Total posts: 86
Posted in:
As just a small thought experiment, I'd thought I'd let any non Christian in this forum give their personal biggest objection to Christianity, and I will try to go about answering it. There are a few rules however.
1. Two objective per person. No more. You can do one as well, but two is the limit. If this thread doesn't become all that popular I may revisit some original posters and have them give more.
2. Be specific. Overly vague objections like "religion is false" or "God doesn't exist" aren't really going to be helpful. Try to articulate any objections in a meaningful way.
Any Christians in the thread feel free to give your own answer.
I will try my best to offer a reasonable response to the objections raised. That doesn't mean I will have an answer right away
Hopefully we have fun and all learn something. Let's have at it.
1. Two objective per person. No more. You can do one as well, but two is the limit. If this thread doesn't become all that popular I may revisit some original posters and have them give more.
2. Be specific. Overly vague objections like "religion is false" or "God doesn't exist" aren't really going to be helpful. Try to articulate any objections in a meaningful way.
Any Christians in the thread feel free to give your own answer.
I will try my best to offer a reasonable response to the objections raised. That doesn't mean I will have an answer right away
Hopefully we have fun and all learn something. Let's have at it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
It's amazing you answered "yes" to my quote... You can't even look at the sun with your naked eye and you expect the Creator of all Suns to give you a shout out...
You're yet to explain why God is obligated to speak to you directly, considering he's the Creator of the entire universe and everything within it, and you're a collection of dust who came on the scene in the 80s, but interestingly enough, let me ask you this.
If the God of the Bible came down directly from heaven and said,
"Drafterman... I am real."
In all honesty, would you worship Him and become a Christian?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
If we're talking about what God actually does in response to a genuine believer, Jesus already told us:
Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. (John 14:23)
So no, we don't actually have to pull a guest into our house, He will come and make His abode with us. That's contingent on us actually seeking/ believing on Him.
I'm not personally aware of anything God has done for me.
Oh that's just crazy talk. Aside from holding together every atom in your body and supplying you with life and consciousness for some three decades, He also died to redeem your soul. That's lot.
I find it ironic that you contend you're a limited being with a life of your own who shouldn't shoulder the responsibility of seeking his Creator. Think about this for a moment...
The Being who not only created the entire universe, and for all we know, multiverse, but sustains and upholds the entire realm of existence, sustaining our world, sustaining all the life within it, ordering the cosmos, judging countless souls... Basically the Manager of the universe, is obligated to pursue a minute life form unimaginably below Him?
The amazing thing is He does pursue us still. He even sends ontological spiders to try and reason with unbelievers and show them the error of their ways. ;)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I would argue the opposite. We submit to God as a response to what He did and does for us. We don't say hey God if you're out there give me a jingle sometime. That's hardly the right way to approach the Creator and sustainer of all.
Think about the implications of this for a moment. If God exists, He is the sole reason for your existence. You are completely dependant every day on Him sustaining your life, giving breath and letting you live to see each minute.
So in light of that alone, if God did exist, would in not be our responsibility to seek Him
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I'm just wondering, why does God have to shoulder the burden of pursuing you? If God existed, wouldn't you, as His creation, be obligated to seek and know Him?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
What would you count as hearing from God? What would that look like to you
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
<br>Oh? How long does that usually take? I'm going on 3 decades almost. I hope he decides to do it before I die, since my immortal soul and eternal torment are on the line here.
One could argue, God already has let every man know what they are to do next. In light of the resurrection, and the coming judgment of the world by God,, the apostle Paul tells the Aeriopagites:
"He commandeth all men everywhere to repent..." (Acts 17:30)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
You said there's no rule that says because you cant do certain operations on something doesn't mean it can't be instantiated, the point is not we can't do operations on it, it's that when we try to do operations on infinity the answers are undefined or contradictory. That's not the case with things that are actually instantiated. Two hundred tomatoes minus one hundred tomatoes always equals a hundred tomatoes.
You said the answer isn't logically contradictory, just physically contradictory. What's the difference? How can a contradiction be instantiated no matter what we call it?
