Proving Atheists Wrong.

Author: YouFound_Lxam

Posts

Total: 55
Topic's author
#1
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
There are many arguments that I have used that no atheists have been able to refute yet.
Let me say once and once only, that this is only for the argument of their being a God and not a certain God. 

The Domino Example:
Think of our existence like a line of dominoes. Each domino before is affecting the next representing the flow of time as well as space, where the dominos are, and matter, the dominoes themselves. The dominoes falling represents time/space/matter working.
Now Atheists usually can't explain how the universe came to be, so they usually revert to the argument that the universe has just been infinite and gone on forever.
So, let's use the dominos in this example.
If the line of dominoes was infinitely long, then the dominoes wouldn't ever fall, because there would never be a beginning to start the chain reaction from. 
So, in order for our universe to make sense there had to have been a beginning. But whatever started that beginning had to have been more powerful than the dominoes (time/space/matter) and exist outside that reality. 
Take that in.


Atheism is too simple: 
Atheism turns out to be too simple. 
If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning.
Just as if there were no light in the universe, then therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. 
Dark would be without meaning. 
#2
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,660
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Let me say once and once only, that this is only for the argument of their being a God   [............]

What's his name ?
#3
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,193
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Religious deism and GOD principle can be two separate intellectual processes and conclusions, depending largely upon data input.

GOD principle is a reasonable conclusion.

Floaty about blokes are less reasonable.

In my opinion.


Though if you are not wishing to imply the existence of an actual GOD or a certain GOD, then definitively speaking you are an atheist similar to myself.

Someone that finds life and existence and universe purposeful enough to want to keep going for as long as possible. Which might be regarded as worship in itself.

Certainly no need for tall tales from the Middle East.



#4
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,998
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
 The Domino Example:
Think of our existence like a line of dominoes. Each domino before is affecting the next representing the flow of time as well as space, where the dominos are, and matter, the dominoes themselves. The dominoes falling represents time/space/matter working.
Now Atheists usually can't explain how the universe came to be, so they usually revert to the argument that the universe has just been infinite and gone on forever.
So, let's use the dominos in this example.
If the line of dominoes was infinitely long, then the dominoes wouldn't ever fall, because there would never be a beginning to start the chain reaction from. 
So, in order for our universe to make sense there had to have been a beginning. But whatever started that beginning had to have been more powerful than the dominoes (time/space/matter) and exist outside that reality. 
Take that in.
All i’ll say is quantum physics doesn’t entirely play by conventional causation.

Atheism is too simple: 
Atheism turns out to be too simple. 
If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning.
Just as if there were no light in the universe, then therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. 
Dark would be without meaning. 
All atheism is, is a lack of belief in a god or gods. It’s simple in that regard.

But as for atheists claiming there’s no meaning to the universe, i will elaborate. There’s no intrinsic meaning to the universe. We make our own meaning, which is informed by our evolution. To seek community, love, and all that chemical good stuff. 
#5
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,660
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Though if you are not wishing to imply the existence of an actual GOD or a certain GOD, then definitively speaking you are an atheist similar to myself.

 A very good point, Vic, lad.
#6
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Now Atheists usually can't explain how the universe came to be, so they usually revert to the argument that the universe has just been infinite and gone on forever.
Most atheists will just say, as I do, "I don't know how the universe started." The idea that the universe is eternal is the counterpoint the theistic argument that basically since (according to the religious) the universe cannot be eternal, because everything has a start, that a god or creator must have started the universe. Naturally, one would then ask well if everything has a start, how did the creator start? The standard response is "the creator is eternal." THIS IS WHERE AN ATHEIST WILL ASK "WHY CAN'T THE UNIVERSE BE ETERNAL THEN?" There's a nonsense answer that is entirely uncompelling.

If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning.
Please elaborate on what you mean by 'meaning' so I can engage with this idea. 
#7
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 182
Posts: 807
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Want to debate this subject? 
#8
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam


YouFound_Lxam,

Why are you posting threads since you guilty of the Unpardonable Sin? Do you actually think that Jesus wants you to represent Him anymore? NOT!


While you prepare yourself for the sulfur lakes of Hell upon your demise for creating the Unpardonable Sin, try and address the following:

YOUR QUOTE OF NOT BEING A CHRISTIAN ANYMORE, PRAISE!: "Let me say once and once only, that this is only for the argument of their being a God and not a certain God."

Okay, since your discussion is ONLY for a God, per se, and not a certain God, then you preclude that Jesus is not your god anymore!

