Part 3: The Cosmological Argument--

[BubbleFunker]

Originally Posted by weedseed

As if you just made a point...



The universe is space. You're assuming there is space outside the universe. Are you suggesting a multiverse?




Irrational? not according to the reasonable majority (who's only objective is fact, wherever it may lead).




If you haven't seen them either then why are you suggesting a scenario at all?





So you were there?




I do realize this, but that is not what was said.




I'm stating what science has discovered. Besides, the Big Bang is highly more likely than your "non-bang"--





I didn't say General Relativity did. I said GR supports Big Bang and Big Bang supports the Cosmological Argument.

Humor me. What is the correct sequence?




Honestly, most believers don't concern themselves with any of this.




Good point. Even some of your agnostic scientists will say the reason is that we cannot hope to discover truth of any metaphysical causes. Read 5c.






I'm glad that you mentioned these. My next stop is explaining the error in these exact theories.

I did make a point: that you have no point in all your rambling.

[weedseed]

Originally Posted by BubbleFunker

I did make a point: that you have no point in all your rambling.

[Zylark]

Originally Posted by weedseed

I didn't say General Relativity did. I said GR supports Big Bang and Big Bang supports the Cosmological Argument.

That is just semantics. Relativity is the foundation of our understanding of the Big Bang (after Planck time). And nowhere do neither the event of Big Bang, or the understanding of Big Bang suggest, even less support, anything resembling a deity.

To claim anything else is either misinformed by will or ignorance.

[weedseed]

The universe is expanding. There is no reason to believe that it will stop expanding either.

So if we apply this idea in reverse...We come to a point in which the universe shrinks into a state of nothingness.

There are only two possible scenarios here:

1) The universe shrank to a microscopic size.

2) The universe shrank until it was in a state of nothingness.

Either way you end up asking the same question--

What caused the universe?

The "God" (metaphysical) answer isn't so far-fetched since we can agree that nothing cannot produce something.

[Zylark]

No, false dilemma. You do not know that, you do not know the options are reduced to your two options, and those only. Other scenarios are quite possible.

I will say much is plausible, though not the theist theory. If you beg to differ, prove it. Simple as that. Not much of it trickling in though. None really.

[the roach]

Originally Posted by weedseed

Either way you end up asking the same question--

What caused the universe?

The "God" (metaphysical) answer isn't so far-fetched since we can agree that nothing cannot produce something.

The Creation Argument

Statement: everything that exists must have been created, therefore somebody created everything, and therefore God exists.
Problem: this argument leads to a contradiction
Premise 1: everything that exists was created
Premise 2: God exists
Conclusion: God was created
Clearly, God couldn't be the creator and the creation at the same time.

[weedseed]

Originally Posted by Zylark

No, false dilemma. You do not know that, you do not know the options are reduced to your two options, and those only. Other scenarios are quite possible.

Name a few and we'll go from there.

Originally Posted by Zylark

I will say much is plausible, though not the theist theory. If you beg to differ, prove it. Simple as that. Not much of it trickling in though. None really.

I'll give you a much simpler task--Prove ANY theory that takes the place of "Goddidit"

I'm not limiting you to one, but MANY theories...Take any one you want...Take em' all. You only have to prove one of them though. Sound good to you?

Neither one of us can prove what caused what, so we have to look at other evidences that point in the general direction of what we believe. I'd suggest you spend your time doing that instead of starting the "proof" argument again...it won't get you anywhere.

Originally Posted by the roach

The Creation Argument

Statement: everything that exists must have been created, therefore somebody created everything, and therefore God exists.
Problem: this argument leads to a contradiction
Premise 1: everything that exists was created
Premise 2: God exists
Conclusion: God was created
Clearly, God couldn't be the creator and the creation at the same time.

This is the logical argument of the creation of nature...doesn't work for the supernatural...

We can know things about nature through observation--we can't use science to understand or know (scientifically) the supernatural (so we cannot apply natural logic to the supernatural). apples and oranges man.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by weedseed

I'll give you a much simpler task--Prove ANY theory that takes the place of "Goddidit"

I'm not limiting you to one, but MANY theories...Take any one you want...Take em' all. You only have to prove one of them though. Sound good to you?

Neither one of us can prove what caused what, so we have to look at other evidences that point in the general direction of what we believe. I'd suggest you spend your time doing that instead of starting the "proof" argument again...it won't get you anywhere.

You'll never get Zylark to prove anything. It's okay though... his faith in Science is unwavering.

This is the logical argument of the creation of nature...doesn't work for the supernatural...

We can know things about nature through observation--we can't use science to understand or know (scientifically) the supernatural (so we cannot apply natural logic to the supernatural). apples and oranges man.

That's bullskit, my friend... Logical is relativity. Everything is relative. Supernatural things make sense on some integral level, whether on an ant's, a person's, God's, the Universe's, [insert *living* concept here]'s...

We can apply logic, and that is that everything is relative. Absolutes are an ideal, and are worked toward, but are never reached. Thus, by the very nature of being absolute, they are higher/more perfect than all else.

[weedseed]

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

You'll never get Zylark to prove anything. It's okay though... his faith in Science is unwavering.

I think his faith isn't so much in science as it is in the anti-God theory.

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

That's bullskit, my friend... Logical is relativity. Everything is relative.

Everything is relative in some scenario...I haven't said anything to negate that.

As using the Laws of Nature aren't relative to explaining supernatural existence...

