Faith and 'proof'

[MegaTherion]

Yikes. I am busy with work for one day and can’t come here and reply, and then when I return, I’m greeted with smug comments like, “You have shut the atheist’s mouth.”

Apparently, you guys think I haven’t heard of the second law of thermodynamics. Apparently, you also don’t know that the second law takes place over time. ** There was no time before the Big Bang.**

This “refutation” is similar to the argument that “the universe couldn’t always exist because then an infinite amount of time would have passed and we’d never get to this moment!!!”

That would be true if there were time before the Big Bang. There wasn’t.

Whatever came before the Big Bang – and I certainly don’t know what it was; let’s call it the “pre-universe” – may have been uncaused. If it helps, think of it as “transcendent” in the sense of “outside what we currently call the universe.” You think transcendent things don’t need causes. Ok. Well, the transcendent pre-universe doesn’t need a cause.

Do I believe in this with a firm faith, with all my heart? No, of course not. I know nothing about the origins of the universe. I’m quite willing to change my mind, but it’s going to take observational data, not a bunch of word games.

And incidentally, for the folks trying to prove that Jesus exists, my claim was never that Jesus didn’t exist and his followers didn’t exist. My claim is that there is insufficient evidence to claim that the figure depicted in the gospels existed as depicted in the gospels.

Do you have any contemporary corroborating sources? Anything that corroborates Matthew 27:50-53 (the saintly dead returning to life and walking among the living)?

It’s telling that the only “evidence” you have of your supposedly all-powerful god is a bunch of word games, a handful of legends, and a warm, fuzzy feeling you get when you pray.

Now, shockingly, I will have to work tonight, and I might not get a chance to reply until tomorrow. Don’t go declaring victory on me when my back is turned.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yikes. I am busy with work for one day and can’t come here and reply, and then when I return, I’m greeted with smug comments like, “You have shut the atheist’s mouth.”

welcome to the forums

Apparently, you guys think I haven’t heard of the second law of thermodynamics. Apparently, you also don’t know that the second law takes place over time. ** There was no time before the Big Bang.**

your saying that a quantum system can have a fluctuation, changing from a static state, to a dynamic state(the universe) in a timeless, causeless manner(that alone violates physical laws) yet those same timeless, causeless flucuations cant result in entropy?(actually with out the addition of energy thats the only result that any set of particle interaction can have on average.)

essentially you turn off the laws of conservation when they dont suit your purpose. you need a real good reason for that.

im sure you see the problem with that idea. let me give you another. see, VP are subject to conservation laws. here is the wiki qoute

“Virtual particles exhibit some of the phenomena that real particles do, such as obedience to the conservation laws. If a single particle is detected, then the consequences of its existence are prolonged to such a degree that it cannot be virtual.”

from here
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

and you still havent addressed the cause of the vacuum in which these fluctuations occur.

next!

Whatever came before the Big Bang – and I certainly don’t know what it was; let’s call it the “pre-universe” – may have been uncaused.

you have repeatedly claimed it was quantum system, don’t back off now

please provide any argument that may suggest something can exist without cause, other than your say so, because i dont see anything else in the entire universe that exists without cause.

If it helps, think of it as “transcendent” in the sense of “outside what we currently call the universe.” You think transcendent things don’t need causes. Ok. Well, the transcendent pre-universe doesn’t need a cause.

i know, ive been trying to tell you that is the logical, Thomistic, consequence of a physical existence for a while now, you just replaced the words ‘non-physical’ and ‘G-d’ with ‘transcendent’, transcendent means non-physical.

“In religion, transcendence is a condition or state of being that surpasses physical existence and in one form is also independent of it.”

from here
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_(religion

you just made my argument for me

Do I believe in this with a firm faith, with all my heart? No, of course not. I know nothing about the origins of the universe. I’m quite willing to change my mind, but it’s going to take observational data, not a bunch of word games.

funny, your asking for the one form of evidence that you can only get from a time machine. in other words no evidence will suffice. thats fine, as long as everyone knows it.

but the thomistic ‘word games’ you revile are the same logical constructs that we call mathematics. you accept the outcome of an algebra equation, but not logic when applied to cosmology. that just reaffirms me and MoMs claim that you are biased against any information that is in favor of the existence of G-d. remember, we said that atheism is not a matter of rationality, it is a matter of desire, which is how this conversation got started.

you have proven both my contentions in one post.

