DHPG: The Big Problem: A Three-Stage Refutation of the (Atheistic) Big Bang Theory

[GoldShadow]

All I'm saying is that we know there is some spiritual or supernatural element to the world, it is concrete fact.

I don't understand how you came to this conclusion and, more importantly, how you arbitrarily label it "concrete fact".

You simply provided some unsubstantiated anecdotes and coincidences. These don't prove anything, let alone allow us to draw conclusions. If anything, the lack of evidence exemplified in your post points toward the opposite being true.

 

[Dre89]

I don't understand how you came to this conclusion and, more importantly, how you arbitrarily label it "concrete fact".

You simply provided some unsubstantiated anecdotes and coincidences. These don't prove anything, let alone allow us to draw conclusions. If anything, the lack of evidence exemplified in your post points toward the opposite being true.

Um how could I reference, when most of these came from people I know personally?

So it's just coincidence that over eight million Americans have been deemed clincially dead, with most of them claiming to have been in a dark tunnel experiencing a euphoric sensation?

It's also a coincidence that those psychics knew everything about those dead relatives, even though those people didn't even say a word to them.

And of course it's completely coincidental that my godmother somehow had a dream of her late father, and he spoke In a language she didn't understand, with words she never heard before, which she later found out said 'your soul will always live on'.

And yeah it's completely explainable that a terminally-ill women recovers after getting a Mary McKillop relic, and doctors have no medical explanation of it.

And of course it's just a fluke that certain dead bodies of saints remained completely preserved after hundreds of years, looking like they died just a minute ago.

There are hundreds more of these that have been proven to be fact. We know these are true. Faliure to acknowledge this due to it not being proven by science is just plain ignorant.

 

[GoldShadow]

Um how could I reference, when most of these came from people I know personally?

My point exactly.

There are hundreds more of these that have been proven to be fact. We know these are true. Faliure to acknowledge this due to it not being proven by science is just plain ignorant.

Could you provide some references or sources then?

 

[Mewter]

Forgive us if we can't believe everything you say. Basically, vids or it didn't happen. <-- This is a lame Smash joke.

Also, the light at the end of the tunnel claim being spiritual because "science can't explain it" is a fallacy. It's an argument from ignorance.
I'm not going to say anything about the rest of the material, since that above post (yours) and the first sentence of my reply basically sums up what I was going to reply to and say anyways.

 

[Aesir]

The brain does crazy things when the body is dying, chemicals go haywire and just a lot of goofy stuff happens. Which is why those "light at the end of the tunnel stories" don't really add up. It's not unheard of for mental health patients to see, hear and feel things they want to be there. I imagine dying and your brain going nutty like that is probably very similar.

 

[Dre89]

It's all well and good to try and make a scientific explanation for some of the phenomena, but you can't explain how a psychic could talk about people's relatives when the person said nothing to them, (the psychic who spoke to the atheist worked for the police), and how my godmother's late father spoke to her in a language she didn't know and told her her soul woul always live on.

There's plenty more of these phenomena, to be honest I don't accept all of them are true, but some, like that ones I mentioned above are just plain fact.

I've even had personal experiences of similar phenomena, but it's too hard to explain and I've already made my point.

And GoldShadow are you honestly saying that hearing from someone who personally witnessed the experience is less valid than reading it in some book? That is just ludicrous.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

It's all well and good to try and make a scientific explanation for some of the phenomena, but you can't explain how a psychic could talk about people's relatives when the person said nothing to them, (the psychic who spoke to the atheist worked for the police), and how my godmother's late father spoke to her in a language she didn't know and told her her soul woul always live on.

There's plenty more of these phenomena, to be honest I don't accept all of them are true, but some, like that ones I mentioned above are just plain fact.

I've even had personal experiences of similar phenomena, but it's too hard to explain and I've already made my point.

And GoldShadow are you honestly saying that hearing from someone who personally witnessed the experience is less valid than reading it in some book? That is just ludicrous.

James Randi anyone?

Look, if you have evidence of the the supernatural, show it! Don't just state anecdotal evidence. Instead, do it the way that we would examine everything else: By using the scientific method and taking your findings down the meat grinder that is peer review.

If someone where to have evidence for anything supernatural, they would be a very rich man (or woman.) More info can be seen here.

 

[KrazyGlue]

It's all well and good to try and make a scientific explanation for some of the phenomena, but you can't explain how a psychic could talk about people's relatives when the person said nothing to them, (the psychic who spoke to the atheist worked for the police), and how my godmother's late father spoke to her in a language she didn't know and told her her soul woul always live on.

There's plenty more of these phenomena, to be honest I don't accept all of them are true, but some, like that ones I mentioned above are just plain fact.

I've even had personal experiences of similar phenomena, but it's too hard to explain and I've already made my point.

And GoldShadow are you honestly saying that hearing from someone who personally witnessed the experience is less valid than reading it in some book? That is just ludicrous.

Well, I usually don't get involved with this kind of debate, but this post stood out to me.

NEVER can you claim something to be fact solely based on one person's claims. Plenty of people in ancient civilizations claimed to have interacted with gods or to have been part god yet we now know such events are highly unlikely to have happened. Whether or not you believe in these phenomena is one thing. But in no way should these EVER be considered fact without concrete evidence.

 

[Dre89]

So you want me to use scientific method for something which science can't explain?

You guys keep saying that if it's not scientifically proven it's invalid, but science doesn't have authority on everything. You guys must get taught scientism in your science majors.

I know of people personally who have witnessed the supernatural phenomena,I've even witnessed it to some extent myself, what more do I need as evidence? Even if you guys say 'it's not scientifically valid' , we still know that this stuff happens.

So you're pretty much saying that because I can't 'scientifically' prove that psychics have spoken in detail about dead relatives without the person saying a word at all, or that my godmother's late father spoke to her in a dream in a language she couldn't understand, that it didn't happen? That's just silly.

Science only deals with natural entities, that's its limiatations. As soon as I present evidence on supernatural phenomena, you just say it can't be proven, because it doesn't relate to your specific field. Using methodlogy that pertains to natural entities for the supernatural entities is silly.

 

[Dre89]

Well, I usually don't get involved with this kind of debate, but this post stood out to me.

NEVER can you claim something to be fact solely based on one person's claims. Plenty of people in ancient civilizations claimed to have interacted with gods or to have been part god yet we now know such events are highly unlikely to have happened. Whether or not you believe in these phenomena is one thing. But in no way should these EVER be considered fact without concrete evidence.

So the fact the various people who don't know each other told me that they've been to psychics who have spoke in detail about their dead realtuves without them saying a word to them is not good enough evidence?

Also, what about the thousands of reports of out-of body experiences? I also know of people who have experienced this.

Also, the bodies of saints that have been perfectly preserved for hundreds of years without decaying are on display for tourists.

Most phenomena I speak of haven't just happened to one person. At least thousands of people have witnessed these types of phenomena.

No one has witnessed the BB. I can't believe you guys honestly believe there is more evidence for BB than supernatural phenomena. If you're going to discard thousands of witnesses as evidence, then there's no way BB could have more evidence.

 

[KrazyGlue]

So you want me to use scientific method for something which science can't explain?