Therefore, which God do you want to discuss as shown below that existed in history?

Azura Mazda, Angus, Belenos, Brigid, Dana, Lugh, Dagda, Epona, Allah Aphrodite, Apollo, Ares, Artemis, Atehna, Demeter, Dionysus, Eris, Eos, Gaia, Hades, Hekate, Helios, Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Pan, Poseidon, Selene, Uranus, Zeus, Mathilde, Elves, Eostre, Frigg, Ganesh, Hretha, Saxnot, Shef, Shiva Thuno, Tir, Vishnu, Weyland, Woden, Yahweh, Alfar, Balder, Beyla, Bil, Bragi, Byggvir, Dagr, Disir, Eir, Forseti, Freya, Freyr, Frigga, Heimdall, Hel, Hoenir, Idunn, Jord, Lofn, Loki, Mon, Njord, Norns, Nott, Odin, Ran, Saga, Sif, Siofn, Skadi, Snotra, Sol, Syn, Ull, Thor, Tyr, Var, Vali, Vidar, Vor, Herne, Holda, Nehalennia, Nerthus, Endovelicus, Ataegina, Runesocesius, Bacchus, Ceres, Cupid, Diana, Janus, Juno, Jupiter, Maia, Mars, Mercury, Minerva, Neptune, Pluto, Plutus, Proserpina, Venus, Vesta, Vulcan, Attis, Cybele, El-Gabal, Isis, Mithras, Sol Invictus, Endovelicus, Anubis, Aten, Atum, Bast, Bes, Geb, Hapi, Hathor, Heget, Horus, Imhotep, Isis, Khepry, Khnum, Maahes, Ma’at, Menhit, Mont, Naunet, Neith, Nephthys, Nut, Osiris, Ptah, Ra, Sekhmnet, Sobek, Set, Tefnut, Thoth, An, Anshar, Anu, Apsu, Ashur, Damkina, Ea, Enki, Enlil, Ereshkigal, Nunurta, Hadad, Inanna, Ishtar, Kingu, Kishar, Marduk, Mummu, Nabu, Nammu, Nanna, Nergal, Ninhursag, Ninlil, Nintu, Shamash, Sin, Tiamat, Utu, Mitra, Amaterasu, Susanoo, Tsukiyomi, Inari, Tengu, Izanami, Izanagi, Daikoku, Ebisu, Benzaiten, Bishamonten, Fukurokuju, Jurojin, Hotei, Quetzalcoatl, Tlaloc, Inti, Kon, Mama Cocha, Mama Quilla, Manco Capac, Pachacamac and Zaramama, Vera. 


Remember, the membership is watching you, so don't RUN AWAY again from my posts to you, even though they make you the outright Bible fool, okay?

.
#9
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Atheism is too simple: 
Atheism turns out to be too simple. 
If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning.
Just as if there were no light in the universe, then therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. 
Dark would be without meaning. 

  • Here, you are plagiarizing Mere Christianity by CS Lewis.  Please give the credit due to the person who actually wrote the argument you are using.


The Domino Example:
  • That is the Islamic Kalam Cosmological Argument, popularized by Craig in 1979.

#10
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Reece101
@YouFound_Lxam
[YouFound_Lxam]
The Domino Example:
Think of our existence like a line of dominoes. Each domino before is affecting the next representing the flow of time as well as space, where the dominos are, and matter, the dominoes themselves. The dominoes falling represents time/space/matter working.
Now Atheists usually can't explain how the universe came to be, so they usually revert to the argument that the universe has just been infinite and gone on forever.
So, let's use the dominos in this example.
If the line of dominoes was infinitely long, then the dominoes wouldn't ever fall, because there would never be a beginning to start the chain reaction from. 
So, in order for our universe to make sense there had to have been a beginning. But whatever started that beginning had to have been more powerful than the dominoes (time/space/matter) and exist outside that reality. 
Take that in.
If you can wrap your head around an infinite god that has no beginning and no end, why can't you do the same for a line of dominoes?

Or, if you can't wrap your head around god, why is it a problem if atheists can wrap their head around infinite causation?

Causation and beginning are temporal concepts. Without time causation is incoherent. Both theists and atheists often talk about "the beginning of time" (literally). Such a concept is incoherent. Time a relationship between events. Space is a relationship between points. Relationships aren't objects to be created and there is no reason to presume they were caused or could be caused.

[Reece101] All i’ll say is quantum physics doesn’t entirely play by conventional causation.
It most certainly does. There is no causing events in the past in quantum physics. If you heard there is, you've been duped by a diet ebuc.

