To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Pachomius, Nov 8, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    Good riddance!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    Okay, dear atheists here, perhaps Seattle or Spidergoat, I am ready to dialog with you on my proposition that everything with a beginning needs a cause.


    Please don't ask me to explain what I mean by that sentence, because then I will tell you that you are not qualified to engage in exchange of ideas in a forum.


    So, if you are of the conviction that everything with a beginning needs a cause is not true, then you produce an instance where everything with a beginning needs a cause is not true.


    I will give you an example of everything with a beginning needs a cause, namely, a baby has a beginning, so it needs a cause, namely, its parents.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,379
    Pachomius, I have been following the thread and moving forward I'm sure that not many people will deem you worth bothering with.
    You refuse to acknowledge what seems legitimate criticism of your position.
    If you disagree with the criticism you need to explain why the criticism is invalid.
    Not just dismiss the critic as you have done with the manner of your exchange.

    As for your post above, I think Sarkus has already dealt with this.
    i.e. You are merely talking about the beginning of a change of form of what already exists (be it matter, energy etc), not the beginning of that thing itself.
    And, as he already pointed out, you are assuming that to question the truth of "everything with a beginning needs a cause" is to claim that it is false.
    It is not.
    As Sarkus has repeatedly pointed out to you.
    You just need to demonstrate that it is true to those that do not know one way or the other, before they will accept it as true.
    Not that it is true just in some specific examples that you might care to give.
    But true in all cases.
    And that it encapsulates more than just a change of form, but of that which is changing form.

    But given the nature of your dialogue with others, I'm not holding out much hope that you will.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,224
    Interesting. Why have you bothered? Don't tell me you're a hypocrite?

    I think it is fair to say that any scientific mind with an ounce of intellectual honesty would admit, science is correct. Cause and Effect applies universally.
     
  8. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,379
    I said "many people".
    I did not discount the possibility of some, nor even myself.
    Within this universe that may be correct.
    But at best one is applying it to the changing form of matter and/or energy.
    I.e. the cause is one arrangement of matter/energy, and the effect is the arrangement that follows it.
    Since science also deems the universe to be closed, one can not provide an example of anything actually beginning, other than the rather trivial start of a new form / arrangement.

    Pachomius is trying to state that everything with a beginning has a cause.
    But he is not giving, or at least has not given, an example of anything with an actual beginning, only the start of a new arrangement of matter/energy etc.

    The danger, therefore, is one uses the rule/law of cause and effect as relating to the mere change of form of matter/energy, and applies it to the actual beginning of that matter/energy itself.
    The former is trivially accepted.
    The latter is not.
     
  9. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,224
    All we know is that we live in a universe where every effect has a cause, no one in science would deny this. How did the universe begin is another topic.

    He give you a valid example. Parents are the cause of their new born child... what more do you want? Apples are caused by a well looked after tree.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but who said that cause and effect was created?
     
  10. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,379
    You do realise that this thread is about God, right?
    And how atheists supposedly "conflate God with invisible unicorns", right?
    So no, it is not another topic, but what this very topic is about.
    Which is why one must distinguish between the trivial nature of cause and effect as it applies within the universe, and the application of that principle to the creation of the universe itself.
    Valid examples as how the principle applies within the universe.
    And how it applies merely to the rearrangement of matter/energy.
    What more do I want?
    For Pachomius, and you if you adhere to his argument, to show how it can also be applied to the actual beginning of something rather than just the rearrangement of that which already exists.
    You've lost me.
    Noone has specifically said it.
    So why ask?
     
  11. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,224
    Well, considering at least 80% of threads go off topic another one doesn't matter. Who is applying the NOT trivial scientific theory of cause and effect as the answer as to how the universe was created?

    Cause and effect requires matter/energy.
     
  12. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,379
    Pachomius.
    Inside our universe, yes, it seems so.
    Although even in ours there are perhaps notions that bring this into question, such as virtual particles that seem to pop in and out of existence, rather than being a mere transformation of matter/energy.
    But I am not too familiar with them beyond the casual press.
     
  13. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,224
    Maybe virtual particles have something to do with dark matter?
     
  14. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    {QUOTE="Baldeee, post: 3262769, member: 267911"]Pachomius, I have been following the thread and moving forward I'm sure that not many people will deem you worth bothering with.

    You refuse to acknowledge what seems legitimate criticism of your position.

    If you disagree with the criticism you need to explain why the criticism is invalid.

    Not just dismiss the critic as you have done with the manner of your exchange.


    As for your post above, I think Sarkus has already dealt with this.

    i.e. You are merely talking about the beginning of a change of form of what already exists (be it matter, energy etc), not the beginning of that thing itself.