1. the non-physical, needs no cause itself
2. atheism is more a matter of desire than rationality.

thanks.

And incidentally, for the folks trying to prove that Jesus exists, my claim was never that Jesus didn’t exist and his followers didn’t exist. My claim is that there is insufficient evidence to claim that the figure depicted in the gospels existed as depicted in the gospels.

and yet you havent showed a reason that the apostles would die for a lie. your previous rejection seemed to be that the apostles may not have existed, or thats at least how i interpreted your original refutation that people had an oral history, and thats the source of the story.

Do you have any contemporary corroborating sources? Anything that corroborates Matthew 27:50-53 (the saintly dead returning to life and walking among the living)?

sure, the pharisees thought Jesus worked by the name of the evil one, unless they wrote down almost every possession, i doubt they thought it was a miracle that had anything to do with the eecution of a few criminals, remember the victors write the histories, and the immediate victors were the ones who crucified Christ.

It’s telling that the only “evidence” you have of your supposedly all-powerful god is a bunch of word games, a handful of legends, and a warm, fuzzy feeling you get when you pray

.

and your not biased.

Now, shockingly, I will have to work tonight, and I might not get a chance to reply until tomorrow. Don’t go declaring victory on me when my back is turned.

as for me you admitted to both my immediate arguments.

the non-physical needs no cause, and atheism is more about desire than rationalism.

what more is there to win?

though next is the argument about the first cause being intelligent, but im ready for that to.

 

[mvh18]

Yes, Sister, there are many external (non-Biblical) sources that provide good evidence for the Catholic faith. These witnesses are both Christian and non-Christian. Here are just a few of the non-Christian testimonies:

Lucian of Samosata (a second-century AD Greek writer):

The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day–the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account … You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.

Mara Bar-Serapion (a Syrian writing a letter to his son between the 1st and 3rd century AD):

What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samon gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their king [Jesus Christ]? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in dispersion.

**Nearly 150 years after His death. Not exactly contemporary evidence.
**
The Jewish Talmud (compiled between AD 70 and 200):

On the eve of Passover Yeshu [Jesus] was hanged [or crucified]. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor let him come forward and plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged [or crucified] on the eve of the Passover!

**There is a great deal of mystery surrounding the exact identity of Yeshu, as mentioned in the Talmud. There are several similarities between Jesus Christ and Yeshu, however in my opinion the discrepancies between the two shed serious doubt on whether they are in fact the same person. For example;
-The Talmud has Yeshu living an entire century before JC
-Yeshu was stoned by Jewish court, Jesus crucified by the Romans
-Yeshu had five recognised disciples, Jesus twelve.

**

Pliny the Younger (a Roman administrator who wrote about the Christians to the Emperor Trajan around AD 112):

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to do any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up. After which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food–but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.

The Emperor Trajan (writing to Pliny the Younger his guidelines for punishing the Christians):

No search should be made for these people. But when they are denounced and found guilty they must be punished, with the restriction, however, that when the party denies himself to be a Christian, and shall give proof that he is not (that is, by adoring our gods) he shall be pardoned on the ground of repentance even though he may have formerly incurred suspicion.

Whilst these last two accounts give great insight into the actions and rituals of the early Christians, they do not give any form of contemporary evidence for Jesus Christ.

 

[AveSantaMaria]

In A.D. 700 “at the monastery of St. Loginus in Lanciano, Italy, a priest from the Order of St. Basil was celebrating Mass. Having doubted the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the priest saw, during the consecration, the bread miraculously transfored into a circle of flesh and the wine appear as bright as fresh blood. Eventually, the liquefied blood turned into five pellets of various sizes and shapes. When the local archbishop later weighed the pellets, it was discovered that one nugget weighed the same as all five together, two as much as any three, and the smallest as much as the largest. In February of 1574, another test was done on the miraculous blood pellets. Again, any one of the pellets weighed along equaled the weight of all five pellets together. In 1970, further tests were made on the body and blood of Jesus. Analysis has proved that the bread and wine contain characteristics of real human flesh and blood. Both belonged to the same blood type, AB. Eventually the Franciscans rebuilt the church that houses the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano. It is now called the Church of St. Francis (Michael Freze, S.F.O. Voices, Visions, and Apparitions) (concernedcatholics.org - This website is for sale! - obedience chastity virginity confession Eucharist Holy Communion last rites sacrament marriage Jesus Resources and Information.)”

