Well, why?

[AntiTheist]

I’m interested in what AntiTheist makes of this particular proof

Always happy to oblige.

1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
2. The universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists.
3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.
4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.
5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

I would stop with the first premise. That first premise is true for all things that exist within the universe; the problem is that you then want to turn around and apply it to the entire universe itself.

You can’t use observations about objects in the universe to come to conclusions about how the universe came to be – especially before the Big Bang, when we don’t know whether or not the laws of the universe (pre-universe?) operated in the same way as they do now.

In other words, since we don’t know anything about the period before the Big Bang – or whether or not it even makes sense to speak of “before the Big Bang” – we can’t make any reliable judgments about “what it takes” for the stuff that came before the Big Bang to exist. Perhaps the stuff that came before the Big Bang always existed. Perhaps some pre-universe natural law – that’s not operative anymore – caused particles to emerge from the rough equivalent of a void. Perhaps some supernatural being other than your god caused the Big Bang to happen.

We really don’t know. And at any rate, even if there were a god, what are the things that must exist for a god to exist? If you’re going to state that a god can exist all by himself without a beginning, then you have contradicted your first premise, and your argument fails. If your god could have existed all by himself without a beginning, there’s no reason that the “stuff” that came before the Big Bang couldn’t have existed all by itself without a beginning. [And if you’re going to say, “Well, god’s special,” then that’s special pleading]

Like I say, either there’s an infinite chain of causes (which doesn’t make sense) or something (whether an intelligent being or some kind of mindless matter) always existed (which doesn’t make sense) or the universe emerged from a void due to some quantum principle (which also doesn’t make sense).

We don’t know. And “I don’t know” can’t be used to support a claim.

You keep coming back to variations on this same argument from ignorance, which suggests that you’re really holding on to it and holding out hope that there’s some word game that can make it work.

 

[AntiTheist]

you’re intentionally downplaying something quite significant and surreal for which we have tremendous evidence for.

I am not denying that something happened – I am denying your particular interpretation of this happening.

For example, it is demonstrably true that the sun did not move around in ways that it normally does not – if this had happened, we would be able to tell from the resulting effects on the planetary orbits. The entire solar system would have been thrown out of whack by such an event.

Thus, the thing that people in Fatima thought that they saw was not what actually happened. Do you seriously dispute this? If you do, please provide some astronomical data that indicates that the sun performed unexpected movements that day. If you don’t, then you’ve established that we’re talking about something where a lot of people made an honest mistake.

Then the conversation turns into a discussion where we try to identify why so many people made such a mistake. But before we can start talking about that, you have to acknowledge that they indeed made a mistake (or present astronomical evidence that what they thought they saw really happened).

 

[Windfish]

I am not denying that something happened – I am denying your particular interpretation of this happening.

For example, it is demonstrably true that the sun did not move around in ways that it normally does not – if this had happened, we would be able to tell from the resulting effects on the planetary orbits.

Thus, the thing that people in Fatima thought that they saw was not what actually happened. **Do you seriously dispute this? **If you do, please provide some astronomical data that indicates that the sun performed unexpected movements that day. If you don’t, then you’ve established that we’re talking about something where a lot of people made an honest mistake.

Then the conversation turns around identifying why so many people made such a mistake. But before we can start talking about that, you have to acknowledge that they indeed made a mistake (or present astronomical evidence that what they thought they saw really happened).

Yes, I do, because they did see it. I have no account or explanation for why there were no planetary effects - if I did, it would no longer be a miracle - but there is no mistaking what they saw, AntiTheist. And that’s really all that matters. I am sure you will try to advance non-evidential and non-factual explanations, but they would only arise from an a priori refusal to follow the evidence. The evidence clearly points to the veracity of the claims of the three children and, therefore, the truth of Christianity. There is no getting around this.

I have seen one person resort to positing hallucinogenic poison in the water. :whacky:

 

[GreggAlvarez]

I am not denying that something happened – I am denying your particular interpretation of this happening.

For example, it is demonstrably true that the sun did not move around in ways that it normally does not – if this had happened, we would be able to tell from the resulting effects on the planetary orbits.

Thus, the thing that people in Fatima thought that they saw was not what actually happened. Do you seriously dispute this? If you do, please provide some astronomical data that indicates that the sun performed unexpected movements that day. If you don’t, then you’ve established that we’re talking about something where a lot of people made an honest mistake.