    And, as he already pointed out, you are assuming that to question the truth of "everything with a beginning needs a cause" is to claim that it is false.[/QUOTE}


    And why should Sarkus distinguish between beginning with a new form and beginning with from nothing even of existence itself?


    That is what Sarkus wants to do all the time because he wants to indulge in vain pomposity by verbosity and also in obfuscation by vain verbosity.


    When a writer does not make any qualification why should anyone make distinction and then feel so smart in catering to his vain pomposity by verbosity and also seeks to derail the exchange by obfuscation via vain verbosity?


    Suppose you take up my proposition, everything with a beginning needs a cause.


    And let me see whether you will ask me whether it is this or that when I don t make any qualification in the first place.


    People like Sarkus are no different from the lazy, quibbling, time and trouble wasteful office worker, who when the boss tells him to get him a cup of coffee, he asks the boss "Should I get it from Starbucks or just from the coffee dispenser in the office?"

    Now you will also start making distinction and asking me whether the boss is this or that or whether the worker is this or that, and you as an atheist with your peculiar dodging and muddling up the issue will succeed making a poster go on and on catering to your vain pomposity with verbosity or obfuscation with vain verbosity.

    Tell you what, Baldee, you take up my proposition, everything with a beginning needs a cause, and just reply with spontaneity and candor after reading the whole text of my message and exercising your routine reading comprehension.

    That is what atheists are always into: dodging the issue, muddling up the issue, playing the fool or dummy, and also bashing God and theists with insulting analogies like celestial teapot (Bertrand Russell), or playing their most fraudulent scam of fake humility, "I [they] don't know."
     
  15. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,482
    OK Pachomius, everything with a beginning probably has a cause.

    The universe (something with a beginning perhaps) probably has a cause. It may be eternal but probably not.

    You think that cause is God. I have insufficient evidence to come to that conclusion. I think the universe probably has a cause that is not supernatural.

    If the cause is a God I also think that God must have a cause. You think otherwise.

    Is the thread complete now?
     
  16. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,379
    Because one is just a change of form.
    The other is the coming into existence of that which is then changing form.
    Do you not see the difference between the two?
    To be honest I see none of that from him.
    I see clearly worded questions, and explanations for why those questions are felt to be important.
    If he sees the need for clarity for a distinction he feels is being overlooked, why the issue in providing that clarity, or explaining why the distinction is not overlooked and, in your view, is not warranted?
    Why do you feel unable or unwilling to answer those questions?
    if the writer has overlooked the possibility of there being a distinction, raising it is warranted.
    Even if one disagrees about whether there is a distinction or not, the raising of the issue is warranted.
    And as for your continued use of the phrases "vain pomposity" and "vain verbosity", you seem to be the only one guilty of that here.
    I think Sarkus' point is valid: there is a category difference between the beginning of an arrangement of that which already exists, and the beginning of the existence of that which is then arranged.
    If you make such a universal claim as you do, you encompass all categories.
    While you can provide examples of one category, and while we can perhaps accept that proposition as true as it is applied to that one category, what is your justification for then applying it to the second category?
    At the moment you have provided none.
    Sarkus has seemingly identified where you were intending to go with your line of questioning: To use acceptance of the proposition as it applies to the first category as justification for acceptance as applied to the second is a logical fallacy: category error.
    He has spotted this of your intended argument, and has headed you off at the pass, so to speak.
    A preemptive desire to resolve this issue so that it does not become an issue later on, but an issue that must be addressed at some point.
    And you now cry foul because you have no suitable response.
    Or that is how it seems to me.
    And no doubt to him, and others.
    If my employees didn't ask and brought me a coffee from the dispenser then I would think less of them than the one who had the foresight to ask and bring me one from Starbucks.
    Asking the question up front provides clarity and thus efficiency of action and a more satisfactory resolution.
    I urge all my employees to ask questions if they do not understand something.
    And if a bad result happens because of a lack of clarity in instructions then I encourage them all to review what and where the additional clarity could have been efficiently sought that would have led to a satisfactory result.
    And to then be sure to seek that clarity the next time.
    But maybe you work differently.
    You seem not only to be mistaking the questioning for procrastinating, but as it applies to the matter of your proposition you seem unable to even acknowledge that the category difference is there.
    If you think it justified to ignore that category difference then simply provide it and then people can move on.
    But you do not even acknowledge it.
    If the distinction is there and is seen to be significant, why would one not raise the matter?
    You may have issue with what you perceive we atheists try to do, yet we often have issue with theists trying to demonstrate a proof or logical argument for the existence of God using fallacious reasoning / logic, yet they seem unable and often simply unwilling to acknowledge where the flaw is.
    If you can not address what is a clear category difference even in the proposition you are making then you are already on fallacious grounds as far as a sound conclusion is concerned.
    My view, and no doubt view of Sarkus and others of our ilk, is why bother with the rest until we are sure of the foundation upon which the argument is built.
    Sure.
    But please spell my name correctly next time.
    It seems to be true that everything within the universe with a beginning needs a cause.
    We have no evidence and no justification for assuming the same of anything not within the universe.
    Or of the universe itself.
    I am sorry you feel that way about genuine intellectual endeavours to understand and examine arguments for and against the existence of God.
    But please tell me how we dodge the issues?
    How do we muddle up the issue when it is merely clarity that we seek?
    If we raise issues that you have not thought of before, or are unable to address civilly, why should we take your position with any seriousness?
    It is your view that such questions are "muddling up the issue" that speaks not to what we do in trying to understand the issues, but rather it speaks to your inability to think critically about your own position.