It's interesting you bring up Zeno's paradox. Aristotle actually takes my side here in answering that:
For motion…, although what is continuous contains an infinite number of halves, they are not actual but potential halves. (Physics 263a25-27). …Therefore to the question whether it is possible to pass through an infinite number of units either of time or of distance we must reply that in a sense it is and in a sense it is not. If the units are actual, it is not possible: if they are potential, it is possible. (Physics 263b2-5).
Hmm, that line of reasoning sounds familiar....
You keep saying we can't say anything about the universe beyond a certain point.... What point exactly are you referring too? That the laws of physics break down may be entirely true, but we're dealing with math and metaphysics at this point, it's just frankly not relevant.
PS. I'm posting from my phone so please pardon my brevity, it's too tedious to copy paste and block quote every point you're making, but I am enjoying this discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
Oh no....I am so offended.... These religious jokes are so very infuriating.....(massive eye roll)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
"There is no reasonable doubt concerning the existence of God"
I would agree!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Ok, I'm going to work in reverse a bit here. Starting with the infinite discussion.
You first said that subtraction is not a valid operation you can perform on infinite quantities. That's exactly my point. That's the whole issue. If a mathematical quantity could be instantiated in the actual world, not just in abstracts, and we couldn't perform a most basic and fundamental operation on it, that becomes a problem very quickly. This is confirmation of my point.
You stated that mathematicians would have to throw out all of set theory if what I said was logically contradictory. Well for starters, what I said is logically contradictory, it's mathematically provable. But more importantly, you have to remember I said there are two types of infinites.
A potential infinite (represented in math by the lemniscate)
An actual infinite (represented by the aleph null
Set theory and things like transfinite arithmetic deal with potential infinites all the time, and there is no logical contradiction or any problem in doing this because they're abstract ideas. Even the aleph null and any operation done on that would be abstract.
The question is can an infinite be exemplified outside of the world of abstracts. When we try to conceive of that, when we try to put them in the space time world, we get logical contradictions as my above operation showed.
You stated my contention with an infinite past only works if I presume some starting point. There is no starting point, and that is exactly the problem. Think of it this way
If we are at zero right now, that means we traversed ALL the negative numbers. Now let zero be the present. And all the negative numbers be past events. If we're at zero we traversed all past events. If they're infinite that's not possible.
You stated that whatever applies to the past must apply to the future, and if there couldn't be an actual infinity there couldn't be an infinite future. But again, the future is only potentially infinite. One more event can always be added, it's not that we have to traverse one more event that had already been added. And since God by definition is outside of time, whatever applies to time does not necessarily apply to Him.
In regards to your argument from ignorance analogy, I never stated that we have never seen anything come from nothing, therefore it's not possible, so I'm just going to leave that one off to the side.
It seems to me you seem a little biased against the big bang and relativity. I think this might be the heart of the issue.
So I will ask what model do you personally prefer?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Thanks I'll check it out
Created:
Posted in:
That's no light decision, I commend your courage. Sorry for your loss. God bless
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
So I would just like to make a few points regarding some things you've said.
If it is both simultaneously true that radioactive isotopes decay without a cause, and we cannot apply the law of physics to the early universe, then there is no reason to apply the facts about radioactive isotopes as being relevant to this discussion in regards to causality and the early universe. Whatever models we have of physics or causality, or lack thereof will not be relevant based on this reasoning, because they, according to you, break down. This sword cuts both ways...
Secondly, you say that it has not been demonstrated that everything that exists has been actualized by a prior cause... Unless you can empirically provide an example of being coming from non being, or something being actualized from nothing, this is really just an argument from ignorance. What you're in essence arguing in this:
We have not seen every single example of a triangle, therefore the claim triangles have three sides is unproven.
Well that would be fallacious. We don't need to experience every single triangle before we can state they have three sides. It's definitionally true. Whether we accept the axiom or not.
As I argued earlier, the causal principle is confirmed by inference, but it's definitionally true based upon what we are dealing with. Non being cannot bring about being... It's non being.
In regards to premise two, did the universe have a beginning, you seem to have cast doubt on the BGV theorem...I am not a cosmologist so I will grant you this. What we still have though is the second law of thermodynamics.
In short, the universe is rapidly approaching a state of complete entropy. If the universe were eternal, we would have been in that entropy by now. Another way of looking at it, the usable energy in the universe is running out. If the universe were eternal, we would have run out by now.
