The evolution of personality

Originally posted by Darfius

So if you were in an apartment with two roommates, and you find your favorite shirt missing, and you ask one if he took it, and he replies 'No', you would not take that as proof the other did? Or would you throw your hands up and be pr ...[text shortened]... 6.5 billion people in the world to find your missing shirt?

bad analogy, as it assumes the existance of the second flatmate as proven fact - saying that lack of proof for an alernative proves the existance of God a closer analogy would be that you were in an apartment with one flatmate:

Did you take my shirt?
No!
God/some supernatural force must have moved it

Apart from anything else, I'd hate to be your flatmate if you accused me of taking anything that you couldn't locate just becuase you lack another explanation 😛

Originally posted by dj2becker
The universe consists of a series of events stretched across time in a long causal chain. Each one of these events is the cause of the event that comes after it, and the effect of the event that comes before it. The world as it is came fr ...[text shortened]... rse.)

http://www.existence-of-god.com/first-cause-argument.html

There is a major issue with your reasoning. The concept of an infinite series is a human invention and is subject to all the restrictions of the human law of mathematics. Why the hell would you think the universe and its parameters are also at the mercy of a simplistic human framework like maths?

The inability to count to infinity (as defined by mathematics) does not prove or even suggest that all parameters in the universe are neccessarily finite.

Originally posted by dj2becker

Do you know that it is philosophically impossible to prove the non-existance of God? Yet the evidence of God is there to be seen by everybody. It is just a matter of your pre-suppositions the determine how you interpret the evidence. Thus if your pre-supposition is based on the non-existance of God, then you will not be able to interpret the the evidence ...[text shortened]... nthough the evidence is there. In that way you are preventing yourself from finding the truth.

so what you're saying is that there is no proof for God, no proof that there's not God, so people will explain what they see around them based on their preheld beliefs. I agree , but that argument rolls both ways. Both athiests and Christians (and other faiths) do this, eloquently shown by your statement that although you cannot proove Gods existance the evidence is all around us - evidence that you have chosen to interpret as evidence of God because of your preheld beliefs.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Would you like to have tangible evidence for something intangible? What type of proof would you be willing to accept?

If god is intangible, you can have no knowledge of him whatsoever, your limited human perceptions can say nothing about his existence. As such we must rely on the tools we have to base our decisions on. Any evidence that proved my null-hypothesis incorrect would be sufficient, but all evidence must be based on human perception, we have no other way of presenting it.

Do you know that it is philosophically impossible to prove the non-existance of God?

This is a silly statement. How can you can you prove the non-existence of something? Are you saying that it is philosophically possible to prove god exists? Or are you presenting the null-hypothesis that god does not exist and saying that it is impossible to prove this? If it is a null-hypothesis then you must attempt to disprove it and as such you are incorrect because there is no current proof that this null-hypothesis is wrong. As such, I must conclude that until such proof is found, the null-hypothesis remains intact.

Yet the evidence of God is there to be seen by everybody.

What is this evidence? Bear in mind that if it does not refute the possibilty of other counter-evidence, it cannot be proof.

It is just a matter of your pre-suppositions the determine how you interpret the evidence.

This may be true, but if there is a conflict of evidence, presupposition is immaterial, you cannot have two proofs for something if the proofs directly conflict each other. One of them must be incorrect. This is why we use null-hypothesis.

Thus if your pre-supposition is based on the non-existance of God, then you will not be able to interpret the the evidence as proof.

As I have said above, proof is irrespective of presupposition if applied to the disproving of a null-hypothesis. Either the evidence proves the null-hypothesis is wrong, or it doesn't.

Thus you create your own absence of proof, eventhough the evidence is there. In that way you are preventing yourself from finding the truth.

Your evidence for god does not dispel the fact that there are other possibilities. As such it cannot be said to be proof, regardless of personal prejudice. It is you who is preventing yourself from finding the truth, by deciding that you have found it already in the face of other possibilities and with no clear evidence which refutes these possiblities. You may be right that god does exist, but you make such a claim unsubstantiated and prematurely.

Originally posted by dj2becker

The Past Therefore Cannot be Infinite
The idea that the universe has an infinite past is just as problematic as the idea that I have just counted down from infinity. If the universe had an infinite past, then time would have had to count down from infinity to reach time zero, the present, and so would not have reached it. The fact that we have reached the present therefore shows that the past is not infinite but finite.