You guys keep saying that if it's not scientifically proven it's invalid, but science doesn't have authority on everything. You guys must get taught scientism in your science majors.

I know of people personally who have witnessed the supernatural phenomena,I've even witnessed it to some extent myself, what more do I need as evidence? Even if you guys say 'it's not scientifically valid' , we still know that this stuff happens.

So you're pretty much saying that because I can't 'scientifically' prove that psychics have spoken in detail about dead relatives without the person saying a word at all, or that my godmother's late father spoke to her in a dream in a language she couldn't understand, that it didn't happen? That's just silly.

Actually, I never one used the word "science" in any way, so I don't know why you're emphasizing it so heavily. I also don't like that you assume I'm some huge science freak. "Evidence" is all I said.

Shall I illustrate why your logic is invalid? "My dad said he saw Julius Caesar in the metro on the way to work so he said hi and they shook hands. So basically it's a fact." I hope you see why such statements just don't hold any weight.

(By the way, that wasn't meant to be insulting in any way. I hope you don't take offense to my example; it wasn't meant to be a parody of what you said, only a way of showing the invalidity of the logic.)



EDIT:

No one has witnessed the BB. I can't believe you guys honestly believe there is more evidence for BB than supernatural phenomena. If you're going to discard thousands of witnesses as evidence, then there's no way BB could have more evidence.

Uh... I never mentioned the big bang... I'm just saying you can't take word of mouth as fact.

 

[Dre89]

If there was just one guy claiming something, then fair enough I wouldn't necessarily beleive it. There are plenty of supernatural claims that I don't believe.

However, most of what I state as fact has been witnessed or experienced by many un-related people. I have even had strange experiences myself.

My godmother has no reason to make a lie like that. She doesn't say that becuase she believes in some spirtal theory, she's a kind of spirtual person now because of that experience.

Also, why would my atheist classmate, who hates religion, make up something like that? He still doesn't believe in God, but he believes in souls, or something similar to that. As I mentioned before I know of other people who have had psychics talk about their relatives without them saying a word to the psychic.


The 'Homily Effect' (it doesn't have a name so I just named it that) is just one example that has affected at least thousands of people, including myself.

There are just too many occurences for every single one of them to false.

 

[Mewter]

What we're saying is that it is just anecdotal evidence, and you can see why anecdotal evidence can be shaky (people misinterpret things, forget stuff, brain wacks out, etc.).

 

[KrazyGlue]

Thousands of people in ancient times claimed to have met gods or been part God but nobody today believes them. And certainly it isn't considered fact. And my dad would have no reason to lie to me about Julius Caesar, but I still wouldn't believe him.

Like I said, there's no problem with saying you believe some of these events may have happened, but to call them fact is not right.


EDIT:

What we're saying is that it is just anecdotal evidence, and you can see why anecdotal evidence can be shaky (people misinterpret things, forget stuff, brain wacks out, etc.).

This too.

 

[Dre89]

But no one witnesses God, and I'm not saying that God existing is fact.

I get what you guys are saying, but there are phenomena which thousands of people have witnessed or experienced.

For example, the dead bodies of saints which have been perfectly preserved for hundreds of years are on display for tourists.

I know of people who have had out of body experiences, plus these have been well-documented elsewhere too.

I have also experienced the homily thing I spoke of before (plus other things), and know of other people who have experienced it too.

The thing is, if you're going to say that this stuff is not fact, then what makes BB or evolution fact? It still requires faith in scientific reasoning, just like any belief does.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

The thing is, if you're going to say that this stuff is not fact, then what makes BB or evolution fact? It still requires faith in scientific reasoning, just like any belief does.

Anecdotal evidence will not get you in the DH. I am pretty comfortable saying that, nor am I stepping on any of the brass's shoes by saying that (sorry in advance if I am.)

You just said the f word, and that connotation that you used was perhaps the worst of all. Faith, in particular the definition of it which says:

firm belief in something for which there is no proof

If you are going to attach that to science, then you are going down one of two paths:

1. OTIO, or
2. P**s poor debating with logical fallacies

For your sake, let's assume the latter. In which case, just slowly backtrack from that argument...

 

[Mewter]

S1: What we're saying is that those "spiritual experiences" could be any mistake of the mind. You cannot ever be sure of whether or not the person is telling what actually happened came from an outside spiritual source or if it was due to a psychological fluke (and the number of people this happens to doesn't matter. Cancer happens to tons of people too, showing how commonly mistakes can be made in the body (especially when the person in question is depriving oxygen from their brain)).

S6: It's physical. It's much easier to confirm due to it's ability to be peer-checked and reviewed/examined by others.

 

[Dre89]

Anecdotal evidence will not get you in the DH. I am pretty comfortable saying that, nor am I stepping on any of the brass's shoes by saying that (sorry in advance if I am.)

So in other words if my evidence is not scientififc it's not valid, depsite it being accepted by the intellectual ocmmuntiy that other forms of evidence are valid.

You just said the f word, and that connotation that you used was perhaps the worst of all. Faith, in particular the definition of it which says:



If you are going to attach that to science, then you are going down one of two paths:

1. OTIO, or
2. P**s poor debating with logical fallacies

For your sake, let's assume the latter. In which case, just slowly backtrack from that argument...

Several modern philosophers (including atheists) believe faith is the same thing as reason, or that at least they are heavily intertwined. I don't just make crap up as I go.

Dellusions of the mind still don't explain how psychics could know about dead relatives without the person saying anything to them.

Dellusions of the mind don't allow you to magically learn a language you don't know.

Dellusions of the mind don't allow sainst's bodies to remain perfectly preserved for hundreds of years.

The homily effect is a dellusion is it? So thousands of perfectly healthy people, suddenly always have dellusions only when they're listening to a homily, and nowhere else?

And even if my arguments for the supernatural are invlaid, my ones for the rest of my theory weren't.

You guys just hide behind the fact science has no answers for what BB caused existence, as if that somehow justifies atheism. However, that area is where BB is potentially flawed, because we know that natural entities cannot cause their own existence.

Hiding behind the fact that science hasn't advanced into that area doesn't change the fact the theory is flawed.

You guys seriously need to stop assuming that scientific evidence is the only valid evidence, considering that science's authority is limited only to natural entities.

You guys are mostly atheists. Now you guys admitted that you don't know what caused BB. We also know that natural entities cannot cause their own existence and are not self-necessary. So what makes your atheism well-founded, what makes atheism so much more logical than God?

 

[Mewter]

Anyways, dangerous tangent alert. I'll start my debating right now.
When in this thread was it confirmed that time needs a cause, and where else was it confirmed that "something came from nothing according to an atheistic account" (part two of the OP)? I would like to challenge that as well as put up a (really considered and not spur of the moment like my previous example) possible explanation for how the Big Bang came to be, whether a cause is necessary or not.

As I said before, time is the "medium" or so to speak of how cause and effect or motion take place (in any event, they're inseparable). If movement or time does not exist, then there can be nothing to start it because the medium through which that causal object operates does not exist (time). It is then arguable that time is "self necessary", since there would be nothing to start it (cause and effect as we know it). Supernatural elements would of course bypass this, but then things get way too complicated, and the fact is that those supernatural elements just aren't needed. If they can be self-necessary with unknown mechanics, then why can't time also be "self-necessary"?