Then the conversation turns around identifying why so many people made such a mistake. But before we can start talking about that, you have to acknowledge that they indeed made a mistake (or present astronomical evidence that what they thought they saw really happened).

That is the whole point! It is not anyone’s particular interpretaton. It is what happened!Many skeptics as well as Catholics confirmed what they saw was real. Thousands of people hallucinating does not even come close to reasoning. They did not make a mistake because what they saw was real to the observers. What they saw and felt really happened. If we even consider what you say to be right as far as astronomy goes, you are missing a major point. The inhabitants of Earth would not have survived! Your argument is fallacious. Before we start talking, you have to consider that you have made a mistake. God’s omnipotence is a wonder-full thing. You are reading into Fatima instead of reading out of it. You are questiong the facts before you even read them. The evidence is there. Stop saying what it is not. The only truth to what you are saying is that you will not believe it. Just say that. The Church says you do not have to believe it though. There is no reason to disbelieve in my opinion. Give a valid reason why you do not believe it. Your argument does not make sense. You can at least admit that. If you are unwilling to believe it, just say it. That is better than arguing with reality. It really happened. I think God has it within his omnipotence to let people see something real without it affecting the Solar System. If he could not, we would not exist to talk about it. Yes, it is hard to fathom. Scientists even accept mysteries as true. Many skeptics saw it. Many did not and checked all the facts over and over again, I am sure of that. They converted because all the evidence was there. If you still want to argue it, find a better argument.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

I have no account or explanation for why there were no planetary effects - if I did, it would no longer be a miracle - but there is no mistaking what they saw, AntiTheist. And that’s really all that matters. I am sure you will try to advance non-evidential and non-factual explanations, but they would only arise from an a priori refusal to follow the evidence. The evidence clearly points to the veracity of the claims of the three children and, therefore, the truth of Christianity. There is no getting around this.

I have seen one person resort to positing hallucinogenic poison in the water. :whacky:

Well put about the miracle thing. I was laughing about the poison in the water part. I have not heard that one. I have just heard the usual things: they all planned a lie; they all hallucinated; I have heard the astronomical debate… But never that one. I wonder what other ones there are.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

AntiTheist - you might be interested in this short article. It goes into the metaphysical distinction between a self-existent universe and a self-existent deity.

deepsoftime.com/2009/01/07/are-a-self-existing-god-and-a-self-existing-universe-parallels/

One relevant snippet:
“The argument that there must be a First Cause to explain the universe does more than point out the mere existence of that First Cause. If that was all that philosophers had asserted, the skeptics would have a point. But the thinkers have also noted that, in reason, the First Cause must also possess two attributes: immutability and simplicity, or be unchanging and not composed of different parts.”

 

[AntiTheist]

Yes, I do, because they did see it.

And I don’t deny that they saw something. I am talking about whether or not the thing that they saw actually happened.

A bunch of people saw a magician make the Statue of Liberty disappear a number of years ago. I don’t deny that they saw it. The question is whether or not the Statue of Liberty actually disappeared.

Look, this isn’t hard:

1. A bunch of people saw X.
2. The thing that they saw either actually happened or it didn’t. There are no other options.
3. In this particular case, we know for a fact that if X actually did happen, we would definitely see a whole lot of data drawn from planetary orbits that confirms it.
4. In this particular case, there is no such data.

This isn’t a particularly challenging logical problem.

The necessary conclusion is that what these people saw did not really happen. If you refuse to be honest and accept this conclusion, then we cannot have a rational debate about potential causes of this mistaken perception.

 

[AntiTheist]

AntiTheist - you might be interested in this short article.

Thanks for suggesting it, but on principle, I’m not going off to read articles and other assorted stuff that people find through google.

I would be more than happy to discuss this article if you can summarize in your own words its salient points and the specific things in it that you want to discuss – and I will address your “relevant snippet” below:

“The argument that there must be a First Cause to explain the universe does more than point out the mere existence of that First Cause. If that was all that philosophers had asserted, the skeptics would have a point. But the thinkers have also noted that, in reason, the First Cause must also possess two attributes: immutability and simplicity, or be unchanging and not composed of different parts.”

There are several immediate responses to this:

– First, it is far from certain that there was a “first cause.” The idea that there was a “first cause” that has always existed is just as baffling to our minds as the idea that there was an infinite chain of causes or that some quantum principle unknown to us gave rise to the universe from the void. I don’t see any good reason to think that the answer among those three is settled.