This makes no sense to me. In effect you are saying that because you cannot reach the begining or the end of an infinate sequence that you cannot reach any point in the middle either. In an infinate number sequence from negative infinity to possitive infinity every number exists. If you say that none of these numbers can be reached because they are an infinate distance away does this not imply that there must have been a start point that was this infinate distance away, when the whole point is that there was no start point? You cannot disprove the existance of infinity by applying rules from non-infinate sequences, and without this all your whole proof falls down.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Would you like to have tangible evidence for something intangible? What type of proof would you be willing to accept?


[/b]

We have just sat through a lengthy mass for JPII telecast around the globe live.

Could your omnipotent god have flipped the lid of the casket, had JPII leap to his feet, do a little jig and then magically float in the air for a few minutes doing a live chat with your god.

I think that might just do it.

Originally posted by Starrman
Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Would you like to have tangible evidence for something intangible? What type of proof would you be willing to accept?

If god is intangible, you can have no knowledge of him whatsoever, your limited human perceptions can say nothing about his existence. As such we must rely on the tools we have to base our d ...[text shortened]... may be right that god does exist, but you make such a claim unsubstantiated and prematurely. [/b]

Sorry this thread is being spoilt as we have gone totally off the topic. I'll open another thread to discuss this...

Originally posted by dj2becker
Yes, sorry about that. I'm not an expert in philosophy.

But here is The Causality Argument:

The Causality Argument:
1. Thomas Aquinas was probably the first to use the Causality Argument as published in his "Summa Theologica." Many others have arrived at the same point of view: Only nothing comes from nothing - everything else comes from somethin ...[text shortened]... t Being at the Source!

http://www.self-realization.com/prooffor.htm#The%20Design%20Argument

An infinite chain of causality is not logically impossible. I defy you to try an deduce a contradiction from the supposition that there is such an infinite chain. This is the first flaw with Aquinas's argument.

If you assert that everything requires a cause, then you are committed to the claim that God requires a cause. If you demur, and claim that everything but God requires a cause, I can demur and claim that everything but the universe itself requires a cause. If you can selectively reject a prinicple of necessary causation, then I can too.

Further, even if you could show that the universe must have been caused by something, it does not follow that the first cause was an entity.

Further, even if you could show that the first cause was an entity, it does not follow that the entity is a person, nor that the entity is omnipotent, omniscient, or morally perfect.

Similar comments apply, mutatis mutandis, to the argument from motion.

Originally posted by dj2becker
The French mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-62) put forward an argument that would appeal to agnostics. (An agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to prove God's existence.)

His argument goes something like this: God either exists or he does not. If we believe in God and he exists, we will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven. If ...[text shortened]... r think that the experience of a few sinful pleasures is worth the risk of eternal damnation?

Remember that issue of a defined sample space that I pointed out in the "Evidence of a Creator' thread?

I think you have the same problem.

Let me ask you a question to illustrate.

What is the probability of getting exactly 8 heads in a coin flipping experiment?

Originally posted by Maustrauser
We have just sat through a lengthy mass for JPII telecast around the globe live.

Could your omnipotent god have flipped the lid of the casket, had JPII leap to his feet, do a little jig and then magically float in the air for a few minutes doing a live chat with your god.

I think that might just do it.

The Antichrist will rise from the dead after a head wound midway through the last 7 years of history. He will be indwelt by Satan at that time.

Just a heads up.

Originally posted by bbarr
An infinite chain of causality is not logically impossible. I defy you to try an deduce a contradiction from the supposition that there is such an infinite chain. This is the first flaw with Aquinas's argument.

If you assert that everything requires a cause, then you are committed to the claim that God requires a cause. If you demur, and claim that ever ...[text shortened]... orally perfect.

Similar comments apply, mutatis mutandis, to the argument from motion.

Your flaw is the universe is physical while God is not. It is folly to apply scientific principles to a spiritual entity. It's also folly to NOT apply them to a physical entity such as the universe.

Originally posted by Darfius
The Antichrist will rise from the dead after a head wound midway through the last 7 years of history. He will be indwelt by Satan at that time.

Just a heads up.