Now, you were saying that there is no challenge to a supernatural explanation involving a deity? Bam. Check these out. It is speculated multi-dimensional membranes may have collided to produce the creation of time and space's dimensions. Take a look at it (it's around there somewhere). Ignore lack of link. I'm looking for one but can't find the appropriate one.

Anyways, this will probably be one of my final posts in this thread. I'm pretty tired.

 

[Dre89]

As I said before, time is the "medium" or so to speak of how cause and effect or motion take place (in any event, they're inseparable). If movement or time does not exist, then there can be nothing to start it because the medium through which that causal object operates does not exist (time). It is then arguable that time is "self necessary", since there would be nothing to start it. Supernatural elements would of course bypass this, but then things get way too complicated, and the fact is that those supernatural elements just aren't needed. Can't time be "self-necessary"?

You've already proposed this problem to me and I've already explained it. The causation of time is not an issue if you suppose that the even-tby-event sequence is only a human perception, and that God does not function by it. As mentioned before, theories such as the Eternal Now theory and my personal one I mentioned previously work around this.

Now, you were saying that there is no challenge to a supernatural explanation involving a deity? Bam. Check these out. It is speculated multi-dimensional membranes may have collided to produce the creation of time and space's dimensions. Take a look at it (it's around there somewhere).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory#Mysterious_duality

Doesn't the fact these multi-dimensional membranes already existed then continued to collide already suppose an event-by-event sequence? Creating multiple timelines would still have to function under the universal event-by-event sequence law of time.

Also, having an explanation for the creation of time does not mean the theory is not flawed.

Any plural existence cannot be self-necessary, but rather a system of coherent entities dependant on each other. Anything that is a means to a greater end is not self-necessary.

 

[Aesir]

So in other words if my evidence is not scientififc it's not valid, depsite it being accepted by the intellectual ocmmuntiy that other forms of evidence are valid.

Intellectual community? might want to elaborate on that please such as a source and what have you.

Several modern philosophers (including atheists) believe faith is the same thing as reason, or that at least they are heavily intertwined. I don't just make crap up as I go.

You're confusing two different kinds of faith here, blind faith and reasonable faith. I have no idea if the sun will rise tomorrow but I have reasonable faith that it will because it has always risen in the passed. This is different from the leaps of faith we see with blind or dogmatic faith. "I believe god exists." This is a blind faith, there's no evidence to back up unless we use arbitrary examples.

Dellusions of the mind still don't explain how psychics could know about dead relatives without the person saying anything to them.

James Randi has a nice bet with anyone that can prove they're a psychic he hasn't lost the bet.

Dellusions of the mind don't allow you to magically learn a language you don't know.

I would like to see some examples for this please.

Dellusions of the mind don't allow sainst's bodies to remain perfectly preserved for hundreds of years.

Preservation isn't evidence of anything except people back then knew how to preserve a body. This practice goes back to the beginning of Western Civilization.

The homily effect is a dellusion is it? So thousands of perfectly healthy people, suddenly always have dellusions only when they're listening to a homily, and nowhere else?

I don't think anybody said when you listen to a sermon you're under a delusion

And even if my arguments for the supernatural are invlaid, my ones for the rest of my theory weren't.

No they just rely on the assumptions of the super natural. Which is not a good argument as metaphysics are unprovable claims.

You guys just hide behind the fact science has no answers for what BB caused existence, as if that somehow justifies atheism. However, that area is where BB is potentially flawed, because we know that natural entities cannot cause their own existence.

Again we actually DON'T know if they can or not, you haven't offered evidence that could prove your assumption that natural entities can not be self caused.

Hiding behind the fact that science hasn't advanced into that area doesn't change the fact the theory is flawed.

The flaws that exist are super natural ones, they're flaws that only exist in the realm of metaphysics. It really is an argument of our ignorance to state since we don't know what came before the big bang it must have been god thus atheism is wrong. That's like me saying, since god cannot be proven to exist he must not exist.

You guys seriously need to stop assuming that scientific evidence is the only valid evidence, considering that science's authority is limited only to natural entities.

Considering we live in a natural universe that adheres to natural laws I think we can, because everything else outside of that natural laws is super natural and is not falsifiable.

You guys are mostly atheists. Now you guys admitted that you don't know what caused BB. We also know that natural entities cannot cause their own existence and are not self-necessary. So what makes your atheism well-founded, what makes atheism so much more logical than God?

This is full of assumptions, for starters you assumed everyone replying to you is an atheist, which could very well be wrong in fact I'm willing to bet it's wrong. Also as previously pointed out your argument relies on the assumption that natural entities require a super natural force to jump start them. In your case you argue god, god is a super natural entity that created it all. However if that's your argument what came before god then? and if god doesn't need a point of origin than why do natural processes require a point of origin? This is special pleading at it's finest.

 

[Dre89]

Intellectual community? might want to elaborate on that please such as a source and what have you.

Pertaining to this issue, mainly the philosophical one. For example, atheists attempt to use the Problem of Evil to argue that God doesn't exist.

James Randi has a nice bet with anyone that can prove they're a psychic he hasn't lost the bet.

So this makes the fact that the psychics communicated with the dead without the person saying a word to them wrong how?

I would like to see some examples for this please.

So because it's not documented, it's wrong is it?

Preservation isn't evidence of anything except people back then knew how to preserve a body. This practice goes back to the beginning of Western Civilization.

The ones you're talking about, such as mummies etc. don't exactly look like perfectly healthy humans do they? The ones I'm talking about do.

I don't think anybody said when you listen to a sermon you're under a delusion

But you guys are saying that the phenomena are dellusions, therefore thousands of perfectly healthy people who experience the homily effect I'm talking about must have dellusions only when listening to a homily and nowhere else.

No they just rely on the assumptions of the super natural. Which is not a good argument as metaphysics are unprovable claims.

Again we actually DON'T know if they can or not, you haven't offered evidence that could prove your assumption that natural entities can not be self caused.

Name one natural entity that caused itself to exist, or does not contribute to a rgeater end. These attributes are part of the essence of natural entities, saying a natural entity can cause tis own existence is like the truth can be false.

The flaws that exist are super natural ones, they're flaws that only exist in the realm of metaphysics. It really is an argument of our ignorance to state since we don't know what came before the big bang it must have been god thus atheism is wrong. That's like me saying, since god cannot be proven to exist he must not exist.

But we know natural entities cannot have caused the universe.

Considering we live in a natural universe that adheres to natural laws I think we can, because everything else outside of that natural laws is super natural and is not falsifiable.

But we know nothing inside our natural universe could have created the universe itself, so to say that scientific evidence is the only valid evidence, when there are issues which do not concern natural entities, is wrong.

This is full of assumptions, for starters you assumed everyone replying to you is an atheist, which could very well be wrong in fact I'm willing to bet it's wrong.

I said most people.

Also as previously pointed out your argument relies on the assumption that natural entities require a super natural force to jump start them.

You keep saying asusmption, yet we know that anything that has a beginning cannot cause itself. We also know that every natural entity had a beginning, and that they all contribute to a greater end.

However if that's your argument what came before god then? and if god doesn't need a point of origin than why do natural processes require a point of origin?

