How would you respond to this common argument from atheist?

[PRmerger]

What a jerkwater reply! If they are enforced, then they are rules. And they are definitely enforced. But be as it may, I answered your question. The ball is in your court.

Careful, Sol.

It is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Believers.

You need to be here, clearly.

However, it would be a shame for you to be banned or suspended because you cannot follow the forum rules (yes, rules–this is the correct application of the concept) of general civil discourse.

There are many, many folks here who you might choose to model your posting behavior after, so I suggest you take a look-see at these folks (I can give you names if you’d like) who have been prolific in their posts and have managed to do so without being banned or suspended.

 

[PRmerger]

With all due respect PR, while I agree with your conclusion re. the beginning of the universe, it seems JK has a point here. The scenario you envision requires your hypothetical person to begin counting forward from 1 ad infinitum. On that view, you are correct, we would never get to today. Let’s take the analogy of a ray which looks like this: <-------------o
We are at the point on the end (right side). Your scenario necessitates that there simultaneously be an infinite distance between our point and whenever the counting begins, and that the person does indeed begin counting. But to begin counting is to start at some particular point, and given that there is a finite distance between any selected point on the ray and on the end, your imagined scenario asks us to do contradictory things: Count from infinity and count from a (non-infinitely distanced) point.

I agree that one cannot philosophically prove that the universe had a beginning. We can only offer arguments (like the above) for the logic of such a thing.

However, these arguments PLUS the scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe cannot be ignored.

One would need to be a Science-denier in order to assert that the universe is eternal.

 

[PRmerger]

No, yours is the backwards one. What you are doing is this:It is obvious to any intelligent person that you can’t deny the existence of the beginning, then make claims that rely on the existence of a beginning.

In other words, what you are doing is analogous to asking “what is the smallest integer?” The answer is that there is no smallest integer. There is no “first” integer from which all the integers are counted off.

The numbering scheme I gave previously is consistent with the claim “the universe is eternal” because there would be an infinite number of years, each one mapped to exactly one of the infinite integers. The difference between any two years (i.e. between any integers) is finite. I won’t bore you with the mathematical proof since it an easy, first-week-of-real-analysis-class sort of problem. This means that we can prove mathematically that the difference between now and any particular past year is finite.

The reason you’ve weakly tried to turn the problem backd on me (and used the wording “start from eternity”) is that you’re aware of *both *your inability to use the word “beginning” *and *your inability to provide an actual number that would have the properties you need to validate your objection. Therefore, rather than concede the point, you’ve answered my question by repeating your objection. If you would like, you can start the discussion over by following this link, but I don’t feel any need to address this particular objection any further.

Incidentally, here’s something from a big-hitter from Team Atheist, who acknowledges the absurdity of an eternal universe:

“An infinite number of real parts of time, passing in succession, and exhausted one after another, appears so evident a contradiction, that no man, one should think, whose judgement is not corrupted, instead of being improved, by the sciences, would ever be able to admit of it.”–David Hume
genius.com/David-hume-an-enqu…-122-annotated

I like this. “…whose judgement is not corrupted…”

 

[PRmerger]

That’s not true at all. I can think of an example from antiquity immediately that I’m sure you yourself don’t deem credible and don’t trust the eyewitness accounts.

The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, written circa 220 by Philostratus the Elder, is a biography about Apollonius of Tyana, who was a contemporary of Jesus…born in the year 15.

As you might know, he was an orator and philosopher.
Like Jesus…a supernatural being informed his mother her baby would be divine and she had a miracle birth. As a young adult, he went on a preaching ministry and spoke about living spiritually instead of materially.
He had disciples who believed his teachings were divinely inspired and that he, too, was divine. This he proved by performing many miracles like healing the sick, casting out demons, and raising the dead.
Until his enemies delivered him to Roman authorities, that is. After he was put to death, he was resurrected and met up with his disciples.

Many people in the biography witnessed these events.

Interesting. I had not heard there were eye witness accounts of these events.

Could you please offer the link to the text for this?

 

[PRmerger]

There are such texts; they are the New Testament. Jesus resurrection from the dead is the essence of Catholic belief. There is an excellent book,“The Resurrection of Jesus” by Lacona which offers proof of the resurrection.
There is also photographic evidence in the Shroud of Turin.

Yes, indeed.

It is an arbitrary criterion to say, “Give me all the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, but you can’t use the New Testament”.