[YouFound_Lxam]
Atheism is too simple: 
Atheism turns out to be too simple. 
If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning.
Just as if there were no light in the universe, then therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. 
Dark would be without meaning. 
No idea what this means.

P.S. I pity whoever liked orogami's utterly useless and baseless whining about plagiarism. OP didn't say he invented anything, and arguments, like knowledge are not intellectual property. You people who treat debate like a homework assignment or sport disgust me sometimes.
#11
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Now Atheists usually can't explain how the universe came to be ...
So, in order for our universe to make sense there had to have been a beginning. But whatever started that beginning had to have been more powerful than the dominoes (time/space/matter) and exist outside that reality. 
How about this:
I don't know how the universe came to be; it is a mystery.
Christians claim to know that the universe was created by their god.

Everything besides the origin of the universe can be explained by scientific means. So there is only one mystery.
The claim that the Christian god created the universe comes with many other mysteries (the trinity, transubstantiation, a supernatural world populated by supernatural beings).

The scientific claim is superior to the Christian one because it explains what happened after the origin with no more mysteries, whereas
the Christian explanation introduces many other mysteries which cannot be explained.


#12
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,998
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
[Reece101] All i’ll say is quantum physics doesn’t entirely play by conventional causation.
It most certainly does. There is no causing events in the past in quantum physics. If you heard there is, you've been duped by a diet ebuc.
There is when we interact with it. But that’s about it from what I understand.
#13
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Reece101
[Reece101] All i’ll say is quantum physics doesn’t entirely play by conventional causation.
It most certainly does. There is no causing events in the past in quantum physics. If you heard there is, you've been duped by a diet ebuc.
There is when we interact with it. But that’s about it from what I understand.
Demystifying quantum mechanics is a personal crusade of mine... and by myst I mean the mysticism many people have read into it. The reality is strange, but once you accept it there are no contradictions, causation paradoxes, subjective reality etc... 

If you would give a specific example (certain traveling or standing wave in certain potential) I'd be happy to analyze it for you and show you there is no need or evidence for time travel.
#14
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@b9_ntt
The scientific claim is superior to the Christian one because it explains what happened after the origin with no more mysteries
There are plenty of mysteries left, that is besides the point.

A hypothesis that could equally predict every outcome is not supported by any particular outcome/experiment.

"God(s) willed it" predicts anything and everything so nothing is evidence of it.

#15
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,998
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Demystifying quantum mechanics is a personal crusade of mine... and by myst I mean the mysticism many people have read into it. The reality is strange, but once you accept it there are no contradictions, causation paradoxes, subjective reality etc...  
Does that include frame of reference?

If you would give a specific example (certain traveling or standing wave in certain potential) I'd be happy to analyze it for you and show you there is no need or evidence for time travel.
Light is a good one.
#16
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Reece101
Demystifying quantum mechanics is a personal crusade of mine... and by myst I mean the mysticism many people have read into it. The reality is strange, but once you accept it there are no contradictions, causation paradoxes, subjective reality etc...  
Does that include frame of reference?
There are two systems of thought in modern physics. Quantum mechanics and general relativity. They don't mix.

People want them to mix, they've tried to mix them, and in some attempts it kinda makes sense if you squint. However, overall there is no cohesive conceptual or mathematical treatment which includes both.

This "holy grail" has been called "unified field theory" or "theory of everything".

I was talking about quantum mechanics (which you brought up explicitly). In quantum mechanics there is no concept or mathematical treatment of reference frames. Trying to apply space-time dilation to quantum waves is something people have been banging their heads against for a long time, I don't just mean the math; I mean there is no way to tell if what they're trying to do has any conceptual validity as the propagation of all quantum theory waves is inherently the speed of light, the only glue between quantum mechanics and general relativity is the fact that gravitational and electromagnetic fields both follow similar mathematical laws and both propagate at the speed of light.

I'll now make a further statement: There are no contradictions in the math of general relativity, but there are conceptual errors that lead to the belief that there are causation paradoxes.

When I say "error" I mean something we know is wrong because it leads to a contradiction (and in most cases because it doesn't match observations). See the twin paradox for an excellent example. I do not mean "error" in that I have a solution. This ties in to what I just told b9, there are still mysteries. The science game isn't won yet.

If you would give a specific example (certain traveling or standing wave in certain potential) I'd be happy to analyze it for you and show you there is no need or evidence for time travel.
Light is a good one.
Alright, what about light implies time travel (effect preceding cause)?
#17
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,998
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
There are two systems of thought in modern physics. Quantum mechanics and general relativity. They don't mix.

