That something has always existed like your god.

The point is that if you want affirm that premise 1 is false, you would have to argue that things just pop in to existence without a cause……….. so why do you have problems with accepting the idea of talking snakes, talking donkeys, or talking bushes? (as the bible claims) under your view talking snakes can simply appear without a cause

I never claimed premise 1 is false. I have said there is not enough evidence to believe it is true. There is no good evidence to believe talking snakes poof into existence. I don't believe they do.

Let me summarize my beliefs on the origin of the universe.

1. I believe the universe as we know it had a cause.
2. There is not enough evidence to know what that cause was.
3. The cosmological argument assumes that is a creator without evidence to back that claim up.
4. There is not enough evidence to know if something always existed (which is what I favor) or there was nothing at one time prior to our universe.

 

[leroy]

I hav

I don't, I believe the universe started with a cause. Just labeling it god is not useful.


.

ok then you accept the conclusion of the KCA

according to wikipedia:

The universe (Latin: universus) is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy.

So unless you have a different definition for universe

We can say that the cause of the universe is

1 spaceless (if the universe includes all space then by definition the cause has to be timeless)

2 timeless (if the universe includes time, then by definition the cause of the universe has to be timeless

3 inmatterrial (if the universe includes all matter, then by definition the cause has to be inmaterial)

So far so good? Do you disagree with anything at this point?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

That is a stramwan, again, you don’t seem to have looked at the arguments with detail , that is the type of arguments that youtubers make (but no scholar would )

Why not just answer my objections with the scholarly work?

Fine tunning simply means that if you change the values life would have been impossible (even in the remaining 0.0000000000000000000001% of the universe………….for example if gravity would have been 1% the whole universe would have collapsed in a black hole and life would have been impossible.

This is what it is meant by FT,

It implies a fine tuner. That is something the evidence does not support.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

ok then you accept the conclusion of the KCA

according to wikipedia:


So unless you have a different definition for universe

You referred to Craig's version, not Wikipedia's.

Your definition seems to be talking about the cosmos or everything that is not just our universe. Can you show that our universe is all there is?

We can say that the cause of the universe is

1 spaceless (if the universe includes all space then by definition the cause has to be timeless)

Why? Can you provide evidence that there is no space outside our universe?

2 timeless (if the universe includes time, then by definition the cause of the universe has to be timeless

Why? Can you provide evidence that there is no time outside our universe?

3 inmatterrial (if the universe includes all matter, then by definition the cause has to be inmaterial)

Why? Can you provide evidence that there is no material outside our universe?

So far so good? Do you disagree with anything at this point?

Yes, I disagree that we can know that there is no time, no space or no material outside of the universe we live in.

 

[leroy]

Why not just answer my objections with the scholarly work?

because your objection is based on a strawman.

It implies a fine tuner. That is something the evidence does not support.

No it doesn’t, to be finely tuned doesn’t imply a tuner.

I don’t want to sound arrogant, but you really sound like a your earth creationists who claims “if we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys”

These series of 3 or 4 videos explains the argument in detail, perhaps you should watch them

 

[leroy]

You referred to Craig's version, not Wikipedia's.

Your definition seems to be talking about the cosmos or everything that is not just our universe. Can you show that our universe is all there is?

Why? Can you provide evidence that there is no space outside our universe?

Why? Can you provide evidence that there is no time outside our universe?

Why? Can you provide evidence that there is no material outside our universe?

Yes, I disagree that we can know that there is no time, no space or no material outside of the universe we live in.

This is just semantics In this context “the universe” means all space time and everything in it (what you would call cosmos)

Again this are naïve misunderstandings, someone who has looked at the KCA in detail would have known this.

If you want to affirm that there was something with “time and space and/or matter” before the big bang, and that this “something” is eternal then you would be objecting to premise 2………..so do you reject premise 2?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

because your objection is based on a strawman.

Why don't you correct me then? Where am I wrong?

No it doesn’t, to be finely tuned doesn’t imply a tuner.

