It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)A Message to Atheists and Agnostics - I get you(2370 posts)(2370 posts)
(2370 posts)
Pages:
1
25
50
75
93
94
95
96
97
125
150
158
This is my favourite topic
Posted February 04, 2014
avatar
SweatyGremlins: I'm not a cosmologist but they have started to look at 'nothing' in space and found that it is actually pretty active. Something ridiculous like 90% of our body's mass comes from the empty bits inside of protons. The nothing before the Big Bang was supposedly quite active, and at a quantum level you can get something from nothing.
Outer space is not nothing, the empty bits inside of protons are not nothing, and quantum vacuums are not nothing.
This videos explains it way better than I could hope to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo (Beware, the video is full of religious sniping so try not to be offended. The information is good but unfortunately the speaker will alienate most religious people.)
I will read Richard Dawkins if I am interested in learning about biology, but he is no expert when it comes to philosophy or religion, so it is better to first look into the experts in those fields.

"Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing. As I have said elsewhere, for the first time in my life, I felt sorry for the ontological argument. If we criticized gene theory with as little knowledge as Dawkins has of religion and philosophy, he would be rightly indignant. (He was just this when, thirty years ago, Mary Midgeley went after the selfish gene concept without the slightest knowledge of genetics.) Conversely, I am indignant at the poor quality of the argumentation in Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and all of the others in that group."

- Michael Ruse, Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy, and Director of the Program in the History and Philosophy of Science, Department of Philosophy, Florida State University

Here's an interview with him on the matter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaQgWl-HtYA
Posted February 04, 2014
avatar
rockyfan4: To Soyeong- I see you quoted Feser earlier in this thread. Did you see he has a new book on Scholastic Metaphysics coming out in a few months? It looks absolutely amazing.
Indeed it does, I wish I had the budget for it.
Posted February 04, 2014
avatar
rockyfan4: ...
avatar
Fenixp: I actually always found this discussion simple enough: We don't know. We don't even know if Big Bang was a thing for sure, and if it was, how exactly it worked. We, quite simply, don't have enough information, so the debate becomes pretty much philosophical in nature. When it comes to the creation of cosmos, we're about at the level of knowledge of how much our distant ancestors knew of how does a lightening form - to me, it only seems fitting we will attemt to fill the gaps by a god, just as they did.
The Big Bang wasn't suggested because it sounds good, but because there is cosmological evidence that it happened. Of course it's possible that the evidence could be misinterpreted, but it's possible everything could be misinterpreted, so that shouldn't stop us from drawing conclusions to the best of our ability. William Lane Craig makes a big deal out of the universe having a beginning, and I think we should go with what science says until better evidence suggests something else, but there is sufficient philosophical reason to think that the universe had a beginning, even if we can't rely on the scientific reason.

Thomas Aquinas lived long before modern science, but he was not attempting to simply fill the gaps, He didn't just show that God was the best explanation for something he didn't understand, but rather he showed that God logically and necessarily exists and has certain attributes, regardless of whether or not the universe had a beginning. I highly suggest reading Aquinas by Edward Feser.

http://www.amazon.com/Aquinas-Beginners-Guide-Edward-Feser/dp/1851686908

avatar
monkeydelarge: I have solution to this conflict that will please everyone, I think. How about everyone just worships the monkey in the pic I use as my avatar? We can build a giant statue of him and then make sacrifices before it. The angry monkey demands it!