That would be like saying, “I am quite skeptical that azithromycin is effective in treating Chlamydia. Give me all the evidence for the efficacy of the azithromycin in eradicating Chlamydia in Bethel County but you can’t use the health department’s data.”

Ok. But why can’t we use their data?

“Because it’s biased.”

:whacky:

But if your eyes are closed, you cannot see.

True, dat.

 

[Solmyr]

It is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Believers.

Well, I guess, I will have to apologize for using the word “jerkwater reply”, instead of “otiose reply”, which is frequently used as a put-down by some well known posters around here. I should have known that “Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi”.The two phrases mean the same thing, a reply which does not pertain the main discussion. An attempt to derail the conversation into irrelevancy.

In this case the attempt to derail was to bring up the system for the reliable training of the airline pilots, which has nothing to do with establishing God’s existence on a fully rational basis, without referring ancient texts.

Yes, I would very much like to learn from those knowledgeable believers, unfortunately they are not willing to teach me. In this instance I was hoping to see that fully rational evidence for God’s existence. And it was never forthcoming.

 

[Solmyr]

It is an arbitrary criterion to say, “Give me all the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, but you can’t use the New Testament”.

Why is that a surprise? To ask for supporting evidence from third party sources is a usual way to establish the credibility of an unknown source. If the third party is even hostile to the original, and still corroborates the event, it makes the claim much stronger.

 

[PRmerger]

Why is that a surprise? To ask for supporting evidence from third party sources is a usual way to establish the credibility of an unknown source. If the third party is even hostile to the original, and still corroborates the event, it makes the claim much stronger.

Because you don’t use that same standard for anything else regarding events of antiquity.

There’s that peculiar double standard again.

Again, citing my example re: Chlamydia–

Would you not roll your eyes at someone who says he doesn’t believe azithromycin is basically effective in treating Chlamydia and he won’t look at the health dept’s data because it’s tendentious?

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I guess, I will have to apologize for using the word “jerkwater reply”, instead of “otiose reply”,

Well, I guess, I will say that apology is accepted.

And, yes, “otiose” would have been a much better choice.

which is frequently used as a put-down by some well known posters around here.

I have never seen it used as a put-down here.

In this case the attempt to derail was to bring up the system for the reliable training of the airline pilots, which has nothing to do with establishing God’s existence on a fully rational basis, without referring ancient texts.

Yes, I would very much like to learn from those knowledgeable believers, unfortunately they are not willing to teach me. In this instance I was hoping to see that fully rational evidence for God’s existence. And it was never forthcoming.

There are a multitude of arguments I like to use, depending upon where the receiver wants to be scratched.

The most simple one is: how does something come from nothing without the existence of God?

Another one is from Craig, echoing the ancient Kalaam argument:
Whatever begins to exist must have a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore it has a cause

Another one is: there is the music of Bach, therefore there is a God.

But that ^^ doesn’t satisfy most people–either you get it or you don’t.

Why don’t you tell me which of the multitude of arguments for God existence you find the most compelling, and what you find wrong with it?

That will certainly save us a lot of time.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I guess, I will say that apology is accepted.

And, yes, “otiose” would have been a much better choice.

I have never seen it used as a put-down here.



There are a multitude of arguments I like to use, depending upon where the receiver wants to be scratched.

The most simple one is: how does something come from nothing without the existence of God?

Another one is from Craig, echoing the ancient Kalaam argument:
Whatever begins to exist must have a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore it has a cause

Another one is: there is the music of Bach, therefore there is a God.

But that ^^ doesn’t satisfy most people–either you get it or you don’t.

Why don’t you tell me which of the multitude of arguments for God existence you find the most compelling, and what you find wrong with it?

That will certainly save us a lot of time.

Oh, and I forgot a biggie (although it really is just a reformulation of my first example–“how does something come from nothing?”): why is there something rather than nothing?

Believers have an answer.

Atheists answer: I dunno.

 

[tp3192000]

Why is that a surprise? To ask for supporting evidence from third party sources is a usual way to establish the credibility of an unknown source. If the third party is even hostile to the original, and still corroborates the event, it makes the claim much stronger.

It is verified through various secular historical records that early Christians, followers of Jesus Christ, were put to the death by the Roman Empire. I don’t know how much more hostile you need to get.

 

[Solmyr]

Because you don’t use that same standard for anything else regarding events of antiquity.