Sorry, but you pretty much showed your lack on knowledge in philosophy there. No one, not even atheists, bother with that argument, because if you actually understood what constitutes being God you wouldn't bother with a question like that.

 

[GoldShadow]

I think Alt has made some good posts on the whole "beginning of the universe" thing. Maybe you or somebody could do a quick search for those, as that would help to clear some of this up.

 

[Dre89]

I'm guessing Alt is another debater?

What exactly do you want cleared up?

 

[Aesir]

So this makes the fact that the psychics communicated with the dead without the person saying a word to them wrong how?

Maybe because no psychic as ever won the bet? You're basically just throwing unprovable things out there and saying they're facts you have to prove to us that this pyschic is indeed doing what he say's he's doing.

So because it's not documented, it's wrong is it?

So we can conclude you don't have evidence to support this claim?

The ones you're talking about, such as mummies etc. don't exactly look like perfectly healthy humans do they? The ones I'm talking about do.

I'm showing the earliest moments in history where preservation worked. Also you're going to have to be more specific about which saints we're talking about here. If we're talking about Bernadette than that's a very easy explanation.

Name one natural entity that caused itself to exist, or does not contribute to a rgeater end. These attributes are part of the essence of natural entities, saying a natural entity can cause tis own existence is like the truth can be false.

You're putting words in my mouth, I didn't say they did I said we don't know. You're the one arguing in absolutes here. By saying it's impossible the burden of proof rests on you. I'm saying we don't know if they can or can't saying either or is premature.

But we know nothing inside our natural universe could have created the universe itself, so to say that scientific evidence is the only valid evidence, when there are issues which do not concern natural entities, is wrong.

When we're addressing a scientific theory it helps if you used scientific evidence, unfortunately you haven't offered scientific evidence just assumptions that rely on a super natural force that is unfalsifiable.

Sorry, but you pretty much showed your lack on knowledge in philosophy there. No one, not even atheists, bother with that argument, because if you actually understood what constitutes being God you wouldn't bother with a question like that.

Even a philosopher would realize your argument is special pleading, also address the question. Why couldn't natural processes act in the same way? I know what constitutes as god, I've been doing this for a long time, I'm addressing the part of argument which states that god can do all of this and have always existed yet natural processes cannot. Your argument relies on the fallacy of special pleading.

In closing your argument relies on two points to be fact;

1. Natural processes cannot cause them selves.

2. Because of that a super natural force must have been the trigger.

Since one is unfalsifiable your conclusion doesn't make sense, furthermore for the sake of argument if your first point was indeed correct your conclusion would still rely on a logical fallacy thus it's still a poor argument.

Regardless it doesn't add up, which is why you're getting so much opposition.

(I only replied to things that were relevent since we repeated each other quite a bit.)

 

[Dre89]

Maybe because no psychic as ever won the bet? You're basically just throwing unprovable things out there and saying they're facts you have to prove to us that this pyschic is indeed doing what he say's he's doing.

You are aware that the psychics I'm talking about live in a different country right? Also, the fact that no one has won the bet doesn't suggest my evidence is wrong.

So we can conclude you don't have evidence to support this claim?

So people who experienced it telling me is not evidence? Whether or not it counts as 'evidence' by yours or anyone else's criteria has no bearing on the fact it actually happened.

When we're addressing a scientific theory it helps if you used scientific evidence, unfortunately you haven't offered scientific evidence just assumptions that rely on a super natural force that is unfalsifiable.

So anything that isn't based on scientific evidence is just mere assumption, and therefore invalid? Besides, you admitted science has no knowledge of what happened before BB, so how is it a scientific issue?

What we do know is that essences have limitations. Do you need scientific evidence to prove that the truth cannot be false? No, because we know the essence of truth does not allow this, and we do not need scientific evidence to understand the essence of truth.

We know the essence of natural entities, and that essence does not allow for it be self-necessary etc.

Even a philosopher would realize your argument is special pleading,

I find this statement ironic, considering that when I presented my OP argument in a class debate, which was at the time not as developed as it is now and had more flaws, I got a good mark. Also, no one in that class, shared my beliefs or agreed with my arguments, yet they complimented it, even the avenues they took to counter it were far more logical and gave me more problems than what I've encountered here.

Why couldn't natural processes act in the same way? I know what constitutes as god, I've been doing this for a long time, I'm addressing the part of argument which states that god can do all of this and have always existed yet natural processes cannot. Your argument relies on the fallacy of special pleading.

Then you haven't come up against very good God arguments. God did not begin to exist, and will not cease existing, He is 'the' existence. The reason why He can do this is because He is governed by no law, or prior actuallity. I've said this before, the problems you've offered only apply if you believe God functions in an event-by-event sequence, which I don't, and I've suggested theories which work around this. Natural processes don't work in this way because they are governed by laws and begin at some point, they are not self-necessary and are means to a greater end

God is self-necessary, does not have a beginning, and is not a means to a greater end. He is the ultimate end. Natural entities possess none of these traits.

In closing your argument relies on two points to be fact;

1. Natural processes cannot cause them selves.

2. Because of that a super natural force must have been the trigger.

Since one is unfalsifiable your conclusion doesn't make sense, furthermore for the sake of argument if your first point was indeed correct your conclusion would still rely on a logical fallacy thus it's still a poor argument.

As I mentioned previously, my first point is not unfalsifiable, because it is a premise based on the essence of natural entities. Considering we know of the essence of natural entities, any premise made on these grounds would be able to be deemed true or false.

Since one is unfalsifiable your conclusion doesn't make sense, furthermore for the sake of argument if your first point was indeed correct your conclusion would still rely on a logical fallacy thus it's still a poor argument.

Regardless it doesn't add up, which is why you're getting so much opposition.

I'm getting so much opposition because everyone disagrees with me, which is fair enough. I'm getting this particular type of opposition because most people here don't really understand philosophy.

No offence, but I've gotten better opposition than this elsewhere.

 

[Aesir]

You are aware that the psychics I'm talking about live in a different country right? Also, the fact that no one has won the bet doesn't suggest my evidence is wrong.

No but you still have yet to prove why this evidence is valid.

So people who experienced it telling me is not evidence?

It's anecdotal which isn't bad evidence, but if not backed up by a more concrete source than no it's not sufficient.

So anything that isn't based on scientific evidence is just mere assumption, and therefore invalid?

falsification applies to other things not just science. Your evidence needs to be verified in order to be considered valid.

What we do know is that essences have limitations. Do you need scientific evidence to prove that the truth cannot be false? No, because we know the essence of truth does not allow this, and we do not need scientific evidence to understand the essence of truth.

In order for something to be true it should be shown as true, if you're going to argue that your case is the true right case than you have to offer valid evidence. You haven't your entire argument relies on the first cause.

We know the essence of natural entities, and that essence does not allow for it be self-necessary etc.

It relies on the assumption that there must have been something before, which I'll address further down.

I find this statement ironic, considering that when I presented my OP argument in a class debate, which was at the time not as developed as it is now and had more flaws, I got a good mark. Also, no one in that class, shared my beliefs or agreed with my arguments, yet they complimented it, even the avenues they took to counter it were far more logical and gave me more problems than what I've encountered here.