Now, moving on to the possibility of an actual infinite:
There are several different ways this can be fleshed out, but to be succinct, there are two types of infinity. A potential infinity and an actual infinity. An actual infinity is never instantiated. There are several reasons:
1. It would lead to absurd and impossible consequences.
Suppose I had a library with an actually infinite number of red and blue books. Now suppose I subtracted all the blue book (an infinite amount) from all the red books (an infinite amount). How many books are left? An infinite amount still.
So in this instance infinity - infinity = infinity.
But now let's say, I subtracted every book greater than 3
How many books do I left? 3.
So in this instance infinity - infinity = 3.
This leads to a logical contradiction
And because logical contradictions cannot be instantiated in reality, it follows an actually infinite series of things, cannot be instantiated. But it gets worse. Suppose for a minute we imagine the universe as past eternal. That would mean that everyday prior to today went on into infinity. If we look at the reverse of this, in order to get to today, there would be an infinite number of past events to traverse.
And that simply isn't possible. There would always be one more event to cross and complete before we could arrive at the present. Which means we would never arrive at the present. But we are in the present. So the number of past events leading up to today was finite. We couldn't traverse an infinite.
I know this post was lengty. but I tried my best to explain why I think premise one and two stand. Thoughts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Ok so, I agree with your definition of prove. I think we can work from there. In regards to the beginning two premises:
My understand of spontaneous radioactive decay is that it means nothing external caused the isotope to decay, that doesn't mean there's not an internal cause or explanation. But even if that wasn't the case, I still don't see this as being relevant to the first premise. The first premise, although it has confirmation from inference, is a metaphysical truth.
And that is being cannot come from non being. Nothing cannot create or actualize something because nothing has no properties and no causal relation to any thing. It's non being.
The decay of isotopes doesn't really negate this principle. So really, this principle is definitionally true. Non being by definition of what it is, has no ability to bring anything into being. No scientific truth or discovery could negate that.
So it seems to me the first premise is definitionally true.
In regards to the second premise, as Dr Franklin alluded to, there are both philosophical and scientific reasons why the universe began to exist.
Firstly, the scientific evidence is there in the Borde, Vilenkin, Guth theorem. The big bang, the fact the universe is expanding, and perhaps most strongly the second law of thermodynamics.
Philosophically, to say the universe is past eternal would mean an actual infinite can and has been instantiated. We argue that's just not possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
My plan was to unpack number three as the discussion went on a bit. I do think transcendent is the only logical conclusion when we see what it means to be a cause of the universe.
Why do you feel 1 and two are unproven? What do you mean by prove to be exact? Would that require 100 percent epistemic certainty?
Honestly, I think there are good reasons to believe one and two
Created:
Posted in:
I thought I'd discuss the Kalam a bit.. As this seems to be one of the most discussed arguments for the existence of God.
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a (transcendent) cause.
Why do you agree or disagree with this argument?
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a (transcendent) cause.
Why do you agree or disagree with this argument?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
"Consciousness is just something our brain replicates like the computer does in the experiment. Out brain is chemical reactions that dictate what we do. We are really just slaves to the brains firings."
Wouldn't that entail a psychological determinism? I would have no free will to evaluate and choose a belief, I simply believe what the process in my brain physically compel me to?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Hello welcome, I don't see any reason to multiply the cause of the simulation. Occam's razor recommends against that
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
That's interesting, you're saying a machine could only appear to be conscious? Not actually be conscious?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
"At this point I'm just repeating myself"
And you're making good points, I'm just trying to wrap my head around the subject. I appreciate your input......pun intended
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Ok, I'm imagining an instruction book like the one in this video though
If this is the type of instruction book I have, wouldn't I be learning basically the skeleton of a language? How to form sequences but have no clue what they mean, and never will?
Again I'm just playing skeptic I have no working knowledge of this subject but am trying to learn
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Ok, since I don't have a clue about this stuff, I'm just going to play skeptic here for a minute and see what happens...
If the rule book never had any explanation of the meaning behind the characters, but was exhaustive enough that it showed you how to sequence them to form any sentence in reply to the input you're given, you would be forming sentences in reply like a pro, but you still would never find out what you're actually saying, or what the input person was saying to you, so you could truck someone into thinking you communicate Chinese fluently, but you really can't.