In the beginning, there was nothing so the angry monkey was bored. The angry monkey, decided to create the universe the way it is, today. He started flinging poo in every direction. The poo became planets and stars... But the angry monkey was still bored...and lonely so he decided to create life. So again, he started flinging poo in every direction and that poo became the animals in the sea , on land and in the sky. Some of that poo also became plants. But this was not enough. The angry monkey felt he could do better so again he did some more poo flinging and created humans. So it came to pass, that the human race started populating most of the Earth and the angry monkey looked down upon his new dominion, as Master of all. And I thought it... good.
The angry monkey is contingent on matter for its existence, so it can't possible be the cause of the universe. I think you would benefit from taking an intro to philosophy class or reading a few philosophy books.
avatar
Fenixp: Do you have access to information that no scientist in the world, either religious or non-religious, has? I know you don't, I just want to point out that what you're saying is utterly ridiculous. Many more people who were far smarter than you were exploring the subject, claiming that conclusion which you and mr. Craig came up with is the only logical explanation of creation of the universe is just ... I don't have words for how arrogant that is.
It's not about arrogance, but about the nature of logic. If an argument has true premises and an a valid form, then the conclusion logically and necessarily follows.
Post edited February 04, 2014 by Soyeong
Posted February 04, 2014
avatar
Fenixp: I actually always found this discussion simple enough: We don't know. We don't even know if Big Bang was a thing for sure, and if it was, how exactly it worked. We, quite simply, don't have enough information, so the debate becomes pretty much philosophical in nature. When it comes to the creation of cosmos, we're about at the level of knowledge of how much our distant ancestors knew of how does a lightening form - to me, it only seems fitting we will attemt to fill the gaps by a god, just as they did.
avatar
Soyeong: The Big Bang wasn't suggested because it sounds good, but because there is cosmological evidence that it happened. Of course it's possible that the evidence could be misinterpreted, but it's possible everything could be misinterpreted, so that shouldn't stop us from drawing conclusions to the best of our ability. William Lane Craig makes a big deal out of the universe having a beginning, and I think we should go with what science says until better evidence suggests something else, but there is sufficient philosophical reason to think that the universe had a beginning, even if we can't rely on the scientific reason.

Thomas Aquinas lived long before modern science, but he was not attempting to simply fill the gaps, He didn't just show that God was the best explanation for something he didn't understand, but rather he showed that God logically and necessarily exists and has certain attributes, regardless of whether or not the universe had a beginning. I highly suggest reading Aquinas by Edward Feser.

http://www.amazon.com/Aquinas-Beginners-Guide-Edward-Feser/dp/1851686908

avatar
monkeydelarge: I have solution to this conflict that will please everyone, I think. How about everyone just worships the monkey in the pic I use as my avatar? We can build a giant statue of him and then make sacrifices before it. The angry monkey demands it!

In the beginning, there was nothing so the angry monkey was bored. The angry monkey, decided to create the universe the way it is, today. He started flinging poo in every direction. The poo became planets and stars... But the angry monkey was still bored...and lonely so he decided to create life. So again, he started flinging poo in every direction and that poo became the animals in the sea , on land and in the sky. Some of that poo also became plants. But this was not enough. The angry monkey felt he could do better so again he did some more poo flinging and created humans. So it came to pass, that the human race started populating most of the Earth and the angry monkey looked down upon his new dominion, as Master of all. And I thought it... good.
avatar
Soyeong: The angry monkey is contingent on matter for its existence, so it can't possible be the cause of the universe. I think you would benefit from taking an intro to philosophy class or reading a few philosophy books.
avatar
Fenixp: Do you have access to information that no scientist in the world, either religious or non-religious, has? I know you don't, I just want to point out that what you're saying is utterly ridiculous. Many more people who were far smarter than you were exploring the subject, claiming that conclusion which you and mr. Craig came up with is the only logical explanation of creation of the universe is just ... I don't have words for how arrogant that is.
avatar
Soyeong: It's not about arrogance, but about the nature of logic. If an argument has true premises and an a valid form, then the conclusion logically and necessarily follows.
Don't try to disprove the monkey there's mountains of evidence for him. The angry monkey peace be upon him will get angry.
Posted February 04, 2014
avatar
Fenixp: I actually always found this discussion simple enough: We don't know. We don't even know if Big Bang was a thing for sure, and if it was, how exactly it worked. We, quite simply, don't have enough information, so the debate becomes pretty much philosophical in nature. When it comes to the creation of cosmos, we're about at the level of knowledge of how much our distant ancestors knew of how does a lightening form - to me, it only seems fitting we will attemt to fill the gaps by a god, just as they did.
avatar
Soyeong: The Big Bang wasn't suggested because it sounds good, but because there is cosmological evidence that it happened. Of course it's possible that the evidence could be misinterpreted, but it's possible everything could be misinterpreted, so that shouldn't stop us from drawing conclusions to the best of our ability. William Lane Craig makes a big deal out of the universe having a beginning, and I think we should go with what science says until better evidence suggests something else, but there is sufficient philosophical reason to think that the universe had a beginning, even if we can't rely on the scientific reason.