I don't see the relevance here. Other than throwing around your personal achievements. I've been praised for some really psychotic things and have received lots of good grades and much praise from class mates. Doesn't exactly mean they were good or reasonable arguments.

I lol'd

No offence, but I've gotten far better opposition than this elsewhere.

No offense, but most DHers come in here to test you guys out, not beat you into the ground. That's initiation. =)

I'll just reply to the rest of the bulk this way now.

The argument is a cosmological argument, Implying that the universe requires a first cause, right off the bat a first cause could very well be a mistaken claim. As we've agreed time is finite it had a beginning, yet causality only makes sense in the context of time, so applying causality to pre-time doesn't make much sense.

In your case the first cause is god. Why is this conclusion faulty you might ask? Well as I've stated before your first cause relies on the fallacy of special pleading, why does your first cause not require a cause of it's own? You counter this with saying "god is exempt from those rules" an unfalsifiable claim. Any claim toward the existence of a god or the non-existence of one is unfalsifiable unless we're speaking of personal gods such as. "my god will make me pancakes every morning on Sunday "Obviously this sort of god can be falsified when I wake up on Sunday and there's no pancakes.

So for the sake of argument we'll assume the god you speak of is of deistic origins. However than you run into the problem of Occams razor.

for the sake of argument lets accept there was a first cause, aside from the problems I just pointed out. The first cause doesn't necessarily become god, as the first cause could very well be something else. Or if it is god, it doesn't necessarily have to be a known god, because it could very well be a deistic god.

To close; asking "What came before the big bang" is none sense, the concept of before is irrelevant when we're debating things before time. It's really like asking what's deeper than the earths core? (bad example but it's 2 am here.)

 

[Dre89]

I don't see the relevance here. Other than throwing around your personal achievements. I've been praised for some really psychotic things and have received lots of good grades and much praise from class mates. Doesn't exactly mean they were good or reasonable arguments.

You said that philosophers would find my argument illogical. I posted that to show that that is not really the case.

No offense, but most DHers come in here to test you guys out, not beat you into the ground. That's initiation. =)

That doesn't really change the fact that most people here don't really understand philosophy (no offence). I'm not saying I'm the guru on it, that is just ignorant arrogance, but I'm saying the majority of you don't seem to really understand how it works.

I'm not implying that any of you are stupid, or that I'm more intelligent than any of you for that matter, just that in this particular field you guys don't really seem to understand 'how things work'.

The argument is a cosmological argument, Implying that the universe requires a first cause, right off the bat a first cause could very well be a mistaken claim. As we've agreed time is finite it had a beginning, yet causality only makes sense in the context of time, so applying causality to pre-time doesn't make much sense.


In your case the first cause is god. Why is this conclusion faulty you might ask? Well as I've stated before your first cause relies on the fallacy of special pleading, why does your first cause not require a cause of it's own? You counter this with saying "god is exempt from those rules" an unfalsifiable claim. Any claim toward the existence of a god or the non-existence of one is unfalsifiable unless we're speaking of personal gods such as. "my god will make me pancakes every morning on Sunday "Obviously this sort of god can be falsified when I wake up on Sunday and there's no pancakes.

You've straw-manned my argument and missed the very poinnt of my argument that makes it different from typical cosmoligal arguments. I used to be a cosmologist as you've just suggested, and I admit that version is flawed. However, if you've read (or remembered) my previous posts you'd know I've worked around this. The cosmological argument is flawed because it functions in an event-by-event sequence, thus relating God to time. I don't relate God to this sequence, I believe this sequence is merely a law of human perception, rather than a reality God functions by. As I said before, I have suggested theories, such as the eternal now theory, which don't have the problem you proposed.

for the sake of argument lets accept there was a first cause, aside from the problems I just pointed out. The first cause doesn't necessarily become god, as the first cause could very well be something else. Or if it is god, it doesn't necessarily have to be a known god, because it could very well be a deistic god.

Firstly, I'm not a theist. This second part becomes irrelevant once you read my counter to the above quote. The thing is, when you say the first cause could have been something else, that's not really correct, because in the standard cosmological sense no first cause can really exist. In the context which I argue, only a higher being, because it is the only thing that can be self-necessary, not a mean to another end, has no beginning etc. can be the 'original cause'.

To close; asking "What came before the big bang" is none sense, the concept of before is irrelevant when we're debating things before time. It's really like asking what's deeper than the earths core? (bad example but it's 2 am here.)

The point of asking this question is to determine what the true origin of the world is. I personally feel whether a higher being exists or not is an important issue, it can affect things such as morality, the way we look at the world, future methodologies etc.

 

[GoldShadow]

Here are a few of Alt's posts from older threads to read:
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=6207558&postcount=800
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=6499748&postcount=838
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=6026278&postcount=113
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=4781764&postcount=196

 

[Aesir]

You said that philosophers would find my argument illogical. I posted that to show that that is not really the case.

I said Philosophers would accuse you of special pleading, which it was.

That doesn't really change the fact that most people here don't really understand philosophy (no offence). I'm not saying I'm the guru on it, that is just ignorant arrogance, but I'm saying the majority of you don't seem to really understand how it works.

Philosophy isn't a very tough thing to grasp, not say it's easy but one can understand it if they take the time to do so. I'm saying this because yes some peoples knowledge could be lacking but not severely to the point where they can't argue.

I'm not implying that any of you are stupid, or that I'm more intelligent than any of you for that matter, just that in this particular field you guys don't really seem to understand 'how things work'.

if that's true than it's obvious you don't know much about science.

You've straw-manned my argument and missed the very poinnt of my argument that makes it different from typical cosmoligal arguments. I used to be a cosmologist as you've just suggested, and I admit that version is flawed. However, if you've read (or remembered) my previous posts you'd know I've worked around this. The cosmological argument is flawed because it functions in an event-by-event sequence, thus relating God to time. I don't relate God to this sequence, I believe this sequence is merely a law of human perception, rather than a reality God functions by. As I said before, I have suggested theories, such as the eternal now theory, which don't have the problem you proposed.

No I didn't straw man you, as your argument as of recently appeared to resemble the cosmological argument. As for the Eternal Now Theory, I've never heard of that theory and I'm fairly well versed. So mind providing a link of some kind? That would be helpful.

Firstly, I'm not a theist. This second part becomes irrelevant once you read my counter to the above quote. The thing is, when you say the first cause could have been something else, that's not really correct, because in the standard cosmological sense no first cause can really exist. In the context which I argue, only a higher being, because it is the only thing that can be self-necessary, not a mean to another end, has no beginning etc. can be the 'original cause'.

A bit of a clarification;

Did you not say this?

Also, yes I understand that nothing could have happened before time and BB existed, various God theories such as the Eternal Now theory account for this problem. The thing is though, in an atheistic sense, you cannot say time was the beginning, or that nothing occurred before time, because time, and all the other UPs that were at the start of the universe are not self-necessary. They are not capable of causing their own existence.

Call me crazy but seeing you advocate for the Eternal Now Theory, and see how you described it as a god theory one could get confused if you are a theist or not.

given from that it was reasonable from my view to conclude that when you stated higher power it was another way of saying god. As higher power is merely just vague way of describing god. (or at least in a casual sense. Or to anyone in AA)

The point of asking this question is to determine what the true origin of the world is. I personally feel whether a higher being exists or not is an important issue, it can affect things such as morality, the way we look at the world, future methodologies etc.

