"everything that begins to exist has a cause" this is my rebuttal: a goose has a cause, that's the mother and father mating. each individual goose has a cause. what about the gander, does it have a cause?
I am not sure if they are logical fallacies or not, but here are the reasons why Aaron's take on kalam fails: 1. he is adding assumptions to the conclusion that do not follow the premises. So A therefore B, so if A then B = correct; if A then B, and B is transcendent = incorrect...all things that begin to exist have a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore something caused the universe = correct; all things that begin to exist have a cause, the universe began to exist, there fore something transcendent caused the universe = incorrect 2. If god is changeless he cannot be a free agent, in order to have the agency to cause something you have to be able to change your state, from not wanting to cause something to causing something. 3. If time began to exist, it cannot have a cause, it's completely irrational to state something temporal (a cause) can exist before time exists; if the universe began to exist simultaneously as time then it too cannot have a cause. To say something prior to time caused something is utter nonsense. To FSX23's points, none of the premises are supported, they are baseless claims. Everything that begins to exist has a cause; we know that is true with material things that are caused from prior existing material, however we have no example of material things being caused by nonmaterial things, so that premise is unsupported and fails; the universe began to exist, that is simply a claim or hypothesis, there are scientific models of a universe that began to exist, however they are not supported by evidence, they are just hypothetical models so that premise fails, so regardless of the soundness of the logical argument it is not evidence for there being a cause for the universe, and even if it was, as implied above we cannot make any guesses as to what the cause was because we have no evidence, observation, prior experience of whatever that cause may be.
The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but is in constant change. Matter comes from energy. This is too easy.
Oh I also did a literature search and could not find any peer review papers in physics nor cosmology that even talk about fine tuning let alone arguing that the universe is finely tuned. I'd really like to see these papers matt bell has from "scientist" because I cannot find a single one.
Ok, this looks promising. These hang outs MUST have 1 or 2 theists/atheists minimum or its just a circle jerk. Two on two or three seems to work out best. Cluster fucks can be entertaining.but I think it puts off the guests talking, it's best to have a dedicated mod to do anything in those situations. Everyone gets talked over and questions are ignored. We don't wanna scare away all our lovely Xian friends from doing these hang outs. Or maybe their egos will always bring them back, idk. Matthew Bellend! It's been a while sense I've seen that forehead. He's always good for a chuckle watching the atheists try to deal with his stubborn faux science deism. On with the show!
5 minutes in now. There are still people using the fine tuning argument? Not only is this simply anthropomorphism, we would also have to assume that a creator who wants this universe to be would be more probable. In the end he would just happen to have the nature that makes him want to create this universe. Why does anyone think that would be more probable?
Supposing you're in the desert miles from any settlements, you stop to eat a sandwich, and, unknown to you, it contains a sauce made of peanuts, to which you're highly allergic-- you go into a spasm, your throat starts to swell, and you're close to dying, when suddenly another person who just happened to be hiking in the desert turns up, and has epinephrine on him, because he's also allergic to peanuts. He gives you some, and you live. This would obviously be remarkable, and the fact that you wouldn't be alive to note the 'remarkableness' of it, if the stranger hadn't turned up, wouldn't make it any less remarkable. So how is that different from arguments against the remarkableness of fine-tuning based on the anthropic principle?
What is it with this repetitive 'how does this get to your God?' question... there can be an argument for a creator, and another argument for specific characteristics of that creator-- Just because the argument for the existence of a creator per se doesn't argue for what the 2nd argument is for, doesn't in any way mean that they contradict each other. You can argue that someone broke into a house, you can then argue that it was a specific person, 'Bill'-- just because the first case, that *someone* broke into the house doesn't specify that it was Bill, doesn't mean that it isn't valid and also compatible with your case that it was Bill. It's not that difficult.
On what is based the first sentence that everything that began to exist has a cause? Is it just our experience? If so, then why wouldn't it hold, based on that same experience, that everything that exists began to exist? If we are stipulating that the universe began to exist (not eternal), then, just as we have no experience of something beginning to exist without a cause, it seems we also have exactly no experience of something existing without beginning to exist, using 'beginning to exist' the same way as it is used in the first sentence. If the first sentence is NOT based on our experience, then on what IS it based?
