Originally posted by sonshipNo, it isn't.
Your ability to rationalize is more evidence that you were created in the image of a thinking Being then it is evidence that material on its own power somehow emerged to produce thought.
As far as history goes back we see life and thought producing life and thought in human beings.
History doesn't go back very far.
How far back do we have evidence that non-material and no thinking matter produced thinking beings?
Wikipedia says about 3.7 billion years.
Do you think your atheism is 100% a linear thought process ?
No.
I think you start off with the assumption of there being no God.
You think wrong. My athiesm isn't a 'thought process' at all. It is merely a state I am in due to my lack of belief in God. And no, I do not assume there is no God, I believe there is no God due to the logical deductions I have made based on the evidence available.
That is mostly a matter of you will power.
No, I just think it would be monumentally stupid to try and delude myself because you told me to.
Rationality is secondary really.
No, it isn't.
No one can make you "comply".
And a good thing too.
And this goes, I think, as more evidence that we are created in the image of God Who instilled in His creature man a freedom of will in this matter.
No, it doesn't.
Can you image that a husband that controlled his wife's love by an electrode would be happy with that "forced to comply" love ?
In actual fact, yes. But I fail to see how it is provides evidence in your favour.
The question is, does the Christian's " desperation " argue that God is not real ?
Of course it does not.
That would be a genetic fallacy,
And it is dishonesty to try and imply that I made any such argument.
God is not real to you then for two reasons.
1.) You don't want God to be, period.
Your mind-reading attempt has failed.
2.) You are deluded concerning His love and willingness to remove your real guilt stemming also from your self chosen non-compliance, that there may be no obstacle to fellowship.
Again, mind-reading failure.
I am not sure that with an atheist any argument of any kind can be won without them stealing from a theistic Christian worldview.
I have never stolen form theistic Christian world-view and I have won nearly every discussion we have ever had.
Originally posted by sonshipI have won it every time we have discussed it, you are simply too suborn to admit it.
You mean the number of times you have abysmally failed to win that point ?
Arguing about Who or What created humans, that is another issue. But no such argument has EVER been won here that "uncreated" humans have been around "uncreated" eternally.
Exactly. Which is where your false dichotomy comes in. You claim that there are only two options:
1. Everyone was created.
2. Everyone was here forever.
You have just admitted that nobody has ever claimed 2. yet you equally claim that 1. is the only alternative. Surely that means every person who has ever disputed 1 is either monumentally stupid, or you just haven't been listening.
The current scientific consensus is that the entire universe was not and then was.
I know for a fact that I have pointed out many times to you in the past that that is not true.
So it was created.
False dichotomy. That is not the only other possibility.
You see, for anything to exist, something must have existed eternally.
So you claim, but you can't actually back that up with logic.
I've never seen that refuted here by you or anyone else - boast in boredom as you may.
You must have you eye's tight shut as well as your mind. If I go back and find the threads what will you do? Deny they exist or ignore my post?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have won it every time we have discussed it, you are simply too suborn to admit it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chuckle.
sonship:
Arguing about Who or What created humans, that is another issue. But no such argument has EVER been won here that "uncreated" humans have been around "uncreated" eternally.
twhitehead:
Exactly. Which is where your false dichotomy comes in. You claim that there are only two options:
1. Everyone was created.
2. Everyone was here forever.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Everyone was created except God.
This is very heavily evidenced in His demonstration of transcendence over time. And that is apparent from prophesy and that He apparently knows the events far far into the future.
What would follow now would be a long debate on prophesy.
And going along with that would be a debate on textural authenticity of the Scriptures.
And then I reckon what would go along with that is interpretation of passages.
And then along with that would be objections that other predictors did the same thing, or seems like they tried.
Then we'd probably end up with the Canaanites and God is bad arguments.
Okay, I am waiting to see what is so obvious to you. But so far I see nothing but very clever word smithing lawyer style. But I'm looking for you logic.
You have just admitted that nobody has ever claimed 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just claimed that no one has won the argument that we are uncreated. In other words existing forever.
I now add the point that God is the exception. God has never not existed. And as such, some of us realize that God is worthy of our worship. For God is so beyond our limitations that worship in adoration is a appropriate response to Him.
yet you equally claim that 1. is the only alternative.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humans were uncreated or humans were created.
Do you have a third alternative?
What is your third alternative to this dichotomy ?
I expect your next post to identify a third alternative to this:
1.) Humans were created.
2.) Humans have always been in existence and had no beginning of creation.
