Original Sin?

Quote: rxwine

Speaking of logic...

What's more likely, infinite or eternal energy or an unnecessarily complex god being?

You really only need one of those for one possibility for a source for everything. Occam's razor and all..

You can speak of evidence, too.

We have tons and tons of evidence of simple things organizing into large, complex structures. I posted something along these lines months ago.

Quote: Dalex64

nope, myself and many others dispute them.

I'm sorry but I don't see how you can dispute that 'if something came into being it has a cause' or any of the other statements.

Quote:

You also have not demonstrated that everything has come from something, just that everything that we have observed has come from something. we have not observed everything, though.

Listen to what you are saying here, are you really saying that even if everything we have ever observed has come from something does not mean that everything has come from something? It gets even worse for your argument if you include that all the physical laws we know don't even allow the possibility for something to come from nothing. If you want to move the argument into fantasy or imaginary land then how can we make any truth statements. We haven't drilled to the center of the moon so maybe it really is made of green cheese. Maybe what you are saying is logical, or maybe it is just a sophist way of using reductio ad absurdum, or just an elegent dodge, however I think it is reasonable to base something on all our observable evidence and not on what we might have not observed or cannot observe, especially when as you say, everything we have ever observed concerning material things, including the universe, is that they are contingent.

What you seem to be suggesting is that we govern ourselves by blind faith in imaginable but not real possibilities. This makes truth claims impossible for everyone and leaves us blindly groping in the dark until we have without a doubt extracted all the more than likely non existent extradimensional marbles out of the bag.

Quote:

You can't truthfully say that your version of god created the universe, and EvenBob can't truthfully say that the universe has been here forever. You both believe these things, and you both have logic and reason and evidence to support your claims, but neither of you can with reasonable certainty, in my opinion, demonstrate that you are correct and the other is wrong.

This is where you are wrong. The universe is expanding and it is contingent and not necessary. If it has been here forever why would we not already have reached heat death or a state of nothingness but inert gases. Not to mention the impossibility of a present moment or history or future if the universe has always been here. There could not be a right now if there was not a past moment. If these past moments are all preceeded by other past moments without a beginning we find ourselves in an infinte regress. Remember it can't be turtles all the way down. If something is in motion then something had to begin the motion. There are a million different examples from Hilbert's Hotel and any others you can think of that demonstrate why the universe, nor time itself, can be infinite and eternal. Evenbob does not have any logic or reason behind his claim that I have seen. He himself has admitted it is more of a gut feeling based on Hindu theology than anything else.

Quote:

Being an atheist means you believe that no gods exist, not that you can prove it.

Okay, using this definition it is based on nothing more than faith.

Quote:

If there is a logical and consistent argument, backed by available evidence, that supports a conclusion that a higher being or supernatural force was not the cause of all that exists, how will you disprove it?

I will eagerly await a logical and consistent argument, backed by evidence, that supports such a conclusion and see if I can refute it.

Quote:

What you consider reasonable faith is a matter of opinion. I have a higher bar.

I'm afraid that your bar is set too high if it has to take into consideration things that are only imagined possibilities that we might discover that go against everything that we have ever observed or known.

Quote:

Yes, hypothetical impossibilities. Restricting this just to religion, if you have multiple sets of logic, reason, and evidence which supports the conclusions which form the basis of various religions, and you can't disprove any of them, how can an adherent of one of those religions possibly claim that they are right and everyone else is wrong?

I disagree that you can have multiple sets of logic. The beauty of logic is that it is the same for everyone. Nevertheless your point is well taken. When disputing various religious claims of truth you need to look at the internal logic of it and the morality it produces. You need to look at history and how a religion helps us understand ourselves, the world around us, and the sufferings and evil in life. Even then you have to take into consideration the personal experience of these religions and its adherants and critically examine them. It is very difficult and complex and why we just usually work to find common ground in ecumenical and interfaith relations. It is much easier I think to talk about the question of God as the supernatural, all-powerful, neccessary cause of all existence.

Quote:

It is much easier I think to talk about the question of God as the supernatural, all-powerful, neccessary cause of all existence.

It's easier to talk about Superman coming to earth
with super powers from Krypton, than it is to talk
about god being real. There's an actual chance
for Krypton to be a real place. Much more than
there is for a god to exist.

Quote: FrGamble

I'm sorry but I don't see how you can dispute that 'if something came into being it has a cause' or any of the other statements.




Listen to what you are saying here, are you really saying that even if everything we have ever observed has come from something does not mean that everything has come from something? It gets even worse for your argument if you include that all the physical laws we know don't even allow the possibility for something to come from nothing. If you want to move the argument into fantasy or imaginary land then how can we make any truth statements. We haven't drilled to the center of the moon so maybe it really is made of green cheese. Maybe what you are saying is logical, or maybe it is just a sophist way of using reductio ad absurdum, or just an elegent dodge, however I think it is reasonable to base something on all our observable evidence and not on what we might have not observed or cannot observe, especially when as you say, everything we have ever observed concerning material things, including the universe, is that they are contingent.