This miracle was first studied scientifically in 1970-1971 by Dr. Edoardo Linoli, professor of anatomy, pathological histology, chemistry and clinical microsocpy, and the former head of the Laboratory of Pathological Anatomy at the Hospital of Arezzo, published in pub med: ** Quad Sclavo Digan. 1971. Sep; 7(3): 661-74. Histological, immunological and biochemiccal studies on the flesh and blood of the eucharistic miracle of Lanciano (8th century) ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4950729?ordinalpos=28&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum **
(Pubmed is a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health that includes over 18 million citations from MEDLINE and other life science journals for biomedical articles back to the 1950s. PubMed includes links to full text articles and other related resources)

Findings:
"* The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.

• The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
• The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.
• In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.
• The Flesh is a “HEART” complete in its essential structure.
• The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB(Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin)
• In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteric make-up of the fresh normal blood.
• In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
• The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheri and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

 

[mvh18]

In A.D. 700 “at the monastery of St. Loginus in Lanciano, Italy, a priest from the Order of St. Basil was celebrating Mass. Having doubted the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the priest saw, during the consecration, the bread miraculously transfored into a circle of flesh and the wine appear as bright as fresh blood. Eventually, the liquefied blood turned into five pellets of various sizes and shapes. When the local archbishop later weighed the pellets, it was discovered that one nugget weighed the same as all five together, two as much as any three, and the smallest as much as the largest. In February of 1574, another test was done on the miraculous blood pellets. Again, any one of the pellets weighed along equaled the weight of all five pellets together. In 1970, further tests were made on the body and blood of Jesus. Analysis has proved that the bread and wine contain characteristics of real human flesh and blood. Both belonged to the same blood type, AB. Eventually the Franciscans rebuilt the church that houses the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano. It is now called the Church of St. Francis (Michael Freze, S.F.O. Voices, Visions, and Apparitions) (concernedcatholics.org - This website is for sale! - obedience chastity virginity confession Eucharist Holy Communion last rites sacrament marriage Jesus Resources and Information.)”

This miracle was first studied scientifically in 1970-1971 by Dr. Edoardo Linoli, professor of anatomy, pathological histology, chemistry and clinical microsocpy, and the former head of the Laboratory of Pathological Anatomy at the Hospital of Arezzo, published in pub med: ** Quad Sclavo Digan. 1971. Sep; 7(3): 661-74. Histological, immunological and biochemiccal studies on the flesh and blood of the eucharistic miracle of Lanciano (8th century) ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4950729?ordinalpos=28&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum**
(Pubmed is a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health that includes over 18 million citations from MEDLINE and other life science journals for biomedical articles back to the 1950s. PubMed includes links to full text articles and other related resources)

Findings:
"* The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.

• The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
• The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.
• In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.
• The Flesh is a “HEART” complete in its essential structure.
• The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB(Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin)
• In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteric make-up of the fresh normal blood.
• In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
• The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheri and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

That is amazing, cheers for sharing that with us!

 

[Sister_G]

This story plus a holy card of the miracle and the 6th chapter of the Gospel of St John are what I always use to prepare the parents of First Holy Communion candidates. Everyone marvels! Many are brought to a deeper belief in the Real Presence! And some are just brought to belief! Thank you, Jesus!

 

[MegaTherion]

you have repeatedly claimed it was quantum system, don’t back off now

You don’t seem to be understanding this.

I’m not the one who’s making the claim “This is how the universe began.” I’ve fully admitted that I don’t know.

What I’ve been arguing this whole time is that I’m not convinced that the only conclusion is that there was a first cause.

The reason that I’m not convinced is that there are other conceivable explanations.