3:35:00 So he asked for evidence that consciousnesses is a product of the brain. When presented with sound evidence, he argues that it could be that a ghost operates the brain and the ghost just can't use a damaged brain as good. That is the same level of reasoning as if I show him how electricity works and he argues that instead of electrons there are magic pixies that operates the circuit instead.
Why was I removed? I'm sorry I wasn't saying anything so maybe you thought I was a troll, but after I joined I got into an important skype call so I muted my microphone and was adding what I could to the conversation in the side bar chat. Sorry if I came off as shifty or something. I wasn't trying to come off that way.
No, Mathew Bell isn't suggesting something outside of 'space and time, and *reality*', he's suggesting something outside of *physical reality*-- or 'the universe'. By making physical reality synonymous with 'reality' you, typically of atheists, are begging the question. If physicalism is true then theism can't be true- so if we're confined to physicalist premises, then there's no point in having a discussion.
I love "the empty tomb" as evidence. We haven't even found a tomb for Jesus let alone an empty one. Lol how is that evidence. Theist like bell need to learn that baseless claims are not evidence.
1:49:20 You call Universe as "space, time and reality", but space, time and reality can be separated. We are pretty sure that at the Big Bang event space and time (as we know it, i.e. what we call "space" and "time") become into existence, but reality could be eternal. Maybe before the Big Bang there was no space and no time, but reality existed. Maybe "reality" does not need space or time. There are many more possibilities before I can grand you the personal and powerful being.
Here's a question I'd like one Christian to answere. Jesus is the most important person in all history according to his worshippers. If he's so important why don't we know either the exact date of his birth and/or death? We have more accurate info about pharoahs who lived and died centuries before Jesus and are far less important to anyone than Jesus is supposedly to Christians. Why didn't they record and/or memorize the facts of Jesus's birth and death
u·ni·verse ˈyo͞onəˌvərs/Submit noun noun: universe; noun: the universe all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago.
atheistmecca Ah... but you fail to realize, my child, is that regardless of where the universe came from, we as a people all came from the same primordial SOUP.
2:44:00 "Second, independent confirmation is not necessary to establish the mere existence of the Jesus of the New Testament. *There simply is nothing epistemically improbable about the mere existence of a man named Jesus*. (Just because Jesus existed does not mean that he was born of a virgin, that he rose from the dead, etc.) Although a discussion of the New Testament evidence is beyond the scope of this paper, I think that the New Testament does provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is clear, then, that if we are going to apply to the New Testament "the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material,"[19] we should not require independent confirmation of the New Testament's claim that Jesus existed." - infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/indconf.html I think no atheist ever discussed if a man named Jesus ever existed. Atheist usually disbelieve that he was the son of god and walked on water.
I have been listening for the first 45 minutes of this discussion and it seems you all are drowning in a glass of water. Fine tuning argument is the most up-to-date understanding for us to be here BUT you cold equally say that the components of a cup of coffee has been fine tuned for us. Imaging my silly analogy of the cup of coffee fine tuned for us and now put the cup of coffee afloat in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. I could explain it a bit better but I got bored with that discussion, Regards.
according to matthew bell God cannot exist. He stated all life requires the universal constants. Therefore God requires the Universal constants to exist. If he requires these constants he couldn't have created them because that would require him living prior to the conditions for him to live existing. Mat Bell disproved his own God...nice
What amazing nonsense. Life is where consciousness and material form meet. God is pure immaterial mind. Or that is the only model of theism that makes any sense anyway, and also what I believe to be true. I can't believe all these arguments against theism based on materialist premises when those premises rule out God in the first place. It reminds me of Dawkins' utterly crap TGD, where he talks of God as a hypothesis, when, at the same time, under his assumptions, God shouldn't even be a possibility. Utterly incoherent.
Eman Puedama 'God is pure immaterial mind.' How do you know that? And by what process does something immaterial, interact with the material? The confidence by which you just assert traits about god that in your own definition you couldn't ever hope to demonstrate, that you do it with no sense of irony, its just staggering. Things that exist have properties; how can we tell the immaterial apart, from non-existence?
kainedamo I suppose I don't ''know'' that, but it's the only conception that has any internal consistency, so discussing the question of God's existence on any alternative premises is incoherent and a waste of time. I do pretty much know that physicalism is incorrect however- or at least I'm as sure of it as I'm sure of anything. Yes, I know about the 'interaction problem', however, this isn't such a problem if all physical reality is the content of God's mind. Even if it *is* a problem, which I suppose to an extent it is, it is no more of a problem than the physicalist faces in trying to explain how physical processes can create non-physical consciousness. If you mean things that exist have 'physical properties' then you are just begging the question, so your question as to how we tell the immaterial from the non-existent is moot.