Thomas Aquinas lived long before modern science, but he was not attempting to simply fill the gaps, He didn't just show that God was the best explanation for something he didn't understand, but rather he showed that God logically and necessarily exists and has certain attributes, regardless of whether or not the universe had a beginning. I highly suggest reading Aquinas by Edward Feser.

http://www.amazon.com/Aquinas-Beginners-Guide-Edward-Feser/dp/1851686908

avatar
monkeydelarge: I have solution to this conflict that will please everyone, I think. How about everyone just worships the monkey in the pic I use as my avatar? We can build a giant statue of him and then make sacrifices before it. The angry monkey demands it!

In the beginning, there was nothing so the angry monkey was bored. The angry monkey, decided to create the universe the way it is, today. He started flinging poo in every direction. The poo became planets and stars... But the angry monkey was still bored...and lonely so he decided to create life. So again, he started flinging poo in every direction and that poo became the animals in the sea , on land and in the sky. Some of that poo also became plants. But this was not enough. The angry monkey felt he could do better so again he did some more poo flinging and created humans. So it came to pass, that the human race started populating most of the Earth and the angry monkey looked down upon his new dominion, as Master of all. And I thought it... good.
avatar
Soyeong: The angry monkey is contingent on matter for its existence, so it can't possible be the cause of the universe. I think you would benefit from taking an intro to philosophy class or reading a few philosophy books.
avatar
Fenixp: Do you have access to information that no scientist in the world, either religious or non-religious, has? I know you don't, I just want to point out that what you're saying is utterly ridiculous. Many more people who were far smarter than you were exploring the subject, claiming that conclusion which you and mr. Craig came up with is the only logical explanation of creation of the universe is just ... I don't have words for how arrogant that is.
avatar
Soyeong: It's not about arrogance, but about the nature of logic. If an argument has true premises and an a valid form, then the conclusion logically and necessarily follows.
You took my post too seriously. OR maybe what I said is true and you just pissed off the angry monkey...
Post edited February 04, 2014 by monkeydelarge
Posted February 04, 2014
avatar
Soyeong: The Big Bang wasn't suggested because it sounds good, but because there is cosmological evidence that it happened. Of course it's possible that the evidence could be misinterpreted, but it's possible everything could be misinterpreted, so that shouldn't stop us from drawing conclusions to the best of our ability. William Lane Craig makes a big deal out of the universe having a beginning, and I think we should go with what science says until better evidence suggests something else, but there is sufficient philosophical reason to think that the universe had a beginning, even if we can't rely on the scientific reason.
No, we should not. Until we can prove how universe was created via experimentation or observation (quite difficult to do, I know), we should do all in our power to disprove the theory of Big Bang, regardless of how likely it is. Dwelling on a single idea brings stagnation, and exploring alternatives to that idea may either yield more solutions or even solve problems which seemed completely unrelated. We should never 'Go with what science says' until it has been proven without shadow of a doubt to be correct.

Furthermore, it is exactly as you said - philosophical discovery. Now I'm not belittling philosophy - it's extremely important in exploring areas beyond our current understandin to try and explore all possibilities, until some of them become a scientific hypothesis and that, in turn, a serious theory. Without philosophy and the initial thoughts and logical conclusions, none of this would be possible. However - until relatively recently, the most logical conclusion, a conclusion supported by many philosophers, religious figures and written text, was that the Earth is flat. That the entire universe orbits around us. All of these conclusions are perfectly rational and logical, given the infomation and knowledge contemporary civilizations had - they didn't really have much choice in the matter as they could not possibly prove the truth. Why was it so? Because philosophy makes logical leaps. It has to for it to function.