And please do not offer distracting arguments about words not being identically the same as in a previous post.
You THIRD alternative is ?
Surely that means every person who has ever disputed 1 is either monumentally stupid, or you just haven't been listening.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disputing that humans were not created is incorrect.
And I have come across people who claim so.
They claim that nothing was created but everything existed somehow in another form.
IE. What I was was in the stars before so "I" somehow always existed.
But "I" wasn't before 1949.
sonship:
The current scientific consensus is that the entire universe was not and then was.
twhitehead:
I know for a fact that I have pointed out many times to you in the past that that is not true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No you have not.
But there are of course some hold outs who be loudly vocal about it.
I think the current consensus is that the universe had a beginning.
And any multiverse proposed doesn't negate the need for a beginning.
So it was created.
False dichotomy. That is not the only other possibility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your next post will point out the THIRD alternative.
I don't expect a boast that you said so before.
Your THIRD alternative to a created universe or an eternal uncreated one is ? ? ?
You see, for anything to exist, something must have existed eternally.
So you claim, but you can't actually back that up with logic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your THIRD alternative IS _______ ?
I've never seen that refuted here by you or anyone else - boast in boredom as you may.
You must have you eye's tight shut as well as your mind. If I go back and find the threads what will you do? Deny they exist or ignore my post?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll do the same thing I am doing right now.
1.) The universe was created with us human beings also created.
2.) The universe was not created but has existed eternally (with you and me and everyone else)
Your THIRD alternative IS ______________ ?
No need to demand that flip back to several months ago on page who-knows-what ? If its such an easy thing to prove a third alternative, write it out below.
No need to play tricky lawyer. Just tell us the third alternative.
No - not created.
No - not always existing
But .... the twhitehead special THIRD alternative of ________ ?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by sonshipI thought I just did.
Wait, I have a better idea.
Can anyone ELSE besides twhitehead explain his THIRD alternative to the universe being created or eternal existing ?
Someone else who read it. explain his THIRD alternative please.
Did anyone get convinced ? ? ?
Can anyone one else explain his THIRD alternative ?
"Being created" requires and implies a "creator", an intelligent agent that 'created' the
universe [or whatever is being discussed]... If not in general, certainly in this context.
However there exists [at least one] alternative to eternal existence or being created.
And that is coming into existence via natural processes without any intelligence being involved.
Whether you concede that such a thing is possible, it is most certainly a different option than
either of the two alternatives you propose.
Thus your choice is by definition a false dichotomy because those are not the only two options.
Originally posted by sonshipYou have stated it, but you have not demonstrated it.
I have stated that for anything to exist, something must have existed forever eternally.
Twhitehead being a really really smart atheist will now demonstrate that out of nothing something CAN come.
No, twhitehead will not. Twhitehead has not claimed that such a thing is possible, nor claimed that he can demonstrate that it is possible.
It should be easy for him. He implies its been done so so many times.
No, I have implied no such thing. Once again, you should know this if you have bothered to pay attention in the many many discussions we have had on the topic. But it appears you are soooo good at mind reading that you never bother to ever actually read other peoples posts.
Here is what I am actually asserting in this thread:
1. Your claim that something must have been created or be eternal is a false dichotomy.
2. The reason why it is a false dichotomy is that there are more possible options.
3. One example of another option is that it came into existence without a cause.
4. Another example is that it came into existence via a process that cannot reasonably be called 'creation'. Remember that you were using the word to specifically mean some sort of bringing into being by an entity. When the rain falls and creates rivulets of water, that is not the sort of creation you were originally implying.
Originally posted by googlefudge"Being created" requires and implies a "creator", an intelligent agent that 'created' the
universe [or whatever is being discussed]... If not in general, certainly in this context.
However there exists [at least one] alternative to eternal existence or being created.
And that is coming into existence via natural processes without any intelligence being involved.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said if anything exists SOMETHING must have always existed.
Natural processes would have to be the something.
But that's self contradictory.
Natural processes are part of the universe. So that would be saying that the universe created itself.
And to say that the universe created itself by natural processes is to say that it existed BEFORE it existed. That is absurd.
But if you think you understand the thwhiteheadian THIRD alternative without private coaching from him, explain it.
I don't think what you explained above does the job.
I also don't see him coming along and saying you got his ideas correct.
Which is pretty smart.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipActually the false dichotomy I called you on was when you said this:
I said if anything exists SOMETHING must have always existed.
We were not created ?
That means that you have always been in existence since eternity then, which you should know is not true.