Eman Puedama Firstly, I'm not just going to grant you that the traits of god exist. It's interesting that you think that to discuss the existence of god we just have to assume traits like a 'pure immaterial mind'. Postulating about whether or not we're inside of god's mind seems no more useful or falsifiable than postulating about whether or not we're in the Matrix. What evidence is there that the consciousness is non-physical? When the brain is damaged people lose their memory, they can even develop new personalities. If you destroy the brain there's no evidence that the consciousness continues on in some form. What evidence is there that the consciousness can exist separate from a physical brain? I didn't say physical properties, nevertheless you're shooting yourself in the foot with your own definitions. Existence means something; can you identify any traits or properties of an immaterial thing whatsoever? How do you tell an immaterial thing apart from nothing? This isn't moot at all, it gets to the whole problem of just asserting that there are things that are immaterial; it begs the question of how do you even know such things exist if you can't identify any traits or properties of this thing.
kainedamo I didn't ask you to grant any such thing- I just said that the concept of God is incoherent under physicalist premises, so to discuss the question of God's existence while assuming physicalism is a waste of time. I've said this twice now. There is evidence that the mind is not tied to the brain, but even if there wasn't, there's no evidence or precedent for thinking that physical processes can cause non-physical phenomena such as thoughts and qualia. Obviously there is correlation, but that doesn't say anything about which way the causation is going. No, I'm not shooting myself in the foot. You were assuming that physical properties were the only ones that can exist- Yes *OBVIOUSLY* if that's your assumption, then the non-physical is synonymous with the non-existent-- but that's just begging the question. I've no idea why you think your failure to recognize this is such a triumph.
everything that exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, so it has a cause, and the cause was a timeless giant who farted and that's when the big bang started...see, very easy to assert BS about things we actually don't understand.
Why do atheists demand that one conclusion, from one argument, has to 'get you to' *every* conclusion you've reached that's related to that conclusion in order for those other conclusions to be sound? On what do they base this strange assumption? Is this a condition that they'd hold non-theist philosophies to? I don't see how it can be reasonable to apply it to anything, including scientific theories.
I don't really understand. Are you asking why people reject the entirety of the Kalam because the first premise is flawed? It works like this. All cakes come from a bakery. This is a cake. There for, it must come from a bakery. The first premise is wrong, so the argument for this being a cake from a bakery is flawed. However, we can say that the cake has chocolate frosting and contains shredded almonds. These conclusions don't RELY on the cake being from a bakery. Any argument that does is void.
SabbyNeko It's not obvious to me that the first premise is flawed, but that wasn't my point, so, leaving that aside-no I wasn't saying that, perhaps I should have been clearer. I think I made what I was getting at more clear in a previous comment here on the same theme. I think I did word it a bit clumsily, but it's a difficult thing to put in words. What I was alluding to, was that atheists routinely say that even if the Kalam, or any other argument for theism works, then, 'it doesn't get you to *your* God'. This is a nonsensical ploy, because the fact that an argument for a creator might not 'get you to' everything else that you believe about that creator, doesn't mean that it is in conflict with any arguments that *do* 'get you to' those other beliefs-- or is necessarily in conflict with those beliefs *unless that can be shown*. As I said, the standard that one argument for one aspect of a position should 'get you to' all other arguments for other aspects of that position that are further down the line, is an arbitrary one that atheists wouldn't demand of any other thesis. But they seem to think that the fact that one argument can't do all that is some kind of knock-down refutation in some unclear way.
Eman Puedama Okay, now I understand. Your correct, the Kalam isn't rendered invalid because it doesn't get you to Yahweh, but that's not what anyone is trying to demonstrate. When someone presents the Kalam argument, they usually do so to work into 'therefore God'. This is the leap that many Atheists are trying to draw attention to. It has nothing to do with whether the Kalam is valid, it's just pointing out that the arguers intention (justifying a God) isn't going to work.