One is that the universe may have always existed in some form outside of time. Being outside of time, it wouldn’t need a cause (because only things in time need a cause). [Please ignore my misguided attempt to use the word “transcendent” in a sense that is utterly antithetical to your use of the word – that doesn’t help the conversation any]

Now you’re certainly right that it could be that a transcendent superhuman power that always existed (being outside of time) may have caused the universe; and it may also be that the pre-universe that always existed (being outside of time) may have begun to expand for natural reasons unknown to us. There are, of course, more options than these.

We have no way of knowing for sure.

So the next question becomes – how do we distinguish between those options?

You have no evidence to demonstrate that one of these options is corect, and you are the one claiming to know that one of these options is correct.

I don’t make claims to know the origins of the universe. I do not see any evidence that would make a supernatural explanation any more likely.

 

[Sister_G]

Mega, I will pray that the God Who Is will give you the gift of faith. This is the only way you can believe Truth. Truth is not subjective, as you know, it is an objective reality. God is real whether you believe it or not. I cannot explain Him to you. You must have a true experience of Him. As I have agonizingly watched this my heart is sad. You may think me a fool, but faith is an eternal gift to know my Creator, my Redeemer and my Sanctifier. Without Him my life would be worthless. All the theories in the world do not amount to one ounce of faith! One day I pray you will know this! God bless you!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I am having a few issues regarding the need for ‘proof’ in our catholic faith. I have been asked several times by athiests, as I’m sure you have, how we can be so sure of our beliefs and what cold hard proof do we have. I’m curious as to how you approach this question-do you go down the track of complete faith without proof, building a personal relationship with God; or do you use the New Testament as proof as a creator as well as things like Near Death Experiences and Intelligent Design. I’m intrigued to hear your thoughts!

All proofs are vulnerable to counter-arguments, so there seems no point in trying to prove anything re,moved from human experience. This constant search for proof is not even particularly Christian - it’s rationalism, very thinly veiled.​

Another problem is that it is all very well for some people to go on about it - but not everyone can follow the arguments: where does it say, “Blessed are you clever, for you shall inherit the Kingdom of heaven” ? So far is Paul from thinking cleverness of any value in such a matter, that he glories in the way the “wisdom of God” has “chosen the foolish”. (1 Cor 1.) This exaggeration of intellectual ability is a form of pride, nothing more - it would have been anathema to Paul.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You don’t seem to be understanding this.

I’m not the one who’s making the claim “This is how the universe began.” I’ve fully admitted that I don’t know.

you have repeatedly stated 'quantum state/system" , and i understand that you are sure there is another explanation. give me one then.

What I’ve been arguing this whole time is that I’m not convinced that the only conclusion is that there was a first cause.

yes, youve been trying to claim matter was always existing, we killed that cat.

if you have another argument to avoid ‘cause’ then give it.

The reason that I’m not convinced is that there are other conceivable explanations.

why are you convinced? because there must be another explanation, or because you dont like where the logic leads? one must have a reason to be convinced of something, what is yours?

One is that the universe may have always existed in some form outside of time.

what form? its physical or non-physical, you previously stated quantum system, which is physical, then you switched to ‘transendental’ which is just non-physical.

we have shown it cant be physical, and therefore must be non-physical, unless you are stating there is yet a third form, for which we have no evidence or logical argument given as a reason to believe.

Being outside of time, it wouldn’t need a cause (because only things in time need a cause).

im starting to wonder if anything physical can exist without time at all, it would have to be static, not changing. thats for another time, so to speak.

[Please ignore my misguided attempt to use the word “transcendent” in a sense that is utterly antithetical to your use of the word – that doesn’t help the conversation any]

you tried to use the word in such a way as too avoid the physical qualities and constraints of matter, and yet not entirely non-physical either.

its also not antithetical to my definition, it is the actual dictionary definition.

if your saying there is a something that is not either physical, or non-physical, i would need a lot of evidence for that, as would any one else.

Now you’re certainly right that it could be that a transcendent superhuman power that always existed (being outside of time) may have caused the universe; and it may also be that the pre-universe that always existed (being outside of time) may have begun to expand for natural reasons unknown to us. There are, of course, more options than these
We have no way of knowing for sure.

ok we have killed the physical, always existing idea, it violates the laws of conservation both coming and going. you cant have a static state go to a dynamic state without a cause. nor can you avoid entropy while allowing that change.

non-physical cause is the only remaining possible suspect.