But even your new claim is not known to be true unless you define 'always' to be 'all time whether finite or infinite' and define 'time' to be 'something' in which case it is true by definition. Certainly some of your earlier statement implied the necessity of infinite time which is not known to actually be the case.
As always, if you actually had a valid argument, then you would be in line for the Nobel prize. That you have not yet got the prize suggests you don't have a water tight argument and that you know you don't.
Originally posted by sonshipI think 'created' means something very different to you. Like Paley and the watchmaker analogy, creation to you is inseparable from a Creator, which is why (as an atheist) i refute that we were 'created'. If you accepted that being 'created' did not necessitate an intelligent designer and that creation was a matter of natural evolutionary processes, i would be more than happy to accept humans were 'created.'
We were not created ?
That means that you have always been in existence since eternity then, which you should know is not true.
To argue with God is to argue with the One who gave you the ability to argue at all.
Worth noting though that the dictionary defines 'created' as:
.to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.
.to cause to happen; bring about; arrange, as by intention or design:
As someone who doesn't believe in 'intentional design' but does believe in 'natural/ordinary processes' the above definitions would seem to support my position that i was not 'created,' in the understood sense of the word.
Originally posted by sonshipThere is a third alternative, probably a 4th and a 5th, but for now, the third:
[b] "Being created" requires and implies a "creator", an intelligent agent that 'created' the
universe [or whatever is being discussed]... If not in general, certainly in this context.
However there exists [at least one] alternative to eternal existence or being created.
And that is coming into existence via natural processes without any intelligence be ...[text shortened]... lso don't see him coming along and saying you got his ideas correct.
Which is pretty smart.
One hypothesis (totally unproven but maybe with a shred of evidence) THE universe is infinite in size. OUR universe had a time clock set to zero 14 odd billion years ago.
They say it could have been the result of the reverse of a black hole, a 'white' hole, that would be like the other end of a black hole where the stuff in the black hole siphons through somehow, mainly energy, to cause what we see as the big bang.
The hypothesis further says black holes in our universe makes for a white hole, creating yet more universes and the universe THAT white hole made begats yet another daughter universe, each one with slightly different laws of physics, say in our universe c is the speed of light, about 300 million meters per second, but in the daughter universe the speed of light may be a tad bit slower or faster, the idea being the laws of physics may subtly alter from universe begats to another universe, that is how the story goes and you are free to poo poo it since there is MAYBE one piece of evidence showing this kind of thing.
So you wanted to hear of alternatives, this is one.
1 edit
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I think 'created' means something very different to you. Like Paley and the watchmaker analogy, creation to you is inseparable from a Creator, which is why (as an atheist) i refute that we were 'created'.
Then there must be something else going on in your objection that has little to do with the reasons you present.
Besides, I again said "If anything exists at all, then something must have existed eternally."
Yes, I would say the something existing eternally is God.
But I do not frame my axiom that way because it has to because other candidates for transcendent something eternally existing might be proposed.
IE. Laws of logic maybe.
Numbers maybe or some other abstract something that transcents matter, time, and space.
If you accepted that being 'created' did not necessitate an intelligent designer and that creation was a matter of natural evolutionary processes, i would be more than happy to accept humans were 'created.'
Then we're at an evolutionary process has eternally existed. And everything that exists ultimate finds its source in an eternal ever existing evolutionary process.
If that if the something that you propose, it is at least a proposal. But how did an eternal evolutionary process kick off when nothing existed ? Did "natural selection" decide that something was more useful to the survival of nothing than nothing ?
Explain how you think an eternal evolutionary process "selected" something to evolve should exist rather than nothing to evolve.
Worth noting though that the dictionary defines 'created' as:
.to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.
.to cause to happen; bring about; arrange, as by intention or design:
As someone who doesn't believe in 'intentional design' but does believe in 'natural/ordinary processes' the above definitions would seem to support my position that i was not 'created,' in the understood sense of the word.
You begin with no natural material anything.
You propose that an eternal ever existing evolutionary process without intention, plan or design "selected" between nothing material to evolve and something material to evolve.
How was that selection made evolution style? Trial and error ?
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouse
There is a third alternative, probably a 4th and a 5th, but for now, the third:
One hypothesis (totally unproven but maybe with a shred of evidence) THE universe is infinite in size. OUR universe had a time clock set to zero 14 odd billion years ago.
You mean a multiverse. Even a assemble of "universes" (or multiverse) has to have a beginning.
