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.
Your assertion that I have asserted things is merely, itself, an assertion with no demonstration. I have provided demonstration for all of my assertions. To prove this true, I only ask that you provide a list of all the assertions that I have made, in quotes, and I shall provide a demonstration of each.
Your assertion that Nyarlathotep is asserting that you have asserted things without a demonstration, is in itself just an assertion without a demonstration.
To prove your assertion is true, please provide a list of all your assertions with explanatory demonstrations.
To turn my statement back onto me as a way of avoiding answering the question is blatant commission of the red-herring fallacy, where one attempts to side-step responding to an objection or question raised.
Yes! Exactly. I did that to make it obvious, that you did exactly that in your response to Nyarlathotep.
I did a red-herring on your red-herring, to show you avoid answering.
But I had not committed a red-herring. He said I was doing nothing by making assertions; that, in and of itself, was an assertion and I asked him to substantiate it.
Perhaps you are right, in that it is not a red-herring. At least not a clear cut one. Nyarlathotep referred to everything in three pages of your posts, so asking for a list just seems like you want to put the burden away from yourself buy stating that "Your assertion that I have asserted things is merely, itself, an assertion with no demonstration." and then demanding a list of quotes.
As I see it, you have left a bunch of assertions without proper explanation. As Jared Rodriguez wrote, unanswered by you, you are using a lot of physics and trying to glue the pieces together the way you want it to fit, with philosophical and metaphysical arguments.
Non of your glue-arguments have been sufficiently explained.
You claim that you have provided demonstration for all of your assertions. You keep stating that "your questions have been answered in the article", as if that is the ultimate explanation for everything. If that did explain all your claims, like for example "the cause of the Universe must be personal", then we wouldn't have many questions would we?
Claiming that it explains everything does not make it so.
My favorite among your glue-arguments are "relational view of time" and that you are a "time relationist".
It took a long time for you to even mention that you suddenly have a "relational view of time", which is just a time bending "philosophy" you use to solve your logical problems, specifically at the moment of the creation of the universe. Not even in your "Revisited" article, do you even mention a "relational view of time" at all.
It glues your arguments together, but no one here seems to understand how your purely "philosophical" view does this magic trick. And you seem very reluctant to explain it.
Your explanations so far, only after to getting pressured:
"The relational view of time is a philosophical standpoint on time and what it is. It states that time is simply the measure of change, thus, if change is not occurring, there is no time."
I would like to know how you combine that with:
"the second law of thermodynamics, which states that, as time goes on, entropy (disorder) increases."
If you have your relational view of time, this statement would be incorrect. It should instead be:
"as entropy (disorder) increases, time goes on."
Doesn't that mean that everyone would have to review and perhaps redefine the second law of thermodynamics, and perhaps general relativity as well?
Then there are your random glue-arguments like "Free will can exist absent time.". So you have demonstrated this have you? I must have missed it.
I can make up a bunch of such assertions as well, with no more proof than that "it is logical", for example:
This personal creator of the universe, must have major psychological damage for existing alone outside of time in nothingness.
It sounds logical, and you can't disprove it. So it must be true then?
"If that did explain all your claims, like for example "the cause of the Universe must be personal", then we wouldn't have many questions would we?"
You raise question purely because you want me to be wrong. There is nothing with asking questions. What I find funny is that I've been able to respond to all of your questions.
""the second law of thermodynamics, which states that, as time goes on, entropy (disorder) increases."
If you have your relational view of time, this statement would be incorrect. It should instead be:
"as entropy (disorder) increases, time goes on.""
Time exists because change is happening. That is not in any direct or indirect conflict with, "as time goes on, entropy (disorder) increases. Time exists because change is happening, and that change will slowly work toward all the energy in the Universe being expended.
"Then there are your random glue-arguments like "Free will can exist absent time.". So you have demonstrated this have you? I must have missed it."
There are no logical inconsistencies with a free will existing timelessly, especially given this will knows everything all at once, which would denote it taking no time to know something.
I like this one to...
In your attempts to detach causality from dependence of time, you try to put magic on the concept of causality.
"Causality is metaphysical because causality is not constrained to *only* the physical realm. For instance, when J.K. Rowling created Harry Potter, she did not create him from any material. Causality transcends the physical realm, existing independently of it."
First, I hate to be the one to break it to you but... Harry Potter doesn't actually exist. He is a purely fictional character. Sorry.
Secondly, you're not seriously suggesting that that J.K. Rowling can write books without any dependence of time, do you?
If Harry Potter does not exist, then how can I read the Harry Potter books?
Harry Potter exists, he does not, however, exist in the *physical* sense. Like I said, causality transcends the physical realm. When J.K. Rowling created Harry Potter, she did not use material to do such.
You haven't really refuted anything.
...
Still nuthin'...
But if there was a god, then who created god? God cannot be immune to these creation principles
Read the article once more and you will find that whatever the cause of the Universe, be it God or something else, must be *by its very nature*, uncaused, changeless, beginningless, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, unimaginably powerful, and personal. God is immune to these creation principles because God never *began* to exist, He has existed eternally, and his very nature demands this trait.
But if it is there must be a cause right, if it exist anyways.
So everything need not have a cause (like God)? So much for your argument!
The argument does not state that everything needs a cause, the first premise states that whatever *begins* to exist has a cause. God does not begin to exist and so does not require a cause.
You neglected to answer Spewer, it would be interesting reading your response:
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/kalam-cosmological-arg...
A beginning is not a "cause" or "God"! Just as the fact that slimy old reptiles turned into you, does not make slimy old reptiles god! The older you move back in evolution, the messier it gets to call the beginnings "God"! Like ameoba, or smelly, dirty, shitty grit, or hot, volcanic ash, or atoms of carbon, or finally, a miasmic plasma.
I agree, airtight argument!
Then could it not be that a dimension could have these properties?
Also, why could not the universe exist eternally, though in varying states over time?
What makes god so special that it is immune to the rules that govern all of existence without clear reasoning as to why?
The answers to all of your questions have already been addressed in the article. Dimensions are impersonal and, therefore, cannot be a cause for the Universe's existence.
The Universe cannot exist eternally firstly, because an eternally existing universe is logically impossible and secondly, because the Penrose-Hawking theorem and the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth theorem both state that the Universe had an *absolute beginning*.
The Universe as we know it you mean?
That's like saying, "Read the Koran! All your answers will be found there! The Borde-Vilenkin-guth theorem and the Penrose-Hawking theorem....(poor scientists aren't even aware how badly they have been misquoted by you)". Don't throw around the names of scientists and their theorems unless you understand their physics to begin with!
If I misrepresented both of the theorems, then post the proper representation. Simply asserting that I have misrepresented them does nothing. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
You seem to think that consciousness is needed for the creation of the universe.why?
In the article, I show why an impersonal cause cannot exist eternally without its effect and, therefore, show why the cause of the Universe, whatever it may be, must be personal. I am not going to address things in the comments when they've been addressed in the article itself.
That's a leap to say the least.
Since you choose the lion as your avatar http://imgur.com/8vKg9
Pages