442 replies to this topic

[serp777]

You mean decelerations rather than arguments

 

Well that's a problem right there. You don't understand the difference.

[shadowhawk]

You tell me fairy tales and then thi0nk you have said something related to our topic.

[serp777]

You tell me fairy tales and then thi0nk you have said something related to our topic.

 

And this is coming from the guy who just admitted to creating a fairy tale like 3 posts ago. Your hypocrisy continues to be overwhelming. You should also really try some choline or fish oil to help with your short term memory. I can recommend some threads if you like. If you don't know how my post, and the arguments in my post, was related to your topic then arguing with you is pretty hopeless.

[shadowhawk]

It was your fairy tale and your revision was not much better.  By the way, this is not my topic.

Edited by shadowhawk, 11 December 2014 - 11:24 PM.

[serp777]

It was your fairy tale and your revision was not much better

 

How was it my fairy tale? Remember I called your fairy tale the strawman? because It failed to address my points? I countered all the relevant portions which you claimed applied to me. IDK how you're missing it when its RIGHT THERE. When you actually address the points then you'll continue the debate. Till you fail to address them, you're essentially giving up.

 

"Once upon a super-super long time ago, there was nothing."

False. My position has been that nothing has never existed and that is a philosophical imagining that is fundamentally flawed and contradictory.

 

 

"So, the not-God-not-nothing-nothing exploded a universe that was super-perfect for life "

Another oversimplification. The universe is far from perfect for life. In fact almost all of it isn't perfect for life. Constants and other universe could be more suitable for life. And a multiverse would have an infinite number of universes with different combinations. We exist in this universe because we could only exist in this particular universe. Many similar universes would exist with slightly different constants and initial conditions. The anthropic principle, nothing magical.

 

"One little planet was not too far from a star, not too close to a star, but juuuust right so that complicated molecules could jiggle around and become even more complicated molecules and become reproducing organisms."

 

With trillions and trillions of planets, at least a few of them were bound to be in the correct spot. It's unlikely for molecules to start self replicating, but given enough time and enough atoms in the universe its within the realm of possibility. It can happen by itself. Its within the laws of physics.

 

"Eventually, those organisms travelled through a magical journey of change and self-discovery to become...us! All without any meaning, purpose, reason, or guidance of any kind whatsoever!"

What is so great about purpose or guidance or meaning anyways? Overrated.

 

"We know for sure, for sure that there is definitely no meaning to the universe."

No one said this. We don't have evidence going either way, but there's no apparent meaning . The universe doesn't need meaning.

 

"Which means you are...or, well...actually, it means you're just mindless matter reacting to physics, and everything you are or will be is going to come crashing down in obscurity and futility when the universe collapses."

Which will happen with or without God.

 

"This magical tale, about which we actually know almost nothing, and can prove exactly nothing, explains everything — everything — I SAID EVERYTHING! about life and our universe."

And the same thing could be said about God.
 

[shadowhawk]

Your world view strikes me as the fairy tale we are talking about.  Things just pop into existence!  A magic horsey.

[serp777]

Your world view strikes me as the fairy tale we are talking about.  Things just pop into existence!  A magic horsey.

 

Things didn't just pop into existence as i've explained numerous times. Nothing never existed. Things were always here and nothing is just an invention. I think your world view is even weirder--nothing somehow existed at which point a timeless God emerged out of no where and made everything with a hand wave.

[shadowhawk]

First of all prove it.  Matter comes from the big bang and it becomes.  Premise 1 stated that everything that is material is caused.  Material things become.  Otherwise how did the pony get here?

[serp777]

First of all prove it.  Matter comes from the big bang and it becomes.  Premise 1 stated that everything that is material is caused.  Material things become.  Otherwise how did the pony get here?

The primary fallacy here is that you ask for proof and then offer a premise, or rather a baseless assertion, which has not been shown to be ture. This is frequently known as shifting the burden of proof. 

 

My argument is simply that there may be physical objects which are eternal and or have no cause. Since you're the one making the claim and using premise 1 for your argument, you have to show that physical objects can't be eternal and have no cause.

 

Even though I do not bear the burden of proof, I offered several possible physical objects, such as the eternal multiverse or a photon from the perspective of a photon, which don't require a cause since they always existed.

 

Furthermore if physical objects cannot be eternal, then there is no apparent reason why anything other than physical objects could be eternal and have no cause. 

 

"Matter comes from the big bang and it becomes."

