Being from Non-being ?
Being cannot come from non-being.
Since we exist, then being has always been in one form or another.
Since the universe had a beginning, a non-physical being must have existed beyond the universe, causing the universe into existence.
That being is God.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Do you know how you got here?
What objective evidence do you have your god is real?
Long time no see...….
still a TROLL ….
still pedalling the same old Craig-Lane garbage , I see....
Good grief...not Kalam AGAIN???????
Utterly debunked so many times....
GIVE ME BACK MY COOKIE THAT OLD MAN GAVE YOU!
Otangelo has been escorted from the building.
Re: "Otangelo has been escorted from the building."
Did he leave my cookie? Hey, what about my cookie?!?
I have a box of fresh chocolate chip. A half dozen have been rushed to the airport and an emergency airlift is being performed
On the first day of Christmas Otangelo brought to me:
Four circular arguments
Three false assumptions
And a self-delusion in a pear tree
Accidental double post
@Otangelo Grasso: RE: "Being can not come from non-being."
Do you have any idea at all how JUVENILE AND POORLY THOUGHT OUT THAT STATEMENT IS? Just THINK!
Have you ever seen "non-being" anyplace? Do you know of "non-being" existing anywhere? Do you understand that what we once thought of as "Empty Space" is no longer "EMPTY." Where is this "non-being" you are speaking of? If you could find it or point it out, (THINK NOW) wouldn't it be "BEING?" The mere fact that your mind can make up a fantasy, does not mean that fantasy is real.
The "UNIVERSE AS WE KNOW IT" began at Planck Time. We can not see beyond Planck Time. We have no idea at all what is beyond our ability to observe. Modern physics breaks down at Planck time. If you are going to assert that there is nothing beyond Planck time, you must demonstrate it. What evidence do you have. If you are going to put your God there, you are engaged in a GOD OF THE GAPS fallacy; an argument from incredulity. ("Well, what else could possibly be there?) This is pure idiocy on your part.
Listen to yourslef -- "A non-physical being." ( Are you attempting to win an oxymoron contest? )
That which is asserted from pure ignorance and stupidity, can be rejected without having to think about it at all. Did you really come on here thinking you were saying something profound? I feel sorry for you.
Hmm, has this one been banned already? I can't access his homepage details. That aside ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is yet again an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, a god of the gaps polemic, as facile and fallacious now as it has been the many hundreds of times we have seen it peddled on here in defence of unevidenced superstitious guff.
Please not the initial postulate.
Note also that no pretence has been made to demonstrate a shred of evidence for this claim, so epistemologically of course Hitchens's razor applies, and it is rejected in the same manner it is offered. The razor is partly derived from the Latin proverb quod grātīs asseritur, grātīs negātur, what is freely asserted may be freely dismissed. So we have an unevidenced postulate, and then this...
This of course simply adds a seconded unevidenced postulate, also based on the first unevidenced postulate, thus again Hitchens's razor applies, it is of course leading to the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, where not knowing how life started is used to make an unevidenced assertion about how it started, the very definition then of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Then a third unevidenced postulate is presented...
This one of course is utterly erroneous as we have sufficient objective evidence to show this is utterly untrue at least on this planet, as the scientific theory of evolution easily contradicts this postulate.
The we have a fourth unevidenced postulate, plagiarised from the Islamic first cause argument The Kalam Cosmological Argument.
This has been destroyed here and elsewhere enough times for any objective reader, so I'll not bother repeating that for the sake of brevity. However please note we do not, nor can we currently know, if the point of origin of the universe, the scientific theory called the big bang, had or even required a cause, yet here again the author asserts it without any pretence of evidence. We should also note that in this postulate the author makes two unevidenced assumptions about that cause in his argument, namely that "a non-physical being must have existed beyond the universe, causing the universe into existence". This is another known logical fallacy, called a begging the question fallacy, where the very thing being argued for is assumed in the argument. You cannot have a rational argue for a deity that assumes it;s characteristics in that argument.
Then we come to the author's fifth and final postulate, which of course is yet again an entirely unevidenced assumption.
Neither objective evidence nor any explanation is offered again for this assumption, and it is of course again an appeal to ignorance fallacy, as is the KCA that precedes it, and this last assumption we know has been much touted by William Lane Craig, who uses the fallacious argument himself, and then simply tacks on a deity using unexplained magic at the end, and further simply assumes the deity is the one he was raised to worship. Not only is no explanation offered for this assumption, but yet again the assumption has no explanatory powers at all.