I agree with this.


edit: Alts stuff is good too.

 

[Dre89]

No I didn't straw man you, as your argument as of recently appeared to resemble the cosmological argument. As for the Eternal Now Theory, I've never heard of that theory and I'm fairly well versed. So mind providing a link of some kind? That would be helpful.

I just used the phrase 'original cause' for convenience's sake, I didn't literally mean it required an event-by-event sequence. I'm sorry for that confuson. I do however believe there must be a self-necessary entity which is and end in itself, and to which all other entities are means, and that these other entities exist as a result of the 'original' one.

As for the eternal now theory, I haven't read anything on it myself, my philosophy lecturer briefly explained it to us in class.

Also, and I don't mean to be rude, but it's rather foolish and niave for any of us to suggest that we are well-versed in philosophy. You really only have that right if you're 30 years old and have at least one PHD in it.

Call me crazy but seeing you advocate for the Eternal Now Theory, and see how you described it as a god theory one could get confused if you are a theist or not.

I didn't necessarily advocate the eternal now theory, I just said it's one theory that works around the time issue. I'm not a theist, I don't believe in any religion, or any revealed theology for that matter.

I do believe in some form of God or higher being, just not in religion. I feel being categorised as a deist is quite limiting, because I don't assume that God has no care for the world, or has no interaction with it, I'm unsure to what extent He does (or if He does) these things.

I guess you could say I'm abit of a panenthiest (not panthiest) too, because I do believe God extends beyond the universe (not physically speaking of course).

So yeah I don't really know how to categorise my belief, since it's mostly just a modification of deism I just call it 'dre'ism lol.

Edit: Aesir you keep saying I don't know anything about science, I never claimed I did. However, you yourself admitted that there is no scientific knowledge of what came before the BB, which is the issue I'm addressing, therefore I don't require scientific knowlegde for my argument to be valid. There are plenty of well-founded, philosphical pro-God arguments that are not founded on science. Whether my argument is valid or not has nothing to do with my scientific knowledge.

 

[Aesir]

I just used the phrase 'original cause' for convenience's sake, I didn't literally mean it required an event-by-event sequence. I'm sorry for that confuson. I do however believe there must be a self-necessary entity which is and end in itself, and to which all other entities are means, and that these other entities exist as a result of the 'original' one.

Why must there be one? I understand the argument you're putting forth here, I'm asking why must there be an entity like that to push forward a universe?

As for the eternal now theory, I haven't read anything on it myself, my philosophy lecturer briefly explained it to us in class.

Seems kind of foolish to mention it if you haven't even read it yourself.

Also, and I don't mean to be rude, but it's rather foolish and niave for any of us to suggest that we are well-versed in philosophy. You really only have that right if you're 30 years old and have at least one PHD in it.

I didn't mean philosophy as I meant arguments in favor of god.

I didn't necessarily advocate the eternal now theory, I just said it's one theory that works around the time issue. I'm not a theist, I don't believe in any religion, or any revealed theology for that matter.

Theism is a belief in god, not in religion.

I do believe in some form of God or higher being, just not in religion. I feel being categorised as a deist is quite limiting, because I don't assume that God has no care for the world, or has no interaction with it, I'm unsure to what extent He does (or if He does) these things.

By believing in god you are in fact a theist.

I guess you could say I'm abit of a panenthiest (not panthiest) too, because I do believe God extends beyond the universe (not physically speaking of course).

So yeah I don't really know how to categorise my belief, since it's mostly just a modification of deism I just call it 'dre'ism lol.

That's fine, I simply wanted a word to categorize because it's difficult to argue with out that. I also find it interesting that your view on god is very similar to my own when I believed in god. Just for the record I have no problems with that belief I find it more justifiable than most theistic beliefs. (Namely the ones with Religion tacked on to them.)

Edit: Aesir you keep saying I don't know anything about science, I never claimed I did. However, you yourself admitted that there is no scientific knowledge of what came before the BB, which is the issue I'm addressing, therefore I don't require scientific knowlegde for my argument to be valid. There are plenty of well-founded, philosphical pro-God arguments that are not founded on science. Whether my argument is valid or not has nothing to do with my scientific knowledge.

I said it's a developing field, scientists theorize of various ways the universe could come about without the need of a deity aka theoretical physics. So it's not like science has thrown it's hands up in the air giving up, as they're trying to solve this mystery to give an explanation as well. (you should probably look at goldshadow's links.)

I still don't think you've accurately counter my claim that causation is non-sense when discussing pre-time. You've just worked around that by saying well this could have happened, It's only based on an unfalsifiable claim of god. Since your god isn't a known personal god it cannot be falsified as correct or incorrect like any of the known gods today can be. It's just reliant on a truth that god exists which could very well be not true.


Edit: I do think we have reached the end of the debate, as we're just going to continue to repeat our talking points. So to save our selfs both a lot of time which is something I'm not going to have a lot of in a few weeks I think we should end it here. If someone else wants to take this up they're free to do so.

 

[Mewter]

I agree, I don't think I can stand any more of this.

Maybe dre can try his hand at politics though. He'll probably have more of a chance of getting into the Debate Hall if he does.

 

[Aesir]

It's not that I can't stand this, for some reason I am enjoying this however I just don't have the time to dedicate to this debate anymore. This debate will probably devolve into a debate on god, and the whether or not atheism is a logical position, which will end up being a stalemate. I just don't see the rational in continuing it.

I will say he did a good job defending his position, I could definitely see him in the DH.

 

[Mewter]

I think he did a good job too, but I just see the debate running around in circles from here on out. Anything that has been said will just be said again.

Plus, living on opposite sides of the world doesn't help the debating if you have to wait 7 hours before the next response.

 

[Sucumbio]

heh, well this is the -only- debate happening right now, so I guess I'll step back in.

Science doesn't have answers for this, my point is is that it couldn't, because the origin of the universe must extend beyond natural entities, and science is only concerned with natural enitities.

Yes. I know that's your point. And I have a HUGE problem with that. I am going to step back again a second here:

Science does not equal Scientific Technology.

Ok, I do this, because while I remain skeptical that there are any possibilities outside the realm of science, I feel that your take on what Science is, is flawed. Science is merely a means to an end. It is a way of analyzing events, physical materials, phenomenon, etc. By saying that Science can never explain what happened "before" BB (quoted for sake of argument and assumption there even is a Before) or to explain what "caused" it, is to say that Humans can never know these things, without Faith. I have a HUGE problem with this, see. I am not atheist, as I mentioned earlier. I have Faith, in God almighty. However for the purpose of this debate, I am willing to entertain the idea that the BB indeed happened, one, and that two, we will one day either have the ability to witness it first-hand (by Time travel experiments) OR at least without-a-doubt prove what it even really is, was, and what "caused" it. We also, may find out what things were like, "before it happened."

Also, there are certain facts which science did not conclude. It is fact that there is some spiritual or supernatural element to the world. I personally know people, one of whom is an atheist, who have been to psychics (not cold-reading frauds) who have spoke in intricate detail of their dead relatives without the person saying a single word at all to the psychics, or filling out any questionnaire (they do that for John Edwards apparently).