SabbyNeko ''the Kalam isn't rendered invalid because it doesn't get you to Yahweh, but that's not what anyone is trying to demonstrate. '' I disagree, I distinctly heard people on this hangout say that it only gets you to Deism- and at least one implied that it even *is* specifically an argument for Deism. However, the point I was making still more-or-less stands as regards your characterisation of the criticism. Perhaps the idea of a non-physical cause of physical reality doesn't get you to God in a sense, but it would seem the only coherent explanation, and WLC and others have given arguments as to why a non-physical cause is probably a personal cause. I certainly can't think of any other causes that could qualify. Even granting that, you could say that it could be the work of one God out of many, but there are counter-arguments to that. Even if the Kalam doesn't necessarily get you to a single creator, if it is sound, that would certainly make it highly supportive of their being one.
Eman Puedama There is no issue with deism. I don't see t, but I'm no physicist. That is fine. Yahweh and precise religions are different. That is what atheist say.
1:35:38 WAHH Matter is *not* energy. X amount of energy is equivalent to y amount of matter, and matter can be transformed to energy. If you making statements like "matter is energy" and quote Einstein, you make yourself look like a moron. That is exactly the level of scientific understanding that leads people like him to believe the Cosmological Argument and use science to support their believes.
When Matt Bell said that the universe was made by a fine tuner, I just pictured a big old tuna in a dress giving me a wink.
And on this day, ladies and gentlemen, a new religions was born.
"...there was a point in time where Matthew Bell didn't exist..." Someone fire up the DeLorean I have a destination I wish to visit.
Bell makes a great point when he says proof of fine tuning doesn't prove a God in itself.
Looks like Bell's Crush is in there. And slowly, Matthew craws into her arms; like a little puppy begging for food.~
"everything that begins to exist has a cause" this is my rebuttal: a goose has a cause, that's the mother and father mating. each individual goose has a cause. what about the gander, does it have a cause?
I am not sure if they are logical fallacies or not, but here are the reasons why Aaron's take on kalam fails:
1. he is adding assumptions to the conclusion that do not follow the premises. So A therefore B, so if A then B = correct; if A then B, and B is transcendent = incorrect...all things that begin to exist have a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore something caused the universe = correct; all things that begin to exist have a cause, the universe began to exist, there fore something transcendent caused the universe = incorrect
2. If god is changeless he cannot be a free agent, in order to have the agency to cause something you have to be able to change your state, from not wanting to cause something to causing something.
3. If time began to exist, it cannot have a cause, it's completely irrational to state something temporal (a cause) can exist before time exists; if the universe began to exist simultaneously as time then it too cannot have a cause. To say something prior to time caused something is utter nonsense.
To FSX23's points, none of the premises are supported, they are baseless claims. Everything that begins to exist has a cause; we know that is true with material things that are caused from prior existing material, however we have no example of material things being caused by nonmaterial things, so that premise is unsupported and fails; the universe began to exist, that is simply a claim or hypothesis, there are scientific models of a universe that began to exist, however they are not supported by evidence, they are just hypothetical models so that premise fails, so regardless of the soundness of the logical argument it is not evidence for there being a cause for the universe, and even if it was, as implied above we cannot make any guesses as to what the cause was because we have no evidence, observation, prior experience of whatever that cause may be.
Why would an omnipotent creator need to fine tune anything?
The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but is in constant change. Matter comes from energy. This is too easy.
Dude, you are talking about forbidden words...why am I smelling turtle all of the sudden?!
Matter and energy came into existence at the big bang according to modern cosmology, as far as I know Capt
Matter didn't come until after the initial expansion cooled down enough for subatomic particles to bond.
Please let me at Matt bell
Oh I also did a literature search and could not find any peer review papers in physics nor cosmology that even talk about fine tuning let alone arguing that the universe is finely tuned. I'd really like to see these papers matt bell has from "scientist" because I cannot find a single one.
Isn't it funny how they still can destroy his claims?
Ok, this looks promising. These hang outs MUST have 1 or 2 theists/atheists minimum or its just a circle jerk. Two on two or three seems to work out best. Cluster fucks can be entertaining.but I think it puts off the guests talking, it's best to have a dedicated mod to do anything in those situations. Everyone gets talked over and questions are ignored. We don't wanna scare away all our lovely Xian friends from doing these hang outs. Or maybe their egos will always bring them back, idk. Matthew Bellend! It's been a while sense I've seen that forehead. He's always good for a chuckle watching the atheists try to deal with his stubborn faux science deism. On with the show!
IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF
This is the best arguments you have? Conditioned on IF?
The universe is finely tuned for blackholes . . . moreso than for life . . .
5 minutes in now.
There are still people using the fine tuning argument?
Not only is this simply anthropomorphism, we would also have to assume that a creator who wants this universe to be would be more probable. In the end he would just happen to have the nature that makes him want to create this universe. Why does anyone think that would be more probable?
Supposing you're in the desert miles from any settlements, you stop to eat a sandwich, and, unknown to you, it contains a sauce made of peanuts, to which you're highly allergic-- you go into a spasm, your throat starts to swell, and you're close to dying, when suddenly another person who just happened to be hiking in the desert turns up, and has epinephrine on him, because he's also allergic to peanuts. He gives you some, and you live.
This would obviously be remarkable, and the fact that you wouldn't be alive to note the 'remarkableness' of it, if the stranger hadn't turned up, wouldn't make it any less remarkable.
So how is that different from arguments against the remarkableness of fine-tuning based on the anthropic principle?
What is it with this repetitive 'how does this get to your God?' question... there can be an argument for a creator, and another argument for specific characteristics of that creator-- Just because the argument for the existence of a creator per se doesn't argue for what the 2nd argument is for, doesn't in any way mean that they contradict each other.
You can argue that someone broke into a house, you can then argue that it was a specific person, 'Bill'-- just because the first case, that *someone* broke into the house doesn't specify that it was Bill, doesn't mean that it isn't valid and also compatible with your case that it was Bill.
It's not that difficult.
1:37:00
Situations.......really, in a timeless reality how could you have a "situation", doesnt that require TIME?
On what is based the first sentence that everything that began to exist has a cause? Is it just our experience? If so, then why wouldn't it hold, based on that same experience, that everything that exists began to exist? If we are stipulating that the universe began to exist (not eternal), then, just as we have no experience of something beginning to exist without a cause, it seems we also have exactly no experience of something existing without beginning to exist, using 'beginning to exist' the same way as it is used in the first sentence. If the first sentence is NOT based on our experience, then on what IS it based?
The first premise of the Kalam fails because the first premise has not been justified, therefor the whole argument fails.
LEMME IN LEMME IN LEMME IN!!!
If ex-nihilo creation is not possible, what does god create the universe out of? An event is 'caused' not a creation.
3:35:00 So he asked for evidence that consciousnesses is a product of the brain. When presented with sound evidence, he argues that it could be that a ghost operates the brain and the ghost just can't use a damaged brain as good. That is the same level of reasoning as if I show him how electricity works and he argues that instead of electrons there are magic pixies that operates the circuit instead.
Matt Bell said "science" TWICE at ~54:30, not scientists.
Matt Bells argument collapsed at 1:27:00 .
Why was I removed?
I'm sorry I wasn't saying anything so maybe you thought I was a troll, but after I joined I got into an important skype call so I muted my microphone and was adding what I could to the conversation in the side bar chat. Sorry if I came off as shifty or something. I wasn't trying to come off that way.
1:22:00 QED SON
Give 'em hell, Bell!
No, Mathew Bell isn't suggesting something outside of 'space and time, and *reality*', he's suggesting something outside of *physical reality*-- or 'the universe'.
By making physical reality synonymous with 'reality' you, typically of atheists, are begging the question. If physicalism is true then theism can't be true- so if we're confined to physicalist premises, then there's no point in having a discussion.
I love "the empty tomb" as evidence. We haven't even found a tomb for Jesus let alone an empty one. Lol how is that evidence. Theist like bell need to learn that baseless claims are not evidence.
1:49:20 You call Universe as "space, time and reality", but space, time and reality can be separated. We are pretty sure that at the Big Bang event space and time (as we know it, i.e. what we call "space" and "time") become into existence, but reality could be eternal. Maybe before the Big Bang there was no space and no time, but reality existed. Maybe "reality" does not need space or time. There are many more possibilities before I can grand you the personal and powerful being.
Here's a question I'd like one Christian to answere. Jesus is the most important person in all history according to his worshippers. If he's so important why don't we know either the exact date of his birth and/or death? We have more accurate info about pharoahs who lived and died centuries before Jesus and are far less important to anyone than Jesus is supposedly to Christians. Why didn't they record and/or memorize the facts of Jesus's birth and death
20 minutes in. Come on guys, you dont need to answer the probability & physics stuff. Just say anthropomorphism
u·ni·verse
ˈyo͞onəˌvərs/Submit
noun
noun: universe; noun: the universe
all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago.
