http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_in_nature

Natural selection and mutation over millions of generations in biological systems produces ordered results. On a cosmological scale, physical forces draw bodies into stable relationships. Science can easily explain how these phenomena occur.

But you don't really want answers.

"Tide goes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that.">> ^lantern53:

>> ^KnivesOut:
Certainly not by reading children's stories meant to scare simpletons into conformance. Observation, hypothesis, prediction, experiment, conclusion.>> ^lantern53:
Atheists believe order comes from chaos.
How do you defend that?


Many, if not most religious traditions use analogy to explain ultimate truths.
But explain to me how order comes from chaos?

I would test it, if I could. By “God”, I’m assuming you’re still talking about Yahweh specifically, and not just any random god-type entity. If that’s the case, then I’ve already falsified the claim that the Bible is perfect, so that argument is gone.

You haven't falsified it. If you have, show me where. If you're referring to Matthews lineage using Chiastic structure, that isn't an imperfection. Chaistic structure is a literary device, so Matthews genealogy is not giving us the entire line, but rather like an artistic summation of it. To say it is wrong would be like telling a painter his painting is wrong.

If you’re merely making a deist claim, then I can’t argue with you. I take no position on deism other than if some deity created the universe and set it in motion, I have no reason to believe it cares about humans, and it certainly has made no edicts that I perceive as to how I should live my life.

Since you have no argument against a potential God, and couldn't tell whether you were living in His Universe or not, then how would you know if this God cares about humans or if it has laid down any edicts about how you should live your life?

You’re not listening to me. Seriously. I do have ways of determining which story is more likely. Occam’s razor is the best for this problem. The complexities introduced by faith in Yahweh and the Bible are necessarily more complex than the problems they solve. They are also blind faith (I'm talking about the vast majority of the faithful, and about what you're recommending I do), which is willful self-delusion. The theories that physicists and biologists have come up with are quite convincing, especially if you understand how science works.

I have been listening to you and what I have found is that if you can find some kind of excuse to dismiss something that seems even potentially legitimate, then you run with it. You only seem interested in trying to falsify the question, because you apparently have already decided it isn't true. You don't have any real evidence to prove it, but in previous conversations you have said you see no reason to bother thinking about it. In short, you don't care.

You say I'm talking about blind faith, and I'm not. I believe what I believe because God convinced me of its truth. I had no reason to believe it otherwise, and I wouldn't. I am telling you that if you draw near to God, He will draw near to you. He loves you and wants you to know Him. You just don't want to know Him and that is the problem.

Neither do you understand the law of parsimony. The law states that in explaining a given phenomenon, we should make as few assumptions as possible. Therefore, if we have two theories which are equal in explanatory power, but one has fewer assumptions, we should choose the one with fewer assumptions. However, a more complex theory with better explanatory power should be chosen over a more simplistic theory with weaker explanatory power. I think John Lennox kind of sums this all up at 3:00



Agreed. I find myself in an environment in which my species was capable of evolving. It says nothing of how statistically improbable it is.

You were created in your parents womb; this says nothing about evolution. It only says that you have some way to come into existence, personally. It says nothing about the particulars of how that came to be.

Disagree. I’m lucky that of all the possible combinations of molecules that could have come together to create our terrestrial environment, the right ones came together to create life, then the right DNA strands combined to eventually create me. I’m lucky, sure, but given the length of time we’ve had, there’s no reason I should be surprised, especially when there's no reason to assert that this is the only universe.

There is no reason to assert it isn't, either. In a finely tuned Universe, it is more plausible to believe it was designed rather than it just happened to be one Universe out of trillions that implausibly just looks like it was designed because if you have enough Universes eventually one will form that appears that way. Remember Occams Razor?

You ask why multiple universes are more likely than a deity? Because you and I both know for sure there is at least one universe, so positing some more of them is less of a stretch than asserting a self-contradictory entity, alien to our objective experience, defying any consistent and meaningful description, so vastly complex that it cannot be properly understood, and so full of human failings that it looks man-made.

That would be true if God were any of those things. I can agree with you though that your understanding of God is self-contradictory, alien to your experience, etc. You believe you have God figured out, when you don't know Him at all. You would actually do anything to know God, but you are rejecting Him out of ignorance.

In the scenario between multiple universes or God as a theory to describe a finely tuned Universe, God wins every time. It doesn't matter how complex God might be; the explanatory power afforded by the theory is by far superior.

I’m sceptical of all your claims because that’s how I roll. I’m sceptical of everything, especially big claims. It’s the smartest way to avoid being duped.

You're skeptical of everything that doesn't agree with your presuppositions about reality. Those I have rarely if ever seen you seriously question in all the time I have spoken to you. Regarding knowledge that agrees with those presuppositions, you feel free to speculate about that all day long and will say that virtually any of it is more plausible with no evidence. The thing is, I used to be on your side of the fence, and I know what a search for the truth looks like. This isn't it.