But without sufficient information you can't claim a statement, as logical and sound as it might seem to us, to be the only logical explanation. Let me start off by saying that humans are stupid. Our brains are not capable of even grasping the concept of vastness of our galaxy, let alone its history or even its beginning. All of these concepts are so incredibly alien to us, with our current level of knowledge, that claiming -any- answer is definite regarding the issue is a fallacy all by itself. We quite simply do not have information to know anything. As likely, nice or popular any given explanation might seem, it doesn't change the fact that we only really know the Earth, we have a good amount of information about our surroundings, very little from the rest of our galaxy, and pretty much bugger all from the other galaxies. Mankind is extremely inexperienced and needs perhaps even thousands of years of dedicated research and exploration to be able to come to a satisfactory scientific conclusion.

In light of all this, I will not trust a conclusin that we, with our current amount of information, and our current level of knowledge, might consider 'logical'. Because it most assuredly is not the only logical answer.

I will not argue about whether or not universe was created by a sentient being, intetionally, because I can't know that. Neither can you. Neither can anyone else on Earth.

avatar
Soyeong: It's not about arrogance, but about the nature of logic. If an argument has true premises and an a valid form, then the conclusion logically and necessarily follows.
True. But the argument can't possibly have true premises until we aquire more information. You can't just leap from what we know to the creation of the universe, that's completely illogical at worst and wishful thinking at best.
Post edited February 04, 2014 by Fenixp
Posted February 04, 2014
avatar
Soyeong: The Big Bang wasn't suggested because it sounds good, but because there is cosmological evidence that it happened. Of course it's possible that the evidence could be misinterpreted, but it's possible everything could be misinterpreted, so that shouldn't stop us from drawing conclusions to the best of our ability. William Lane Craig makes a big deal out of the universe having a beginning, and I think we should go with what science says until better evidence suggests something else, but there is sufficient philosophical reason to think that the universe had a beginning, even if we can't rely on the scientific reason.

Thomas Aquinas lived long before modern science, but he was not attempting to simply fill the gaps, He didn't just show that God was the best explanation for something he didn't understand, but rather he showed that God logically and necessarily exists and has certain attributes, regardless of whether or not the universe had a beginning. I highly suggest reading Aquinas by Edward Feser.

http://www.amazon.com/Aquinas-Beginners-Guide-Edward-Feser/dp/1851686908

The angry monkey is contingent on matter for its existence, so it can't possible be the cause of the universe. I think you would benefit from taking an intro to philosophy class or reading a few philosophy books.

It's not about arrogance, but about the nature of logic. If an argument has true premises and an a valid form, then the conclusion logically and necessarily follows.
avatar
monkeydelarge: You took my post too seriously. OR maybe what I said is true and you just pissed off the angry monkey...
This very thread is proof that the monkey (peace be upon him) is true, and as were his miracles.
Posted February 04, 2014
avatar
monkeydelarge: You took my post too seriously. OR maybe what I said is true and you just pissed off the angry monkey...
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: This very thread is proof that the monkey (peace be upon him) is true, and as were his miracles.
You speak the truth, brother. Amen.
Posted February 04, 2014
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: This very thread is proof that the monkey (peace be upon him) is true, and as were his miracles.
avatar
monkeydelarge: You speak the truth, brother. Amen.
He turned urine into yeunglings.
Posted February 04, 2014
avatar
Brasas: Logic is not the be all, end all of determining truth. But whatever...
Something can be true even if are not yet able to make logical sense of it, however, something that is objectively illogical can't be true.
If the finite universe is what prevented you from admiting the logical validity of the atheist position, let's rephrase the question:
Do you admit it is possible, even if you believe it to be false, for the universe to have existed eternally without an external will existing?
No, the arguments for this cause show that it is logically necessary for it to have a will.
Onwards to ontology. Spontaneous emergence from nothing is only impossible according to assumptions you are not postulating. Do ellaborate on the logical argumentation you see that proves or disproves either of the following metaphysical absolutes:
A: From nothing nothing comes
B: From nothing everything comes
I'd suggest listening to this podcast:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-universe-from-nothing
And for fun a parting salute, if the concept of infinite is not real, what caused it? :)
"There is a difference between essence and existence. There is nothing in our grasp of the essence of humanity as such that could tell us whether or not any human beings actually exist, if we didn't already know they did. Someone unaware that a phoenix is a mythical bird might know that its "essence" is to be a bird that burns itself into ashes out of which a new bird arises, without knowing whether there really is such a creature. If it is possible to understand the essence of a thing without knowing whether it exists, its act of existing (if it has one) must be distinct from its essence, as a metaphysically separate component of that thing." - Edward Feser
Posted February 04, 2014
avatar
Brasas: Logic is not the be all, end all of determining truth. But whatever...
avatar
Soyeong: Something can be true even if are not yet able to make logical sense of it, however, something that is objectively illogical can't be true.