That was easy.
CaptainAwesomeoh13 The "cause" of the universe was the big bang based on our observed evidence. That was easy.
CaptainAwesomeoh13 Wrong! The universe was created by our good and savior, the soup. How dare you sir!
atheistmecca Ah... but you fail to realize, my child, is that regardless of where the universe came from, we as a people all came from the same primordial SOUP.
CaptainAwesomeoh13*Best served with a side of Philadelphia Cream Cheese Experiment.
2:44:00 "Second, independent confirmation is not necessary to establish the mere existence of the Jesus of the New Testament. *There simply is nothing epistemically improbable about the mere existence of a man named Jesus*. (Just because Jesus existed does not mean that he was born of a virgin, that he rose from the dead, etc.) Although a discussion of the New Testament evidence is beyond the scope of this paper, I think that the New Testament does provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is clear, then, that if we are going to apply to the New Testament "the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material,"[19] we should not require independent confirmation of the New Testament's claim that Jesus existed." - infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/indconf.html
I think no atheist ever discussed if a man named Jesus ever existed. Atheist usually disbelieve that he was the son of god and walked on water.
I have been listening for the first 45 minutes of this discussion and it seems you all are drowning in a glass of water. Fine tuning argument is the most up-to-date understanding for us to be here BUT you cold equally say that the components of a cup of coffee has been fine tuned for us.
Imaging my silly analogy of the cup of coffee fine tuned for us and now put the cup of coffee afloat in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. I could explain it a bit better but I got bored with that discussion, Regards.
Where is the google hangouts link?
according to matthew bell God cannot exist. He stated all life requires the universal constants. Therefore God requires the Universal constants to exist. If he requires these constants he couldn't have created them because that would require him living prior to the conditions for him to live existing. Mat Bell disproved his own God...nice
What amazing nonsense. Life is where consciousness and material form meet. God is pure immaterial mind. Or that is the only model of theism that makes any sense anyway, and also what I believe to be true.
I can't believe all these arguments against theism based on materialist premises when those premises rule out God in the first place. It reminds me of Dawkins' utterly crap TGD, where he talks of God as a hypothesis, when, at the same time, under his assumptions, God shouldn't even be a possibility. Utterly incoherent.
Eman Puedama 'God is pure immaterial mind.' How do you know that? And by what process does something immaterial, interact with the material? The confidence by which you just assert traits about god that in your own definition you couldn't ever hope to demonstrate, that you do it with no sense of irony, its just staggering. Things that exist have properties; how can we tell the immaterial apart, from non-existence?
kainedamo
I suppose I don't ''know'' that, but it's the only conception that has any internal consistency, so discussing the question of God's existence on any alternative premises is incoherent and a waste of time.
I do pretty much know that physicalism is incorrect however- or at least I'm as sure of it as I'm sure of anything.
Yes, I know about the 'interaction problem', however, this isn't such a problem if all physical reality is the content of God's mind. Even if it *is* a problem, which I suppose to an extent it is, it is no more of a problem than the physicalist faces in trying to explain how physical processes can create non-physical consciousness.
If you mean things that exist have 'physical properties' then you are just begging the question, so your question as to how we tell the immaterial from the non-existent is moot.
Eman Puedama Firstly, I'm not just going to grant you that the traits of god exist. It's interesting that you think that to discuss the existence of god we just have to assume traits like a 'pure immaterial mind'. Postulating about whether or not we're inside of god's mind seems no more useful or falsifiable than postulating about whether or not we're in the Matrix.
What evidence is there that the consciousness is non-physical? When the brain is damaged people lose their memory, they can even develop new personalities. If you destroy the brain there's no evidence that the consciousness continues on in some form. What evidence is there that the consciousness can exist separate from a physical brain?
I didn't say physical properties, nevertheless you're shooting yourself in the foot with your own definitions. Existence means something; can you identify any traits or properties of an immaterial thing whatsoever? How do you tell an immaterial thing apart from nothing? This isn't moot at all, it gets to the whole problem of just asserting that there are things that are immaterial; it begs the question of how do you even know such things exist if you can't identify any traits or properties of this thing.
kainedamo
I didn't ask you to grant any such thing- I just said that the concept of God is incoherent under physicalist premises, so to discuss the question of God's existence while assuming physicalism is a waste of time. I've said this twice now.
