To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.

[Sarkus]

Sarkus hasn't covered this at all, let alone adequately. Sarkus, is a mad as hell, and wants to destroy me, and is therefore irrational (I hope you have a sense of humour).

excuse me??
On what grounds do you accuse me of being mad, of wanting to destroy you? And provide evidence of my irrationality, please. Such unsupported accusations will not be tolerated. So support them or apologise.
Do I disagree with you? Yes.
Do I support my position with reason? Yes.
So now you attempt to disparage me merely because I have called your fallacies out, repeatedly so because you fail to address them?
You have shown your true colours, Jan Ardena, and it is not a pretty sight.

 

[Jan Ardena]

excuse me??
On what grounds do you accuse me of being mad, of wanting to destroy you? And provide evidence of my irrationality, please. Such unsupported accusations will not be tolerated. So support them or apologise.
Do I disagree with you? Yes.
Do I support my position with reason? Yes.
So now you attempt to disparage me merely because I have called your fallacies out, repeatedly so because you fail to address them?
You have shown your true colours, Jan Ardena, and it is not a pretty sight.

Sarkus, I was being humorous with Baldeee. But I do think you are being irrational. You don't read carefully what I write, then you come back to me with a response that is not related to what I wrote. But instead of going through it with me, you accuse me of all kinds of fallacies.

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

I wasn't going to respond, but there are things in this latest post of yours that I felt required comment.

Sarkus hasn't covered this at all, let alone adequately. Sarkus, is a mad as hell, and wants to destroy me, and is therefore irrational (I hope you have a sense of humour).

To the first: Sarkus has dealt with it sufficiently for those of us who can comprehend logic.
That seems to rule you out given your amply demonstrated difficulties thus far.

To the second: I have found Sarkus to be one of the more rational people on this board.
You clearly have an issue with him.
I will leave you to resolve that with him.
Needless to say your remarks do not do you any favours.

Okay let's approach this another way.
Seeing as my theism does not in any way affect the reasonable assumption, can you, for the purpose of this discussion go purely with the reasonable assumption? If you think my theism affects what I saying in anyway, can you explain how it affects?
Hopefully, thanks in advance.

Your theism doesn't affect the conditional reasonableness of your assumption.
It was never raised as an affect to what you say.
I believe your theism was raised as it, and your adherence to your comment, introduced a contradiction to other claims you made.

I also think it has been pointed out to you (on another thread) that your assumption is only reasonable if God exists.
If God does not exist then it is not reasonable.
And since that is the issue at hand it should not reasonably used as a evidence in favour of God.
So no, the way you are using it, it is not reasonable.

It's not future conditional, and nothing is left open. I said that if it is realized as true, then I will have to accept it.

You have contradicted yourself and shown that you do not grasp what a future conditional is.
If you say "if X happens in the future then I will do Y" then you are admitting that X is a possibility.
The condition is not currently satisfied.
It is left open.
So you deny it is a future conditional by restating the future conditional.

It doesn't explain anything. It simply means we are just here, with no purpose, reason, or rhyme. If that's what you think, then fine. But I don't.

So you appeal to conclusion.
Yes, it is a logical fallacy.

You don't need a premise to arrive at that conclusion. If you assert that ''God doesn't exist'', with no reason, or logical basis, it is no less logically valid, than your so called reasonable assumption.

I know it is no less logically valid: both are valid.
Their soundness is as questionable as is the premise that God exists.
And FYI: a proposition does not need to be valid to form part of a logical argument.
It can be a mere assertion.

The so called competing theory, is illogical.

Then show where the logic is invalid, please?
At the moment you just make claims, a lot of huff and guff, but nothing of any substance.

Experience tells you exactly what you need to know about the truth of that particular experience. It naturally defaults to the truth.

Our senses are fooled so easily and quickly that I disagree with you.
My view is that interpretation defaults to instinct, and from there to what we are comfortable with.
What is acceptable.
The truth of it is another issue entirely.

