For Those Who Are Skeptical About God's Existence

[itinerant1]

You are looking for dogma to calm your inability (all of our inabilities) to answer the question you seem to think needs to have an answer without enough factual data.

Is there anything wrong with admitting you don’t have an answer to everything?

Is it better to admit you do not know, than to pretend you do?

What’s with the personal remarks? You continue with comments that are totally irrelevant to the demonstration. I am not here to play verbal volley ball with your personal remarks. You will have to find someone else to play with. Good-bye!

 

[StrawberryJam]

What’s with the personal remarks? You continue with comments that are totally irrelevant to the demonstration. I am not here to play verbal volley ball with your personal remarks. You will have to find someone else to play with. Good-bye!

I thought you could provide answers, but you can not?

What is personal about what I asked? I asked nothing personal. Please explain how I did so I will not do so again with other believers who simply don’t or can not understand plain english!

 

[AlbertBall]

By an argument from ignorance I did not intend a reference to the logical fallacy of informal logic by that name. I should have used different terms. That is, you are arguing from “what ifs” such as what if the laws of nature do not hold outside the universe, and other such meaningless speculations. One cannot logically argue against what is known from what is not known or by asserting what is self-contradictory and an impossibility such as your idea of a natural un-caused caused.

When all is said and done, you have not presented a counter-argument to the argument from motion. And so far, the argument stands as a proof for the existence of God.

All attempted counter responses in this thread have been totally irrelevant to the argument from motion.

Again you are incorrect. I am not arguing from ANY position. You are the one making the claim, in this case that the laws of this universe apply to that which is outside it. I am saying that we do not yet have the knowledge to make such a claim. You are the one speculating about that for which you have no evidence. So i am still stating "we do not have any verifiable evidence, therefore we can not yet from any meaningful conclusions"

 

[Churchwilprevai]

Again you are incorrect. I am not arguing from ANY position. You are the one making the claim, in this case that the laws of this universe apply to that which is outside it. I am saying that we do not yet have the knowledge to make such a claim. You are the one speculating about that for which you have no evidence. So i am still stating "we do not have any verifiable evidence, therefore we can not yet from any meaningful conclusions"

Albert, your signature bothers me about science. Science is not the best to explain the mysteries that exist because there is no explanation, scientifically that is. I haven’t read all these posts but I gather you believe in the Big Bang Theory?

 

[AntiTheist]

Admittedly, I haven’t been closely following this thread, but in response to the last few posts:

What we know is that about 13 billion years ago, the universe as we know it – laws of physics, time, etc. – “began.” That is to say, the “stuff” that existed began to expand (this is known as the “Big Bang”).

No one knows what happened before that or if it makes any logical sense to talk about “before” that (since “before” requires time). Anyone claiming to know what happened before then is lying.

There is absolutely no reason to think that anything that we would consider supernatural existed before the Big Bang.

 

[AlbertBall]

Albert, your signature bothers me about science. Science is not the best to explain the mysteries that exist because there is no explanation, scientifically that is. I haven’t read all these posts but I gather you believe in the Big Bang Theory?

I accept it as the best current model.

“Science is not the best to explain the mysteries that exist because there is no explanation, scientifically that is”

You think science has has no more to uncover?

 

[ricmat]

Admittedly, I haven’t been closely following this thread, but in response to the last few posts:

What we know is that about 13 billion years ago, the universe as we know it – laws of physics, time, etc. – “began.” That is to say, the “stuff” that existed began to expand (this is known as the “Big Bang”).

No one knows what happened before that or if it makes any logical sense to talk about “before” that (since “before” requires time). Anyone claiming to know what happened before then is lying.

There is absolutely no reason to think that anything that we would consider supernatural existed before the Big Bang.

I haven’t been following this thread either, but just happened to see your post above.

1. You seem to be saying that science does not know what happened before the big bang, and that it will in fact never know. This seems like a good definition of supernatural to me.
2. It is interesting that in Exodus, God gives Moses his name as “I AM”. The name is the essence, and in this case the essence of God is “existence.” Also in the bible it says that all things were made through him (Christ), in him, and for him, and that God holds all things in existence (not just creating it and giving it a big push…). I think this is fascinating because these parts of the Bible were not written after knowledge of the big bang as a anti-atheist sort of argument, but were considered Truth before anyone had a clue about the big bang.

Just some thoughts…

.

 

[itinerant1]

Again you are incorrect. I am not arguing from ANY position. You are the one making the claim, in this case that the laws of this universe apply to that which is outside it. I am saying that we do not yet have the knowledge to make such a claim. You are the one speculating about that for which you have no evidence. So i am still stating "we do not have any verifiable evidence, therefore we can not yet from any meaningful conclusions"

Still yet another straw-man response on your part. I never claimed that the laws of the universe apply to what is outside of it. I specifically stated how I was using the term “universe” so as to preclude your objection as meaningless.

What I do claim is that your assumption of another existing universe(s) remains speculation for which there is no supporting evidence whatever. And therefore it is illogical for anyone to deny the validity or truth of the argument from motion based exclusively on that which we do know, and most likely cannot know, because in the last analysis the assertion is unintelligible.

You have based your denial on the weakest possible logical and cosmological ground, or what is more likely as stated above, on nothing at all. In fact, your argument is based on sci-fi-like imaginations of multi-verses or a so-called “outer-verse”? You claim to like evidence. Well then, where is the evidence to support your speculation?

And the additional weakness of your argument is exposed as follows: supposing another universe exists (an oxymoron), in which the physical laws differ from our universe, there is no reason to think what which is impossible: that the principle of necessity and contingency of beings does not apply. Yet, where is your evidence to the contrary?