Since I don’t care about the events in the antiquity, your criticism is inapplicable. Whether Julius Caesar said: “Alea iacta est”, or maybe not, firmly belongs to the “who the heck cares” category. Whether he actually crossed the Rubicon, or not, is irrelevant. Maybe he flew over it in a hot air balloon? Who cares?

Again, citing my example re: Chlamydia–

Would you not roll your eyes at someone who says he doesn’t believe azithromycin is basically effective in treating Chlamydia and he won’t look at the health dept’s data because it’s tendentious?

Ah, but the health department IS an uninterested third party. The FDA is even more so. If the only supporting evidence would come from the manufacturer, it would be very rational to express doubt, and demand third party research. That is the usual approach. The FDA does not even accept the research of the EU. Even if a medication is cleared by the European authorities, it still be submitted to the FDA testing “ritual”.

Well, I guess, I will say that apology is accepted.

And, yes, “otiose” would have been a much better choice.

That is a matter of opinion. But I have no quarrel with it.

I have never seen it used as a put-down here.

Maybe you did not MEAN it as such. But such misunderstandings keep happening. I say something, which I do not consider insulting, and someone might see it differently. I have been called all sorts of derogatory names, but I don’t care.

The most simple one is: how does something come from nothing without the existence of God?

Since I do not say that something came from nothing, and I have never heard anyone to say that the universe simply popped into existence from the infinite “ocean” of “nothing”, your question is inapplicable. If you meet someone who actually asserts that, then you can ask your question. But in this case it is just another instance of creating a straw man - and I don’t intend this evaluation to be insulting.

Another one is from Craig, echoing the ancient Kalaam argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore it has a cause

The reply is simple:

1. is an unsubstantiated metaphysical assumption.
2. is an unsubstantiated physical assumption.
   therefore 3) does not follow. Besides, even if it DID follow, it would not establish the existence of the Christian God.

Another one is: there is the music of Bach, therefore there is a God.

But that ^^ doesn’t satisfy most people–either you get it or you don’t.

You’re kidding, don’t you?

Why don’t you tell me which of the multitude of arguments for God existence you find the most compelling, and what you find wrong with it?

That will certainly save us a lot of time.

Sorry. Neither one is even remotely acceptable, much less compelling. That is why I ask. I am familiar with most (if not all) attempts to establish God’s existence, and so far all of them either had some fallacies, or unsubstantiated metaphysical or physical assumptions.

Oh, and I forgot a biggie (although it really is just a reformulation of my first example–“how does something come from nothing?”): why is there something rather than nothing?

Believers have an answer.

Atheists answer: I dunno.

Another incorrect way to ask it. “Nothing” is just a concept or abstraction, not an ontological entity. There is no such state of affairs as “nothing”. The “something” we call the universe exists necessarily, since the negation of it cannot exist.

There is no easy way to establish God’s existence without appealing to faith. At least no one could achieve it, as far as we know. And even if someone could pass the first hurdle of establishing the existence of faceless, deistic “creator”, it would still not point to the existence of the Christian God - with its huge number of attributes.

 

[tp3192000]

Yes, indeed.

It is an arbitrary criterion to say, “Give me all the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, but you can’t use the New Testament”.

That would be like saying, “I am quite skeptical that azithromycin is effective in treating Chlamydia. Give me all the evidence for the efficacy of the azithromycin in eradicating Chlamydia in Bethel County but you can’t use the health department’s data.”

Ok. But why can’t we use their data?

“Because it’s biased.”

:whacky:

True, dat.

 

[tp3192000]

The book’s author is Michael R. Licona. I apologize for the mistake.

 

[Solmyr]

It is verified through various secular historical records that early Christians, followers of Jesus Christ, were put to the death by the Roman Empire. I don’t know how much more hostile you need to get.

And none of them corroborated the story of “walking on water”, the miraculous healing of people, the resurrection of Lazarus, etc… none of the alleged “miracles”. Whether a man named Jesus existed or not is not relevant. Whether this man was God incarnate is a whole different question. The Romans were very meticulous record keepers. Miraculous events like the ones claimed would not evaded their attention.

But as I already said, I don’t care about the past. God is supposed to be “alive” today, whatever that means. There is no need to go back 2000 years. Establish God’s existence here and now, if you can - without referring to faith.

 

[tp3192000]

Yes, indeed.

It is an arbitrary criterion to say, “Give me all the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, but you can’t use the New Testament”.