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus, I was being humorous with Baldeee. But I do think you are being irrational. You don't read carefully what I write, then you come back to me with a response that is not related to what I wrote. But instead of going through it with me, you accuse me of all kinds of fallacies.

Ha ha. £&@?ing hilarious.
Do you often bad-mouth people, calling them as "mad as hell" and "out to destroy you", to other people as a form of humour?

I read very carefully what you write and respond accordingly. You blame me for your inadequacies in following the logic of your own claims.
So either support your accusations, or apologise.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Ha ha. £&@?ing hilarious.
Do you often bad-mouth people, calling them as "mad as hell" and "out to destroy you", to other people as a form of humour?

I am like that way with people I quite like.

I read very carefully what you write and respond accordingly. You blame me for your inadequacies in following the logic of your own claims.
So either support your accusations, or apologise.

I'm sorry if I have offended you.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

To the second: I have found Sarkus to be one of the more rational people on this board.
You clearly have an issue with him.
I will leave you to resolve that with him.

I happen to think that Sarkus is one of the more rational people on this board.
I don't have an issue with him, just his manner with me.

Regarding the rest of your post. I'm going to decline responding any more. I'm not going to put effort into responding to you, so that you can just decide you want to stop in mid flow.
I don't know why you've just upped and decided to continue, ut you did take it upon yourself to just stop because you wanted to, and I don't think it's nice to be treated like that.

jan.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I happen to think that Sarkus is one of the more rational people on this board.
I don't have an issue with him, just his manner with me.

Regarding the rest of your post. I'm going to decline responding any more. I'm not going to put effort into responding to you, so that you can just decide you want to stop in mid flow.
I don't know why you've just upped and decided to continue, ut you did take it upon yourself to just stop because you wanted to, and I don't think it's nice to be treated like that.

jan.

No 1 has any obligation to play your goofy games or to continue playing with you. You, also, can stop any time you want or need to.

 

[Pachomius]

Pachomius said:
Here is one big fault with atheists, if it is an innocent fault, they transit from the realm of concepts and ideas and thoughts in their mind, to the realm of objective reality independent of man's mind: so that unless readers are on the alert, readers are startled how they can seemingly prove the existence of say virtual particles popping in and out from nothing without cause, from the 'empirical' science of quantum mechanics.​

The empirical science of quantum mechanics doesn't follow common sense rules, like causes preceding effects. You should really read up on it before calling the kettle black. Theism is nothing but concepts that cannot be supported by empiricism.

Who tell you that quantum mechanics does not follow common sense rules, like causes preceding effects?

You read a lot of quantum mechanics, so present an example of something in the quantum world that does not follow the common sense rule of the cause preceding the effect; and you and I will examine together your example.

I can present an example of causes preceding effects: your parents have existed before you came and they produced you by sexual reproduction.

 

[Pachomius]

Pachomius in post #407:

Tell me atheists, you are of the conviction that there are things with a beginning but with no cause. give me an example of something with a beginning without a cause?​

Spidergoat in post #410:

Everything.​

Spidergoat, I think you are becoming unreasonable:

I say, give me an example of something with a beginning without a cause, you say everything; that is unreasonable on your part because you cannot physically be into producing everything one after the other that is with a beginning but without a cause; besides you have also to prove that the thing you present does have a beginning, and prove it does not have a cause.

Be reasonable, just produce something in particular that has a beginning but without a cause, like as you did before, virtual particles that you say pop in and out from nothing without cause, and we together will examine them.

Seattle in post #411 says:

Your definition of God* doesn't require a beginning and thus no cause and effect. It is equally easy to envision a universe not requiring a beginning. It is also just as possible for a universe to just pop into existence using QM or to have a cause that we just don't understand.​

Who tell you that (1) the universe does not have a beginning, or that (2) using QM you can have an effect without a cause?

You must always be ready to explain, not only making gratuitous statements; and your explanation must be founded on facts and logic, not just mentioning you just don’t understand but it is the what, tell me what, it is the truth or the fact?