What you seem to be suggesting is that we govern ourselves by blind faith in imaginable but not real possibilities. This makes truth claims impossible for everyone and leaves us blindly groping in the dark until we have without a doubt extracted all the more than likely non existent extradimensional marbles out of the bag.




This is where you are wrong. The universe is expanding and it is contingent and not necessary. If it has been here forever why would we not already have reached heat death or a state of nothingness but inert gases. Not to mention the impossibility of a present moment or history or future if the universe has always been here. There could not be a right now if there was not a past moment. If these past moments are all preceeded by other past moments without a beginning we find ourselves in an infinte regress. Remember it can't be turtles all the way down. If something is in motion then something had to begin the motion. There are a million different examples from Hilbert's Hotel and any others you can think of that demonstrate why the universe, nor time itself, can be infinite and eternal. Evenbob does not have any logic or reason behind his claim that I have seen. He himself has admitted it is more of a gut feeling based on Hindu theology than anything else.




Okay, using this definition it is based on nothing more than faith.



I will eagerly await a logical and consistent argument, backed by evidence, that supports such a conclusion and see if I can refute it.




I'm afraid that your bar is set too high if it has to take into consideration things that are only imagined possibilities that we might discover that go against everything that we have ever observed or known.




I disagree that you can have multiple sets of logic. The beauty of logic is that it is the same for everyone. Nevertheless your point is well taken. When disputing various religious claims of truth you need to look at the internal logic of it and the morality it produces. You need to look at history and how a religion helps us understand ourselves, the world around us, and the sufferings and evil in life. Even then you have to take into consideration the personal experience of these religions and its adherants and critically examine them. It is very difficult and complex and why we just usually work to find common ground in ecumenical and interfaith relations. It is much easier I think to talk about the question of God as the supernatural, all-powerful, neccessary cause of all existence.

You are going beyond what consists of a logical argument and again are delving into matters of faith and opinion, which I am not going to discuss with you again.

In particular, the points you raise in your last paragraph, regarding morality, history, etc, have NOTHING to do with whether or not you have a logical argument, and are not evidence or part of the evidentiary chain that you can use to support or refute the truth of the beliefs in any supernatural power. In short: it is not relevant to the claim.

Going back and forth about 'this is a fact' and "no it isn't" is neither constructive nor enjoyable to me, neither is repeatedly explaining what is logical and what is not. Try rationalwiki.

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/13/145175263/lawrence-krauss-on-a-universe-from-nothing

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

There are more - many more. What all these theories have in common is that they are logical, consistent, can be used to describe our universe, and the evidence in the universe supports the theories. I don't think a lot of people will find links like that interesting, though.

Quote: Dalex64

You are going beyond what consists of a logical argument and again are delving into matters of faith and opinion, which I am not going to discuss with you again.

Okay I respect that, know that I do enjoy talking about logic and my flaws in it with you, it is helpful. You sound a little like Spock here. I don't want to talk about anything that is not strictly logical, other things could be emotional, and our opinions based on shared data are too dangerous.

Quote:

In particular, the points you raise in your last paragraph, regarding morality, history, etc, have NOTHING to do with whether or not you have a logical argument, and are not evidence or part of the evidentiary chain that you can use to support or refute the truth of the beliefs in any supernatural power. In short: it is not relevant to the claim.

I only went in to that in order to show you that the difference in the quality of the argument between Evenbob's eternal universe and mine are radically different.

Quote:

Going back and forth about 'this is a fact' and "no it isn't" is neither constructive nor enjoyable to me, neither is repeatedly explaining what is logical and what is not. Try rationalwiki.

Okay, again duly noted. Try reasonablefaith.org and strangenotions.com.

Look at Dr. William Craig's debate with Krauss, it would be well worth your time. It is clear in the debate that he really doesn't understand the argument from contingency and that he is surprisingly open to Deism.

Debate with Krauss

edit:

Question of a zero-energy universe? (not for the faint of heart, I think you need some previous knowledge of these things to understand the main points)

Is the Big Bang a singularity?
A great quote from this article is:

Quote:

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

Quote: FrGamble

Look at Dr. William Craig's debate with Krauss, ]

What is bizarre to me is, your god is
so hard to find now, he's so hidden
from view, the only way to find him
is thru intricate tricky debate and faux
logic. If you put the words in just the
right order, and have a train of thought
that's exactly logically correct, your god
will pop into existence.

It's all so silly and time wasting. The good
old days when ignorance reigned were
so much easier. The sun was easy to
worship, there it is every day, dependable
as can be. The moon too. But modern gods
hide from view behind mountains of theory
and rhetoric. Unless you were raised in a
religion, of course, and never have to think
about it.

God as I know Him is not hiding at all, in fact God desires to be known and to bless your life more than anything. He reveals Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, the Bible, and the Church.

Quote: FrGamble

God as I know Him is not hiding at all, .

Then why all the convolutedness to get to
him. You have to argue logic in just a
certain way, twist words just so, fine tune
them to the right frequency, and if you
close one eye and pretend not to look
with the other, on every other Tuesday you
just might catch a glimpse of him.

That's how it seems to us looking at it
from the outside. God isn't real, he's
an argument you win at sometimes.