The smartest way to avoid being duped is to understand that you might be duped at this moment and not realize it. That's the trouble with being deceived; you think you're right when you are really wrong.

You have been telling me that I must believe in the one true thing that is true that is Yahweh and the Bible and creation because it’s true because it’s true because it’s true because it’s the only possibility.

What I've been telling you is that God is not hiding from you. You are hiding from Him. It's not that you don't know there is a God so much as you don't want to know that there is. You simply want to do whatever you think is right and you automatically reject any possibility that says this is wrong and you are in fact accountable to a higher authority. In short, your attitude towards God is not skeptical but rebellious.

Now, I conceive of another possibility: my 10^trillion universes. You agree it’s possible, so there’s no reason for me to believe yours is necessarily true. If I have to choose between them, the one that doesn’t require the further explanation of a sentient deity more complex than 10^trillion universes is simpler. And even then, I DON’T HAVE TO CHOOSE one or the other. I can remain sceptical. To me, it’s foolish not to.

I concede its possible that God could have created other Universes, but I don't concede the idea that Universes just happen by themselves. This is really a very foolish idea. It's like coming across a coke can and believing wind and erosion created it. It only seems plausible to you because you must have a naturalistic explanation for your existence to make sense of your reality.

I don't expect you to believe in God unless He gives you some kind of revelation. I frequently pray that you will receive this revelation, both for you and the sake of your family.

Since I already pointed out this flawed understand of the law of parsimony, I won't reiterate that argument here.

While we’re talking about being honest with ourselves, I’d like to hear it from you that the following things are *at least technically possible*: that Yahweh doesn’t exist; that your relationship with Yahweh is an illusion created by you inside your head because you are human and human minds are prone to occasional spectacular mistakes; that the Bible was created by deluded humans; that the universe is around 14 billion years old; that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old; that life on Earth started 1-2 billion years ago; and that all species evolved from primitive life forms. To be clear, I’m not asking you to accept them as true or even probable, just state whether this collection of statements is possible or impossible.

This is what Paul said:

1 Corinthians 15:17,19

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

I wasn't there at the resurrection; I take it on faith. My faith has been borne out by the evidence, such as being born again, witnessing miracles, and experiencing the presence of God in my daily life. I don't admit any of those things; I have most definitely received revelation from God, and there is no other plausible explanation for the evidence. If you can concede that God can give you certain knowledge then you can understand why I don't doubt that knowledge.

Notice what George Wald said?

I notice that you only quote scientists out of context, or when they’re speaking poetically. I guarantee he never said that in a scientific paper. Life may be a wonder, not a miracle.

I *only* do? That's a false generalization. This quote is right on target, and I challenge you to show me where I have taken George out of context. This is what scientists believe, that time + chance makes just about anything possible. Has life ever been observed coming entirely from non living matter? That's a miracle, and that's what you must believe happened either here or somewhere in the Universe.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/

Near the end, you’ll find this gem: “The history of physics has had that a lot, … Certain quantities have seemed inexplicable and fine-tuned, and once we understand them, they don’t seem to [be] so fine-tuned. We have to have some historical perspective.”

If you haven't done so already, watch the first 10-20 minutes of this: http://videosift.com/video/The-God-of-the-Gaps-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson. It's "creationism/intelligent design" laid bare as a position of weakness. Your "fine tuning" trope is part of "intelligent design" and has the same historical flaw.

It's the God of the gaps argument which is flawed. It's not a God of the gaps argument when the theory is a better explanation for the evidence.

It's just a bare fact that there is a number of physical constants in an extremely narrow range which conspire to create a life permitting Universe. It's even admitted on the wikipedia page:

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life".[2] However he continues "...the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

What do you mean, “they hate that possibility”? Why should a scientist hate any possibility? If there were science that pointed to the real existence of God, that’s exactly the way their investigations would go. That’s what motivated early modern scientists – they believed unravelling the laws of the universe by experiment would reveal God’s nature. It was only when the scientific path of experimentation split conclusively away from the biblical account that anybody considered that religious faith and scientific endeavour might become separate enterprises.

The roost of the scientific establishment today is ruled by atheistic naturalists, and they very much hate the idea of God polluting their purely naturalistic theories. They consider science to be liberated from religion and they vigorously patrol the borders, expelling anyone who dares to question the established paradigm. A biologist today who questions the fundamentals of evolutionary theory commits professional suicide. It is now conventional wisdom and you either have to get with the program or be completely shut out of the community.

Here are some other interesting quotes for you:

Richard Lewontin “does acknowledge that scientists inescapably rely on ‘rhetorical’ proofs (authority, tradition) for most of what they care about; they depend on theoretical assumptions unprovable by hard science, and their promises are often absurdly overblown … Only the most simple-minded and philosophically naive scientist, of whom there are many, thinks that science is characterized entirely by hard inference and mathematical proofs based on indisputable data

Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.