*God in concept is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.​

If you care to examine my explanation for that definition, we will start with the thought that existence is the default status of things, there has always existed something -- and come to concurrence on that thought.

Next we discuss to come to concurrence on the validity of the concept of God, then we proceed to the objective realm of existence to locate the entity that corresponds to the concept.

 

[Pachomius]

Stranger in post 412 says;

It certainly does logicly follow that if you insist the universe must have a cause, I must insist gods have a cause.​

You can insist on your concept of God, but I am arguing for my concept of God as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

And you are denying my concept of God has existence as an entity in the realm of objective existence corresponding to the concept of God I espouse.

Now you want to advocate your concept of God that has a cause to His beginning; then you must also prove that He has a cause to his beginning, but anyway that is not my concept of God; I am sorry if you don’t know that in Christianism it is common information that God does not have a cause to His existence, He is a self-subsisting entity, the only unique example of His class.

You see, if you insist that your God is caused, then you have to also prove that the cause of your God is without cause but exists self-subsistingly; otherwise, you don’t have any concept of God worth any debate.

So, you can just claim that the universe has always existed; but then as there are changes in the things making up the universe, that still requires an explanation as to Who is in charge of the changing universe.

If you say that no one is in charge, everything just operates randomly, but then you have to explain why your nose is not falling off randomly.



PS I don’t use all the formatting codes of this forum because I have not yet mastered them, besides I have accommodated and now I work easily and quickly even though I have not mastered the formatting codes of this forum.

 

[Seattle]

For the sake of argument, let's say that the universe has always existed (just like your God). No one is in charge. It functions strictly by natural processes.

Look out the window and observe our world. There is some order and some randomness and ultimately there is some stability. You say this is because of your God and I say it's just a function of natural processes.

All evidence that we have obtained so far supports my claim that it is all a result of natural processes.

There is a natural process that describes why little children find presents under the tree on Christmas Day and therefore Santa is not needed.

Several hundred years ago you (religion) would be arguing that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Even earlier religion would be arguing that the Earth is flat.

Science is the best tool for explaining these questions.

 

[Pachomius]

Sarkus says in post #374:

Pachomius said:
And what logic? Logic like this thought, everything with a beginning has a cause.​

That is not logic; that is (as currently worded) merely a claim. It may act as premise for a logical argument, however. But in isolation it is not an example of logic.

Pachomius says in post #381:
Okay, you give me an example of logic, if everything with a beginning has need of a cause is not an example of logic.​

​

I have not seen the reply of Sarkus to give me an example of what is logic with him, if everything with a beginning has need of a cause is not an example of logic.

But I think Sarkus does not know what is a logical statement which if anyone denies it, then he cannot understand anything at all.

For example, Sarkus says that it is not an example of logic, namely, the thought that anything with a beginning has a cause; in which case when someone asks Sarkus who brought you to existence, you must have like anyone else parents to bring you to the beginning of your existence, Sarkus will answer back: I deny that I have parents, because I am one case of a human with a beginning but no cause.

Here is another example of a logical thought: Dead men tell no tales; if Sarkus denies that is an example of logic, then he can go around insisting that he has seen dead men telling tales, perhaps he means walking zombies, but walking zombies only walk they don't talk much less tell long tales.

 

[Pachomius]

Okay, atheists here, do anyone of you hold that the universe came forth from noting; I like very much to dialog with you on that idea.

If anyone do hold that the universe came forth from nothing, then I like to hear his explanation how the universe came forth from nothing.

 

[Amar Nath Reu]

Okay, atheists here, do anyone of you hold that the universe came forth from noting; I like very much to dialog with you on that idea.