So the next question becomes – how do we distinguish between those options?

You have no evidence to demonstrate that one of these options is corect, and you are the one claiming to know that one of these options is correct

.

the demonstration is done by elimination, hey i rhymed!,

point being there are only 2 options physical or non-physical, unless you care to argue there exists something that is neither, nor contingent on the physical, then you really have nowhere else to go.

it can only be non-physical

feel free to make another argument. simply saying that cant be the case isn’t enough, give another argument.

I don’t make claims to know the origins of the universe. I do not see any evidence that would make a supernatural explanation any more likely.

thats my point on the bias, the logic points at a non-physical first cause, the fact you refuse to admit that is evidence of the likelyhood of supernatural creation shows you have a bias against any evidence in favor of a religious creation. as an aside, i know that you probably arent aware but in metaphysics, supernatural also means non-physical.

your argument simply seems to be that i might be wrong, even if you dont know why i must be wrong, even in the face of evidence and logic, i might be wrong.

we may be puppets controlled by purple 4 eyed goats living in venusian caves, but with out a rational reason to believe that, it doesnt hold water.

surely you dont argue with biologists telling them that evolution might be wrong so they should quit talking like it is correct.

you just do that to us. thats called bias. you already have an opinion that you wish to hold even when it doesnt fit the facts.

so even though you made my argument for me in the last post, i am willing to allow you to argue any other alternative to a non-physical cause.

i wish to exhaust all logical possibilities, who knows, you may invent a reasonable argument i havent heard of.

so, do you have an argument beyond the ‘i might be wrong’ one?, because every theory, even ones supposedly well proven may be found wrong with the arrival of new information. heck, relativity, evolution, and thermodynamics may all be wrong.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I would be inclined to argue that this is a definition of conviction, rather than faith. Faith implies a lack of knowledge, otherwise there would be little room for belief, as such. If you know something, or if you are convinced of something, I would not consider that you merely had faith in it.

If i were to say, “I know you can do it, Sair; i have complete faith in you!” would i be expressing a lack of knowledge?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

when i read this my heart leapt within me. He is talking about the martyrs. those tortured to death by the likes of nero, and others.
…

I got the quotes from a great little book called Evidence that Demands a Verdict.

amazon.com/Evidence-Demands-Questions-Challenging-Christians/dp/0785243631

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I got the quotes from a great little book called Evidence that Demands a Verdict.

amazon.com/Evidence-Demands-Questions-Challenging-Christians/dp/0785243631

imagine what faith one had to have then, the shame of recantation, the overwhelming terror, of being chained down while lions ate you alive and screaming, the all consuming agony of being burned alive.

we are not a shadow of what they were. we have acquiesced to an existence as Christains that requires no real personal sacrifice.

 

[Michael_David]

imagine what faith one had to have then, the shame of recantation, the overwhelming terror, of being chained down while lions ate you alive and screaming, the all consuming agony of being burned alive.

we are not a shadow of what they were. we have acquiesced to an existence as Christains that requires no real personal sacrifice.

At least here in the USA… not in all countries.

Could us American Catholics (with the Freedoms we have here) been given another mission? Like becoming the Catholics we are meant to be without weeds growing in our field? Or seeing how complacent (spoiled) we can become and nullifying what Catholic really means? During nine-eleven we took a hit… perhaps, our time will come too. Where is ones Faith?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

At least here in the USA… not in all countries.

Could us American Catholics (with the Freedoms we have here) been given another mission? Like becoming the Catholics we are meant to be without weeds growing in our field? Or seeing how complacent (spoiled) we can become and nullifying what Catholic really means? During nine-eleven we took a hit… perhaps, our time will come too. Where is ones Faith?

i see the next persecutions coming in the same way the communists did, it wont be too long before religion is accused of being intolerant, sexist, violent, and dangerous, backwards and unacceptable

its coming, its just a matter of time.