As for the “much” stronger evidence, as stated in the article, every time scientists solve a mystery of something they thought was “finely tuned”, they realized that there is a much simpler explanation than God. Evolution, for instance, eliminates the question of "fine tuning" in life. “God” is a metaphor for “things outside my understanding”. Once they move within our understanding, nobody claims that they’re God anymore. And FWIW, some of the most famous scientists ever came to the same "Because God" conclusion, which held until someone else got past it and solved what they couldn't.

I'm glad you understand that the whole enterprise of science was initially driven by the Christian idea that God created an orderly Universe based on laws, and thus we could reason out what was going on by investigating secondary causes. Yet God wasn't a metaphor for something we didn't understand; God was the reason we were interested in trying to understand in the first place, or even thought that we could.

You say there is this "because God" brick wall that we break down by determining the operations of the Universe. We can then see that it was never God at all, but X Y Z, yet what does that prove? Genesis 1 says "God created", and that He controls everything. What you're confusing is mechanism with agency. Can you rule out a clockmaker by explaining how the clock works? That's exactly what you're saying here, and it is an invalid argument.

You also act as if evolution has been indisputably proven. Let me ask you this question, since you claim to understand science so well. What is the proof and evidence that evolution is a fact? Be specific. What clinches it?

So to your conclusion, how do you figure that the appearance of fine tuning—which seems to go away when you look close enough—is stronger evidence?

It only goes away when you come to a series of false conclusions as you have above. The evidence is there, even the scientists admit it. To avoid the conclusion multiple universes are postulated. However, this is even more implausible for this reason; the multiple universe generator would be even more fine tuned than this Universe. Therefore, you are pointing right back at a fine tuner once more.

Eh??? But in your last nine paragraphs, YOU yourself, a limited temporal creature, have been trying to prove God’s existence with your “fine tuning” argument (corrupt reasoning, like you say), even after you've repeatedly asserted in the other threads that the only possible evidence for God is that he’ll answer our prayers. Why are you bothering? It is laughable how inconsistent you’re being here.

I wouldn't know the truth on my own; only God can reveal what the truth is. There are two routes to the truth. One is that you're omnipotent. Another is that an omnipotent being tells you what the truth is. Can you think of any others?

Keep fishing. Either the patient being prayed for recovers or doesn't recover. If not, the sincere prayers weren't answered. Unless you’re suggesting God secretly removed the free will of the scientists and the people praying so that the tests would come back negative? Gimme a break.

You seem to believe that free will means God doesn't interfere in the Creation, and this isn't the case. Free will means, you have the choice to obey or disobey God. It doesn't mean you are free from Gods influences. That's the whole idea of prayer, that God is going to exert His influence on creation to change something. God is directly involved in the affairs of men, He sets up Kingdoms, He takes them away. He put you where He wanted you and He will take you out when He has sovereignly planned to do it.

Even if the prayers are sincere, God isn't going to heal everyone. Yes, either way the patient recovers or doesn't recover, and either way, God isn't going to reveal His existence outside of what He has ordained; faith in His Son Jesus Christ. Anyone trying to prove Gods existence any other way will always come away disappointed.

And all of this was written only after the prophesy was fulfilled. A little too convenient.

Actually it was written hundreds of years before hand.

The 70 weeks are not concurrent, first of all.

I know. I'm assuming they were consecutive. How could 70 weeks be concurrent? That makes no sense at all. Even if you meant to say “not consecutive”, what does it mean to declare a time limit of 70 weeks if they're not consecutive? It means nothing. That time limit could extend to today. What's your source for saying they're not concurrent/consecutive/whatever?

This is why I suggested you become more familiar with theology. Yes, you're right, I meant to say consecutive. You would know they were not consecutive if you read the scripture. The prophecy identifies they are not consecutive. Please see this:

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2004/552/

Again, conveniently, this “prediction” doesn't appear in writing until after the fall of Jerusalem.

Jerusalem fell in 70 AD. The gospels were written beforehand. If they were written afterwards, there would have been a mention of the fall of the city, if only to confirm the prophecy, but there is no mention of it in any of the gospels.

I'll rephrase this by saying, that Jesus fulfilled dozens of prophecies about the coming of the Messiah. Clearly, the impact of that Jesus has had on the world matches His claims about who He is.

Which clearly defined prophecies did he fulfil, not including ones that he knew about and could choose to do (like riding on a donkey)?

http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/messiah.htm

Except for all the religions that aren't Christian. They don’t belong to him, and they have surely had enough time to hear his voice.

The world belongs to Christ. The difference between the Lord and the other religions is this:

1 Chronicles 16:26

For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD made the heavens

You really think that’s unique to Christianity? Do you know much about Islam? And I don't mean Western stereotypes of it. I mean, really know how normal Muslim people live their lives.