–Second, even if there were a first cause, we would need good reason to suppose that it had to be immutable or simple. Remember, since we’re talking about a time before the current laws of the universe apply, it would be difficult to make this argument.

– Third, even if we had such evidence, there is no reason that the “stuff” that came before the Big Bang – whose nature is unknown to us and the laws of the (pre-)universe under which it operated are also unknown to us – was not immutable or simple.

Please feel free to take issue with anything that I’ve said and present your own arguments, whether based on someone else’s thoughts or your own.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Thanks for suggesting it, but on principle, I’m not going off to read articles and other assorted stuff that people find through google.

For what it’s worth, I didn’t just run out and google this, I remembered it from a previous discussion I was involved in. Seemed pertinent, so there it is. I’m not trying to somehow win points by invoking blogs, I just thought you’d enjoy the article.

 

[Windfish]

And I don’t deny that they saw something. I am talking about whether or not the thing that they saw actually happened.

A bunch of people saw a magician make the Statue of Liberty disappear a number of years ago. I don’t deny that they saw it. The question is whether or not the Statue of Liberty actually disappeared.

Look, this isn’t hard:

1. A bunch of people saw X.
2. The thing that they saw either actually happened or it didn’t. There are no other options.
3. In this particular case, we know for a fact that if X actually did happen, we would definitely see a whole lot of data drawn from planetary orbits that confirms it.
4. In this particular case, there is no such data.

This isn’t a particularly challenging logical problem.

The necessary conclusion is that what these people saw did not really happen. If you refuse to be honest and accept this conclusion, then we cannot have a rational debate about potential causes of this mistaken perception.

I understand what you are saying, but what you are not allowing for is the omnipotence of God. In other words, you are not allowing for the miraculous, which is exactly what we are trying to discuss! I am content to stick within the confines of the evidence and so should you.

From the evidence, we can conclude that it could not have been mass collusion, delusion, hysteria, etc. or an illusion cased by eye-strain. And we can go over this evidence, if you want. So what else is there? A natural phenomenon? Well, as you have just got through saying, it couldn’t have been, since there would be astronomical records of it. Indeed, several prominent astronomers and cosmologists reported that they saw nothing from their observatories on the other side of the country. On the other hand, several other prominent astronomers and cosmologists were on the scene and were witnesses to it, and we have accounts of their reports. So what else is there to account for what they saw, other than a miracle? Hmm, I’m trying to think really hard, here…

:newidea:

LCD in the water!

The evidence is quite clear, AntiTheist.

 

[Luke_K]

AntiTheist, I know everyone seems to be throwing their arguments at you now since you’re the only one on the other side of the fence for the moment, but I hope you’ll take the time to respond to this, since I’ve brought it up a couple times.

Here are a few claims that you seem to believe are true, concerning the external world.
1-Other people have self-consciousness like your own.
2-Instances of which we have had no experience resemble those of which we have had experience (the basis of science)
3-Your senses reveal objective truth (call it absurd all you want, but you haven’t provided evidence supporting it, only incredulity towards its falsity)

Now you may either

1. Provide evidence for these claims
2. Admit you don’t have evidence and thus don’t believe them
3. Admit you don’t have evidence and do believe them, and thus stop belittling Christians for doing what you perceive to be the same thing (believing in claims without evidence)
4. Admit you apply your philosophy arbitrarily depending on how “obvious” certain claims seem to you.

 

[AntiTheist]

For what it’s worth, I didn’t just run out and google this, I remembered it from a previous discussion I was involved in. Seemed pertinent, so there it is. I’m not trying to somehow win points by invoking blogs, I just thought you’d enjoy the article.

Roger. I appreciate it, and I may check it out eventually. But I don’t want to encourage people on this thread to start throwing links at me and expect me to answer claims from random websites.

Again, if you seriously think there’s a good argument there and want to discuss it, I’m game. But the discussion is going to happen here.

Windfish:

I understand what you are saying, but what you are not allowing for is the omnipotence of God. In other words, you are not allowing for the miraculous, which is exactly what we are trying to discuss! I am content to stick within the confines of the evidence and so should you.

Of course I’m not allowing for an omnipotent supernatural being because that’s the thing you’re trying to demonstrate. You can’t start by assuming the thing you want to prove.

As you note, you have to begin with the evidence, and the evidence we have is a bunch of eyewitness testimony that doesn’t line up with the astronomical evidence. In every other situation, when eyewitness testimony doesn’t accord with evidence about the situation – like the instance of people giving eyewitness testimony of seeing the Statue of Liberty disappear – we look into why the eyewitness testimony was wrong.

You’re resorting to special pleading here: “In this one instance, I’m going to randomly start from the assumption that the eyewitness testimony was accurate, despite the fact that there’s evidence against it.”

Now look, if you want to claim that your god gave a lot of people a simultaneous vision or delusion, then we can discuss that, but you can’t sensibly claim that you really think that the sun moved from its position. I mean, among other things, it would have been potentially cataclysmic for the earth for that to happen. We would expect to have reports of different parts of the earth vacillating between day and night rapidly during that day, etc., etc. There would have been so much evidence of such a monumental event that it would be absurd to question it.

You claim to want to start from the evidence, but you immediately ignore the evidence by randomly declaring it all to be magic – the very point that you’re trying to demonstrate.

This is not a sensible way to make an argument, and if you insist on pursuing this line of thought, then I will stop responding to your posts.

Luke K:

Here are a few claims that you seem to believe are true, concerning the external world

Luke, do you understand the difference between a rational assumption that is necessary for a being to have basic functionality in the world and a claim about the universe revealed by our senses?

Do you think that there is no difference between those two categories? If you do think that there is, then please explain the difference. If not, then you have no evidence that I’m a real person outside of your mind. I am a glitch in the Matrix that you are plugged into, and you can go do other things with your day. Goodbye.

 

[Luke_K]

Luke K: Luke, do you understand the difference between a rational assumption that is necessary for a being to have basic functionality in the world and a claim about the universe revealed by our senses?

Do you think that there is no difference between those two categories? If you do think that there is, then please explain the difference. If not, then you have no evidence that I’m a real person outside of your mind. I am a glitch in the Matrix that you are plugged into, and you can go do other things with your day. Goodbye.

I am not the one that is backed into that corner. You are because of the philosophy you use to claim religious people are more irrational than you. Many people would have mental breakdowns if they felt convinced there was no rational reason to believe in a loving God. Unless you provide evidence, you have chosen option 4.

And you have ignored the first two claims every time, only focusing on the 3rd one. The first one is not required for basic functionality, so you should address that one regardless.

 

[davidv]

Roger. I appreciate it, and I may check it out eventually. But I don’t want to encourage people on this thread to start throwing links at me and expect me to answer claims from random websites.

Again, if you seriously think there’s a good argument there and want to discuss it, I’m game. But the discussion is going to happen here.

Windfish: Of course I’m not allowing for an omnipotent supernatural being because that’s the thing you’re trying to demonstrate. You can’t start by assuming the thing you want to prove.

Then how could you possibly entertain any evidence to the contrary? How is this not closed mindedness?

As you note, you have to begin with the evidence, and the evidence we have is a bunch of eyewitness testimony that doesn’t line up with the astronomical evidence. In every other situation, when eyewitness testimony doesn’t accord with evidence about the situation – like the instance of people giving eyewitness testimony of seeing the Statue of Liberty disappear – we look into why the eyewitness testimony was wrong.

Sounds your your confusing evidence with conclusions. The eyewitness testimony is part of the evidence. Another part of the evidence is the global astronomical data. What if they are both true?
{snip}

 

[AntiTheist]

the philosophy you use to claim religious people are more irrational than you.

I have never claimed this. My claim is that no god claims have sufficient evidence supporting them.

What you’re doing is confusing assumptions with claims. All of us make certain rational assumptions prior to assessing claims about the world. Given those assumptions, we have constructed a system by which we can determine whether claims about the world that we assume to be separate from us are true.

 

[Windfish]

I think you will find that the miraculous is the only explanation for the evidence, AntiTheist. Here is what the evidence tells us: at exactly noon on October 13, 1917, 100,000 people at the Cova da Iria saw the sun spin on its axis and wrench itself from the sky, tumbling toward earth. We also know that a miracle was promised at this exact time at this exact place by as early as May 13, 1917 and was reported in all the newspapers. You and I agree, I think, that this is what they saw, but not necessarily what actually happened physically. Well let’s go through the options:

-Mass collusion. Impossible. Collusion is impossible among such a mass of people, especially when you have hundreds upon hundreds of skeptics reporting the same vision as the believers AND when you have anti-clerical, anti-religious, and atheistic journalists reporting what they had every incentive not to report. Also keep in mind that no one, not even the children, had any idea what the promised miracle was going to be.