"it becomes" is a vague and pointless term. And you haven't shown that matter from the big bang in our universe constitutes all physical objects. Perhaps other universes exist, or perhaps God created an eternal physical object to test the extent of his power. Either way you haven't eliminated all possibilities and you have your work cut out for you. 

 

I thoroughly expect you to predictably say that I have the burden of proof, for which I respond--please cite one claim I have made that did not use evidence or reasoning to support it. 

[shadowhawk]

I shifted no burden of proof.  You seem to have a view as to why there is something rather than nothing and have strong views.  Where is the evidence?  So far you claim nothing is physical.  Evidence.  As for proof you offered the photon and multiverse.  Yes...How does this serve as evidence.  Are you claiming photons were here before the bib bang?  You are making claimsand do have the burden of proof.

Edited by shadowhawk, 12 December 2014 - 09:16 PM.

[serp777]

I shifted no burden of proof.  You seem to have a view as to why there is something rather than nothing and have strong views.  Where is the evidence?  So far you claim nothing is physical.  Evidence.  As for proof you offered the photon and multiverse.  Yes...How does this serve as evidence.  Are you claiming photons were here before the bib bang?  You are making claimsand do have the burden of proof.

I never explained why there is something rather than nothing. Seriously you need to go back through my arguments and re read them since you don't understand them. My argument has always been that nothing doesn't exist and the question is a bad question/ a philosophical imagining. There couldn't have been The reason is straight forward--nothing cannot exist obviously. As ive explained to you time and time again my position has been that any definition of nothing has properties that make it physical. Number of things = 0 is a physical, quantifiable entity. I've extrapolated on this reasoning abundantly. Still waiting for your evidence that nothing could have actually existed instead of something. My argument is also strengthened by the fact that there is something. 

 

" As for proof you offered the photon and multiverse.  Yes...How does this serve as evidence."

Seriously go back through my post and read the explanation. An eternal multiverse wouldn't begin because its eternal and would have physical attributes. The multiverse is something that could possibly be the reality of the universe. Unless you disprove the eternal multiverse and know every kind of physical object, premise one is just a blatant assertion. I;m not claiming that the multiverse is true, but rather that i'm open to it as a possibility and you're saying that an eternal universe is impossible in order for premise 1 to be true. Therefore you have the burden of proof as ive explained.

 

"Are you claiming photons were here before the bib bang?"

No once again you're not understanding my argument. Photons as i've shown do not experience time from their perspective. Time does not exist from the perspective of photons so they are an example of an object that defies traditional human thinking, which means its possible for there to be other objects which also defy traditional logic. Since photons experience no time at all, it may be that some objects experience an infinite amount of time, like the singularity of a black hole or something we haven't imagined. I ultimately reject your premise that all physical things begin and are caused . Waiting for proof of this and you are shifting the burden of proof. How will you demonstrate that everything must begin or be caused? Can you disprove the multiverse? The point is your premise one isn't valid because we don't know every kind of physical object. It is therefore simply an assumption.

Edited by serp777, 13 December 2014 - 04:52 AM.

[DukeNukem]

Your world view strikes me as the fairy tale we are talking about.  Things just pop into existence!  A magic horsey.

 

No, a magic god.  That's what you want us to believe.

But you've protected this magic god by inventing the idea that he has always existed, and therefore was not cause.

 

So, if he's always existed, why did he wait infinitely long to create our universe???

Was he just twiddling his thumbs for an eternity trying to figure out what to do with his little lonesome self?

 

[serp777]

 

Your world view strikes me as the fairy tale we are talking about.  Things just pop into existence!  A magic horsey.

 

No, a magic god.  That's what you want us to believe.

But you've protected this magic god by inventing the idea that he has always existed, and therefore was not cause.

 

So, if he's always existed, why did he wait infinitely long to create our universe???

Was he just twiddling his thumbs for an eternity trying to figure out what to do with his little lonesome self?

 

 

His fairy tale strawman is certainly amusing and ironic considering "God did it" is his alternative to answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing. It's fanciful and charming. 

[shadowhawk]

You are the one with no evidence and a fairy tale.  Here is the evidence.

 

      Whatever begins to exist has a cause
       The universe began to exist
       Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The standard theory for the creation of the universe (the Big Bang) is recognized to mean that all time, space, matter and energy came into being at some finite point in the past. Since the discovery of evidence supporting the Big Bang, the idea that the universe came into existence at some fixed point in the past is nearly universally accepted by modern science. However, given the argument above, it means that something must have caused the universe to come into existence. And this has been a big problem to those who dismiss the idea of God being the cause.