 

[Michael_David]

i see the next persecutions coming in the same way the communists did, it wont be too long before religion is accused of being intolerant, sexist, violent, and dangerous, backwards and unacceptable

its coming, its just a matter of time.

Agreed! Some of these have already taken the first steps to that very pathway… little insignificant things tend to lead to bigger and bigger sameness’.

Soon, the Catholic’s will be seen differently then some of the rest of the (progressive) Christian religions… by this very means.

Grow your Faith… it is always needed. And maybe more so in the future.

 

[MegaTherion]

so, do you have an argument beyond the ‘i might be wrong’ one?, because every theory, even ones supposedly well proven may be found wrong with the arrival of new information. heck, relativity, evolution, and thermodynamics may all be wrong.

My argument isn’t “you might be wrong.” My argument is “you haven’t proven your case.”

We are talking about the origins of the universe, something that no one has enough information to make any definite statements about. We have literally no idea what “matter” and “energy” and “causality” were like (or even if they “existed” in the way we think of them) at that time (before time? Does it even make sense to speak of “before” time?).

Into this giant question mark, you boldly charge with an argument that relies on the most simplistic, cartoonish version of a causal chain and that applies that causal chain idea to an area in which the idea may not hold true.

And what does applying your causal chain to this question mark yield? A bigger question mark (“the supernatural!”).

Your answer is a non-answer. You’ve proven nothing because you’re talking about something that no one has enough information to prove anything about.

And then you have the audacity to say that your answer is right until someone can come along and prove your guesswork wrong.

I’m sorry, but that’s not how knowlegde works. You have to demonstrate that your case is true. I’ll tell you something relativity, evolution, and thermodynamics have that your “argument” doesn’t: evidence.

Reasonable people don’t accept evolution because they’ve used purely logical processes (without reference to actual, observable data) to come to conclusions. Evolution is based on tons and tons of pieces of observable, independently confirmable, repeatedly verifiable data.

Scientists would laugh at you if you tried to suggest that a valid reason for accepting evolution is [inane reasoning]“Every species must have a cause and the cause of a species can’t be non-species, so it must be another species.”[/inane reasoning]

Real knowledge comes from evidence, something that nobody has about origins of the universe.

Trying to compare your “creator” idea to evolution or relativity is one of the most ridiculous comparisons conceivable.

Atheists don’t need a “better” idea about origins because we don’t claim to know how the universe came to be (I certainly don’t, though I might try my hand at proposing a few ideas). All we have to do is see that your idea has zero evidence for its validity.

And that’s the issue here – you have no evidence whatsoever. Nothing that anyone can observe, measure, detect.

 

[MegaTherion]

Hi, Socrates4Jesus. I missed this post of yours the other day. Sorry for the delay in getting to it:

In other words, do you think it would be reasonable for her to insist that only contemporaries of Julius Caesar may be accepted as reliable witnesses to the events of his life? or would you see this as an unreasonable or unnecessary restriction?

It would depend on what the claim is.

Let’s pick someone less well established than Caesar. Let’s say one of the lesser Roman military commanders.

If the claim is simply that the commander existed, then I would be willing to trust a Roman historian who was not a contemporary (as that’s a pretty mundane claim). The more contemporary sources we can gather that confirm details about the commander, the more likely it becomes that the claim is true.

But let’s say the claim is of a magical nature. Let’s say that a Roman historian makes the claim that a commander had a magical omen occur or something of the sort (we do find these kinds of claims in Roman literature). Because this is an extraordinary claim, I wouldn’t take the word of someone who lived much later. I would want to verify the event’s occurrence with as many contemporary eyewitness accounts as possible. The more that we can gather, the more likely it becomes that the claim is true.

I’ve never disputed that Jesus (one Rabbi or several Rabbis who taught similar things) probably existed. It actually seems to me to be pretty likely that there was an individual upon whom the legends were based.

I have said that there is insufficient evidence to justify the claim that the magic-working Jesus of the gospels existed.

There’s certainly not enough evidence to justify the claims of Matthew 27:50-53 in which many dead bodies rise up and enter Jerusalem. I think we would have had some eyewitness accounts of that happening, if it were true.

So, in short, I suppose I have a stricter requirement of proof when the claim is of an extraordinary nature.