I do not hold the view, but I also do not deny the possibility of what has come to be termed as 'bubble universes', out of 'absolute nothing'. It is a problem of cause and effect. If God or universe is eternal, then also it must have a cause. The line ends only in 'absolute nothing' and its properties that we/science does not understand at the moment (virtual particles). My religion, i.e., Hinduism, has always suspected a relationship between existence and non-existence. To quote from RigVeda, what has come to be known as the 'Hindu creation hymn' (Nasadiya Sukta):

"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm

 

[Jan Ardena]

I do not hold the view, but I also do not deny the possibility of what has come to be termed as 'bubble universes', out of 'absolute nothing'. It is a problem of cause and effect. If God or universe is eternal, then also it must have a cause. The line ends only in 'absolute nothing' and its properties that we/science does not understand at the moment (virtual particles). My religion, i.e., Hinduism, has always suspected a relationship between existence and non-existence. To quote from RigVeda, what has come to be known as the 'Hindu creation hymn' (Nasadiya Sukta):

"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm

Universes pop out of absolutely nothing, rigged with existing particle that have no form or substance, and most probably not really existing, a possibility that science doesn't understand at the moment.
You may as well stick with your religion and seek out (Garbhodakasayi) Vishnu. Or Param-Atma.

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

Sarkus says in post #374:

Pachomius said:
And what logic? Logic like this thought, everything with a beginning has a cause.​

That is not logic; that is (as currently worded) merely a claim. It may act as premise for a logical argument, however. But in isolation it is not an example of logic.

Pachomius says in post #381:
Okay, you give me an example of logic, if everything with a beginning has need of a cause is not an example of logic.​

I have not seen the reply of Sarkus to give me an example of what is logic with him, if everything with a beginning has need of a cause is not an example of logic.

But I think Sarkus does not know what is a logical statement which if anyone denies it, then he cannot understand anything at all.

I deny it.
From experience of discussing with him, Sarkus most assuredly does know.
Furthermore, while Sarkus has not responded to you, I certainly have (post #394).
To summarise: your statement is not in and of itself an example of logic.
It is an example of a proposition.
The proposition may or may not itself be based on a logical argument starting from simpler/different propositions.
But as it stands, and I am sure if Sarkus responds he will agree, your proposition is just that.

A further example of logic from that previously given to you (which you have chosen to ignore):
P1: Everything with a beginning has a cause.
P2: The universe is part of everything.
C1: The universe has a cause.
i.e. the conclusion follows validly from the proposition.

As another example:
P1: If something has a beginning it must be caused.
P2: Everything has a beginning.
C1: Everything with a beginning has a cause.
I.e. the conclusion (everything with a beginning has a cause) follows validly from the propositions.

Note how the claim "everything with a beginning has a cause" is not in and of itself an example of logic, but just a claim.

As for your attempts to ridicule Sarkus, despite you not having the decency to wait for him to explain his statement to you, are you really that pathetic?

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus says in post #374:

Pachomius said:
And what logic? Logic like this thought, everything with a beginning has a cause.​

That is not logic; that is (as currently worded) merely a claim. It may act as premise for a logical argument, however. But in isolation it is not an example of logic.

Pachomius says in post #381:
Okay, you give me an example of logic, if everything with a beginning has need of a cause is not an example of logic.​

I have not seen the reply of Sarkus to give me an example of what is logic with him, if everything with a beginning has need of a cause is not an example of logic.

I believe Baldeee has adequately explained my thinking.

But I think Sarkus does not know what is a logical statement which if anyone denies it, then he cannot understand anything at all.

And the baiting is for the purpose of what, exactly?

But what the heck, I'll bite...
Baldeee has efficiently explained why your statement is not in and of itself an example of logic. So I won't repeat what he has said. Needless to say, if you can't agree with what Baldeee has explained to you then you are merely throwing stones at me while sitting in a greenhouse.
So let's take your claim, and examine it further... I presume you know and understand the difference between a valid and sound argument? Even if you were to arrive at the conclusion "everything with a beginning has a cause" through logic (rather than make a mere claim of it as you have), is it a sound conclusion, or perhaps merely valid from the premises you begin with?
You are keeping up with this, I trust?
So you keep claiming that "everything with a beginning has a cause", and let's just take as read that you have arrived at this through logic (which you have not exampled, by the way), how can you show that this is a sound conclusion rather than merely valid (assuming that you do reach it validly from whatever premises you begin with).
Furthermore, would any demonstration of soundness make it necessarily true? Or can you only ever demonstrate soundness as it relates to our universe?