-Mass delusion/hysteria. Impossible. There is a reason why, if you search for results on Google, cases are very rare and, at most, describe groups of no more than several dozen people. It would be a feat of mind-boggling proportions for 100,000 individuals (!!!) to all experience hysteria at the same time with the same results - there would be so much dissension, it would be easily dismissed. Also consider the aforementioned skeptics and critical journalists who would not report on something that damaged their credibility because of hysteria. Indeed, when Avelino de Almeida, the managing editor of O Seculo (Portugal’s largest newspaper and fiercely anti-religious), reported on what he saw, he took great pains to describe that there was no mass hysteria. In any case, this is all blown out of the water since there were hundreds of witnesses several miles away from the events, and we have their accounts. They couldn’t have possibly been influenced by mass hysteria even if it did happen.

-Eye-strain from the sun. Impossible. First of all, from the hundreds of accounts that have been published, all of them remark how the sun lost its brilliance at the foretold moment and became like a silver disc that was actually soothing to the eye. Second of all, to resort to this as an explanation is to have a really disturbing amount of contempt for your fellow man that they should be fooled by eye-strain, which should tell you a lot about your position. I bring up, again, the hundreds and hundreds of Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Richard Dennet, AntiTheist - like skeptics who witnessed the same vision that the believers did. And, again, these dozens of journalists who were present on the scene reported the same thing, even though they had been mocking and railing against the events up until that point, and some had been inciting violence! We also have an eye-specialist on the scene reporting the same thing, and he would know about eye-strain! This should be enough evidence to show that eye-strain would have been impossible, but there’s more! Studies have shown that looking at the sun for as long a period as the witnesses did should result in PERMANENT EYE DAMAGE, which none of the witnesses reported!

-Natural phenomenon. Impossible. We have records of what astronomers and cosmologist saw from their observatories that day, so a natural phenomenon fails to explain what they saw. We also have accounts of what astronomers and cosmologists on the scene saw (i.e., the same thing as everyone else).

Any other explanations you or anyone puts forth can be shown to be woefully inadequate in light of the vast evidence we do have. The only adequate explanation is miraculous. And mind you, this is without going to into the remarkable children themselves (ages 10, 8, and 7) and how their character in the face of such an ordeal proves them to be witnesses to the truth. They claimed to see the Virgin Mary, who promised them a miracle at an exact time at an exact place, and it happened.

 

[AntiTheist]

Windfish,

I would be happy to discuss possible causes for the mistake in perception, but I’m not going to do so until you concede that we’re talking about mistaken perception.

If you’re going to insist that the sun flew out of its position and left absolutely no trace of this event at all, then we have nothing more to talk about.

 

[Windfish]

Windfish,

I would be happy to discuss possible causes for the mistake in perception, but I’m not going to do so until you concede that we’re talking about mistaken perception.

If you’re going to insist that the sun flew out of its position and left absolutely no trace of this event at all, then we have nothing more to talk about.

I just gave you all the possible explanations for it. You can advance more? Go ahead, I can debunk them and show them to be against and outside the evidence, emerging from only an idiotic commitment to skepticism (i.e., LCD in the water). I built up to the miraculous in my previous post. Go ahead and read it. I can see that you didn’t. If I can’t assume the miraculous a priori, then you can’t assume the opposite a priori. That there were no physical effects is entirely the point! Follow the evidence as I did in previous post, and if you can come up with a non-miraculous explanation that fits the evidence, we’ll let’s see it. Otherwise, convert and be saved bro.

 

[Luke_K]

Go ahead, I can debunk them and show them to be against and outside the evidence, emerging from only an idiotic commitment to skepticism (i.e., LCD in the water). I built up to the miraculous in my previous post.

Even LSD in the water wouldn’t explain why thousands of people would describe the same hallucination. :hypno:

It seems the essence of the miraculous claim is that thousands of people described the same perception of an impossible event on the day it was predicted. It doesn’t depend on whether the sun actually flew around in space.

 

[Windfish]

lol, yeah, I just noticed I have been typing “LCD” and not “LSD.”