To put it another way: I have no problem accepting that the legends of King Arthur were based on a real king – but it would require a lot more than the stories to convince me that the magical stories themselves actually happened.

 

[Namesake]

i see the next persecutions coming in the same way the communists did, it wont be too long before religion is accused of being intolerant, sexist, violent, and dangerous, backwards and unacceptable

its coming, its just a matter of time.

It’s already here. Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett.

The scary part is they might be right. Think radical Islam and September 11th, 2001.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

My argument isn’t “you might be wrong.” My argument is “you haven’t proven your case.”

We are talking about the origins of the universe, something that no one has enough information to make any definite statements about. We have literally no idea what “matter” and “energy” and “causality” were like (or even if they “existed” in the way we think of them) at that time (before time? Does it even make sense to speak of “before” time?).

once again, if any matter or energy always existed, it would violate the second law of thermodynamics. among other problems.

‘cause’ obviously existed, because we have evidence of the effect, the universe

why are you stuck on ideas that are obviously false in the face of physics? if you dont believe they are, make an argument.

Into this giant question mark, you boldly charge with an argument that relies on the most simplistic, cartoonish version of a causal chain and that applies that causal chain idea to an area in which the idea may not hold true.

why is the argument simlistic and cartoonish? provide an argument, not a statement.

Your answer is a non-answer

your car is a non-car, your house is a non-house, your dog is a non-dog.

make arguments not statements.

You’ve proven nothing because you’re talking about something that no one has enough information to prove anything about.

im using the same observable universe, and physical laws all other intellectual endeavors use.

And then you have the audacity to say that your answer is right until someone can come along and prove your guesswork wrong

.

when did logic become guesswork? do you think that the branch of logic called mathematics is guesswork?

I’m sorry, but that’s not how knowlegde works. You have to demonstrate that your case is true.

thats exactly how logic works, check out mathematics.

I’ll tell you something relativity, evolution, and thermodynamics have that your “argument” doesn’t: evidence.

really?, because im pretty sure they use the observable universe and physical laws to formulate their theories, thats the exact same evidence we have.

Reasonable people don’t accept evolution because they’ve used purely logical processes (without reference to actual, observable data) to come to conclusions. Evolution is based on tons and tons of pieces of observable, independently confirmable, repeatedly verifiable data.

im pretty sure that the observable universe and the laws of physics are confirmable and repeateable.

Scientists would laugh at you if you tried to suggest that a valid reason for accepting evolution is [inane reasoning]“Every species must have a cause and the cause of a species can’t be non-species, so it must be another species.”[/inane reasoning]

funny enough but, um… thats exactly how evolution works, members of one species adapt until they actually speciate and form a new species.

roughly stated but that argument is essentially true.

Real knowledge comes from evidence, something that nobody has about origins of the universe.

if you cant see it, it must not be. now i should turn out my light as those pesky electrons dont really exist

Trying to compare your “creator” idea to evolution or relativity is one of the most ridiculous comparisons conceivable.

so laughable, its been taught in every reputable university for hundreds of years, and they have written several thousand joke books about it to. they should shut down that university named for St. Aquinas.

Atheists don’t need a “better” idea about origins because we don’t claim to know how the universe came to be (I certainly don’t, though I might try my hand at proposing a few ideas). All we have to do is see that your idea has zero evidence for its validity. [And that’s the issue here – you have no evidence whatsoever. Nothing that anyone can observe, measure, detect.

1. universe, we all see
2. physical laws commonly enough held , that they are taught in university

that doesnt look like zero to me

‘you have no proof’, is just a restatement of the ‘you might be wrong argument’

but they both ring hollow, here is why.

you previously put forward the idea of ‘quantum state’ or ‘vacuum fluctuations’ as a cause for the universe.

there is no evidence that these things exist, indeed they are nothing more than an expression of particle interactions necessitated by the branch of logic called mathematics.

you obviously accepted those, based on extremely limited evidence, all of it logical in nature

the truth is that you are willing to accept evidence based solely on logic.

just not if that logic materially supports the proposition of G-d.

to be clear, this is undeniable proof, that atheism is, at least in this case, is about desire, not logic.
[/quote]