Also, over 8 million Americans alone have been deemed been clinically dead, with the common account being they were in a dark tunnel and were experiencing a euphoric sensation.

Again, my godmother had a dream where her late father spoke to her in a language she didn't understand, she had never heard the words before, she later found out he said 'your soul will always live on'.

Even just recently, an old lady terminally ill with cancer, attained a relic somehow related to Mary Mckillop (can't remember what it was, but Mary Mckillop was an Australian woman soon to be ordained a saint incase you didn't know). Upon attaining this relic and praying frequently, instead of dying, she began regaining her health until she became completely healthy yet again. Several medical experts were brought in to examine this, and none of them could account for her sudden boost of health, it was medicallyunexplainable. I'm not suggesting the Catholic Church speaks the truth, just showing there is some form of spiritual element in the world.


There are plenty more of these phenomena, yet none of these were concluded by science, yet are facts. Therefore, if you believe in evolution, I'm guessing you must believe that humans, as mere animals, must have 'evolved' souls, the ability to speak to the dead, the abiltiy to exist in some form of afterlife, and to come to people in dreams etc., yet science concludes none of that.

Yeah, I kinda forced you down this road if you'll notice my previous posts, which is another debating tool known as "rail-roading." I felt this to be the case all along, but to make you say it, is to beat you in this debate. The moment you mention "well there was this dude this one time that I know personally that jumped to the moon and back" kinda thing, it's over. I think most of the past 2 pages have been spent sub-debating why personal anecdotes are inappropriate. We can admit things about the self, like whether or not we're Christians or atheists, etc. But to cite personal, or otherwise unverifiable events, is a debating no no.

That said, I'll go with it, anyway.

"It is fact that there is some spiritual or supernatural element to the world. I personally know people, one of whom is an atheist, who have been to psychics (not cold-reading frauds) who have spoke in intricate detail of their dead relatives without the person saying a single word at all to the psychics, or filling out any questionnaire (they do that for John Edwards apparently)."

Okay, again, any time you want to say such-n-such is fact, you must provide a source. K? You may not personally believe it's necessary, but for the purposes of debating on SWF in the DH, please please please do this. For our edification if not your own.

Now your "factual" example here, can actually be explained without the use of the words "spiritual" or "supernatural." It is possible that psychic power is in fact rooted in biology and, ironically, evolution. -source

Your next several examples continue along the same vein, near-death experiences, holy relics, spirit dreams... these things though strange, may have a basis in the physical world, and be observable by Science. The point is, there's too much wiggle room in these citations, to be useful in this debate, and so should not be used.

And why exactly would I need to offer new angles when no one, apart from your Looping theory, provided any answers to the challenge I offered?

I explained why I thought a higher being must've been responsible, because natural entities cannot cause themselves and are not self-necessary. This was explored in pretty much every post I made in response to everyone's counters.

New angles offer a way around circle-stalling, for lack of a better term, lol. Your arguments have been revolving around the same basic point and without coming at it from a different perspective, namely, your opponent's perspective, you cannot hope to win them over.

What you've explained, unfortunately, is too hypothetical to hold water. Natural Entities CAN cause themselves, it is our lack of scientific understanding that prevents us from seeing WHY. It is this same lack which forces us to rely on Faith-based creationism to plug in that hole. This trend can be traced back for thousands of years. "The world is flat" or "The Earth is at the center of the Universe" ... these types of "facts" are just as impossible to prove otherwise, until Science (and the Technology it avails) and Engineering, etc are able to breech that ignorance. In fact, did you know that it's actually quite difficult to prove the Moon goes around the Earth, and not the other way around? It takes some lengthy observation and a protractor and a weighted string and patience and data collecting, and ultimately the information is VERY close, so close that you still could say, the Earth revolves the moon, it's just we know better. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

Even if BB is fact, whether it caused UPs to exist, or it was caused by the UPs (which then whose existence is not accounted for) is not fact. My essay aimed to show that BB could not have caused the UPs to exist, but rather the other way around, and then to show that only God could have caused the UPs to exist. I really don't see how it could have been clearer.

Your OP states:

"The problem with the Big Bang Theory is that it suggests that something came from nothing, when in fact there was no such potentiality to allow such a phenomena to occur."

My counter is that you're wrong, basically, because your statement is an opinion, and even so far as to say, it's an inaccurate portrayal of BBT. Big Bang doesn't -suggest- ... it states. There was Nothing before the Big Bang. And by Nothing, BB theorists mean "Nothing" that exists AFTER Big Bang, not Nothing nothing. There obviously -was- something before the bang, or there wouldn't have been one, lol... but the posit requires you to define your Universal Princicples of time, matter, energy and space as post-bang items, and pre-bang existence is simply Everything that is not post-bang, which is the same as Nothing. why? Cause we Don't Know! There's literally no scientific evidence of any pre-bang matter, energy, space, anything... this is where you say "and we'll never know it, cause science can only observe post-bang things" and this is where I say "wrong again, Today's science can only do this, tomorrow's may be able to."

You further conclude:

"1. That the first motion occurred at some point in time.
2. That time began when the first motion occurred."

I say this is also opinion. Has it occurred to you that they both began simultaneously? And that that is why space and time aren't separate, but a continuum? The Space-Time Continuum! This is what irked me about your whole thesis. This ... chicken and the egg philosophy you've stapled onto "atheistic belief" ... in an attempt to discredit it. I don't buy it, friend. No one likes to think about which came first, the chicken or the egg, why would an atheist purposefully back themselves into such a terrible corner? Answer? They don't.

I responded to every counter put in front of me. Everyone just tried to condescend me, instead of actually explaining why my theory that natural entities cannot be self-necessary, and therefore cannot cause BB is wrong.

No one, apart from your LT, even attempted to argue why it would be more logical that the universe created itself than having God create it. So if no one does that, what do I have to refute? You gave me LT, and I responded to that, dissecting the theory and showing why I thought it was wrong.

Alright, fair enough. I apologize for my condescending attitude. I will admit to being a bit harsh back there. It's for your own good, though... it was my last ditched effort at getting you to re-posit your idea using a different approach, because your current approach ends in circles.

The Loop theory is only 1 theory, actually... there are others. Big Bang is a... reference point from which man can gauge the age of the "known" universe, and it's would be fate. True it's never been eye witnessed, and so only scientific method can be used to say "that's what happened" but that is why it's a Theory (and a good one, all considering.) Creation theory, is less theory, and more Faith-based... and Atheists in particular will balk at this, because Faith is ... often times misplaced, as is evident in such historic events as the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, to name but two. Now I won't say Science is NOT guilty of this. Look at the invention of the Atom bomb. What I will say is, that science avails us a truer outcome. The Atom bomb wasn't just willed into existence because enough people prayed on it. And the origin of the Universe, and the reason for its existence, the reason for the Big Bang, will one day be explained, not by God, but by Man.