If all you are saying then is that the universe is such that it supports life then I agree with you. That is not what most people mean when they use the fine tuning argument.

I don’t want to sound arrogant, but you really sound like a your earth creationists who claims “if we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys”

No that does not sound arrogant at all.

These series of 3 or 4 videos explains the argument in detail, perhaps you should watch them

This is the teleological argument. Which is flawed as well.

The fact is you use other peoples resources to describe what you say you believe. You switch between the classical Kalama nd Craig's Kalam arguments without even noticing it. You claim that I have a rudimentary understanding of the concepts but then you refuse to correct me. Instead you belittle me and send me to watch 2 hours of videos that are off topic? I wonder if you understand the Kalam Cosmological argument?

So please explain why my objections are flawed starting with premise 1.

Premise one is: Whatever begins to exist has a cause

This is a claim with no good supporting evidence. If you disagree provide the good evidence.

I also counter this premise with: if you can claim that God did not begin to exist then I can claim the Cosmos (everything including our universe) did not begin to exist.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

This is just semantics In this context “the universe” means all space time and everything in it (what you would call cosmos)

Again this are naïve misunderstandings, someone who has looked at the KCA in detail would have known this.

If you want to affirm that there was something with “time and space and/or matter” before the big bang, and that this “something” is eternal then you would be objecting to premise 2………..so do you reject premise 2?

If by universe here you mean the cosmos (everything including our universe) then I am not convinced that the statement is true. That does not mean that I think there is anything outside our universe. I just don't know.

 

[leroy]

Why don't you correct me then? Where am I wrong?

If all you are saying then is that the universe is such that it supports life then I agree with you. That is not what most people mean when they use the fine tuning argument.

The issue is that someone who claimed to have looked at the evidence from both sides objectively and has looked at the FT argument specifically is not expected to ask these question.

You are expected to understand what FT means in this context. (otherwise, why are you affirming that the argument fails)




"Fine-tuning refers to the fact that small changes to the constants or values of nature would have resulted in a universe incapable of supporting life." using this defintion FT doesnt implies the existance of a tunner, and has nothign to do with the fact that 99.999999999% of the universe is hostile to life.

This is the teleological argument. Which is flawed as well.

The teleological argument and th4e FT argument are the same arguments (in this context)

So please explain why my objections are flawed starting with premise 1.

Premise one is: Whatever begins to exist has a cause

This is a claim with no good supporting evidence. If you disagree provide the good evidence.

ok the supporting evidnece for this particular premise is
1
1 Every sing le observation that has been made confirms that things don’t begin to exist without causes (and no good reasons to make an arbitrary exception with the universe has ever been given)

2 things don’t come from nothing , that is metaphysically absurd, otherwise you would have to pay a high price, you would have to accept that things can simply pop in to existence out of nothing, for no reason, you would have to abandon science and reason.

3 (the best argument in my opinion) if things can come it to existence from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why only universes pop in to existence out of nothing, why not horses or dogs,, or cars come it to existence out of nothing?.............. Nothing by definition cant have any properties (otherwise it wouldn’t be nothing) so nothing cant have any properties that would allow it to discriminate cars over universes.

Why aren’t these reasons good enough to suggest that premise 1 is probably true?

 

[leroy]

If by universe here you mean the cosmos (everything including our universe) then I am not convinced that the statement is true. That does not mean that I think there is anything outside our universe. I just don't know.

this article presents 4 arguments in favor of these statement
The Kalam Cosmological Argument | Reasonable Faith
(start readign here "Ghazali argued that if the universe never began to exist, then there has been an infinite number of past events prior to today")

what is wrong with these 4 arguments, ?


Besides I am curious, if you say that “we don’t know” why didn’t you give God the benefit of the doubt?

I mean if you were a theist in the past, searching for truth, and you looked statement such as “the universe/cosmos had a beggining”

And you realized that if the statement is true, the existence of God would be more likely,


Why wasent “YES the universe had a beggining” your default answer? It seems to me that your current view should have the benefit of the doubt.