Since no outside meaning of the symbols is ever introduced, the whole thing is one entire illusion.
Wouldn't that be a huge problem?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
That's interesting, if I understand correctly you're saying that just by leaning how the Chinese characters go in to each sequence is indistinguishable from learning the actual meaning of the symbols and therefore the language?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
By necessarily existent entity I simply mean an entity that didn't borrow it's existence from something else. To use Thomistic terms, an unactualized actualizer. An entity that actualized everything else but was not itself actualized by anything else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
No way I'm going to research this more
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Well this line of reasoning doesn't really invoke the universe or any cosmology, no less the reason why it exists. I wasn't claiming the universe has a beginning like the Kalam argument states, just that, unless you have a being who is necessarily existent, nothing at all could exist.
And I say being for a very specific reason.
The non borrowing exister has effects that started a chain of borrowing existers. To illustrate:
NBE= non borrowing exister=necessary entity of some sort (we haven't gotten to person yet)
BE= borrowing exister, contingent things like you and me.
At one point it was
NBE alone because a necessary entity is eternal, contingent things are not eternal.
So we have:
NBE...............
At some point, since other things exist, we went from that to:
NBE+BE+BE+BE.... So on and so on. Starting the causal chain.
There's a conundrum though. If NBE is eternal, and the effects of NBE are non eternal contingent things like you and me, how come the effect of the cause wasn't there with NBE from eternity? If the effect of cold temperature is frozen water, eternal cold temperature in eternity past means eternally frozen water in the eternal past.
The cause is eternal so must the effect be. The problem is we already saw an eternal/infinite chain can't happen. So the effects of the NBE were not always with it, extending infinitely into the past.
So this only leaves two viable options. Either the NBE is not eternal, which would be absurd, because then it wouldn't be a NBE, it would be contingent on a previous entity, getting us back to square one. OR, the NBE is eternal, but the only reason it's effects were not eternally there with him is because it chose to bring them about at some point.
To summarize, if NBE had no volition, and it was the efficient cause of all contingent things, then the effects of NBE would have always been there with it. That's a problem though because we can't have an eternal causal chain like we saw before.
The only reasonable explanation then is that the effects were not there with the cause from the beginning because the NBE, at some point, chose to bring other things into existence. A being that makes a choice has a will.
Therefore whatever terminates the chain at the beginning of all things is a consciousness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I would start off by saying the idea of necessary existence in and of itself is not logically incoherent, so that alone entails it is possibly instantiated.
If you want a positive case for necessary existence, showing that it actually does exist and is not just possible, there are several other arguments independent of the Ontological argument we could employ.
I'll summarize one:
The golden coin argument
Let's say that one day I'm hanging out with my friend. His name is "person A". My friend person A shows me this really beautiful golden coin. It is the only one that exists. I'm so intrigued by this coin, I make it my mission to find out where it came from. I say to person A where did you get that, he says that his friend "person B" gave it to him.
I go find person B, and I say, hey where did you get that, person B says oh my friend person C gave it to me. I go to person C and say where did you get that coin, person C says my friend person D gave it to me...
I'm starting to run into a problem now.
A borrowed from B, B borrowed from C, C borrowed from D, in my quest for the origin of this coin, I discover this goes on to infinity, each possessor of the coin borrowing from another ad infinitum.
I soon realize this is impossible. If the chain of coin borrowers were truly infinite, person A would have never received his coin. Because there would have been an infinite number of borrowers to traverse in order to get down to A. And it would take an infinite amount of time to traverse this chain, no less, A couldn't get the coin because there would always be one more person to get it from a previous person if there chain were infinite.
So I realize the only way A, or B, or C or D could have come into possession of the coin is if the chain terminates with someone who didn't borrow it.
Now, let's replace this golden coin with existence.
Why does A exist, well A exists because of B. Ok, why does B exist? Well B exists because of C.... As you can see we run into the same problem before.
The only way any member of this causal chain can have existence is if the chain of existence borrowers terminates with someone who didn't borrow existence. This being that exists self sufficiently must have existence in and of Himself. We call that a necessary being, or my more personal term, God Almighty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Wow I'm happy to hear that, glad I could help
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
We demonstrate it is possible by showing there is nothing incoherent about an MGB. If an MGB is not incoherent it is logically possible and can be instantiated in a possible world
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Premise 1: It is possible that God exists.