You guys admitted science has no knowledge of what happened before BB, and what happened before BB was the only issue I addressed. Therefore, why would I require scientific knowledge, when there is no scientific knowledge in the area?

lol ok no, science cannot explain what happened 'before' the BB, but to say it therefore HAS to be divine in nature, is the problem. It's not that you have to have scientific knowledge in pre-BB existence, cause you're quite right, NO ONE DOES, but you DID attack Big Bang theory, and did not just focus on pre-BB ideas. To say otherwise is inaccurate. You must therefore read up on what you're attacking before doing it.

Well for it to be indisputable fact that the universe created itself, I assumed there would have been some experiments or testing that showed that an original natural entity somehow transformed into matter and expanded.

It's not fact, yet, just theory. Tests and experiments and scientific method will continue to expound on this theory, but it's in no way fact, yet.

All I'm saying is that it's impossible that the universe, comprised entirely of natural entities, could have caused itself to exist. Therefore, I'm saying that even if BB did happen, it must have been caused by a higher being. As I said before, your LT was the only time someone ever attemtpted to show that the universe creating itself was more logical than God doing it.

Yes and I will admit that when I came down to it, it was inevitable that the question would arise "Well if God didn't create Universe, then who did?" Which begs an answer, and Loop theory is the best answer -I- have ever come up with, and read about. I can therefore understand your frustration, as you are not wholly incorrect on this point. My theory IS the only true alternative to yours as such in this debate. One for one. So we're at a tie on this point.

I tried to refute was the idea that BB could of happened without God. So, if you defend this theory that I'm attacking, instead of condescending me, why doesn't someone actually tell me why it's more probable that the universe created tiself rather than God?

THIS is something that cannot be debated by either of us, legitimately. If it was God, cool. If it was itself, cool. Either is just as plausible. Evidence can be supported (and has been) on both accounts. I would say that this type of argument is best left inside your own head, and soul... because it's highly unlikely one will convince the other theirs is more right.

The thing is, you throw all your scientific content at me, yet you know there is no scientific content on what caused the BB, so all that science is irrelevant. If you guys are atheists, and not agnostic, then you should be able to explain to me the question I mentioned above, but if you say you're an atheist yet have no logical reason to believe that God couldn't have created the world, and that the universe itself must have done it, then your atheism is not well-founed. Saying that science will eventually prove that the universe created itself is not a well-founded reason, because considering that we have no scientific knowledge of the question at hand, there is no scientific proof that in the future there will be scientific proof that the universe created itself.

Ugh, you were doing pretty good until this... Again the "attack" you perceived was mine and others' dismay that our points were being missed due to your lack of what we're talking about, nothing more. It's not that it's irrelevant, it's actually quite relevant. Science is used to learn about things. To learn about the BB and "before" the BB, one must either deduce based on Faith-based ideology, or on scientific method. I choose scientific method because it's done so well to explain so many other things, such as the creation of Earth, the moon, the sun, the planets, why things go up must come down, etc etc etc. Given this track record, I want science to have a crack at the Ultimate question, where did it really all come from? And that answer lies in wait. So yes, waiting for science to catch up a bit, or a lot as it were, is essential. Patience is essential. In the meantime, sure, we can all believe God did it, but simultaneously, we should also be seeking out evidence of this. And in that journey, we may very well find that to be the case. Imagine. Scientific proof of His existence. How terrible that would be, for so many, whose Faith requires the Question to exist, not The Answer.

 

[Dre89]

Why must there be one? I understand the argument you're putting forth here, I'm asking why must there be an entity like that to push forward a universe?

I feel that it's the only type of entity, or non-entity that could possibly 'cause' the world.

Theism is a belief in god, not in religion.

The way I was taught, theism meant a belief in a personal God, or namely a religious God. I was under the impression things like deism etc. were'nt really theism. When I said I'm not a theist I meant I don't believe in religion.

I still don't think you've accurately counter my claim that causation is non-sense when discussing pre-time. You've just worked around that by saying well this could have happened, It's only based on an unfalsifiable claim of god. Since your god isn't a known personal god it cannot be falsified as correct or incorrect like any of the known gods today can be. It's just reliant on a truth that god exists which could very well be not true.

I guess this is a tricky issue, I do think my side is more logical, but I do see where you're coming from, and it is a good point. You're saying because we can't explain how something could cause time, or exist pre-time etc. Time must be self-necessary. The way I see it, because it is a natural entity, I feel it must not be self-necessary. I admit how God could have done this I don't know, but if there is a God, there'd be plenty of things we can't understand. Also, considering that His potentiality is infinite and that He'd be governed by no laws, it's conceivable that He could not function in accordance with an event-by-event sequence.

Edit: I do think we have reached the end of the debate, as we're just going to continue to repeat our talking points. So to save our selfs both a lot of time which is something I'm not going to have a lot of in a few weeks I think we should end it here. If someone else wants to take this up they're free to do so.

I agree with this too. Whilst it certainly has been very interesting, it is starting to become a mental strain, and you're right in saying it's just going to go in repetitive circles. I'm pretty sure we've explored all the avenues undergraduates can really.

What you have to remember though is that I was attacking the notion of athesit BB, so even if it's true that all my claims are unfalsfiable, I'm still tyring to show that atheism is not well-founded, or less well-founded than beleiving in the existence of a higher being.

Apart from tryinf to show my 'skills' (to get into the DH), I did learn a bit about BB and atheism in general, and learning/intellectual stimulation was really the point of me coming here, so thanks to everyone for the insightful information.

Sucumbio I had some stuff to say to your post but I think everyone agrees we should just end the debate now so I can't be bothered lol.

Also Aesir do you mind me asking why you no longer believe in God? I won't turn it into a debate, just curious.

 

[Eor]

So you want me to use scientific method for something which science can't explain?

I don't know why you would say this, because science is nothing more then information that's gained through observation and experiment. Any of these "supernatural" powers would fall into science if they existed. There has been scientific studies done of people who say they can communicate with the dead and all of the other stuff, but none of it has brought back evidence that it's real.

 

[Aesir]

The way I was taught, theism meant a belief in a personal God, or namely a religious God. I was under the impression things like deism etc. were'nt really theism. When I said I'm not a theist I meant I don't believe in religion.

You're right it does apply to that, but theism is a very broad term, which encompasses different types of beliefs in god.

I guess this is a tricky issue, I do think my side is more logical, but I do see where you're coming from, and it is a good point. You're saying because we can't explain how something could cause time, or exist pre-time etc. Time must be self-necessary. The way I see it, because it is a natural entity, I feel it must not be self-necessary. I admit how God could have done this I don't know, but if there is a God, there'd be plenty of things we can't understand. Also, considering that His potentiality is infinite and that He'd be governed by no laws, it's conceivable that He could not function in accordance with an event-by-event sequence.

However the god argument doesn't take into consideration the nature of things pre-big bang. All we understand is the laws that govern our universe what existed before is a big mystery.

What you have to remember though is that I was attacking the notion of athesit BB, so even if it's true that all my claims are unfalsfiable, I'm still tyring to show that atheism is not well-founded, or less well-founded than beleiving in the existence of a higher being.

Why believe in something that has no evidence? I find atheism to be just as logically sound as say deism or panentheism. Unless we start claiming to know whether deities exist or not than that's a whole different ball park.

Also Aesir do you mind me asking why you no longer believe in God? I won't turn it into a debate, just curious.

It's long and complex.