Muslims don't have a personal relationship with God. Allah keeps them at arms length, and they mostly serve him out of fear. They also have no idea whether they are going to heaven or not. They only hope that at the end of time their good works will add up more than their bad ones. The reason Muslims choose martyrdom is because under Islam it is the only guaranteed way to go to Heaven.

I get it. It’s a test of sincerity. For whom? Who is going to read and understand the results? To whom is the sincerity proven that didn't know it before, requiring a test? I think you’re avoiding admitting it’s God because that would mean there’s something God doesn't know.

Why do metalworkers purify gold? To remove the dross. That's exactly what God is doing when He tests us:

1 Peter 1:6

In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials.

These have come so that your faith--of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire--may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.

>> ^messenger:

stuff

>> ^kir_mokum:
then truly nothing doesn't exist.


Then how is the Kalam cosmological argument invalid?

>> ^kir_mokum:

as far as i understand it the only thing that create something from nothing is in fact nothing.

http://videosift.com/video/A-Universe-From-Nothing-by-Lawrence-K
rauss-AAI-2009


What Dr Krauss is referring to when he says "nothing" is actually something..he changes the definition of that something many times throughout his book..sometimes calling nothing a quantum vacuum, or the laws of nature, or a condition that is lacking any matter or energy, but at no time is the "nothing" he is referring to purely nothing..it is always something. So there is no theory of how "nothing created everything".

Doesn't logic itself tell you that from nothing, nothing comes? The first cause must be eternal because if there ever was "nothing", that's all there ever would be.

>> ^kir_mokum:

too bad current scientific discoveries are taring the cosmological argument to small, laughable pieces.


Which discoveries would those be, kir_mokum?

too bad current scientific discoveries are taring the cosmological argument to small, laughable pieces.

Fact 1: An estimated (the number may be higher) 1.6 planets per star in our galaxy
http://www.space.com/14200-160-billion-alien-planets-milky-galaxy.html

Fact 2: 100 billion galaxies:
We know there are that many, because we've seen them. The hubble space telescope was pointed at a tiny , random black spot in the sky (where no stars from our own galaxy was blocking the field of view) and found 10000 galaxies in that tiny spot about 1/12millionth of the sky. Extrapolating that out, we get that there are atleast 100 billion galaxies, and each of them contains hundreds of millions of stars.

Fact 3:The moon has its own gravity.
Well duh...

Fact 4: 8 Planets in our solar system.
This is of course very well documented. You can see several of them on any given night. One of them , Venus will infact pass directly in front of the sun in a few days, on the 6th of June! That also happened in 2004, but the next one wont be for another 105 years! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Venus

Fact 5: There were galaxies in the early universe. These have been seen by the Hubble telescope and other observatories:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation_and_evolution

Fact 6:The earths tilted axis causes seasons: http://www.khanacademy.org/science/cosmology-and-astronomy/v/how-earth-s-tilt-causes-seasons

More later..

>> ^bareboards2:

Oh, I understand everything. I just choose to not argue with someone who can't think clearly, @dirkdeagler7
Bullshit. Bible. One paragraph. Equals snit fit.
Ignore all the words inbetween.
You talk about context but don't apply your own logic.


Perhaps if I said he was criticizing their faith in addition to their stance on homosexuality you would disagree less?

I'm the one not thinking clearly? You've ONLY given your own opinion of MY assessment and have not used a single argument or comment to refute anything I've said or to give your own opinion with regards to the things I touched on. Since you're apparently far more enlightened than I am, please explain to me what was the ultimate point of this 3min. commentary (keeping in mind that the beginning and end of the video clearly indicate it was a small piece of some larger lecture he is giving).

I'm not in the mood to be trolled by someone that criticizes my clarity of thought or my understanding of context and logic yet uses none himself.

To be clear I've only commented on the context and seeming POINT of what he was saying and how he said it. I did not go into whether I agree or disagree with him did I? But since you're obviously trying to imply I'm an unreasonable Bible-thumper let me declare my religious stance just for you.

I am a non-practicing christian with a very loose tie to organized Christianity. I do not believe the bible is direct truth and I probably know more about cosmology, the big bang, and science than even most science enthusiasts because I love and respect science and knowledge. I'm not an opponent of gay rights or gay marriage and I believe that sexual preference is no business of anyone but ones self.

I personally would not have walked out that day. I also would have lost respect for someone who takes a benign opportunity to discuss a topic with other enthusiasts (journalism) to parade his/her own personal opinion in a forum that was not intended for this purpose.