To escape the reality of reality one must imagine such things as a universe in which 2 + 2 could just as well equal 5 or 6 as 4. Where is your evidence? You have none.

Nonetheless, the skeptic goes to great distances, to far and away imagined universes, or to just outside our own universe (wherever that could be?) to escape evidence, logic and demonstration.

But there is no real escape from reality. As long as 2 + 2 = 4 in any other hypothetically imagined universe, then the argument from motion stands.

 

[larkin31]

Still yet another straw-man response on your part. I never claimed that the laws of the universe apply to what is outside of it. I specifically stated how I was using the term “universe” so as to preclude your objection as meaningless.

What I do claim is that your assumption of another existing universe(s) remains speculation for which there is no supporting evidence whatever. And therefore it is illogical for anyone to deny the validity or truth of the argument from motion based exclusively on that which we do know, and most likely cannot know, because in the last analysis the assertion is unintelligible.

You have based your denial on the weakest possible logical and cosmological ground, or what is more likely as stated above, on nothing at all. In fact, your argument is based on sci-fi-like imaginations of multi-verses or a so-called “outer-verse”? You claim to like evidence. Well then, where is the evidence to support your speculation?

And the additional weakness of your argument is exposed as follows: supposing another universe exists (an oxymoron), in which the physical laws differ from our universe, there is no reason to think what which is impossible: that the principle of necessity and contingency of beings does not apply. Yet, where is your evidence to the contrary?

To escape the reality of reality one must imagine such things as a universe in which 2 + 2 could just as well equal 5 or 6 as 4. Where is your evidence? You have none.

Nonetheless, the skeptic goes to great distances, to far and away imagined universes, or to just outside our own universe (wherever that could be?) to escape evidence, logic and demonstration.

But there is no real escape from reality. As long as 2 + 2 = 4 in any other hypothetically imagined universe, then the argument from motion stands.

2 + 2 can equal 11

 

[AlbertBall]

What I do claim is that your assumption of another existing universe(s) remains speculation for which there is no supporting evidence whatever.

EH? Show me one post where i have claimed or assumed there is another existing universe(s)???

 

[itinerant1]

EH? Show me one post where i have claimed or assumed there is another existing universe(s)???

It’s not necessarily something you said. I’m convinced that atheists live in a totally different universe than the one I live in.

When you came up with the idea of a place where there could be a natural un-caused caused, well, that’s about as far out of this universe as one can get. It’s further out than any episode of Outer Limits.

 

[itinerant1]

EH? Show me one post where i have claimed or assumed there is another existing universe(s)???

In post # 266 you stated, “How have you verified that the laws of our universe, in this case cause and effect, apply to that which is out-with our universe?”

What is “out-with our universe” supposed to mean?

 

[AlbertBall]

It’s not necessarily something you said. I’m convinced that atheists live in a totally different universe than the one I live in.

When you came up with the idea of a place where there could be a natural un-caused caused, well, that’s about as far out of this universe as one can get. It’s further out than any episode of Outer Limits.

What i said is how have you verified the cause of the universe is not natural. I have never made any claim regarding the origins of this universe, for as i keep repeating… It is an unknown.

 

[AlbertBall]

In post # 266 you stated, “How have you verified that the laws of our universe, in this case cause and effect, apply to that which is out-with our universe?”

What is “out-with our universe” supposed to mean?

By out-with i mean your claim that something had to cause the universe. You claimed the universe was caused by a god, and your evidence was cause and effect. I would like to know how you have verified this claim.

 

[Fran65]

I think that it can be clearly verified by reading through the posts that you (Albert & the rest) have not been able to provide any kind of counter argument to that of itinerant1.

 

[itinerant1]

By out-with i mean your claim that something had to cause the universe. You claimed the universe was caused by a god, and your evidence was cause and effect. I would like to know how you have verified this claim.

Your question ignores the logical nature of the argument from motion, as well as the ontological requirements for motion to exist.

 

[itinerant1]

What i said is how have you verified the cause of the universe is not natural. I have never made any claim regarding the origins of this universe, for as i keep repeating… It is an unknown.

I am well aware that you have made no claim regarding the origin of the universe.

However, your claim that the origin of the universe is unknown is a creedal assertion; a variation of the agnostic mantra which says “I do not know, therefore you do not know.”

Nonetheles, the argument from motion shows that I do know more than your dogmatic position will allow.

 

[itinerant1]

What i said is how have you verified the cause of the universe is not natural.

Simple. Any natural cause would be in potency to motion, and therefore would require an (ontological) explanation outside itself. As the argument shows, this series of movers and things moved cannot be infinite, and so we must arrive at an unmoved mover, a being that is pure actuality. A being that is pure actuality, having no admixture of potency, is not a composite being. All natural beings are composite, having an admixture of potency and act.

This is why I previously said your idea of a “natural” uncaused caused is a contradiction and an impossibility.

 

[AlbertBall]

Simple. Any natural cause would be in potency to motion, and therefore would require an (ontological) explanation outside itself. As the argument shows, this series of movers and things moved cannot be infinite, and so we must arrive at an unmoved mover, a being that is pure actuality. A being that is pure actuality, having no admixture of potency, is not a composite being. All natural beings are composite, having an admixture of potency and act.

This is why I previously said your idea of a “natural” uncaused caused is a contradiction and an impossibility.

And now we get back to me asking you how you have verified that what applies to this universe, applies to that which is before the inflation of space-time, where the as far as we are aware the laws of physics break down. However that is beside the point, you are now making claims about the unknown, until you can verify those claims they remain but speculation.

 

[AlbertBall]

Your question ignores the logical nature of the argument from motion, as well as the ontological requirements for motion to exist.

No, i am simply pointing out that you are making claims that you cannot verify.