    I also have issue with your accusation that we bash God with analogies such as the teapot.
    If nothing else this thread should have laid out fairly robustly what the position is that we take with the teapot, and why it is a fair and valid analogy, with no bashing intended, nor perception of bashing warranted other than through an unwarranted sense of protectionism that would place sacred figures beyond scrutiny.

    As for your last point, Pachomius: please tell me what you believe as utterly true: am I wearing a formal shirt today, or not?
    I don't want statements of probability.
    I want to know: do you believe I am wearing a formal shirt today?
    Yes or no?
    And if you say "no" then presumably you must mean you believe I am not wearing a formal shirt?
    Or maybe you would like to admit that you simply don't know?

    Ah, but of course, according to you it is a "fraudulent scam of fake humility" to conclude that you don't know.
     
  17. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,379
    Pachomius will only claim that God has no beginning and thus needs no cause.
    But when one looks at the universe as a whole rather than at what goes on in the universe, he can not (or at least should no longer validly) apply the proposition he has started with because it has not been shown to apply to such situations.
    It is merely an assumption with no support.
    One can not say whether it is correct or not.

    And in so far as the proposition might hold for the universe as a whole, who is to say that the universe even had a beginning that required such a cause.
    According to science, energy is conserved (if you include gravitational potential energy) and can be neither created nor destroyed, just transformed.
    Thus the universe must have always existed.
    No beginning.
    Or so the argument would go.
    But again it is clearly not provable, especially if the universe is a net zero energy universe.
    Which may be a route to "beginning" without a cause.

    I just find that arguments that try to argue logically for a God do so without fully understanding the limits of the applicability of the propositions while remaining sound.
     
  18. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    In special relativity, as we approach the speed of light, distance and time contract to a point-instant, respectively. This is where the fabric of space-time reaches it limit. The fabric sort of dissociates into separate threads of time and separated threads of space. If we magnify a fabric to one junction of cross threads, we can see the separated threads of time and space that are vertical and horizontal.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    In the speed of light reference, one can follow a thread segment of time without space connection and a thread segment of space without a connection to time. If we move in space without time we can be anywhere in zero time; this allows quantum jumps and worm holes. Historically this was attributed to the feature called omnipresence; be in all places in zero time. Santa Claus would theoretically make use of space threads or distance potential, in excess of space-time, to visit all the children in one night. This does not violate the speed of light because speed has the units of distance/time while thread of space do not use time and therefore speed does not apply.

    We can also follow a thread of time without the constant of distance. This allows us to know the history of a point, plane, volume to even the universe since distance is not a limiting factor as time propagates. This has been historically called omniscience.

    To be able to move in time without space and space without time, one can't be composed of material substance, since mass and substance can't move at the speed of light. They can't reach the point where the fabric of space-time is allows one to reached separated time and space threads. The tradition has two realms with us in material reality where there are limits due to the fabric of space-time.

    To form the material universe, we would need to begin create the fabric of space-time out of separated threads of time and space. This weave will begin at one junction; primordial atom. We need to first make a single junction or crossing that limits omniscience and omnipresence; brooding.

    Once science learns to make the speed of light its ground state, light will appear, since new tech will learn to make use of time and distance potential.
     
  19. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,910
    And presumably that eternal beings without beginnings don't need causes.

    It seems to me that the whole idea of physical causation only makes sense within the physical universe, where proceeding states of affairs condition succeeding ones.

    It doesn't make nearly as much sense if we are talking about the beginning of the physical universe itself. There wouldn't be any physical states of affairs prior to the beginning of everything, nor would there be any moment earlier than the origin of time. The whole idea of physical causation breaks down when we are talking about the origin of the physical universe.