They say it could have been the result of the reverse of a black hole, a 'white' hole, that would be like the other end of a black hole where the stuff in the black hole siphons through somehow, mainly energy, to cause what we see as the big bang.
The hypothesis further says black holes in our universe makes for a white hole, creating yet more universes and the universe THAT white hole made begats yet another daughter universe, each one with slightly different laws of physics, say in our universe c is the speed of light, about 300 million meters per second, but in the daughter universe the speed of light may be a tad bit slower or faster, the idea being the laws of physics may subtly alter from universe begats to another universe, that is how the story goes and you are free to poo poo it since there is MAYBE one piece of evidence showing this kind of thing.
So you wanted to hear of alternatives, this is one.
I don't poo poo the theory. But I do realize that what you seem to be proposing, on a possible "shred" of evidence, (your words), that black holes and white holes have eternally existed.
There was always something to collapse on itself because of a dying star process and catapult from black hole into white hole.
The caveat is that infinite number of universes in the multiverse also have an infinite variations on the law of physics.
So far we have two proposals:
An eternal pre-existing evolutionary process that "selected" between nothing to evolve and something to evolve, somehow.
And an assemble of perhaps infinite number of universes all with infinite variations on the laws of physics. But somehow with these varying laws of physics eternally existing black holes and white holes suck up and spew out universes forever in the past and forever into the future.
With respect - more so than you usually give me:
In those universes which have laws of physics NOT allowing for black holes and white holes, how did they get started ?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead
Here is what I am actually asserting in this thread:
1. Your claim that something must have been created or be eternal is a false dichotomy.
I said if anything exists something must have existed always, eternally.
You're asserting that that is not true.
But I believe there must be an uncreated source of all things deriving their existence from other sources.
If you follow the chain back you must arrive at something which did not derive existence from something prior.
2. The reason why it is a false dichotomy is that there are more possible options.
What options I am looking for you to explain are not what you WANT to explain, but what I need you to explain.
That is an infinite regress of things all deriving their existence from pre-existing sources eternally. That is the alternative.
How is it that all the makes up the universe derives from other things infinitely and eternally as an infinite regress ?
I expect you to answer that and not spend so much energy and time telling me that that is not what I asked before.
3. One example of another option is that it came into existence without a cause.
This is what I mean by atheism stealing from a Christian theist world view. You high jack just enough law of causality to justify atheism. But when a law causality leads to an ultimate cause, you chuck it out and say it all started UNCAUSED.
This suggests to me something else is going on in your objection to us believing God as the Creator. Something other than rational thought process must be fueling your objection to theism.
What I usually get from atheists is that the laws of causality are not certain - EXCEPT for theories that affirm atheism.
Or I get, God cannot be eternal - everything needs a cause - EXCEPT the universe which can be eternal.
Or I get, Everything has a physical cause - except atheists' thoughts and theories about atheism.
4. Another example is that it came into existence via a process that cannot reasonably be called 'creation'.
When there is nothing and there follows to be something as the Big Bang Theory proposes, we're safe to use the word "creation". Astrophysicist Hugh Ross refers to this as "the cosmic creation event".
Space , time, energy, matter trace their beginning to the cosmic creation event. That's what the Big Bang explanation has cosmologists at large agreeing on. Some are looking for something before the Big Bang.
If I told you that the consensus of biologists believe in evolution, you would have no problem. If I told you the consensus of cosmologists agree that space, time, energy, and matter started with the Big Bang, you say "Oh no, it is not a consensus."
Quotations you usually dismiss for one reason or another. So I won't use the time to give you any.
But in either case, with Evolution or Big Bang Theory, it is not unanimous but consensus.
Remember that you were using the word to specifically mean some sort of bringing into being by an entity. When the rain falls and creates rivulets of water, that is not the sort of creation you were originally implying.
What I choose to remember is that the human language is limited to express some of these things. I perfectly hear you about talking about before time or prior to time. In what sense is "before" valid when time is begun?
I understand those linguistic paradoxes. But I don't think these limitations forbid us to express the nearly un-expressable.
You push human language as far as you can to affirm atheism.
I can push human language as far to affirm that something transcending time, space, matter, material, and energy "BEGAN" the created universe.
Originally posted by sonshipNo, that is not what I said. I quite clearly said that if your particular argument was valid then it would be in line for a Nobel prize. I did not say that all valid arguments are in for a Nobel prize. My point was not a false dichotomy.
1.) Valid arguments are all in line for a Nobel prize.
2.) Invalid ones are not.