Some argue the idea of quantum fluctuations happening within a quantum vacuum state as being the ultimate cause of the universe. This theory (a form of which is also being popularized by Stephen Hawking in his books A Brief History of Time and The Grand Design) can explain everything. This scenario fails.

First, the fact that we are relying on something called a “fluctuation” should give us a hint that there’s something more than nothing going on. You see a fluctuation implies that at the very least something is changing. (WHAT IS IT?)  But a proper definition of time is the change in some state of things or affairs. If you have any set of circumstances and then those circumstances are somehow different, you can know that time has elapsed. You have a “before” and an “after”. So the fact that there are quantum fluctuations means that by definition time is already in existence.

Also, although most physicists agree that matter and energy do not need to exist at the quantum level, a quantum fluctuation happens in space and time. The Wikipedia article gets a quantum vacuum state right when it states

    "According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space", and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void."  http://en.wikipedia....ki/Vacuum_state


Even in Johann Rafelski and Berndt Mueller’s little book The Structured Vacuum they define the vacuum as “space without matter”.  http://en.wikipedia....ki/Vacuum_state

Herein lies the problem. If the beginning of the universe we mean that all matter, energy, space and time came into existence, but quantum fluctuations require space and time to already exist, then how can they explain the beginning of the universe? The answer is: they can’t. While quantum fluctuations are a theoretical construct, they really can’t explain why the universe is here at all, because two of the universe’s conditions must already exist for the quantum fluctuations to exist.

It seems that because quantum mechanics has certain counter-intuitive properties attached to it, like the Uncertainty Principle, that the atheists are relying on this explanation to solve their very real dilemma. However, they haven’t thought carefully about the coherence of their position. Whenever I asked where the universe came from, our guests would answer with "quantum fluctuations"--throwing it out like a sprinkling of magical pixie dust that somehow settles every question. As I’ve shown, their faith in such a solution is really unfounded.

[shadowhawk]

You are the one with unproven magic universe.  Read it again

 

http://www.longecity...e-9#entry702096

 

 

 

[serp777]

You are the one with no evidence and a fairy tale.  Here is the evidence.

 

      Whatever begins to exist has a cause
       The universe began to exist
       Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The standard theory for the creation of the universe (the Big Bang) is recognized to mean that all time, space, matter and energy came into being at some finite point in the past. Since the discovery of evidence supporting the Big Bang, the idea that the universe came into existence at some fixed point in the past is nearly universally accepted by modern science. However, given the argument above, it means that something must have caused the universe to come into existence. And this has been a big problem to those who dismiss the idea of God being the cause.

Some argue the idea of quantum fluctuations happening within a quantum vacuum state as being the ultimate cause of the universe. This theory (a form of which is also being popularized by Stephen Hawking in his books A Brief History of Time and The Grand Design) can explain everything. This scenario fails.

First, the fact that we are relying on something called a “fluctuation” should give us a hint that there’s something more than nothing going on. You see a fluctuation implies that at the very least something is changing. (WHAT IS IT?)  But a proper definition of time is the change in some state of things or affairs. If you have any set of circumstances and then those circumstances are somehow different, you can know that time has elapsed. You have a “before” and an “after”. So the fact that there are quantum fluctuations means that by definition time is already in existence.

Also, although most physicists agree that matter and energy do not need to exist at the quantum level, a quantum fluctuation happens in space and time. The Wikipedia article gets a quantum vacuum state right when it states

    "According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space", and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void."  http://en.wikipedia....ki/Vacuum_state


Even in Johann Rafelski and Berndt Mueller’s little book The Structured Vacuum they define the vacuum as “space without matter”.  http://en.wikipedia....ki/Vacuum_state

Herein lies the problem. If the beginning of the universe we mean that all matter, energy, space and time came into existence, but quantum fluctuations require space and time to already exist, then how can they explain the beginning of the universe? The answer is: they can’t. While quantum fluctuations are a theoretical construct, they really can’t explain why the universe is here at all, because two of the universe’s conditions must already exist for the quantum fluctuations to exist.