People want them to mix, they've tried to mix them, and in some attempts it kinda makes sense if you squint. However, overall there is no cohesive conceptual or mathematical treatment which includes both.

This "holy grail" has been called "unified field theory" or "theory of everything".

I was talking about quantum mechanics (which you brought up explicitly). In quantum mechanics there is no concept or mathematical treatment of reference frames. Trying to apply space-time dilation to quantum waves is something people have been banging their heads against for a long time, I don't just mean the math; I mean there is no way to tell if what they're trying to do has any conceptual validity as the propagation of all quantum theory waves is inherently the speed of light, the only glue between quantum mechanics and general relativity is the fact that gravitational and electromagnetic fields both follow similar mathematical laws and both propagate at the speed of light.

I'll now make a further statement: There are no contradictions in the math of general relativity, but there are conceptual errors that lead to the belief that there are causation paradoxes.

When I say "error" I mean something we know is wrong because it leads to a contradiction (and in most cases because it doesn't match observations). See the twin paradox for an excellent example. I do not mean "error" in that I have a solution. This ties in to what I just told b9, there are still mysteries. The science game isn't won yet.
Everything you’ve said is coherent from what I understand.

If you would give a specific example (certain traveling or standing wave in certain potential) I'd be happy to analyze it for you and show you there is no need or evidence for time travel.
Light is a good one.
Alright, what about light implies time travel (effect preceding cause)?
You’re defining time travel as effect preceding cause in reference to light. I have no idea what you’re asking of me.
#18
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Reece101
If you would give a specific example (certain traveling or standing wave in certain potential) I'd be happy to analyze it for you and show you there is no need or evidence for time travel.
Light is a good one.
Alright, what about light implies time travel (effect preceding cause)?
You’re defining time travel as effect preceding cause in reference to light. I have no idea what you’re asking of me.
Let's go back to the thing you said which caused me to comment:

All i’ll say is quantum physics doesn’t entirely play by conventional causation.
I'm asking for the scenario which doesn't play by conventional causation.
#19
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,998
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
First you said:
There is no causing events in the past in quantum physics.
Now you’re asking:
I'm asking for the scenario which doesn't play by conventional causation.
You’re giving me whiplash. 
#20
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Reece101
Sigh, if you explain to me what scenario you were told or thought involved non-conventional causation, which I took to mean effect precedes cause from the context, I will try to explain to you why that scenario is formulated incorrectly or why someone might have incorrectly inferred that effect preceded cause.
#21
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,457
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
What sort of proof would an atheist accept to prove to them that they are wrong? 


#22
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,812
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Alright, what about light implies time travel (effect preceding cause)?
   A spacetime diagram showing that moving faster than light implies time travel in the context of special relativity. A spaceship departs from Earth from A to C slower than ght. At B, Earth emits a tachyon, particle that travels faster than light but forward in time in Earth's reference frame. It reaches the spaceship at C. The spaceship then sends another tachyon back to Earth from C to D. This tachyon also travels forward in time in the spaceship's reference frame. This effectively allows Earth to send a signal from B to D, back in time. A longer explanation can be seen at: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13001/does-superluminal-travel-imply-travelling-back-in-time/615079#615079.
#23
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
This is an argument from ignorance. You're not providing evidence for how existence began but appealing to our (humanity's) ignorance as some type of explanation. 

Besides that, it is not uncommon for atheists to simply acknowledge ignorance regarding the origins of the universe ("I don't know"). To 'prove atheists wrong', something more than ignorance is needed. You ain't got it.
#24
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@FLRW
Alright, what about light implies time travel (effect preceding cause)?
   A spacetime diagram showing that moving faster than light implies time travel in the context of special relativity. A spaceship departs from Earth from A to C slower than ght. At B, Earth emits a tachyon, particle that travels faster than light but forward in time in Earth's reference frame. It reaches the spaceship at C. The spaceship then sends another tachyon back to Earth from C to D. This tachyon also travels forward in time in the spaceship's reference frame. This effectively allows Earth to send a signal from B to D, back in time. A longer explanation can be seen at: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13001/does-superluminal-travel-imply-travelling-back-in-time/615079#615079.
1.) The existence of tachyon or any other superluminal information transfer are not implied or required by special or general relativity
2.) Projecting the space-time axis of a moving reference frame beyond the time when it was moving is conceptually invalid. This can be seen in the fact that doing this creates and sustains the twin paradox. The twin paradox has been tested by measuring the time passing in a jet flaying around the Earth relative to the ground.