    What often happens at this point is a subtle redefinition of the word 'cause', where it stops meaning 'physical cause' and broadens out to mean something like 'explanatory account'. Maybe the physical universe didn't have a cause in the same sense that physics understands 'cause', but there arguably still needs to be some explanation for why the physical universe exists in the first place.

    The same thing can be said regarding eternal beings. Maybe an eternal being doesn't have a physical cause in the same sense that physics understands 'cause', but there arguably still needs to be some explanation for why eternal beings exist at all.

    It always seems to get back to the fundamental problem of metaphysics: Why does reality exist? Why is there something rather than nothing?

    I don't have a clue what the answer is. I'm not even sure that there is an answer, let alone how to go about finding it.

    What I am reasonably certain about is that imagining that the hypothetical existence of an eternal being (typically identified with God) provides the answer simply begs the question.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2015
    Seattle, cluelusshusbund and Baldeee like this.
  20. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    Welcome back, Seattle,

    You know each other already, so tell me what are you, an atheist who is out to keep yourself from thinking on facts and evidence?

    I am a theist and I seek to think all the time on facts and logic.


    So, in your next post, first tell me whether you are an atheist or not, but from my history of exchange with you I see you to be a bigoted atheist out to engage in vain pomposity by verbosity and in obfuscation by way of vain verbosity, so that you will never have to say anything definite and clear because it can lead you to the existence of God in concept as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.


    Okay, here is my proposition, everything with a beginning has a cause.

    And your counter proposition is that everything with a beginning probably has a cause.​


    Here is my example of everything with a beginning has a cause, namely, a baby has a beginning, it has the cause of its beginning in its parents.


    Please give your example of some thing with a beginning probably having a cause.



    Dear readers here, observe closely what Seattle will now go into like Sarkus, he will not give an example of something with a beginning that probably has a cause, but will go into verbosity in aid of his vain pomposity and/or obfuscation by vain verbosity.



    {QUOTE="Seattle, post: 3263176, member: 271333"]
    Seattle, Yesterday at 8:24 AM #732
    ----------------------

    OK Pachomius, everything with a beginning probably has a cause.

    The universe (something with a beginning perhaps) probably has a cause. It may be eternal but probably not.

    You think that cause is God. I have insufficient evidence to come to that conclusion. I think the universe probably has a cause that is not supernatural.

    If the cause is a God I also think that God must have a cause. You think otherwise.

    Is the thread complete now?[/QUOTE}
     
  21. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,204
    What you call "vain pomposity by verbosity and in obfuscation by way of vain verbosity", is simply logical thinking. No one is worried about you proving the existence of a God by way of long dismissed arguments.

    Nothing truly begins if it's made of already existing parts (babies, planets). The only thing that possibly had one is a universe, which is either eternal or without cause. It couldn't be caused because a cause requires a universe with time and space in which things can happen.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2015
    Seattle likes this.
  22. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,379
    While you give a thought to trivial matters, you seem unequipped to think too critically.
    Here's a suggestion:
    If you genuinely want to engage someone in discussion, it's probably best not to insult them beforehand by calling them a "bigoted atheist" as well as your go-to phrases of verbosity.

    What is more, no one has disputed the notion of God existing in concept.
    Many concepts exist.
    Including the celestial teapot.
    What is disputed, or more accurately questioned, is the existence of God in actuality
    If you actually read his post to you, he gave just such an example.
    But instead you wish to insult him even before you consider his reply.
    Why?

    As said, I have followed this thread, and throughout you seem eager to accuse others of verbosity, of not wanting to engage.
    All I have seen is others give you significant leeway, but it wouldn't surprise me if that soon stopped.
    I have seen them analyse your position rationally and logically, and pose questions to seek clarification.

    And from you there comes back nothing but insults, a dogmatic insistence on a structure to the discussion, and an utter failure on your part to address any of their concerns about your position.
    It seems that if someone does not accept your position you consider them a legitimate target for insult.
    It seems that if they don't agree with you that it is purely to muddy the water, to delay, to befuddle.

    No, Pachomius, it is you who is at fault here.
    I kindly ask that you sort out your attitude.
    You are entitled to your position, as is everyone, but if you declare it on this forum then you need to be prepared to defend it.
    And to do so civilly.
    You have so far failed on both these points.
     
  23. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    You are merely performing the "hasty generalization" fallacy. A collection of examples does not necessarily cover all possible cases. You need to produce a reason that your examples cover all possible cases. You seem unable to do that.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page