It seems that because quantum mechanics has certain counter-intuitive properties attached to it, like the Uncertainty Principle, that the atheists are relying on this explanation to solve their very real dilemma. However, they haven’t thought carefully about the coherence of their position. Whenever I asked where the universe came from, our guests would answer with "quantum fluctuations"--throwing it out like a sprinkling of magical pixie dust that somehow settles every question. As I’ve shown, their faith in such a solution is really unfounded.

"You are the one with no evidence and a fairy tale.  Here is the evidence."

 

 

You've failed to rebuttal any of my previous arguments. My arguments addressed this already. At least here you recognize that you have the burden of proof, and thus attempt to provide evidence. However I have already refuted your "evidence" making your post redundant.

 

"Whatever begins to exist has a cause

       The universe began to exist
       Therefore, the universe has a cause."

 

You haven't shown that everything physical begins to exist. Therefore the first clause is automatically moot. 

 

" it means that something must have caused the universe to come into existence. And this has been a big problem to those who dismiss the idea of God being the cause."

 

There are a variety of theories which do not depend on God as the factor for the emergence of the universe. One example is the eternal multiverse and infinite inflation. Cause could suggest intention which is false. Our universe could have emerged as a result of a natural slection of universes which weed out universes that are unstable. 

 

Furthermore you haven't proven your interpretation of God. Maybe God created an eternal multiverse experiment to see all the possible combinations of the laws of physics. It thus would mean that God isn't the direct cause of the universe, and that we arose out of random chance because of his experiment, and that God isn't concerned with our insignificant existence. You would need to show evidence for the arrogant that God created the universe for us. 

 

"First, the fact that we are relying on something called a “fluctuation” should give us a hint that there’s something more than nothing going on. "

 

 

And a good explanation for this is a multiverse where a variety of universes exist that have subtle, but significant variations in their initial conditions that cause the fluctuations. Arguing that God caused these fluctuations would need quite a bit of evidence.

 

"Also, although most physicists agree that matter and energy do not need to exist at the quantum level, a quantum fluctuation happens in space and time. The Wikipedia article gets a quantum vacuum state right when it states

    "According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space", and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void.""

 

 

Please provide evidence that most physicists agree that matter and energy do not need to exist at the quantum level. That is completely false. Empty space has energy, also known as dark energy which is causing the expansion of the universe. Your quote from wikipedia actually contradicts your statement about most physicists; the wikipedia quote is saying that space always has some kind of energy in the form of quantum fields and is certainly not empty, which means that matter and energy do need to exist at the quantum level. You also haven't shown how this connects 

 

 

 

It seems that because quantum mechanics has certain counter-intuitive properties attached to it, like the Uncertainty Principle, that the atheists are relying on this explanation to solve their very real dilemma. However, they haven’t thought carefully about the coherence of their position. Whenever I asked where the universe came from, our guests would answer with "quantum fluctuations"--throwing it out like a sprinkling of magical pixie dust that somehow settles every question. As I’ve shown, their faith in such a solution is really unfounded.

 

I mean the irony is so overwhelming here. Lets just postulate that God did it. Problem solved; Fail.  Each time there's a gap in science, we'll just put God there and we wont have to contend with real issues anymore. Additionally, a hypothetical eternal multiverse would solve the problem as well-- the universe has some probability of existing, and since the multiverse is eternal, based on the antrhopic principle, all possibilities have to come into fruition an infinite number of times. I also don't understand your obsession with fairies and pixie dust. 

 

And also, who are the athiests that claim this? Certianly they aren't on this thread, or relevant to this topic. Athiests aren't a group. You don't have the A-baseball player group, or the A-celestial teapot group. 

 

In conclusion, I thoroughly expect you to once again ignore all of my arguments or type a one liner like--"Nonsense". It would be a nice surprise to see if you actually address them instead of addressing one sentence or skipping it entirely.But on the other hand it would be amusing if you fell into the trap and acted so predictably.  Finally your "fairy tale" allegations are simply a pointless red herring that only serves to reduce the quality of your argument, so please stop spamming and parroting that cliche. 

[serp777]

You are the one with unproven magic universe.  Read it again

 

http://www.longecity...e-9#entry702096

No you are. Respond to my posts above. 

 

And you failed to address DukeNukem's arguments as well. 

Edited by serp777, 16 December 2014 - 07:53 AM.

[shadowhawk]

You have the burden of proof.  I have shown that the Kalam is perfectly reasonable  The Kalam argument is not defeated by quantim theory as I have already shown.  There are other Problems with the Multiverse even though it would not affect theism negatively as you suggest..