Using the "pencil making process" isn't relative in explaining how inkpens are made.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by weedseed

I think his faith isn't so much in science as it is in the anti-God theory.

What's the difference as of now? Are you implying he's actively refusing to consider the possibility of God!? Not open-minded Zylark~!

Everything is relative in some scenario...I haven't said anything to negate that.

As using the Laws of Nature aren't relative to explaining supernatural existence...

Using the "pencil making process" isn't relative in explaining how inkpens are made.

lol Yes, that's not what I was talking about, haha. Sorry for being unclear. I meant relative in the sense of proportionality, clarity, and "objective"ism. On a scientific level, for example, if you wanted to talk about a connection invisible "at the moment" you would say that the connection occurs in a different moment or a different place. These are within the third and fourth dimensions, but a connection over a period of time would not be apparent in an instant within said interval. The point is that if we're on the human "forced linear" time-scale [which is *artificially* made (by humans)], we won't easily see things occurring on a macroscopic level. (For example, the light we see from stars, first of all, takes a long time to reach us on Earth and, secondly, the light from stars isn't the "stars" themselves, it's the energy field. The result of "matter" reacting, but not truly matter. But I digress.)

[the roach]

Originally Posted by weedseed

This is the logical argument of the creation of nature...doesn't work for the supernatural...

We can know things about nature through observation--we can't use science to understand or know (scientifically) the supernatural (so we cannot apply natural logic to the supernatural). apples and oranges man.

The "supernatural" is revealed to be just plain 'ol natural through scientific research.
Remember, once upon a time people thought the sun was a god who chased away evil every morning.

[Zylark]

Nice to see I'm so discussed. And speculations on what or what not I may or not do. Oh, and the usual dodging of the issue naturally.

What am I, a diehard science adherent or a god-denier? Perhaps both, maybe neither. Who knows? Oh the sarcasm just drips, does it not? Open minded me cannot fathom the simplemindedness of believing things without evidense. No, wait...

I just demanded proof for any theistic statement. Nothing else. You make a claim, prove it. Not my job to disprove it. I've already outlined why the cosmological argument is rubbish, so I do not think you'll convince me by rehashing that one.

edit: Oh, I'll admit it. I'm an infidel. Heathen. I love exposing silly ideas as silly ideas. And in religion and politics, there is plenty of material to choose from.

[jman1050]

Weedseed.
Please stop making these threads, and stop answering the critics posts.
Alot of what you say isn't correct, and is detracting from your real argument for the existence of God. Because of that, they're ripping you apart, and you're enforcing their disbelief in God. That is the exacty OPPOSITE of what you're trying to do. Don't you see that?

Though I know you have good intentions, please realize that you are no where nearly enough educated on these matters to be having these kinds of discussions with non-believers.

Being able to re-iterate Aquinas' proofs for the existence of God is one thing, but being able to do philosophical battle is another.

Even I , who has spent over a decade studying Theology and Philosophy of all types, and am a Philosophy major, knows that I'm not even ready for these kinds of arguments.

Making your case isn't the toughest part, it's being able to logically and soundly back-up your statements, and defend against critics arguments.

You've done the first part well, and stated a good case. The second part, You're still lacking in being able to defend against their statements, and weed out the irrelevant points they make.

[Zylark]

Now now Jman, don't take my fun away from me. In debates like this, all I do is demand reason and intellectual honesty, pointing out where the believers fail in these two criteria. Not trying to convert anyone, much less "reinforce" my own lack of belief. Trust me, the arguments made in this thread are not new to me, but it is still fun watching believers dig themselves further and further down that hole of irrationality and intellectual dishonesty. It is so predictable, and the mental gymnastics applied in apologetics is so acrobatic and well rehearsed that it resembles a ballet.

Great fun

[weedseed]

Originally Posted by jman1050

Weedseed.
Please stop making these threads, and stop answering the critics posts.
Alot of what you say isn't correct, and is detracting from your real argument for the existence of God. Because of that, they're ripping you apart, and you're enforcing their disbelief in God. That is the exacty OPPOSITE of what you're trying to do. Don't you see that?

Though I know you have good intentions, please realize that you are no where nearly enough educated on these matters to be having these kinds of discussions with non-believers.

Being able to re-iterate Aquinas' proofs for the existence of God is one thing, but being able to do philosophical battle is another.

Even I , who has spent over a decade studying Theology and Philosophy of all types, and am a Philosophy major, knows that I'm not even ready for these kinds of arguments.

Making your case isn't the toughest part, it's being able to logically and soundly back-up your statements, and defend against critics arguments.

You've done the first part well, and stated a good case. The second part, You're still lacking in being able to defend against their statements, and weed out the irrelevant points they make.

That's funny. And if it were true I'd say there aren't many here who can engage in a "philosophical battle"--

If, after a decade of studying philosophy, you aren't prepared for "these types" of arguments then you chose the wrong path my friend.

I think I'm well aware of what is and is not tough. Show me where I haven't logically and/or soundly backed up my statements....please.

**Show me where the opposing side has done well...If they have, I'd like to know what they did that I do not. If they haven't, then why are you even talking to me?

Once again, If you would be so humble as to let me know what I've missed, I'd greatly appreciate it.

I can see that you are a senior member at GC--you must have been present for the majority of our arguments (and not failed to read them entirely).

There was more crappy psychology in your post than there was on anything else.