So is what you say an example of logic? No, as explained.
As a conclusion, can it be reached through valid logic? Yes, but it could also be reached through invalid logic.
Does the validity make it sound? No.

But perhaps you can actually provide the logic you used to arrive at the proposition / claim you have made? And we can take it from there?

For example, Sarkus says that it is not an example of logic, namely, the thought that anything with a beginning has a cause;in which case when someone asks Sarkus who brought you to existence, you must have like anyone else parents to bring you to the beginning of your existence, Sarkus will answer back: I deny that I have parents, because I am one case of a human with a beginning but no cause.

Thank you for the strawman. You do know what a strawman is, I presume?

Here is another example of a logical thought: Dead men tell no tales; if Sarkus denies that is an example of logic, then he can go around insisting that he has seen dead men telling tales, perhaps he means walking zombies, but walking zombies only walk they don't talk much less tell long tales.

Again with the strawman, but given that I don't seem to understand a logical statement, I guess you thought you could sneak a few past, eh?
But to humour you: if dead men tell no tales then what is the purpose of an autopsy?
Again, "dead men tell no tales" is an example of a claim, a proposition, that could have been reached through the application have logic on different propositions. And as a conclusion, assuming that you have applied logic validly, it is only as sound as the premises.
But it is not, in and of itself, an example of logic.

Is that a sufficient enough response for you, Pachomius?

 

[James R]

"everything with a beginning has a cause."

I suspect I may have covered this in an earlier post to this thread, but let's look at it again.

The argument is supposed to go like this, I suppose:

1. Everything with a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe had a cause.
4. Therefore the cause was God.

Now this line of argument can be attacked on many fronts. Let's look a few.

1. Everything with a beginning has a cause.

As has already pointed out, this is an assumption, completely unproven. Whatever logically follows from this depends on this premise, but the question remains as to whether the premise itself is true. Thus, even if points 2,3 and 4 followed from 1, it still remains to establish 1.

For now, let us continue...

2. The universe had a beginning.

You're thinking of the big bang, or the Garden of Eden perhaps. Let's stick with the science for now and talk big bang. Was that the beginning of the universe? In a sense, obviously yes. All the matter and energy in the universe seemed to begin at the big bang. But does that mean that there was nothing before the big bang or, more accurately, that nothing exists apart from our universe? Suppose there's a multiverse that spawns universes like ours. Then should we talk about the beginning of our universe as some kind of defining event, or should we be talking instead about the multiverse in our search for the "ultimate cause"?

3. Therefore the universe had a cause.

If there's a multiverse, then it is quite possible that something in the multiverse could serve as a quite adequate cause of our universe. No need for God, then.

But what if there's no multiverse, and our universe is all there is? Then if 1 and 2 are correct, 3 follows logically. Assuming no multiverse and that there was a big bang, then 2 looks fairly solid. But we still need to review premise 1.

The problem with premise 1 under these circumstances is that the universe appears to be a very special (indeed unique) example of something that had a beginning. The beginning of the universe was the beginning of everything else, too. So, we need to ask whether it is fair to generalise premise 1 from things observed inside the universe to the universe as a whole. And that requires a supporting argument of its own, it seems to me. I can't see any a priori reason why it couldn't be true that things like apples and people and tramcars must have causes but that the universe as a whole does not need one.

4. Therefore the cause was God.

Let us accept all of points 1,2 and 3. Let's say they are all proven beyond doubt. Does 4 then follow logically? To anybody familiar with logic, obviously not. All that 1,2 and 3 establish is that there must have been some kind of cause of the universe, but we have no clue as to what that cause might be. Maybe the cause is to be found in the multiverse. Or maybe there was some other natural, unthinking cause. Certainly, it seems a massive leap to introduce God into the argument at this point - particularly since the God that is normally being considered comes with all kinds of excess baggage attached to him/her/it/them.