Premise 2: If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds.
Premise 3: If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds.
Premise 4: If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world.
Premise 5: If God exists in the actual world, then God exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
The reasoning behind premise three is what we were discussing. God is a maximally great being, than what no greater can be conceived. If God is maximally great He exists necessarily, rather than contingently. If he exists necessarily, then He cannot fail to exist in any possible world. Although this is the modal Ontological argument, it builds on what St Anselm originally posited, once we understand who God is His existence flows from his definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
1/08/2017. Facebook shuts down robots after they invent their own language.
Did this actually happen?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I would say we go about it using the Ontological argument itself... If an MGB is possible an MGB is actual
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I would agree with you
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Yes, here's one concise explanation
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Well that's a very good question. What distinguishes a metaphysically possible world from a non metaphysically possible world is can the propositions be instantiated.
For example, I can imagine a world with square circles, and two plus two being seven. That world, though imaginable, cannot be instantiated because they contain logical contradictions, which by definition are not parts of or even potential parts of existence.
The modal Ontological argument states that an MGB is possible, and an MGB is metaphysically necessary (cannot fail to exist in any possible world) if it does exist. That's the whole point of the argument, to get us a being which cannot fail across worlds, but has trans world necessity.
So to say there's a possible world where no contingent beings exist is perfectly logical. To say there's a possible world where no being even a necessary being exists already supposes an MGB is not possible, because if it was there would be no world where an MGB didn't exist. So to posit such a world to disprove an MGB already supposes one cannot exist. The proposition is circular.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
And so it does
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
We're never truly done. The quest for knowledge and the pursuit of God never truly stops
Created:
Posted in:
What are your thoughts on the Chinese room conundrum? Do you believe it disproves the possibility of artificial intelligence being possible?
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I see now
Created:
Posted in:
"Where no beings of any kind exist..."
Given the Ontological argument's contention that a maximally great Being would exist necessarily and not contingently, a possible world where no being exists, not even a necessary Being, is not really a possible world, just an imaginable world.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Maybe we have two different definitions of "a reality"...
My definition was simply that which is real
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If you're part of a reality does that not make you real? And therefore a reality?
These atheist chatbots are getting more and more advanced...
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Well yes, given the fact this theory has not been conclusively proven, I still say possible, therefore we could revise the conclusion to say given the current level of evidence for the theory God as the simulator possibly exists.
That being said, if it were proven the universe were in fact a simulation, I do think we go from possible to definite in regards to God existing.
Why do you say only in a metaphoric sense?
Given that we have no experience of a computer simulation existing without a simulator, premise three stands.
Do you not consider yourself a great reality than say a sims game?
Created:
Here's a little thought experiment I've been playing with:
1. The universe at a quantum level shows properties of "emerging", that is, at fundamental level, matter behaves like information in a computer code.
2. It is quite possible the universe is a computer simulation on an unimaginable scale
3. If the universe is a computer simulation, it would require a computer simulator.
4. A being that encoded the universe into existence would be able to exercise complete control over this simulation
5. Such a being could be considered omnipotent.
6. A being outside the simulation would not be subject to it's nature, and possess another nature entirely. A being of this nature could be considered ultimate reality
7. An omnipotent ultimate reality is God.
Therefore God exists.
Any thoughts? What do you agree with? What do you disagree? Thank
Created:
Let's call this the Athian Ontological super argument
Atheist: How do you know God exists?
Athian Ontological super argument believer:. I believe in Him... Problem?
Atheist: No sir...
Boom... Checkmate atheists
Created:
-->
@Stronn
@ludofl3x
@Athias
All things that are perceived must exist (given that the nonexistent can't be perceived.)
2. God is perceived (believed in by his adherents.)
3. Therefore God exists.
I got up at two in the morning and saw this, and was like, this is like the ontological argument's older sibling that got tired of the rules of modal logic and said, "I'm going all in"....
I love it. I'm not sure that it works but love it.
Created:
What is your favorite argument for the existence of God? Why is it your favorite argument? What are some objections to this argument and how do you deal with them?
Created: