Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Okay we do agree on what determinism is.
@Dumb Ox: "I do know how tricky the explanation for how free will works can be"
Judging from your posts, I don't think you do.
@Dumb Ox: "Btw, I am not arguein for God in this post.".
From your initial post: "So, from something (God) something came."
That sounds like an argument for god to me.
It's an explanation for why my belief does contradict the principle I am segueing for.
Edit: I meant to say "It's an explanation for why my belief does not contradict the principle I am arguing for.
@Dumb Ox "the principle I am segueing for."
You mean you're seguing from determinism to free will and back in a seamless medley of conflicting ideas?
Dumb Ox
I'm guessing by you ignoring my question, that you prove your god is real means you can't prove it. Just like you can't prove your god created the universe from nothing.
No, I can, but in order to do so I have to establish certain premises (even though they are kinda self evident). That's the point of this thread.
Uhh so your belief is a contradiction. I'm not surprised by the conclusion, although I'm a little shocked you would say that. Well I guess that settles it!
Nyarlathotep: "Well I guess that settles it!"
Yep. Q.E.D.
It's a typo. I meant to say does not contradict.
Why don't you just list them; why all the foreplay?
Edit to add:
If they are self evident, they don't need a long introduction. If they are not self evident, then they are not going to make a very convincing argument.
Waiting for your proof of god creating anything.
Dumb Ox
So establish your premises. Please tell us it's your premise.
My question is, why can something not come from absolute nothing? You don't know that! Neither does anyone else.
But you could assert that when a light is off you have nothing in the form of photons, but once you turn it on they are there.
I'm assuming your thinking of an infinite regress of the 'big bang', in essence what was there before... why can't it be an eternal state?
To simply claim it was god, or that it had to have had a creating hand is intellectually dishonest.
what can serve as cause for the existence of something else, how could it be itself non-existent? if it does not exist in the first place to serve as a cause, then that 'something else' would never exist. you can not say it caused itself to exist since that would imply that either nothing caused it to exist (and you would be self-refuting) or it, as existent thing, caused itself to exist and that means it precedes itself and that's a vicious circle.
"why can't it be an eternal state?"
Even if the universe was eternal (which is not), that does not mean it does not need to have a cause. what makes something uncaused is its necessity not its eternity. Muslim philosophers upheld the doctrine of eternity of the universe but they would argue that it's still contingent and therefore needs a cause .. and the only reason why it's eternal is that its cause is eternal, just like saying that if your finger was in motion since eternity then your ring would be in motion since eternity too, however the ring's motion is caused/dependent/contingent by/on/upon your finger's motion and it only gets necessitated through you, But it's, in itself, contingent.
You don't know if the universe is eternal or not; no one does.
I never said that did i? The OP said you cannot have something from nothing but all I said was that photons disprove that, the causality is irrelevant, it is merely pointing out the intellectual dishonesty and argument from ignorance on display.
If you can't get your first fact right then the rest is pointless word salad by people (including your good self) who have absolutely no idea... are either of you astrophysicists or particle physists?
To make bold claims without the relevant facts to support it is fallacious.
Most physists claim that two possiblities exist, either the Universe is finite and has a size, or it's infinite and goes on forever.
Both possibilities are open at the moment and the thought of either opens us up to an outstanding world of scenarios.
Astronomers have looked deep at the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, The expansion of the Universe has carried them from 47.5 billion light years away. Based on this, our Universe is 93 billion light-years across. That's an "at least" figure! It may well just be infinite, the fact is... No on knows!
And if you had said 'Muslim astronomers' i would have given your final comment some credence.
how do photons disprove that nothing comes from nothingness?
"are either of you astrophysicists or particle physists?"
I swear it's starting to look like a Syndrome, You atheists have a Syndrome called Science. You don't even know Which subjects are Rational and which are empirical.
"Most physists claim that two possiblities exist, either the Universe is finite and has a size, or it's infinite and goes on forever."
It doesn't matter what they say, in both cases the universe would still need a cause Since it's contingent. and that's a Rational subject not empirical.
"And if you had said 'Muslim astronomers' i would have given your final comment some credence."
we don't need an astronomer to assert that contingent things must have a cause whether they're originated or eternal. Only a person with a science syndrome would ask for one.
You say 'science syndrome' like it's a bad thing? In fact I thank you for that! I've worked in science all my life and it provides facts and provides innovation. This is something I'm proud of!
Being a seismic engineer is something I'm very proud of, I help innovate, test, lay foundations for the next generation and most importantly, save lives!
I would argue science is not only empiricle, it's also far more rational! I've been to disaster sites including one where a children's school was destroyed killing a number of them very unfortunately.
On rare occasions you get one that will survive and theists will claim "that was gods infinite mercy" or something on those lines.
What about the other children? Isn't it more logical and raional that the foundation and surroundings that the child was in managed to simply support her in such a way she'd survive?
But science isn't rational? So life evolving isn't rational but some cosmic mage bringing everything into existence is rational? Come on!
Your smarter then that! Unfortunately your critical thinking faculties are fighting theistic dogma.