With so many agreeable comments, i taught myself how to quote properly * pats himself on the back *

>> ^ChaosEngine:
If Yahweh showed up tomorrow, I'd start looking to form a resistance.
^ I'm in and have a bunch of analytical minded friends who would be gearing up before they even heard the word 'resistance'.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
pineapple on pizza is an unholy abomination
^ /agree re pineapple. It belongs on my pizza's as much as i belong in churches, it ruins the experience.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

There is another position on this: anti-theist. Most strongly evinced by Christopher Hitchens.

>> ^volumptuous:

Richard Dawkins' approach to this is the term "non-theist".

^ The terms 'Anti-Theist' and 'Non-Theist' are more sensible/respectable than 'Atheist' imo (more so after hearing Dawkins mention Afairyist), but i accept the latter as it requires less side-track debating over terminology.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

I really, really hope that Videosift5 gives the ability to spend a PP on a "super upvote" for comments. (or something similar).
@Sepacore would get mine!! (above)

^ Cheers

>> ^Boise_Lib:
I'm absolutely against anyone, or thing, that shows the pettiness, jealousy, and just plan babyishness of Yahweh having any control over human beings.


^ /agree

>> ^Boise_Lib:
But, what about something (this is why I don't use the word "god"), which is benevolently seeking knowledge through it's extrusions--(that's us)--into this space-time we inhabit.
If we are all part of this thing can it really be abhorrent?


^ .. make duck bills with your fingers, put them to your temples and open them up as you pull your hands away: you're blowing my mind.

>> ^Boise_Lib:
My point is if there is something else out there, we--as a species--have no idea what that might be (all religions are wrong).

^ /agree

>> ^Boise_Lib:
[Sidepoint: The mixture of taste sensations evinced by the salty, savory ham and the sweet, sour pineapple enmeshed in melty cheese is a glorious thing.]

^ * slumps down in a corner and cries softly while singing Amy Grant's 'Innocence Lost' (Christian music, lol Google FTW) *

I can't relive my life
I can't retrace my tracks
I can't undo what's done
There is no going back

I chased a selfish dream
Did not survey the cost
Illusions disappeared
I've found my innocence lost

Some say it's lessons learned
Some say it's a living life
I say it's choices made
Knowing wrong from right

>> ^ChaosEngine:
What I do have to contend with is mainstream religion (and while we're at it, faulty thinking around astrology, homoeopathy, etc).
^ worked in offices for past 5 years.. don't get me started on astrology and homeopathy. The girls and 1 guy don't care what i say about religions and Gods.. but the moment i open my mouth about those other 2.. (think it's because i kept showing them proofs against the practices)


@Lawdeedaw
I see the points you're making, but there's a lot more to an Agnostic position than there is to either of the extremes. For 1, there's room to fluctuate to either end of the extremes without having to make an incredible claim that simply can't be backup in any scientific way as there are always 'trump cards' for this subject.

Better than Physics, Cosmology, Chemistry and Biology, imo Psychology has the greatest chance of proving God doesn't exist, but unfortunately it's not going to be an actual 'proof', at best (and it irritates/pains me to say) it will only be a really good reason to 'believe' or suggest that Gods are most likely figments of our imaginations off of our preferences. Easily ignored when in the face of 'faith'.

Call it 'safe' or even 'fence sitting' if need be, but i call it the result of thinking about the subject and being honest enough to accept 'i, nor anyone, actually knows.. but i think X due to Y'.

I used to think an Atheistic position for scientists was logical off of the point of 'no proof, don't believe'. But the reality is that scientists do believe things without evidence, they work their butts off to prove the idea, and either succeed or prove the opposite, sometimes even discovering things they had no intention of or even an idea that they were close to.. point being there are stages where they have reason to believe but don't have proof and these stages can make getting funding quite difficult.

For a Scientist, publicly and privately resting on an agnostic position somewhere between the 2 ends of the scale is more reasonable/justifiable and less arrogant/distracting.

If you can't honestly state "I know there is no God" in any/every debate/discussion, then technically you're Agnostic (unless stating the complete opposite).. but like me would take up a stance a pin prick away from 1 of the 2 disingenuous and arrogant extremes (specifically the good one, that doesn't 'justify' us not caring about others).

>> ^VoodooV:

Ditto. Agnostic is the only sane choice. Fuck Atheists who want to put agnostics under their "umbrella"

^ If it ever started raining/reigning in the way and with the unforgiving dedications a number of religions have in the past, i hazard the guess you would likely jump under my umbrella quick smart when it was the only place that gave us both the option to state 'i don't know/care' and live to tell about it.

/Agree re the disapproval of Atheists disregarding the line.. but to this day, I've never met an 'Atheist' that definitively stated when pushed 'i know God doesn't exist'.

1. An "eternal first cause" and/or "creator" does not in any way by default = a degree of intelligence and/or act of deliberate purpose and/or 'living' entity/mechanism.

2. Every-time an argument asserts the idea of an "eternal first cause" and/or "creator", said assertion holds no relativity to the likelihood/plausibility of a God.