Thanks for sharing.🙄

Originally posted by Darfius
Your flaw is the universe is physical while God is not. It is folly to apply scientific principles to a spiritual entity. It's also folly to NOT apply them to a physical entity such as the universe.

Your flaws include placing words in other people's mouths, and then reasoning fallaciously upon these words. I don't recall claiming that the universe was a physical entity (that's 'cause I didn't). The universe contains physical entities, just as it contains mental entities and abstract entities. Further, even if the universe was a physical entity, it wouldn't follow that it has to have been caused. No scientific principle claims that every physical entity was the effect of some prior cause. This is just some bizarre figment of your imagination, and evidence of your mind-numbing proclivity to equate atheism with materialism (just as you equate atheism with scientism). Once you get educated about quantum mechanics, you will realize that many, many scientists explicity reject the principle that everything physical has to have been caused. Further, even if this was a correct scientific principle (which it ain't), it still wouldn't follow that it should not be applied to spiritual entities. After all, spiritual entities can be subject to causal forces (your sins cause God to be sad, Darfius), and they can exert causal force (God could, if He wanted, give you a good spanking). So, just like physical entities, spiritual entities can be subject to causal laws. What you would have to claim is that spiritual entities need not be governed by causal laws, but supporting this claim would require an argument (which you haven't provided, and I doubt you have at hand, though maybe you could find something to cut and paste from the web).

And that is a little lesson on how nonsense gets dealt with here in the forums.

Cheers!

Your flaws include placing words in other people's mouths, and then reasoning fallaciously upon these words.

Admittedly so. Sometimes. And not that time. But it's fun to watch you dance.

I don't recall claiming that the universe was a physical entity (that's 'cause I didn't).

So the universe is a spiritual entitity then? You get more religious everyday, Bennett.

The universe contains physical entities, just as it contains mental entities and abstract entities.

Are you equating 'contains' to 'is'? Why do we have any reason to believe the universe isn't physical?

Further, even if the universe was a physical entity, it wouldn't follow that it has to have been caused. No scientific principle claims that every physical entity was the effect of some prior cause.

Name me a physical entitity that wasn't the effect of a prior cause.

This is just some bizarre figment of your imagination, and evidence of your mind-numbing proclivity to equate atheism with materialism (just as you equate atheism with scientism).

Prove it. I've learned atheists lie a lot. Not accusing you, but I'm not as gullible anymore.

Once you get educated about quantum mechanics, you will realize that many, many scientists explicity reject the principle that everything physical has to have been caused.

Prove it. Name me some scientists. Ad populum.

Further, even if this was a correct scientific principle (which it ain't), it still wouldn't follow that it should not be applied to spiritual entities.

You're right. It also wouldn't follow that it should. Where are we at then? Someone's bias has to win out. I'll go with the one that makes more sense.

After all, spiritual entities can be subject to causal forces (your sins cause God to be sad, Darfius),

No. God's decision to be sad causes Him to be sad. I couldn't force God to do anything and it would be amusing to watch me try (if I were suicidal).

and they can exert causal force (God could, if He wanted, give you a good spanking).

That or make a universe.

So, just like physical entities, spiritual entities can be subject to causal laws.

Why'd you say 'so' as if that followed?

What you would have to claim is that spiritual entities need not be governed by causal laws, but supporting this claim would require an argument (which you haven't provided, and I doubt you have at hand, though maybe you could find something to cut and paste from the web).

Are you confusing me with someone else? Your arguments aren't difficult enough for me to copy and paste. At least people like tel and no1 use science to back themselves up. Your argument is "If God can be eternal, then so can the universe! Even though the evidence points to the contrary!"

Tell me, bbarr, if the singularity was eternal, what was different about the point in "eternity" that caused the Big Bang? Were things building up from eternity past?

And that is a little lesson on how nonsense gets dealt with here in the forums.

Cheers!

I'm afraid I'm a poor student. Or you're a poor teacher. One of the two.

Originally posted by Darfius
I'm afraid I'm a poor student.

Guess which has my vote?

A poor student is the one who doesn't learn by questioning anything.

I've raised numerous questions that you've intentionally avoided because you
fear the answers (no doubt egged on by PMs from pcaspian).

If you are genuinely interested in learning, then you must empty yourself of
bias and supposition and open your mind and your self to the possibility that
the answers are complicated, rather than easy.

Nemesio