 

[shadowhawk]

By the way, I am not, nor have I ignored your evidence.  Nonsense and in your case it is.

[serp777]

By the way, I am not, nor have I ignored your evidence.  Nonsense and in your case it is.

Heres what I said

"

In conclusion, I thoroughly expect you to once again ignore all of my arguments or type a one liner like--"Nonsense". It would be a nice surprise to see if you actually address them instead of addressing one sentence or skipping it entirely.But on the other hand it would be amusing if you fell into the trap and acted so predictably.  Finally your "fairy tale" allegations are simply a pointless red herring that only serves to reduce the quality of your argument, so please stop spamming and parroting that cliche"

 

Yup just like I expected.You're so predictable and cliche. The only nonsense here is your arguments and "evidence". You keep switching the burden of proof and fail to respond to my arguments at all. You're hopeless. 

[serp777]

You have the burden of proof.  I have shown that the Kalam is perfectly reasonable  The Kalam argument is not defeated by quantim theory as I have already shown.  There are other Problems with the Multiverse even though it would not affect theism negatively as you suggest..











 

I have shown it is not reasonable and you haven't responded to my arguments. I never argued that kalam was defeated by quantum theory, just that your explanation fo quantum theory was wrong and irrelevant. William Lane Craig can make claims about what God would and wouldn't do but he couldn't know. 

 

Finally you have the burden of proof by showing that the kalam cosmological first premise is true and that everything physical needs to be caused . 

Edited by serp777, 16 December 2014 - 10:15 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Everything that is physical, that we know of is caused the subject of my previous argument.  Everything that begins to exist needs a cause.  Premise one.  It is true.  Name me something that did not begin to exist.

[serp777]

Everything that is physical, that we know of is caused the subject of my previous argument.  Everything that begins to exist needs a cause.  Premise one.  It is true.  Name me something that did not begin to exist.

The eternal multiverse is a hypothetical physical object that did not begin to exist as i have stated numerous time. Again i don't need to prove that. You have the burden of proof of disproving that the there aren't any physical objects that are eternal, just like how I would need to prove that God doesn't exist if I were making that claim. 

 

 

 

If  God can be eternal then why can't a multiverse be eternal? And since GOd is all powerful and infinite, then why couldn't GOd create an eternal physical object? Are you saying you know the limits of God's power? If God cannot create an eternal physical object then he is not all powerful. 

[shadowhawk]

Yes it is HYPOTHETICAL.  name something that exists that did not begin.  So is the tooth fairy, hypothetical.  No you have the burden of proof to show me you know of a real thing that is physical that is not contingent on something else. 

[serp777]

Yes it is HYPOTHETICAL.  name something that exists that did not begin.  So is the tooth fairy, hypothetical.  No you have the burden of proof to show me you know of a real thing that is physical that is not contingent on something else. 

No you have the burden of proof. God is also hypothetical, so that must mean that God is in the same category. So even if the kalam argument is valid, I'm glad you'd agree that God is equivalent to the tooth fairy since both are hypothetical. =)

 

You're making the claim that a physical eternal object is impossible. my argument is that we don't know what everything consists of therefore premise one of the kalam rests on faulty assumptions. You're claiming that you do know what everything consists of since you know there can't be an eternal, physical objects.  Therefore you have the burden of proof to show that it is impossible. I don't need to give proof that we don't know what everything consists of. You need to prove that we do. I'm not sure how much more simple this can get. 

 

The multiverse also has some evidence supporting it, such as early inflation theories . 

 

ALso, assumong God exists are you claiming that he isn't powerful or omnipotent enough to create an eternal physical object? Don't try to limit God's power when you obviously don't realize his power and knowledge is infinite--hbe can do anything he wants. You're insulting God. 

Edited by serp777, 17 December 2014 - 02:44 AM.

[DukeNukem]

You are the one with no evidence and a fairy tale.  Here is the evidence.

 

      Whatever begins to exist has a cause
       The universe began to exist
       Therefore, the universe has a cause.

 

 

First, you need to prove that "what begins to exist has a cause."  This is by no means an established fact.

The same is that "true the universe began to exist" -- we do not recognize that as a sure fact.  (While our universe bubble may be recent -- ~13.7 billions years ago -- there very well may be a much bigger uberverse in which our universe resides, and that uberverse may have always existed.