If the finite universe is what prevented you from admiting the logical validity of the atheist position, let's rephrase the question:
Do you admit it is possible, even if you believe it to be false, for the universe to have existed eternally without an external will existing?
avatar
Soyeong: No, the arguments for this cause show that it is logically necessary for it to have a will.

Onwards to ontology. Spontaneous emergence from nothing is only impossible according to assumptions you are not postulating. Do ellaborate on the logical argumentation you see that proves or disproves either of the following metaphysical absolutes:
A: From nothing nothing comes
B: From nothing everything comes
avatar
Soyeong: I'd suggest listening to this podcast:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-universe-from-nothing

And for fun a parting salute, if the concept of infinite is not real, what caused it? :)
avatar
Soyeong: "There is a difference between essence and existence. There is nothing in our grasp of the essence of humanity as such that could tell us whether or not any human beings actually exist, if we didn't already know they did. Someone unaware that a phoenix is a mythical bird might know that its "essence" is to be a bird that burns itself into ashes out of which a new bird arises, without knowing whether there really is such a creature. If it is possible to understand the essence of a thing without knowing whether it exists, its act of existing (if it has one) must be distinct from its essence, as a metaphysically separate component of that thing." - Edward Feser
Will you donate to the church of the angry capuchin monkey?
Posted February 04, 2014
avatar
Soyeong: Something can be true even if are not yet able to make logical sense of it, however, something that is objectively illogical can't be true.

No, the arguments for this cause show that it is logically necessary for it to have a will.

I'd suggest listening to this podcast:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-universe-from-nothing

"There is a difference between essence and existence. There is nothing in our grasp of the essence of humanity as such that could tell us whether or not any human beings actually exist, if we didn't already know they did. Someone unaware that a phoenix is a mythical bird might know that its "essence" is to be a bird that burns itself into ashes out of which a new bird arises, without knowing whether there really is such a creature. If it is possible to understand the essence of a thing without knowing whether it exists, its act of existing (if it has one) must be distinct from its essence, as a metaphysically separate component of that thing." - Edward Feser
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: Will you donate to the church of the angry capuchin monkey?
He can't. His god doesn't allow him to worship angry Capuchin monkeys. His bible says, if he does, he will go to hell and his god will just sit on his throne in heaven while he burns for all eternity.. Such a loving god...

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."
- The Bible
Post edited February 04, 2014 by monkeydelarge
Posted February 04, 2014
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: Will you donate to the church of the angry capuchin monkey?
avatar
monkeydelarge: He can't. His god doesn't allow him to worship angry Capuchin monkeys. His bible says, if he does, he will go to hell and his god will just sit on his throne in heaven while he burns for all eternity.. Such a loving god...
The angry capuchin monkey (Peace be upon his name), is the light, the way, the savior.
Posted February 04, 2014
avatar
monkeydelarge: He can't. His god doesn't allow him to worship angry Capuchin monkeys. His bible says, if he does, he will go to hell and his god will just sit on his throne in heaven while he burns for all eternity.. Such a loving god...
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: The angry capuchin monkey (Peace be upon his name), is the light, the way, the savior.
Indeed. So obviously, the bible is wrong.
Posted February 04, 2014
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: The angry capuchin monkey (Peace be upon his name), is the light, the way, the savior.
avatar
monkeydelarge: Indeed. So obviously, the bible is wrong.
Hm.. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Pages:
1
25
50
75
93
94
95
96
97
125
150
158
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)A Message to Atheists and Agnostics - I get you(2370 posts)(2370 posts)
(2370 posts)