KCA.. really?

"The kalam cosmological argument, for example, establishes an eternal, personal, transcendent first cause of the Universe".
No it doesn't. It's wordplay, deception and confusion/delusion, the only tools in which theological arguments have EVER been viewed as to hold a degree of legitimacy until met by intelligent humans who can see the patterns of speech. The use of formulated distractions in an attempt to validate an invalid proposition is deceit.
~Even if disputed, refer to 1st point. There is no argument for God's existence here.

Kalam Cosmological Argument:
- whatever begins to exist has a cause (premise 1)
- the universe began to exist (premise 2)
- the universe has a cause

The argument follows the following structure:

- if X, then Y
- X
- therefore Y

But alas, if we take a closer look, we can clearly see a MASSIVE sleight of hand in KCA.

Consider the arguments below and it will start to become clear what it is:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- If someone is lying, they are not telling the truth
- My son is lying on his bed
- Therefore, my son is not telling the truth

OR

- whatever is not right is wrong
- my left leg is not right
- therefore my left leg is wrong

OR

- If it is bright, it gives off/reflects light
- My son is bright
- Therefore, my son gives off/reflects light
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You see what just happened?

Even though, the 3 arguments above follow the logical structure of "If x, then Y, X, therefore Y", they are complete nonsense....

... because the words 'lying', 'right' and 'bright' change meaning in premise 1 and 2, rendering the arguments completely useless.

And this is exactly what is happening in KCA with the terms 'begins' and 'began'. The difference between 'i'+'S' and 'a' has a value that those who make this argument either try to pretend isn't there, or have simply been fooled by it themselves due to their lack of interest/attention of the subject or their desperation to justify their preference for psychological comfort in the face of human minds not having had the pressures to evolve to properly comprehend self-termination, due to their being no continuation of processing once the engine stops and the lights go out.


To explain the deception within KCA further and more specifically..

The phrase "begins to exist" changes meaning in premise 1 vs premise 2.

In premise 1, "begins to exist" is being used in the context of things coming into existence as a result of "REARRANGEMENT OF EXISTING MATTER/ENERGY".
E.g. things like cars, people, trees etc etc

Whereas.....

in premise 2, "began to exist" completely changes meaning to "THE ACTUAL CREATION OF MATTER AND ENERGY"

just like our examples above.......
'lying' as in deceiving somebody VS 'lying' as in lying down on a bed.
'right' as in what is correct VS 'right' as in which side of the road you drive on in the USA.
'bright' as in giving off light VS 'bright' as in being smart.

and..

'Begins' to exist as in rearrangement of matter energy VS 'began' to exist as in the actual creation of matter and energy.

The shift in meaning renders KCA completely useless.
Independent of the science, there is a logical flaw in the argument.

Even if premise 1 and premise 2 are 100% true, you cannot draw the logical conclusion because of the shift in meaning.

i.e.
- The sky is blue
- I drive a car
- Therefore I like to eat apples.

Premise 1 and 2 are true in the argument above but the conclusion is nonsensical, just like in KCA



For those who prefer visual explanations: 3:56 Mins/Secs (+ some decent music imo)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkYkFw2X4mY

Note: The 6th description that gets dropped into the William Lane Craig description is meaningless in this video. Likely thrown in as a 'let's just give it to the believers-without-testable-evidence for the analysis' as often there's an attempt to claim 'morals' as God-dependent.. despite that small/large societies would have struggled to properly form in hunter+gather days AND hold long term stability without such a balancing mechanism being evolved along with them, to which is still evolving today in the political form of 'human rights' and 'humanitarianism'.

Credit for most of this breakdown of KCA to Mutantbass, used because it was articulated well with simplicity.
Modified for personal tastes and elaborations:
http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=13352.0

>> ^spoco2:
I'm amazed that @shinyblurry can, with a straight face, (well, I assume he's not sniggering) suggest that it's inconceivable that while we've seen that when matter and anti-matter come together they cancel each other out and form 'nothing' the reverse cannot possibly happen.


Directing you to a general reply, here:

http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-and-Lawrence-Krauss-Something-from-Nothing?loadcomm=1#comment-1443305

>> ^spoco2:
And yet God 'just is'. You cannot fathom that something that we HAVE OBSERVED would seem to logically go the other way also, and yet are happy to accept a notion of an omnipotent bearded man existing for all eternity.... so just giving up on the concept of time and saying 'he just was, and is'.


No one has given up on the concept of time. The evidence indicates that time had an absolute beginning:

http://www.ctc.cam.ac.uk/stephen70/talks/swh70_vilenkin.pdf

If time had an absolute beginning, that means that whatever created the Universe is timeless (as well as spaceless, powerful, immaterial and transcendent). Meaning, the evidence points to an eternal first cause of the Universe. That is already matching up to a description of God and His attributes. Also, God is not a bearded man; you came to that conclusion because of religous imagery, not what scripture says. What scripture says is that God is a spirit.