Finally, your entire thesis is that whatever begins has a cause, and you avoid the issue that God was caused by saying He has always existed.  But it's FAR more logical and believable to accept that a universe/uberverse has always existed than some all-powerful God.  To think that a God came before anything is like thinking iPhone's came before sundials.

Edited by DukeNukem, 17 December 2014 - 06:37 PM.

[shadowhawk]

 

Your world view strikes me as the fairy tale we are talking about.  Things just pop into existence!  A magic horsey.

 

No, a magic god.  That's what you want us to believe.

But you've protected this magic god by inventing the idea that he has always existed, and therefore was not cause.

 

So, if he's always existed, why did he wait infinitely long to create our universe???

Was he just twiddling his thumbs for an eternity trying to figure out what to do with his little lonesome self?

 

 

I have not even talked about God.  You are the one with the magic caused cosmos that eternally existed.  Our question askes the same question of everyone and you seek to ignore the issue trying to make it about God.  Why is there something rather than nothing?  How do you get intelligence from non intelligence?  There are hundreds of other questions that reality raises which you have not answered.

 

As for something taking a long time, time is part of creation and presents the issue of infinite regress for you.

 

Tell me something that begun to exist that does not have a cause.

Edited by shadowhawk, 17 December 2014 - 09:35 PM.

[shadowhawk]

 

Yes it is HYPOTHETICAL.  name something that exists that did not begin.  So is the tooth fairy, hypothetical.  No you have the burden of proof to show me you know of a real thing that is physical that is not contingent on something else. 

No you have the burden of proof. God is also hypothetical, so that must mean that God is in the same category. So even if the kalam argument is valid, I'm glad you'd agree that God is equivalent to the tooth fairy since both are hypothetical. =)

 

You're making the claim that a physical eternal object is impossible. my argument is that we don't know what everything consists of therefore premise one of the kalam rests on faulty assumptions. You're claiming that you do know what everything consists of since you know there can't be an eternal, physical objects.  Therefore you have the burden of proof to show that it is impossible. I don't need to give proof that we don't know what everything consists of. You need to prove that we do. I'm not sure how much more simple this can get. 

 

The multiverse also has some evidence supporting it, such as early inflation theories . 

 

ALso, assumong God exists are you claiming that he isn't powerful or omnipotent enough to create an eternal physical object? Don't try to limit God's power when you obviously don't realize his power and knowledge is infinite--hbe can do anything he wants. You're insulting God. 

 

Of course you are playing games,  I didn't mention God but you did and you won't answer any questions or give evidence.  Name me a physical eternal object.  You are having a difficult time understanding premise one.1. Every thing that begins to exist has a cause.  You seem to over and again deny this.  Evidence.

 

[serp777]

 

 

Yes it is HYPOTHETICAL.  name something that exists that did not begin.  So is the tooth fairy, hypothetical.  No you have the burden of proof to show me you know of a real thing that is physical that is not contingent on something else. 

No you have the burden of proof. God is also hypothetical, so that must mean that God is in the same category. So even if the kalam argument is valid, I'm glad you'd agree that God is equivalent to the tooth fairy since both are hypothetical. =)

 

You're making the claim that a physical eternal object is impossible. my argument is that we don't know what everything consists of therefore premise one of the kalam rests on faulty assumptions. You're claiming that you do know what everything consists of since you know there can't be an eternal, physical objects.  Therefore you have the burden of proof to show that it is impossible. I don't need to give proof that we don't know what everything consists of. You need to prove that we do. I'm not sure how much more simple this can get. 

 

The multiverse also has some evidence supporting it, such as early inflation theories . 

 

ALso, assumong God exists are you claiming that he isn't powerful or omnipotent enough to create an eternal physical object? Don't try to limit God's power when you obviously don't realize his power and knowledge is infinite--hbe can do anything he wants. You're insulting God. 

 

Of course you are playing games,  I didn't mention God but you did and you won't answer any questions or give evidence.  Name me a physical eternal object.  You are having a difficult time understanding premise one.1. Every thing that begins to exist has a cause.  You seem to over and again deny this.  Evidence.

 

You seem to not be able to understand my arguments. They're a bit subtle, but they're not that complicated. I have had no trouble understanding premise one nor have you demonstrated my lack of understanding. I don't need to provide evidence . You keep committing a burden of proof fallacy. You seem to make this fatal flaw over and over and over and over again.