This thread's author is so sloppy in his plagiarism he hasn't even bothered to use WLC's facile attempts to justify the assumption by trying to define a deity into existence with characteristics he claims are required for the existence of our universe. Of course Craig offers no evidence for these assumptions about his deity's characteristics, merely the added unevidenced assumption they are necessary. So again there are repetitions of both fallacies here, argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy used to assume something based on not having a contrary argument, or on not knwing how the universe came to exist, and of course a begging the question fallacy, where Craig makes assumptions in his argument for the very deity he is arguing for, by making unevidenced assumptions about that deity's characteristics. he is assuming in the argument the very things he is arguing for, textbook begging the question fallacy.
All in all a very poor offering, and again a cursory look online or in multiple threads in here could have exposed this fallacious nonsense if the author were open minded enough to bother researching his claims.
0/10 I'm afraid for this apologetic garbage.
How do you know space actually had a beginning?
He's gone, I guessed as much, sock puppet maybe? Another drive by...same old nonsense anyway, you'd think they'd at least offer something new, show some imagination, after going to the trouble to sneak back in here, pathetic.
@Sheldon: They are planting seeds Sheldon. They don't want to debate. They just want to plant the seeds of doubt. If you hear it enough times, you will lose your mind and then they will swoop in and carry you away.
What is funny is: Seeds of doubt is why I am an atheist, and I think, why many of us are.
As soon as someone truly realizes the various god ideas are nothing but "talk" not one shred of actual evidence between any of them, then it is incredibly easy to dismiss any and all god ideas until they are actually evidenced. And since the dawn of the human race, none of these god ideas have ever been evidenced. A pretty dang safe assumption to make, that no such evidence exist for any god idea.
I fear they're in for a disappointment.
@LogicFTW: But what about the trees? Everything that begins has a beginning! Can you make a tree? Can you explain the complexity of design? What's your explanation, "Things just randomly appear from nothing?" What else could it be besides a god?
But I like my made up god idea more then yours!
Have you ever seen bob ross create an entire world in 20 minutes on tv?
Being from Non-being ?
You have not defined "being".
@ Being cannot come from non-being.
Prove it please.
@ Since we exist, then being has always been in one form or another.
Prove it please.
@ Since the universe had a beginning, a non-physical being must have existed beyond the universe, causing the universe into existence.
That does not follow.
@ That being is God.
Even if the argument were sound, it does NOT lead to "God" as a conclusion.
Is your definition of a "being" = "God" ? If so what is your definition of "God" ?
The proof of God is the impossibility of the contrary!! without God we wouldn't exist.
@Spiritedone Re: "without God we wouldn't exist."
google romans 1:19-20 this is no joke!! try it and see what comes up!
sounds like presuppositionalism
@spiritedone05: RE: "without God we wouldn't exist."
AWWW SHIT! *POOF*
Where the fuck did I go?
@Cog Re: "Where the fuck did I go?"
It's okay, Cog. Just remain calm. No worries. You are here with the rest of us godless heathens. Damndest thing.... Apparently none of US exist without a god. Only the Christians exist, I suppose. Looks like the rest of us got tossed into the Land of Non-existence, where we all don't exist together. I'm kinda wondering if we should not do a roll call to not make sure all the others are not here to not exist with us. By the way, now that we are non-existent, are there any non-activities to not do that might not keep us non-entertained?
@Tin: But something just feels different. Oh my god! I can't see myself in the mirror! QUICK SOMEONE! I need a resurrection spell!
@Cog Re: "QUICK SOMEONE! I need a resurrection spell!"
Hell no, you sick bastard! NO WAY I'm giving you an erection spell!... *reading post again*... Oh, shit. You said "resurrection". Uh, nevermind. Carry on... *exiting room as inconspiculously as possible*...
Oh my God! This has never happened without a pig nose. What in the hell did you do to me?
"The proof of God is the impossibility of the contrary"
But there is a rational, adult, and honest explanation for the known universe, and it did not require a god. Thus it is not contrary unless you decide to fall into the rabbit hole of a circular argument and argument from ignorance.
are u absolutely certain of that?