Look, some of you theists are actually smart guys but your arguments are ridiculous. No one has yes proved god on has shown any substantial evidence to support the claim.
So the first cause being from a deity is rendered moot before we've even started.
And can't be bothered with it anymore until the arguments are properly structured.
Prove there is a god
Prove the cosmos is finite
Prove there has to be a first cause
yes i meant it as a bad thing if you are appealing to science even in subjects that it doesn't address.
the rest of your speech about how science is a great thing which saves life and lays foundations for the next generations, and how the theists are moron that think god saves the child ...... etc is pure rhetoric. And rhetoric speeches are useless in rational debate. it only works in politics.
"But science isn't rational?"
i have never said that nor have i ever meant it. i meant that the subject 'judging that contingent things must have a cause' does not need Science to address it. empirical experiments does not have anything to do whatsoever with this subject. so we would have no need for an astronomer unless he was a good philosopher.
"your arguments are ridiculous"
this can not be taken as a serious logical refutation of an argument. you'd have to do better than that.
"Prove the cosmos is finite"
i do have an argument for it but i told you it's not even important, Contingency is more general than beginning into existence. the former precedes the latter. Every Originating object (i.e have a beginning of its existence) is indeed contingent but not every contingent being is Originated.
"Prove there has to be a first cause"
because of the necessity of substantiation of what is par accident/through another/accidental through what is essentially/per se/through itself
If there weren't any necessary cause there would not have been any contingent being. but the consequent is false so is the antecedent.
a contingent being by definition needs a cause for its existence, since it can not exist through itself. its nature neither necessitates its existence nor precludes it. it's neutral in itself with respect to existence. so it must need a cause to intervene and break that state of neutrality and preponderate its existence i.e to actualize its potency.
if that cause was also contingent then it would need a cause for its existence as well, if we say that all the causes are contingent, then there would not be any thing at all to serve as a cause. and therefore nothing cant exist at all. so the cause must be necessary.
Rhetoric? I'm done with you.. if you do not think that science saves lives then you are a moron and I have no desire to debate with you any further.
I actually thought you to be a rational and reasonable human, however this comment makes anything else you say irrelevant.
Filed under troll
"Rhetoric? I'm done with you.. if you do not think that science saves lives then you are a moron and I have no desire to debate with you any further."
they're not two contradictories. so it can still be rhetoric and i can think that science saves lives at the same time. the former does not discredit the latter, it's just your ignorance does.
"and I have no desire to debate with you any further."
it's not about a desire, i don't actually think you're capable of debating anyone about anything.
"I actually thought you to be a rational and reasonable human"
I couldn't care less.
"however this comment makes anything else you say irrelevant."
is it because you don't have the ability to address it in a rational/logical way and pointing out the defect in it?
"Is it because you don't have the ability to address it in a rational/logical way and pointing out the defect in it?"
Ohhh bloody hell, defect in it? It's not a defect...
Your assertion is beyond having a defect! It's as if the predator has ripped it's skull and intact spinal cord out and is waving it to your own face!
You have not even proven there is a god, so there is no requirement to event debate if she is contingent, or if the univerese is an open or closed system, finite or infinite....
You may as well say she goes from planet to planet on a pogo stick and clicking things into existence like the fonz from happy days.
Stop tap dancing and answer the question, then your premise has foundation for debate.
"You may as well say she goes from planet to planet on a pogo stick and clicking things into existence like the fonz from happy days."
how could you possibly know what i may or may not say? or it's just a pathetic try to make yourself look like a badass? cause all it proves is that you're a huge ass. lame effort
You asked me to prove that there is a first cause and i proved that there is a necessary cause. the real question is; is it possible for a moron like you to understand? i doubt it. it makes me even think that Aristotle was wrong when defining humans as rational animals. maybe he would change his mind about the rational part if he has had a discussion with you.
Ad hominems like "moron" do not further the discussion or understanding of the topic...just insult that doesn't help your argument.
Actually, being moron is what does not further the discussion or understanding of the topic NOT calling the moron 'moron'.
Did I say you actually said that? It's surrealist satire you thunderous retard.
And still you have not provided the foundation for your premise... I think the Aristotle quote actually sums yourself up.
Now go and eat some crayons
"Did I say you actually said that? It's surrealist satire you thunderous retard."
Did i say you actually said that i have actually said that? I know it's, you moron. that's why i said "or it's just a pathetic try to make yourself look like a badass?"
"And still you have not provided the foundation for your premise"
What premise is that? all i said is Contingent things must have a cause for their existence since their essence does not necessitate their existence.
and then i said that the cause can't be contingent itself or it would lead to an infinite regress and it cannot actually exist in reality. if A doesn't exist unless B existed first, then in order For A to exist, B must exist. But If, In order for B to exist C must exist, then Both A and B cannot exist unless C exists. If we go backwards infinitely then nothing would exist at all. But since these contingent things do exist. so there must be a cause that is, in itself, not caused. its existence is necessary i.e its nature guarantees its existence, it has never existed through something else but rather it has always been existed. Is that clear now?
It is reckless to make seat of the pants arguments about infinity.
Meaning what?
Pages