That would be like saying, “I am quite skeptical that azithromycin is effective in treating Chlamydia. Give me all the evidence for the efficacy of the azithromycin in eradicating Chlamydia in Bethel County but you can’t use the health department’s data.”

Ok. But why can’t we use their data?

“Because it’s biased.”

:whacky:

True, dat.

The New Testament is not one source, but many. And even prior to the written gospels, letters and revelations is tradition that has been passed on from generation to generation. It is two thousand years since Jesus walked the Earth. That seems like a lot, as it is ancient history. The older I get, the less far away it seems to me.
It is only twenty centuries. In my lifetime the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, the last seer of Fatima died. Within one century of my life, Bernadette saw our Virgin Mother at Lourdes, the sun danced at Fatima, the first photograph of the Shroud was taken, the Miraculous medal was given to Catherine Laboure, Faustina had the vision of Divine Mercy. It was only nineteen centuries prior that Jesus was standing on a hill telling people that they must eat his body and drink his blood.

 

[tp3192000]

And none of them corroborated the story of “walking on water”, the miraculous healing of people, the resurrection of Lazarus, etc… none of the alleged “miracles”. Whether a man named Jesus existed or not is not relevant. Whether this man was God incarnate is a whole different question. The Romans were very meticulous record keepers. Miraculous events like the ones claimed would not evaded their attention.

But as I already said, I don’t care about the past. God is supposed to be “alive” today, whatever that means. There is no need to go back 2000 years. Establish God’s existence here and now, if you can - without referring to faith.

There is of course the Should of Turin which you dismiss. How much easier to dismiss other miracles. Jesus could have been walking on dolphin’s back rather than on water. Lazarus only sick, blind people faking it. No miracle is without skeptics. Jesus has been missing since his time here on Earth, since the Ascension. We have this in common with the earliest disciples, the absence of Jesus here on Earth. It is nothing new.

 

[PRmerger]

Since I don’t care about the events in the antiquity, your criticism is inapplicable. Whether Julius Caesar said: “Alea iacta est”, or maybe not, firmly belongs to the “who the heck cares” category. Whether he actually crossed the Rubicon, or not, is irrelevant. Maybe he flew over it in a hot air balloon? Who cares?

Well! I must say that I am astonished to see this very, very unscientific outlook coming from a non-believer.

“I get to have a different set of rules when examining evidence based on how much I ‘care’ about the answer!”

That is amusingly, amazingly, absurdly so capricious it makes one wonder…

Ah, but the health department IS an uninterested third party.

So here you are begging the question then.

The health dept is as uninterested a third party as the NT writers were uninterested third parties.

Remember, no double standards are going to be permitted here.

I’ll take either paradigm, as long as you’re consistent:

The NT writers are biased, so we need other areas of corroboration
AND!
The health dept is biased, so we have to look for other sources of corroboration.

OR…

The health dept is an uninterested third party
AND!
The NT writers were an uninterested third party.

Take your pick, Sol. Take your pick.

 

[PRmerger]

Another one is: there is the music of Bach, therefore there is a God.

But that ^^ doesn’t satisfy most people–either you get it or you don’t.

You’re kidding, don’t you?

Don’t I…what? You need to finish your sentence.

At any rate, clearly you’re of the “don’t get it” variety.

But that’s ok.

We still have lots of arguments to choose from.

 

[Solmyr]

Well! I must say that I am astonished to see this very, very unscientific outlook coming from a non-believer.

There is nothing scientific about past events. As soon as a time machine will be constructed, the questions about past events can be decided. Until then they do not matter. Some might be better established, others might not. But when it comes to the existence of God, it does not matter. Stick to the present… after all God is assumed to exist today.

The health dept is as uninterested a third party as the NT writers were uninterested third parties.

We know nothing about the NT writers. When they lived, where they lived? Who they were? Not even their names. Did they have other works to gauge their reliability? BUT, we do know the FDA and their independent examination methods. They are the needed third party. The FDA and the health departments are held liable for their findings. Especially since the Thalidomide / Contergan affair, which left many children crippled.

Remember, no double standards are going to be permitted here.

There are two more possibilities. Maybe you overlooked them. But NONE of them matter here and now. Stick to God’s current existence. No need to further derails via “otiose” remarks.

At any rate, clearly you’re of the “don’t get it” variety.

Is there anything to “get”? How would Bach’s music point to the existence of God? Would Snoop Doggy Dogg’s rap music be another “evidence” for God? Remember, no double standards are permitted.

We still have lots of arguments to choose from.

Go for them.