>> ^spoco2:
I don't get how you think you have any point of argument. Sure, I can completely get that people can conceive that there is some higher power, that's fine. But to think there's any infinitesimally small shred of logic or reason contained in that belief that is any more reasoned than what science is coming up with is baffling.


I'm glad to hear that you can allow for belief in a higher power. Though, it doesn't sound like you are very familiar with the logical arguments for the existence of God. The kalam cosmological argument, for example, establishes an eternal, personal, transcendent first cause of the Universe.

>> ^spoco2:
You believe that, you also think it's your mission to convert others, but you know what? Trying to argue it out, thinking that you have some logical gotcha is just futile. You know the best way to bring people to your way of thinking? Be compassionate, lead by example, do good works, help others. DO NOT PREACH. Seriously, some of the nicest people I know actually have their own church, they run it, they created it. But they DO NOT preach AT ALL to us, they don't try to convert us at all. But they are helpful, kind, caring people who are wonderful to be around, and when they bow their heads and pray and make speeches thanking their lord during their birthday parties and other celebrations it doesn't grate, because it's not done in any way that's trying to rope in us unbelievers.


I agree with you, that a Christian should do good works. That is the fruit of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. However, Christians are also commanded by Jesus to preach the gospel. We are supposed to do both, not one or the other. There are specific, spiritual reasons for why this is so. Your friends sounds like excellent Christians, however, if you were to die tomorrow, and they had never told you the gospel, they will answer for that at the judgment seat of Jesus Christ. Christianity does not come by osmosis; faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

>> ^spoco2:
Please take that as a way to spread your word, Do Good Deeds. We like to watch videos like this because it's two people discussing some really deep questions and we like to know what scientists think about these things that are in their field of expertise. I would just as much like to watch a discussion between theologians about morality and differing religions and how they think their teachings fit in there. As long as it wasn't a case of 'if you don't believe in me you are doomed to hell', just 'I believe that following these commandments will lead to a better life', or 'I don't take the story of Noah to be a factual account, but more a parable with a lesson'.


There is a difference between having a debate, and telling someone the gospel. However, why would you expect someone to compromise, or water down what they believe? You've felt very comfortable in telling me exactly what you believe, and what I should be doing, and how I should be doing it, yet I must censor myself for the sake of your sensitive ears? Do you think I am going to obey God, or man?

I'll direct you to his own words. Here is Kraus talking about redefining what the word nothing means:

"And I guess most importantly that the question why is there something rather than nothing is really a scientific question, not a religious or philosophical question, because both nothing and something are scientific concepts, and our discoveries over the past 30 years have completely changed what we mean by nothing.

In particular, nothing is unstable. Nothing can create something all the time due to the laws of quantum mechanics, and it's - it's fascinatingly interesting. And what I wanted to do was use the hook of this question, which I think as I say has provoked religious people, as well as scientists, to encourage people to try and understand the amazing universe that we actually live in."

Here is Krauss describing how empty space could create the Universe:

Empty space is a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence in a time scale so short that you can't even measure them. Now, that sounds of course like counting angels on the head of a pin; if you can't measure them, then it doesn't sound like it's science, but in fact you can't measure them directly.

But we can measure their effects indirectly. These particles that are popping in and out of existence actually affect the properties of atoms and nuclei and actually are responsible for most of the mass inside your body. And in fact, really one of the things that motivated this book was the most profound discovery in recent times, and you even alluded to it in the last segment, the discovery that most of the energy of the universe actually resides in empty space.

You take space, get rid of all the particles, all the radiation, and it actually carries energy, and that notion that in fact empty space - once you allow gravity into the game, what seems impossible is possible. It sounds like it would violate the conservation of energy for you to start with nothing and end up with lots of stuff, but the great thing about gravity is it's a little trickier.

Gravity allows positive energy and negative energy, and out of nothing you can create positive energy particles, and as long as a gravitational attraction produces enough negative energy, the sum of their energy can be zero. And in fact when we look out at the universe and try and measure its total energy, we come up with zero.

I like to think of it as the difference between, say, a savvy stockbroker and an embezzler. The savvy stockbroker will buy stocks on margin with more money than they have, and as long as they get that money back in there before anyone notices, and in fact if the stocks go up, they end with money where they didn't have any before, whereas the embezzler, of course, is discovered.

Well, the universe is a savvy stockbroker. It can borrow energy, and if there's no gravity, it gets rid of it back before anyone notices. But if gravity is there, it can actually create stuff where there was none before. And you can actually create enough stuff to account for everything we see in the universe.

But, you know, it's more than that because some people would say, and I've had this discussion with theologians and others, well, you know, just empty space isn't nothing. You know, there's space. How did the space get there? But the amazing thing is, once you apply in fact quantum mechanics to gravity, as you were beginning to allude again in the last segment, then it's possible, in fact it's implied, that space itself can be created where there was nothing before, that literally whole universes can pop out of nothing by the laws of quantum mechanics.

And in fact the question why is there something rather than nothing then becomes sort of trite because nothing is unstable. It will always produce something. The more interesting or surprising question might be why is there nothing. But of course if we ask that question, well, we wouldn't be here if that was true.

-----------------------------------------

What he said in this video is completely misleading; I'll show you his slight of hand. When he says you can take away everything, even the laws and still get a Universe, he has redefined "absolutely nothing" as a complete absence of this Universe, but not as we will see, a complete absence of anything. To explain the laws of quantum mechanics popping into existence, he postulates an external entity: the multiverse:

Well, you know, that's something I deal with at the end of the book because, you know, it's not a concept that I'm pretty fond of, but it - we seemed to be driven there by our theories, and it does suggest the last bit, because some people, indeed when I debate this question of nothing, they say, well, look, you can get rid of space. You can get rid of stuff in space, the first kind of nothing. You can even get rid of space, but you still have the laws. Who created the laws?

Well, it turns out that we've been driven both from ideas from cosmology - from a theory called inflation or even string theory - that suggests there may be extra dimensions - to the possibility that our universe isn't unique, and more over, that the laws of physics in our universe may just be accidental. They may have arisen spontaneously, and they don't have to be the way they are. But if they were any different, we wouldn't be here to ask the question. It's called the entropic idea, and it's not - it's - it may be right.

It's not an idea I find very attractive, but it may be right. And if it is, then it suggests that even the very laws themselves are not fundamental. They arose spontaneously in our universe, and they're very different in other universes. And in some sense, if you wish, the multiverse plays the role of what you might call a prime mover or a god. It exists outside of our universe.

So, again, the question is not answered. In his book, some chapters of his book are: "Nothing is something" and "Nothing is unstable". He has redefined nothing as empty space or a quantum vaccum, and when pressed, he offers up a multiverse, but fails to explain where the multiverse came from. Nothing is not something, it is not unstable, it is not empty space, it is not a quantum vacuum, and it is not a multiverse. Nothing is nothing. From nothing, nothing comes. It has no states, no properties, no existence. He has not explained how something came from nothing. All he has done is redefine nothing into something. Of course something can come from something. All he doing is playing a masquarade with definitions





>> ^xxovercastxx:
16:08-16:38

"...you could start with absolutely nothing; that means, unlike the Cardinal said and unlike some people argue, no particles, but not even empty space -- no space whatsoever, and maybe even no laws governing that space and we can plausibly understand how you could arrive, without any miracles, without any need for a creator, without any supernatural creation, you could produce everything we see."

>> ^surfingyt:

Agreed. I liked the way he visualized the deficit and compared it against the calendar. One thing that caught my attention was he suggested bringing all the troops home, which I use daily as an example of useless spending, and that barely made a dent in the calendar. I (a he @Boise_Lib) posted for the discussion and possible votes (and downvotes).
>> ^Sepacore:
I understand the straw-man point and not disagreeing, will state that this is a completely unrealistic strategy imo and those that may talk up the general idea anywhere near the extreme Robbins was so as to make a point, i don't feel they've thought about it too much.
However, despite the level's of bs that's twisted into this, it did give me a bit of an idea of what effect doing 1 extreme (taxing) would have. Would very much like to see a comparative going the other way and focusing on cutting spending. The combination of both would give me a greater idea of what the situation actually is and what extremes would be advisable.
Regardless, upvote simply because the numbers were interestingly/entertainingly effective at keeping my attention, and although the numbers mostly seemed plausibly likely (even though some were simply unattainable) to my naive level of knowledge on this subject (haven't researched it, not planning to), some numbers are so drastically high, that the representation of them against the calendar left me stunned.
I'm left with the idea that taxing + cutting + appealing to the rich (yeah i know, don't get rich by giving your money away) is the only way forward.



Yeah, good topic imo for some open discussion about various thoughts on the overall subject of the Debt and Deficit. It's not an easy fix by any means, and I'm curious and would like to see some takes on the various ideas re difficult decisions that ultimately need to be made to chip away at such an unfathomable number.

1 expense i don't think should be cut is education as it's the foundation of improving infrastructure and advancing a country's capabilities, and NASA funding for much the same reason + I'm bias and love cosmology and the study of the universe.

(I like how Boise_Lib didn't actually downvote your video, just typed the word for reference to show disagreement to Robbins one-sided presentation)

So dedicated to science and the scientific process he can't tell the difference between biological evolution and cosmology.

Glarthir was a paranoid in Oblivion who asked you to kill a bunch of townsfolk that he thought were watching him.

And of course, Yggdrasil is the tree that is the form of the universe in Norse cosmology.