Probably just as well as #2 is redundant, #3 is wrong (and contradicts #1), and #4 is simply insane.
Yep, after a cursory glance I dismissed them as the special pleadings of a fevered mind.
If we were to repair the non-sense with the triangles; I would have this to suggest:
Let’s imagine Alice has defined a triangle with 7 requirement it must have. Bob has defined a triangle with 17 requirements. Alice and Bob’s definitions are equivalent.
Chuck tries to construct a triangle but it failed to meet 2 of Alice’s requirements, it also fails to meet 4 of Eve’s requirements.
Dawn tries to construct a triangle but it failed to meet 2 of Alice’s requirements, and also failed to meet 2 of Eve’s requirements.
- Which attempt (Chuck v.s. Dawn) was closer to a triangle?
- How much closer was it?
- What are the units of closeness (like miles/hour, meters/second, gallons, etc)?
- What are the dimensions of this closeness (like distance/time, mass*distance, etc)?
Is it starting to become clear why this is madness?
It is to me. Thanks for that Nyar.
No NO NO NO NO
Even if we agree that the three point original Kalam proves there was a cause, then we must begin anew to determine it’s cause.
You do not accumulate, you prove beyond the shadow of the doubt.
Your proposition is built on the assumption that if you accumulate enough arguments, it proves something. It does not. And although we may agree that the universe had a cause, that does not move us one iota closer to what the cause was.
Carl Sagan made the statement “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
And of all claims the god claim is the most extraordinary and world-changing one. The most extraordinary and definitive proof must be offered. Not just a few very fallacious assumptions that only “move us closer”.
You are attempting to re-write the rules of logic to suit your narrative, attempting to plug in a god without any supporting proof.
As others have repeatedly pointed out, your continually make unsupported propositions and fallacies. You maybe under the impression that I am just rejecting your argument because I am an atheist. I reject your arguments because they fail.
That is not a definition, just some rambling words. I suggest you look around outside of your theistic circle and ascertain the proper definition of “infinite regress”.
And as expected, your god does not apply to your “logic” because you are using the special pleading fallacy.
An infinite regress is a series of propositions that arises if the truth of proposition P 1 requires the support of proposition P 2, the truth of proposition P 2 requires the support of proposition P 3, and so on.
The operative word to ponder is “propositions”. Because the flow of time does not recognize propositions.
With respect, that is not necessarily true.
I think I’ve mentioned before that logic is an unreliable tool for establishing truth.
All exercises in formal logic begin: 'IF A-----" IE If and only if A is true. Yes, there are exceptions, but that’s a fair rule of thumb.
With respect to the [fictional characters] of Star Trek’s Spock and Sherlock Holmes; Logic does not dictate, at best it infers (concludes)
Sherlock Holmes induces( not deduces) wrongly, that when the impossible has been eliminated, whatever remains is the truth: Few if any human beings may realistically claim he/she is even aware of all the possibilities in a typical Sherlock Holme’s scenario. Nor may one claim there is always going to be only one remaining possibility.
IMO God may not be argued into or out of existence. Remember that the atheist stating only “I do not believe” has made no claim need prove/disprove nothing.
AS far as I’m aware, so far in recorded history, no one has managed to argue [any] god into existence.
This atheist demands empirical evidence and will accept nothing less.
I have a question perhaps I should have asked earlier, at which others have hinted; Are you attending a bible college? OR a regular college which offers a broad range of degrees and post graduate degrees within the humanities and the sciences?
This atheist needs to know if we are discussing from the same premise. IE that the existence of god is unknown. That God’s existence may not reasonably be assumed. I’ll go further, it is my opinion ,based on experience, that presuppositional apologists tend to be disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
That is a false dilemma, where you are offering just two explanations. There may be additional explanations. For example, the universe cycles. Or the multiverse theory. Oops, I just added two more possible explanations. See how easy it is to dismantle your false dilemma?
FYI only you are proposing the universe popped out of nothing. You really need to educate yourself on cosmology.
I gave you the current reasoning behind the particles popping in and out of existence above. (READ IT AGAIN.)
“. At the quantum scale, space is a writhing, frantic, ever-changing foam, with particles popping into existence and disappearing in the wink of an eye. This is not just a theoretical idea—it’s confirmed.” Fermilab Today.
“And this appears everywhere. At the quantum level, matter and antimatter particles are constantly popping into existence and popping back out, with an electron-positron pair here and a top quark-antiquark pair there. This behavior is the reason that scientists call these ephemeral particles “quantum foam”: It’s similar to how bubbles in foam form and then pop.”
“Another name for this phenomenon is “virtual particles,” which just means the particles exist only because the rules of the quantum world allow it, and only for a brief time.”
“The idea that space is a bubbling brew of ephemeral particles sounds like complete nonsense, but the idea has been confirmed. In 1948, a physicist named Hendrik Casimir realized that if you placed two metal plates near each other, separated by a very small distance, the quantum foam would cause them to move. To visualize this, remember that quantum particles are also waves. Between the plates, only waves (particles) with wavelengths smaller than the separation between the plates can exist. Outside the gap, waves (particles) of all wavelengths can exist. Thus there are more particles outside the gap than inside, and the imbalance pushes the two plates together. This effect has been observed.”
No one asserted there was “nothing.” I gave you energy and Higgs Bosons above. That was something else I read. We know of no - NO- no instance of absolutely nothing. This is a mathematical or philosophical construct that does not occur in the real world, as far as anyone can tell.