There is evidence that the mind is not tied to the brain, but even if there wasn't, there's no evidence or precedent for thinking that physical processes can cause non-physical phenomena such as thoughts and qualia.
Obviously there is correlation, but that doesn't say anything about which way the causation is going.
No, I'm not shooting myself in the foot. You were assuming that physical properties were the only ones that can exist- Yes *OBVIOUSLY* if that's your assumption, then the non-physical is synonymous with the non-existent-- but that's just begging the question. I've no idea why you think your failure to recognize this is such a triumph.
everything that exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, so it has a cause, and the cause was a timeless giant who farted and that's when the big bang started...see, very easy to assert BS about things we actually don't understand.
Why do atheists demand that one conclusion, from one argument, has to 'get you to' *every* conclusion you've reached that's related to that conclusion in order for those other conclusions to be sound? On what do they base this strange assumption? Is this a condition that they'd hold non-theist philosophies to? I don't see how it can be reasonable to apply it to anything, including scientific theories.
I don't really understand. Are you asking why people reject the entirety of the Kalam because the first premise is flawed?
It works like this. All cakes come from a bakery. This is a cake. There for, it must come from a bakery.
The first premise is wrong, so the argument for this being a cake from a bakery is flawed. However, we can say that the cake has chocolate frosting and contains shredded almonds. These conclusions don't RELY on the cake being from a bakery. Any argument that does is void.
SabbyNeko
It's not obvious to me that the first premise is flawed, but that wasn't my point, so, leaving that aside-no I wasn't saying that, perhaps I should have been clearer. I think I made what I was getting at more clear in a previous comment here on the same theme. I think I did word it a bit clumsily, but it's a difficult thing to put in words.
What I was alluding to, was that atheists routinely say that even if the Kalam, or any other argument for theism works, then, 'it doesn't get you to *your* God'.
This is a nonsensical ploy, because the fact that an argument for a creator might not 'get you to' everything else that you believe about that creator, doesn't mean that it is in conflict with any arguments that *do* 'get you to' those other beliefs-- or is necessarily in conflict with those beliefs *unless that can be shown*.
As I said, the standard that one argument for one aspect of a position should 'get you to' all other arguments for other aspects of that position that are further down the line, is an arbitrary one that atheists wouldn't demand of any other thesis. But they seem to think that the fact that one argument can't do all that is some kind of knock-down refutation in some unclear way.
Eman Puedama
Okay, now I understand. Your correct, the Kalam isn't rendered invalid because it doesn't get you to Yahweh, but that's not what anyone is trying to demonstrate. When someone presents the Kalam argument, they usually do so to work into 'therefore God'. This is the leap that many Atheists are trying to draw attention to. It has nothing to do with whether the Kalam is valid, it's just pointing out that the arguers intention (justifying a God) isn't going to work.
SabbyNeko
''the Kalam isn't rendered invalid because it doesn't get you to Yahweh, but that's not what anyone is trying to demonstrate. ''
I disagree, I distinctly heard people on this hangout say that it only gets you to Deism- and at least one implied that it even *is* specifically an argument for Deism.
However, the point I was making still more-or-less stands as regards your characterisation of the criticism. Perhaps the idea of a non-physical cause of physical reality doesn't get you to God in a sense, but it would seem the only coherent explanation, and WLC and others have given arguments as to why a non-physical cause is probably a personal cause. I certainly can't think of any other causes that could qualify.
Even granting that, you could say that it could be the work of one God out of many, but there are counter-arguments to that. Even if the Kalam doesn't necessarily get you to a single creator, if it is sound, that would certainly make it highly supportive of their being one.
Eman Puedama There is no issue with deism. I don't see t, but I'm no physicist. That is fine.
Yahweh and precise religions are different. That is what atheist say.
1:35:38 WAHH Matter is *not* energy. X amount of energy is equivalent to y amount of matter, and matter can be transformed to energy. If you making statements like "matter is energy" and quote Einstein, you make yourself look like a moron. That is exactly the level of scientific understanding that leads people like him to believe the Cosmological Argument and use science to support their believes.
I know he's insufferable, but I kind of wish you didn't kick him.
Wow Jacob do you actually listen. If you do then your rather slow...