 

"

• Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.^[13]"

 

Since you seem not to grasp what my argument is,  have posted the definition of the fallacy you have been committing. You keep asking me to provide evidence to show that the kalam premise one is false. You're assuming that the kalam premise one is true because I have not proven it false. I don't need to provide evidence showing it is false, you need to provide evidence that it is true since you made the proposition of the kalam. I am waiting for you to show me that all physical objects have a beginning and a cause.

 

• Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.^[13]"

 

I posted it again because you seem to have trouble reading my arguments

 

• Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.^[13]"

 

 

And one more time because you keep making the same wrong argument. You're assuming that the kalam premise one is true because I have not proven it false. I don't need to provide evidence showing it is false, you need to provide evidence that it is true since you made the proposition of the kalam. I am waiting for you to show me that all physical objects have a beginning and a cause.

 

Shadowhawk you ultimately blatantly keep committing fallacies and then you claim that I have the burden of proof. I have proposed, even though I did not need to, hypothetical physical objects that have no cause and are eternal, such as the eternal multiverse which you have not shown to be false. I also brought up the photon to show you an object that experiences no time at all. Since there are objects which experience no time and distance, its possible that  there are hypothetical physical objects which experience an infinite amount of time, and therefore are uncaused. Its a possibility, which I use to argue that the kalam rests on assumptions, and is therefore standing on shaky ground. I also argued that an alleged God, given that he is infinite and all powerful, can create an eternal objects thus voiding the kalam argument even with a God. Ia rgue that God could create an eternal multiverse that lead to our universe through chance indirectly. Thus the multiverse could be caused but not our universe.

 

You have also talked about God frequently by remarking about atheists and mentioning GOd in your strawman fairy tale. I mean shadowhawk you're literally lying. I can go through and post all of the instances when you bring up God and atheists. You're the one who did it first.

 

Now since this argument will be very difficult for you to respond to, I thoroughly expect you to respond with a one liner such as your typical cop out "Nonsense", or "fairy tale." I wouldn't be surprised since this is how you predictably avoid challenging new arguments. If you did that it would be your standard parroting garbage debate tactic. Or what you like to do is quote one line, or this last paragraph and then respond to it with a one liner while ignoring all of the main points. DOn't embarass yourself by doing anything I mentioned in this paragraph. And don't include your pointlessely obnoxious smiley faces lol 

[serp777]

 

 

Yes it is HYPOTHETICAL.  name something that exists that did not begin.  So is the tooth fairy, hypothetical.  No you have the burden of proof to show me you know of a real thing that is physical that is not contingent on something else. 

No you have the burden of proof. God is also hypothetical, so that must mean that God is in the same category. So even if the kalam argument is valid, I'm glad you'd agree that God is equivalent to the tooth fairy since both are hypothetical. =)

 

You're making the claim that a physical eternal object is impossible. my argument is that we don't know what everything consists of therefore premise one of the kalam rests on faulty assumptions. You're claiming that you do know what everything consists of since you know there can't be an eternal, physical objects.  Therefore you have the burden of proof to show that it is impossible. I don't need to give proof that we don't know what everything consists of. You need to prove that we do. I'm not sure how much more simple this can get. 

 

The multiverse also has some evidence supporting it, such as early inflation theories . 

 

ALso, assumong God exists are you claiming that he isn't powerful or omnipotent enough to create an eternal physical object? Don't try to limit God's power when you obviously don't realize his power and knowledge is infinite--hbe can do anything he wants. You're insulting God. 

 

Of course you are playing games,  I didn't mention God but you did and you won't answer any questions or give evidence.  Name me a physical eternal object.  You are having a difficult time understanding premise one.1. Every thing that begins to exist has a cause.  You seem to over and again deny this.  Evidence.

 

To the readers, shadowhawk has failed to address several points. Which I will list. 

 

"You're making the claim that a physical eternal object is impossible. my argument is that we don't know what everything consists of therefore premise one of the kalam rests on faulty assumptions. You're claiming that you do know what everything consists of since you know there can't be an eternal, physical objects" SH makes a statement that I need to provide evidence in spite of this obvious explanation. 

 

"ALso, assumong God exists are you claiming that he isn't powerful or omnipotent enough to create an eternal physical object?" Things need not begin to exist making premise one irrelevant. 

 

"The multiverse also has some evidence supporting it, such as early inflation theories . " Then you ask for evidence after I provide this. 

 

I am sure readers will recognizes shadowhawks characteristic ignoring of arguments with a couple of unrelated sentences. 

Edited by serp777, 19 December 2014 - 12:04 PM.