Nothing or infinite past: Why are you having such a hard time with the idea that 'NO ONE KNOWS." You have been told this over and over and over again. Empty space is not Empty. I gave you the link to Krauss earlier. “A Universe From Nothing.”
Physics breaks down at Planck time. Causal relationships break down. Time breaks down. The world makes no sense at all beyond Planck time.
The Planck scale is the universal limit, beyond which the currently known laws of physics break. In order to comprehend anything beyond it, we need new, unbreakable physics. The Planck scale | symmetry magazine
Spooky Action is another weird thing when it comes to causality.
I am not a physics major. There are people on the site who are much better at this stuff. Point is… a whole lot of weird shit goes on in the quantum world that is not a part of the world we live in. What is outside this world? WE DON’T KNOW.
I’ll consider the 3 most obvious answers, and why each one MUST be wrong (or why closeness in this context is meaningless).
- Answer: Chuck (was the closest). This seems the most ridiculous answer. Chuck tied on Alice’s test, and lost on Bob’s test. Clearly Chuck was not the closest.
- Answer: A tie(they were of equal closeness). Since Alice and Bob’s definitions are equivalent, whether or not Alice exists, should make no difference on how close any given attempt is to a triangle. Therefore we can just retell the story without Alice. So Dawn failed two parts of Bob’s definition, and Chuck failed 4. Clearly this was NOT a tie.
- Answer: Dawn (was the closest). This time we’ll pretend Bob was never existed: Chuck and Dawn were both off by 2. Clearly Dawn was not closest.
I did not. And if so, please point out where I forgot.
That’s a real irony overload right there. Sorry to burst your bubble here, but you’re not the first theist to pretend they’re after answers preach their beliefs at us, evade all objections, and then pretend they don’t have time, but will answer at some point in the future.
Yet you had time to post that, and a string of questions, but no time to address the several known logical fallacies in your plagiarised kalam cosmological argument.
Worse still, is that having ignored the logical fallacies you used after they were explained to you, you still keep misrepresenting your argument as logical.
Now let’s cut to the chase shall we…
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
Yes or no, do you accept your use of the kalam cosmological arguement is irrational because it contained known logical fallacies, including special pleading and begging the question fallacies?
Yes or no, can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity?
Since you came here, and made a raft of claims, and have dishonestly evaded answering my responses, I think I’ll require some indication from you that you have any interest in honest debate before I’ll be diverted to answering questions from you, especially since atheism is not a claim or a belief. And you seem determined to ignore the claims I’ve made about your argument being illogical.
Well I hope your responses here are not a fair indication of your paper, as you seem determined not to hear or understand my objections.
A standard for evidence has to be met. Civil claims are the lowest forms - criminal crimes are much higher.
The bible (or any other holy book) is the claim. Not the evidence.
God ideas are claims. Not evidence.
Recently, the USA court system demonstrated the blatant difference between a claim and evidence to support - a judge quite nicely summed up:
The Campaign had to plead plausible facts, not just conclusory allegations.
You may not be able to “provide evidence” that he was there. The burden of proof falls on the Prosecutor (claim of crime) to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defendant (default position), is “innocent until proven guilty”.
NO it does not. Lol . YOU can say it over and over and over and over - IT does not.
Re-read all the posts. Read the counter-points of where your argument is lacking logic.
Re-read the TRIANGLE analogy counter points.
To this point - YOU have not addressed
Ny’s question. ANSWER it first.
YES or NO
Perhaps this is where you are lacking insight.
A corner has been established. That is it.
YOU keep insisting it is a TRIANGLE. You are running with one corner and saying “see! Proof of a triangle!!!”
YOU have already concluded (as I’m sure your professor has as well) THAT there is a “triangle”…
I say “yes, a corner…”
There is not (yet) further evidence of other corners or how many corners …
YOUR “corner” is this physical, natural universe that exists. One corner. An existing universe we live in.
I dis-believe YOUR claim that one corner “creates” a whole TRIANGLE (a presupposed conclusion).
I remain neutral. I do not counter you with a SQUARE.
I doubt HIGHLY he will actually READ any fucking science
This has been explained more than once…
Your PROFESSOR is a dipshit.
He is re-enforcing illogical arguments for a belief/faith that cannot be demonstrably evidenced.
HE/SHE would do no better on this forum.
Or you can just keep ignoring the fact that you have been called on one fallacious assertion after another, that your questioning is getting silly as you have been given clear answers and yet continue to ask the same stupid shit, and that your ignorance is beginning to show, Remember; it’s better to let people think you are ignorant than it is to open your mouth and prove it.
But you are not really doing that. You are responding to our inputs, but the arguments and ignoring of the many fallacies that have been pointed out indicates to me that you are selectively mis-representing what has been conveyed to you, and translating it into the gibberish that will please your teacher just to earn brownie points.
All I have heard from you are the low-grade arguments a trashy christian school would teach (more like force indoctrinate) low grade apologetics.
Unless you turn the christian filter off and actually and sincerely LISTEN to what has been told to you, I have no further reason to continue discourse.
What confirmation bias? Every theist/Christian argument is based on the giant assumption that there is a ancient bearded sky-puppeteer pulling the strings of the universe. The validity of all of your arguments relies on that being the truth, but you don’t/won’t/can’t justify that assumption.
So the difference between theist and atheist arguments is that atheists have higher standards of proof, logic, truth, and honesty. When we reach a point beyond current human knowledge, we say “we don’t know”, and you say “god did it.”