Time in the jet moved slower at a constant rate, the people on the jet perceived Earth time moving faster, not all reference frames are equal even if "absolute zero" or a "luminferous ether" may never be established or known.
#25
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Tradesecret
What sort of proof would an atheist accept to prove to them that they are wrong? 
That's an easy one. A miracle would suffice. Bring my mother back from the dead and I would believe. The Christian god supposedly has the power to do that.

#26
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,660
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@b9_ntt


Tradesecret wrote: What sort of proof would an atheist accept to prove to them that they are wrong? 
b9_ntt wrote: That's an easy one. A miracle would suffice. Bring my mother back from the dead and I would believe. The Christian god supposedly has the power to do that.
And so were his representatives here on earth. If the bible is to be believed.
Matthew 10:8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cure those with leprosy, and cast out demons.

 But don't expect some jumped up self aggrandising Pastor or Priest to rise to your request.

#27
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Stephen
 But don't expect some jumped up self aggrandising Pastor or Priest to rise to your request.
I don't. But they asked, and I answered.


#28
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,851
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@oromagi
Atheism is too simple: 
Atheism turns out to be too simple. 
If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning.
Just as if there were no light in the universe, then therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. 
Dark would be without meaning. 

  • Here, you are plagiarizing Mere Christianity by CS Lewis.  Please give the credit due to the person who actually wrote the argument you are using.
Word for word:
“Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” - CS Lewis



The Domino Example:
  • That is the Islamic Kalam Cosmological Argument, popularized by Craig in 1979.
He could have given us the link on this one, and the actual author did in fact identify it as the Kalam argument.


I wish I had a dollar for every genius that has posted the first cause argument without realizing it applies to God too.  

Saying "God did it" is no more explanatary than saying "evolution did it".
#29
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 137
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
Proving Atheists wrong.
The wet dream of many theists.

There are many arguments that I have used that no atheists have been able to refute yet.
Let me say once and once only, that this is only for the argument of their being a God and not a certain God.
If we were to accept your arguments, you would have demonstrated the likely existence of some sort of deity, proving that affirmative atheists are probably wrong. That is a weak achievent. Theists believe in mutually exclusive gods, making them all probably wrong.

The Domino Example:
Think of our existence like a line of dominoes. Each domino before is affecting the next representing the flow of time as well as space, where the dominos are, and matter, the dominoes themselves. The dominoes falling represents time/space/matter working.
Now Atheists usually can't explain how the universe came to be, so they usually revert to the argument that the universe has just been infinite and gone on forever.[1]
So, let's use the dominos in this example.
If the line of dominoes was infinitely long, then the dominoes wouldn't ever fall, because there would never be a beginning to start the chain reaction from.[2]
So, in order for our universe to make sense there had to have been a beginning. But whatever started that beginning had to have been more powerful than the dominoes (time/space/matter) and exist outside that reality.[3]
Take that in.
[1] Almost all cosmologists strongly believe the universe began with the Big Bang. Recently most cosmologist believe there was time before the Big Bang. If you extend the definition of universe to what preceeded the Big Bang, then it could have existed eternally past.
[2] The problem is that the universe may not work like falling dominos, in which case you presented a bad analogy. Although for dominos there is good reason to believe that they can’t be falling eternally past, you have given no reason to believe that the universe can’t exist eternally past.
[3] Why would it have to be more powerful ? If greater size means greater power, then you have just given an example of a mechanism that contradicts your claim, for a smaller domino can push over a bigger one.

Atheism is too simple:
Atheism turns out to be too simple.[4]
If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning.[5]
Just as if there were no light in the universe, then therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark.[6]
Dark would be without meaning.
[4] Assuming the rest of your paragraph is true, please explain how it demonstrates that.
[5] Why is that ?
[6] Please demonstrate that is a good analogy.

#30
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,457
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@b9_ntt
Matthew 12:37-45 answers your question. 

And it tells us that even if a dead person came back that they still would not believe. 

that's also the purpose of the man who dies and goes to Hell.  He cries out to God, please send me back to at least tell my brothers. 

And the answer is similar.  Even if a person came back from the dead, they still wouldn't believe. 

So even though you say - you would believe if God raised your mother from the dead, I don't believe you. 

After all, he raised Jesus from the dead and you don't believe that. and there is significant evidence to support it. We don't even have to believe it in faith.