tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211409678921393693.post6119154870038634009..comments2024-01-04T07:28:40.043-05:00Comments on God is a myth!: Christian apologists are pathetic! Chatpilothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03550924322118366351noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211409678921393693.post-58994561692175147352015-10-06T11:00:51.224-04:002015-10-06T11:00:51.224-04:00Wishing something were true doesn't make it so...Wishing something were true doesn't make it so. There is no evidence for the existence of your ugly, wicked God and the bible is about as relevant to our lives as Harry Potter. It is just so pathetic, it truly is.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09752683529805978408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211409678921393693.post-26388014959826502032014-05-19T17:47:40.576-04:002014-05-19T17:47:40.576-04:00Harry, cause and effect have only been demonstrate...Harry, cause and effect have only been demonstrated to work in this universe. Can you demonstrate that cause and effect (which require time and force and matter) exist outside of this universe? No, as you can't even reach the "edge" of this universe,... Logic doesn't apply outside this universe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211409678921393693.post-84152861108814642622014-05-19T11:21:01.275-04:002014-05-19T11:21:01.275-04:00"Even if their was a big bang..question still..."Even if their was a big bang..question still remains. How did life begin? "<br /><br />The rational answer to this question is that although there are various theories on the matter currently being studied by scientists at the moment; the exact process is simply unknown. But that does not mean that "God did it" or that we resort to inventing creative beings born out of our imaginations due to our current inability to understand something. <br /><br />If "God did it" then this only begs the questions as to which god did it, where did this being come from, etc. Did your god just pop into existence out of nothing as well? To state that he was the beginning of all things is a circular argument that is not backed by objective nor empirical evidence. <br /><br />Based on the fact that the human body is a mixture of chemical reactions and electrical impulses leads to the logical conclusion that we are in fact the result of some chemical mixture in the distant past. <br /><br />I'm sorry steve beck but the god of the gaps argument is a logical fallacy which does not fly as evidence of anything. First prove objectively and empirically that this god exists, and maybe then you could begin to make a case for his being the source of all of creation.<br /><br />Chatpilothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03550924322118366351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211409678921393693.post-58987980133781891102014-05-19T01:52:42.185-04:002014-05-19T01:52:42.185-04:00Even if their was a big bang..question still remai...Even if their was a big bang..question still remains. How did life begin? Ah yes..primordial soup. Only problem with that is...we can send a man to the moon, create a computer that does billions of calculations per second. But what's the one thing man has not accomplished with his great mind...oh ya..created life out of nothing. But we are suppose to believe...as well as the big bang theory..again...well it just happened. Man has never...ever..anywhere..in the history of man been able to create life..where their was no life...BAM!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14035878281300699252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211409678921393693.post-71382841802600962682014-05-15T17:32:23.757-04:002014-05-15T17:32:23.757-04:00Great point cee-kas! Harry Howard's argument i...Great point cee-kas! Harry Howard's argument is nothing more than the kalam cosmological argument as it is presented by William Lane Craig. It's conclusion does not follow the premises he has presented and takes a mess of logical fallacies to try to pull it off. When dealing with unknowns you can't just state God did it. That is circular reasoning and the evidence for God is nonexistent to begin with. Chatpilothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03550924322118366351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211409678921393693.post-46278752192221766362014-05-15T15:07:57.202-04:002014-05-15T15:07:57.202-04:00While causes and explanations might be required fo...While causes and explanations might be required for certain things in the universe this doesn't apply to the universe itself. And the big bang is evi not evidence that the universe "begun to exist" the big bang is only considered the start of the observable universe the universe could be eternalcee-kashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05949987739145905011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211409678921393693.post-41103968076084256242014-05-12T10:07:34.726-04:002014-05-12T10:07:34.726-04:00Correctioin: " What would a being be doing ou...Correctioin: " What would a being be doing outside of space and time before the creation of the universe, especially if he did not begin to exist but just was, is, and always will be?"Chatpilothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03550924322118366351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211409678921393693.post-47700406111670732432014-05-12T10:04:23.791-04:002014-05-12T10:04:23.791-04:00@Harry Howard, thanks for your prompt response reg...@Harry Howard, thanks for your prompt response regarding the matter of nothing. I will try to explain why I have a problem with the idea of a non-contingent being. What you are asking me to believe is that this being (god) somehow exists outside of space and time before the existence of the universe itself. That this being consciously (correct me if I'm wrong) "created" the universe and everything in it. But this just brings up more problems. <br /><br />To my understanding conciousness itself is a product of the mind which resides in our bodies and controls all of our bodily functions. It is with our minds that we make decisions, think, ponder, etc. Our minds like our bodies are physical things that exist. Now for a being to do all of these things without a physical body and mind is in my view absurd. <br /><br />This is why I keep saying it is better and more likely to think that a "natural" yet unknown and undiscovered force could have started it all randomly. What would a being be doing outside of space and time before the creation of the universe especially if he did not being to exist but just was, is, and always will be? I would lean toward deism if I had to but the idea of a conscious, eternally, non-contingent being existing is in my view irrational and absurd. It's not about theism or atheism for me. It's about what can be known and to date this being does not exist outside of the mind and imagination of man. Chatpilothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03550924322118366351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211409678921393693.post-35517695573504890522014-05-12T08:31:33.082-04:002014-05-12T08:31:33.082-04:00I did indeed not answer on the nature of nothing, ...I did indeed not answer on the nature of nothing, but I did intend to. I will do now. Kraus's book was criticised later for the version of "nothing" that he was referring to. <br /><br /> He was referring to a "quantum vacuum instead of a "philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized 'nothing'" (i.e. instead of having the meaning "not anything")" <br /><br />Bringing up the quantum vacuum simply pushes the question one step back to: "what created the laws necessary for a quantum vacuum?" Again, contingency is the stumbling block, it cannot have created itself. <br />Harry Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00472556312574950263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211409678921393693.post-35722890899965950492014-05-12T08:26:45.923-04:002014-05-12T08:26:45.923-04:00"Don't try and separate philosophy into o..."Don't try and separate philosophy into one part being the stupid god part and the other the correct atheist part. "<br /><br />Wow, this is bad! The question of origins in my opinion is not a religious question at all. The search for truth on the matter is entirely a scientific endeavor. Arm chair philosophy will never resolve this question. Like I said there could be an unknown force that we have yet to discover that could account for the origin of the universe. This is more probable than some super being that exists outside of space and time as we know it and is unfalsifiable by all means of logical inquiry.<br /><br />" Don't try and separate philosophy into one part being the stupid god part and the other the correct atheist part. "<br /><br />It's not about atheism or theism it's about scientific facts and when it comes to the origins of the universe we just don't know. <br /><br /><br /><br />Chatpilothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03550924322118366351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211409678921393693.post-62681715199162696672014-05-12T08:20:14.687-04:002014-05-12T08:20:14.687-04:00"As we seem to go around in circles, I won..."As we seem to go around in circles, I won't keep repeating myself. "<br /><br />Thank goodness! You finally get the idea that you and I will never agree on this matter. Also, I don't need to be told the difference between apologetics, theology, or philosophy I am well aware what those differences are. <br /><br />"There is nothing logical about believing something invented in the mind".<br /><br />If this statement is incoherent then in your view I guess it is logical to believe in trolls, dragons, leprechauns, unicorns and fairies without evidence because all of these things were inventions of the mind. Of course there are some great ideas that have come from the mind of man and led to some great scientific discoveries but not all ideas are great. <br /><br />As expected you completely ignored everything I said about research into the nature of nothing as we know it. Like I said often your non-contingent being is a god of the gaps theory. Why is it so hard for you to just say like any rational person would that we just don't know? That third premise of yours is nothing more than an illogical leap from scientific fact to an unprovable assumption. Till we have those answers I don't know is the answer. <br /><br /><br /><br />Chatpilothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03550924322118366351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211409678921393693.post-79349171584204612662014-05-12T07:08:11.808-04:002014-05-12T07:08:11.808-04:00You seem to have got your wires crossed once again...You seem to have got your wires crossed once again. Apologetics is not philosophy anyway!!!!!!! It is theology. <br /><br />In fact the definition is: Apologetics is the discipline of defending a position (often religious) through the systematic use of information. Early Christian writers (c. 120–220) who defended their faith against critics and recommended their faith to outsiders were called apologists.<br /><br />Stop mixing philosophy with religion and theology. <br /><br />As for whether you are an agnostic, deist (of various forms) or atheist, that is a different question which philosophy is grounded in. Don't try and separate philosophy into one part being the stupid god part and the other the correct atheist part. Harry Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00472556312574950263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211409678921393693.post-82566535919444060192014-05-12T07:01:57.093-04:002014-05-12T07:01:57.093-04:00Firstly, it is NOT a god of the gaps argument. It ...Firstly, it is NOT a god of the gaps argument. It is a basic example of deductive reasoning. You seem to agree with the first two premises (1. everything that begins to exist has a cause, 2. the universe began to exist). What you cannot agree with for ideological reasons is the third premise 3. The cause of the universe HAS to be non-contingent. <br /><br />Secondly, you have massively misinterpreted what philosophy is. You keep referring to 'religion and religious beliefs' we are not talking about religion. That is THEOLOGY. Philosophy is "is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language." It tries to answer questions which science has difficulty answering. The intellectual greats of humanity were philosophers, and many of them were also scientists. Aquinas, Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Russell... the list goes on and on. Some of them believed in God, others did not. <br /><br />"There is nothing logical about believing something invented in the mind". I have never read such an incoherent statement. By your logic, we had better not trust any human endeavour, including scientific ones, because they started in the mind then? Your statement also puts forth one of the main arguments AGAINST radical materialists such as Richard Dawkins; he BELIEVES that all that exists is what we can see and observe, there is nothing more. <br /><br />"Philosophy and religion have no place in scientific enquiry." The question of our existence is not an inquiry that is limited to science. Because the question involves concepts such as time, space and causality, it is a question that is not empirical and therefore cannot be studied and observed. Therefore, we have to make use of philosophy to try to deal with these questions. That is MY opinion on the matter. <br /><br />As we seem to go around in circles, I won't keep repeating myself. Harry Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00472556312574950263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211409678921393693.post-71807280134407808022014-05-12T06:47:36.234-04:002014-05-12T06:47:36.234-04:00'I am just saying that it is logical that a un...'I am just saying that it is logical that a universe with a beginning cannot have brought itself into existence, it needs a creator.' <br /><br />Saying this is the same as god did it, you're just calling it non-contingent being, which started the whole process of making the universe. And Chatpilot says there is no proof of such an entity, and the universe came into existence by accident says I. There is no reason to believe I'm not correct either.Donna Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11484114224649275006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211409678921393693.post-85420369575072350932014-05-11T12:29:12.210-04:002014-05-11T12:29:12.210-04:00Harry, another thing I wanted to point out is that...Harry, another thing I wanted to point out is that apologetics is not true philosophy. It is the equivalent of what psuedoscience is to actual science. Apologetics is the abuse of philosophy and utilizes every logical fallacy in order to validate a theistic response to actual logical reasoning. Chatpilothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03550924322118366351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211409678921393693.post-82145598416684350332014-05-11T12:16:35.582-04:002014-05-11T12:16:35.582-04:00We don't know is the most logical answer to th...We don't know is the most logical answer to the origin of the universe no matter how you spin it. God did it is not. The origins of the universe can have come about by some unknown and yet undiscovered natural force not requiring the invention of some non-contingent infinite being. Whether you like to admit it or not you are making a god of the gaps argument. <br /><br />"I have asked the cosmologist Brian Cox whether he can think of something contingent that could be a first cause. He said he couldn't, for obvious reasons. It is impossible. "<br /><br />That's because we don't know! But the fact that we don't know what caused the beginning of the universe to come into existence doesn't automatically mean god did it. There is a lot of research into what we call nothingness. Does a state of nothing actually exist? You should read 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss and Nothing:Insights from the new scientists into the amazing world of nothing. <br /><br />"Before you say that a philosophical argument is stupid, it is philosophers that have contributed a huge amount to this debate on both sides of the argument. "<br /><br />I have expressed before that I don't think that philosophy is the appropriate means of discovering truths when it comes to religion and religious beliefs and philosophy is not science. Anything is possible in the mind and philosophy is nothing more than exercises of the mind that for the most part are not part of the scientific method. <br /><br />In the mind the invention of a non-contingent being is perfectly logical from that perspective, but it is not science in that it can't be verified through experimentation and observation. There is nothing logical about believiing something that was invented in the mind. God did it answers nothing and philosophy like religion have no place in scienitfic enquiry. That is my opinion on the matter. Chatpilothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03550924322118366351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211409678921393693.post-5917455146457105412014-05-11T11:52:37.810-04:002014-05-11T11:52:37.810-04:00I am referring to neither. I am simply putting for...I am referring to neither. I am simply putting forth an argument that states that a transcendent cause of the universe is the most likely and logical based on the finite nature of the universe. <br /><br />You did not summarise my argument very well either. Firstly, you seem to agree with the majority of it but then you say that I jump to 'God did it." Do you agree that something non-contingent created this universe that has a beginning? If you don't, then surely you think the universe is infinite. If you don't then you must think that this contingent universe brought itself into existence? Is that logical and rational? I don't think so. Harry Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00472556312574950263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211409678921393693.post-80654871893777850012014-05-11T11:44:24.416-04:002014-05-11T11:44:24.416-04:00The argument that I am postulating is not scientif...The argument that I am postulating is not scientific anyway, so it cannot be refuted scientifically. It is a philosophical argument, and so far, you have not refuted it philosophically either. <br /><br />Before you say that a philosophical argument is stupid, it is philosophers that have contributed a huge amount to this debate on both sides of the argument. Harry Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00472556312574950263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211409678921393693.post-12861675736270605942014-05-11T11:42:15.382-04:002014-05-11T11:42:15.382-04:00It is not about the fact that we do not know, of c...It is not about the fact that we do not know, of course we do not know. I agree. However, saying that the universe has an ultimate beginning brings a number of implications with it which must be considered. <br /><br />The most important one is that whatever caused the universe to exist, it must have been something that was, so to speak, the first cause. If it wasn't, then this thing would itself need a cause and hence it wouldn't be the first cause. <br /><br />I have asked the cosmologist Brian Cox whether he can think of something contingent that could be a first cause. He said he couldn't, for obvious reasons. It is impossible. <br /><br />Let me make it clear, I am not making any inferences about theology. I am not a Christian or a follower of any other religion. I am just saying that it is logical that a universe with a beginning cannot have brought itself into existence, it needs a creator. I will not say anything on the desires, nature or power of this being, other than to say that there is a strong indication that it is there. <br /><br />So far, this main point that I have repeated several times has not been addressed in any replies to what I have written. Instead, people keep saying that I am jumping to a 'God of the gaps' argument. I am absolutely not. Any person can see the logic of the argument, it is irrefutable if you accept the finite nature of the universe. Harry Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00472556312574950263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211409678921393693.post-86632976683034564312014-05-11T02:15:58.402-04:002014-05-11T02:15:58.402-04:00Actually Harry Howard, how do you account for '...Actually Harry Howard, how do you account for 'god' did it, when throughout history, we have found reasons and causes for most things which used to be attributed to higher beings? It's perfectly acceptable in science to say "I don't know" when confronted with things like the origins of the universe or life itself. How do you account for your god not doing anything to contribute to my ability to answer you on this computer? There is nothing you can show me here and now (not an indeterminate time in the far distant past) which would prove the existence of a god in a flawed book like the bible.Donna Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11484114224649275006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211409678921393693.post-32767939351254329662014-05-11T02:06:29.310-04:002014-05-11T02:06:29.310-04:00It is quite acceptable in any scientific inquiry t...It is quite acceptable in any scientific inquiry to say "I don't know" when the answer to something isn't known, and in the case of the beginning of the universe, will probably never be known. Just because something is not known does not mean a supreme being did something which caused the universe to come into existence. Throughout human history, there were many things we didn't understand, and we said 'God' or someone omniscient caused this to happen. As our species has accumulated knowledge, we now have little we view as 'God did it' to account for gaps on our knowledge. I want to know how Harry Howard feels about supreme beings not being needed in our everyday lives in order to explain them?Donna Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11484114224649275006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211409678921393693.post-8449307699192273642014-05-09T14:36:52.784-04:002014-05-09T14:36:52.784-04:00Harry Howard I forgot to ask you which god are you...Harry Howard I forgot to ask you which god are you referring to here? The Judaeo-Christian deity or some deistic god? Either way your argument can be stated as such: everything that begins to exist must have a first cause, an infinite regress of causes is impossible, God is a non-contingent uncaused cause therefore God did it. This is a classic example as I said earlier of an argument from ignorance. Chatpilothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03550924322118366351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211409678921393693.post-22863313254236452942014-05-09T14:24:39.463-04:002014-05-09T14:24:39.463-04:00Actually your argument is special pleading because...Actually your argument is special pleading because it assumes that a so called non-contingent entity exists. There is no evidence for the existence of such a being nor is its existence falsifiable due to its unknown origin and nature. There is nothing to compare it to because nothing in the known world like this so called prime mover/uncaused cause/non-contingent being has been discovered. <br /><br />Your argument hangs on the premise that for everything that begins to exist there must be a cause that led to its existence. You are guilty of special pleading because it is necessary to invent a non-contingent being without evidence. From a scientific perspective your so called non-contingent being does not even qualify as a theory. In the end your so called argument is an argument from ignorance as well as a god of the gaps theory. Chatpilothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03550924322118366351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211409678921393693.post-6442607137372716292014-05-09T13:01:38.265-04:002014-05-09T13:01:38.265-04:00Please think about this carefully.
A universe wi...Please think about this carefully. <br /><br />A universe with an origin requires an explanation. Everything in the universe, and the universe itself is contingent. Every contingent cause is caused by something. The universe (as a contingent entity) needs an ultimate cause that is not itself contingent, because the universe has an origin! Otherwise B caused A, C caused B, D caused C and so on infinitely! Therefore, the ultimate cause (it would have to be non-contingent) of the universe has to be a necessary being. A necessary being is something that must exist for everything else to exist, because it is the ultimate cause. That necessary being would not have an origin because otherwise it would need a cause and therefore it would not be the ultimate cause would it? Either you deny that the universe has an origin, or you accept the logic of the argument. Therefore, this argument is NOT special pleading is it? Harry Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00472556312574950263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211409678921393693.post-61519788067260581072014-05-09T12:11:51.733-04:002014-05-09T12:11:51.733-04:00"A non-contingent cause does not require a ca..."A non-contingent cause does not require a cause because by definition it is uncaused. The only uncaused cause I can think of is God."<br /><br />It's much more simpler to state the obvious; when it comes to the origin of the universe, we simply do not know what caused it. Positiing a being who is as you say "non-contingent" is nothing more than making baseless and illogical assumptions. In fact, it is a very well known fallacy known as special pleading. <br /><br />http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html<br /><br />In fact, such special pleading leads to begging the question as to the origins and nature of this so called god of yours. Just because we cant yet explain it does not make it logical to resort to ridiculous assumptions based on ancient myths and superstitions. It's funny how you state that nothing can come from nothing yet when you make this type of argument for the existence of God that is exactly what you are saying. That God always was and has no beginning is stating that there never was nothing but that there always was God. Yet again begging a myriad of questions as to the nature and origin of this god. <br /><br />If you want to stay in line with logical reasoning then the simplest answer at this time regarding the origins of the Big Bang and the universe etc. is we don't know. Anything else without supporting evidence is nothing more that; baseless assumptions. Chatpilothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03550924322118366351noreply@blogger.com