Summary: the above chain of argument is a weak one in terms of proving the existence of any kind of creator God.

Also, suppose we accept the argument. What then follows for God? Did God have a beginning? If so, it follows that God was caused. What, then, caused God?

Oh, but God is eternal, you say: He had no beginning. I ask: how do you know? And how do you know that the universe/multiverse had a beginning, then? Because the whole argument is useless if the universe/multiverse is eternal. Premise 2 is then not true and the logic fails.

 

[spidergoat]

Pachomius in post #407:

Tell me atheists, you are of the conviction that there are things with a beginning but with no cause. give me an example of something with a beginning without a cause?​

Spidergoat in post #410:

Everything.​

Spidergoat, I think you are becoming unreasonable:

I say, give me an example of something with a beginning without a cause, you say everything; that is unreasonable on your part because you cannot physically be into producing everything one after the other that is with a beginning but without a cause; besides you have also to prove that the thing you present does have a beginning, and prove it does not have a cause.

Be reasonable, just produce something in particular that has a beginning but without a cause, like as you did before, virtual particles that you say pop in and out from nothing without cause, and we together will examine them.

Why? You have asserted that "God in concept is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.". How about you be reasonable and prove that first? Anyone can create a concept, why should I treat it as reasonable when you have ignored all the rebuttals of your premise?

When I accepted your premise for the sake of argument, and provided an example, virtual particles, you responded with the question, are they as real as the nose on your face? I responded that nothing at the quantum level can be measured without changing it's properties. This is called the Uncertainty Principle. (perhaps a physicist can provide a better description). But virtual particles are real, their effects have been tested in the lab:

Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?

October 9, 2006

Gordon Kane, director of the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, provides this answer.
Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.

Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse.

But while the virtual particles are briefly part of our world they can interact with other particles, and that leads to a number of tests of the quantum-mechanical predictions about virtual particles. The first test was understood in the late 1940s. In a hydrogen atom an electron and a proton are bound together by photons (the quanta of the electromagnetic field). Every photon will spend some time as a virtual electron plus its antiparticle, the virtual positron, since this is allowed by quantum mechanics as described above. The hydrogen atom has two energy levels that coincidentally seem to have the same energy. But when the atom is in one of those levels it interacts differently with the virtual electron and positron than when it is in the other, so their energies are shifted a tiny bit because of those interactions. That shift was measured by Willis Lamb and the Lamb shift was born, for which a Nobel Prize was eventually awarded.

Quarks are particles much like electrons, but different in that they also interact via the strong force. Two of the lighter quarks, the so-called "up" and "down" quarks, bind together to make up protons and neutrons. The "top" quark is the heaviest of the six types of quarks. In the early 1990s it had been predicted to exist but had not been directly seen in any experiment. At the LEP collider at the European particle physics laboratory CERN, millions of Z bosons--the particles that mediate neutral weak interactions--were produced and their mass was very accurately measured. The Standard Model of particle physics predicts the mass of the Z boson, but the measured value differed a little. This small difference could be explained in terms of the time the Z spent as a virtual top quark if such a top quark had a certain mass. When the top quark mass was directly measured a few years later at the Tevatron collider at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago, the value agreed with that obtained from the virtual particle analysis, providing a dramatic test of our understanding of virtual particles.

Another very good test some readers may want to look up, which we do not have space to describe here, is the Casimir effect, where forces between metal plates in empty space are modified by the presence of virtual particles.

Thus virtual particles are indeed real and have observable effects that physicists have devised ways of measuring. Their properties and consequences are well established and well understood consequences of quantum mechanics.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

 

[Amar Nath Reu]

Universes pop out of absolutely nothing, rigged with existing particle that have no form or substance, and most probably not really existing, a possibility that science doesn't understand at the moment.
You may as well stick with your religion and seek out (Garbhodakasayi) Vishnu. Or Param-Atma.

Well, the problem is that I am a 'no soul, no God' Advaitic strong atheist Hindu.