Originally posted by papabryant
If you have a problem ith that, take it up with the professor of Medieval Philosophy who gave me an A+ for the paper in its original form.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL. Isn't it a school day. No one uses the "my professor gave me an A" argument. Well, adults don't. That is funny funny stuff.

Originally posted by papabryant
Why not use the full quote just a little ways down instead of the introduction explanation (Because that would require actually READING and finding out how much further I took the argument. I answer my own questions around here...):

Cool, perhaps I should have bothered to read, but why present such a weak version of Kalam?

The cosmological argument is the argument that the existence of the universe is strong evidence for the existence of a God who created it. If we plug in what we know about the Big Bang, the Standard Cosmological argument takes on this form:


(1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe exists.
(3) Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is the Big Bang.
(5) Therefore: God exists.

This is a false argument. But there are other forms of the Cosmological argument that work better with the data. We can start with simply delineating more modifiers:

If you have a problem ith that, take it up with the professor of Medieval Philosophy who gave me an A+ for the paper in its original form.

Fair enough, perhaps I should have bothered reading the rest, I took the top argument without the critique the latter version gets, but it gets no better...

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3)Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being. This cause is God.

So if we plug in the Big Bang data:

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
(2) The universe began to exist when the Big Bang occurred.
(3) Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
(4) The Big Bang began to exist.
(5)Therefore, the Big Bang has a cause for its coming into being. This cause is God.

1. Again, assumption.
2. Possibly. But it is an assumption due to limits of physics.
3. Assumption
4. The big bang is a process, but we'll roll.
5. Non-sequitur

You fall at 5, and arguably at 1 and 2/3.

Again, the logic is naff.

Do you have a better one?

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
(1.1) Whatever exists has a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external ground.
(1.1.1) There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence, because an infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause which means there is no cause of existence.
(1.2) Whatever begins to exist is not necessary in its existence.
(2) The universe began to exist when the Big Bang occurred.
(2.1) Whatever exists has a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external ground.
(2.1.1) There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence, because an infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause which means there is no cause of existence.
(2.2) Whatever begins to exist is not necessary in its existence.
(2.3) If the Big Bang has an external ground of its existence, then there exists a cause of the Big Bang, who, outside the Big Bang, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and powerful.
(4) The Big Bang began to exist.
(4.1) The Big Bang is not necessary in its existence.
(5) Therefore, the Big Bang has a cause for its coming into being.
(5.1) This cause is defined by (2.3).
(8) Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
The uncaused cause must be God.

1. assumption.
1.1 OK, if you say so.
1.1.1 Assumption.
1.2 OK
2. We could assume that. However, physics doesn't take us that far, so another assumption.
2.1 As 1.1
2.1.1 Because you say so or aesthetically prefer that?
2.2 OK
2.3 Non-sequitur
4. As a process, perhaps, but see 2.
4.1 OK, but it is a process.
5. Possibly, but we get back to the limits of physics.
5.1 see 2.3
8? Non-sequitur.

That's also naff. Any more?

(A) The universe displays order, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves.
(B) Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
(C )Not chance.
(D) Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design.
(E) Design comes only from a mind, a designer.
(F) Therefore the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer.

A. yeah, sort of. In nature there's a degree of order.
B. No. Physics is not necessarily random. I thought it was ordered?
C. Haha, of course. Pure assertion.
D. This depends on the assertion at C.
E. This is more wishful-thinking than a coherent argument. We can see 'design' in nature which does not necessarily need a mind.
F. I'm sure he believes that.

Perhaps Santa will bring you a better argument? I can see you've gone over it afterwards, I see to it later, I have stuff to do.

ABE: and your modifications....

(A) The universe displays order, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves.
(B) Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
(C )Not chance.
(D) Therefore: the universe is the product of intelligent design.
(E) Design comes only from a mind, a designer.
(F) Therefore: the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer.
(G) The universal design pattern can be mapped by scientific observation.
(H) The Biblical account of creation (and other relevant scriptural references), most closely resemble the universal design pattern as mapped by science.
(I) Therefore: the intelligent Designer of the universe is the God of the Bible.

A. As before - yeah, sort of. In nature there's a degree of order.
B. As before - No. Physics is not necessarily random. I thought it was ordered?
C. As before - Pure assertion.
D. As before - This depends on the assertion at C, and is essentially sourced from a false dichotomy.
E. As before - This is more wishful-thinking than a coherent argument. We can see 'design' in nature which does not necessarily need a mind.
F. I'm sure you believe that.

So it's all the same jazz, you just went on...

G. Again, assumes teleology. But I really do hope that science will perform so well.
H. haha. You mean genesis? You gotta be kidding...
I. As F.

Hope you've been good this year, you never know what you might find under the tree on Xmas morning. Be a miracle, like.

You were really going to debate such weak and fallacious arguments?

[edit on 17-12-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by papabryant

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
Well that was a little tongue in cheek but since you bring it back up.

NOTE TO OTHERS OBSERVING THIS DISCUSSION: I know he cannot be this dense, but for YOUR benefit I'll play along.

As one of the "others" you addressed I'd like to thank you for making these posts.

They have greatly entertained me. it has been quite enlightening to see what effect the teaching of Creationist based Philosophy has on the brain of a 600 lb gorilla.

The only posts more entertaining than yours are those of Angel of Lightangelo and Melatonin.

There was a significant difference however. I was not laughing at Angel or Melatonin.

It would be interesting to see a comparison of average IQ's of students entering creationist teaching Christian universities with those entering regular universities. This would be an essential prerequisite to examining the relationship between the teaching of creationism and the resulting intelligence level of those subjected to such teaching.

Congratulations on your BA with honours in Philosophy. The standard of your argument in this thread says a great deal about the standards of any students who scored less well than you. I'm sure your achievement will be accepted for what it's worth wherever you go.


[edit on 17/12/08 by Kailassa]

[edit on 17/12/08 by Kailassa]

[edit on 17/12/08 by Kailassa]

[edit on 17/12/08 by Kailassa]

I think that it is interesting that school systems never find it necessary to point out that we have no proof that Zeus, Athena, Artemis, Isis, Osiris, Anubis (always liked Anubis), Genesha, Vishnu, Krishna, etc. exist.

Yet, when I was in school we spent the better part of a semester in 8th Grade English going through the Greek pantheon and describing their beliefs in pretty good depth. I don't remember anyone complaining that the school was indoctrinating us in paganism.

Why is that? Why is it always the Judeo/Christian version of God that gets everyones shorts in a bunch?

Why can't a classroom discussion of religion be done in an intelligent way without somebody feeling threatened by the subject matter?

i am sorry i have no comment i know if i start talking i will get p!$$ed and i refuse to get mad befor i see my gf

Originally posted by melatonin
Cool, perhaps I should have bothered to read, but why present such a weak version of Kalam?

Its called an introduction...

Fair enough, perhaps I should have bothered reading the rest, I took the top argument without the critique the latter version gets, but it gets no better...

Well, thank you for admiting you didn't read it. Kudos from me.

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
(2) The universe began to exist when the Big Bang occurred.
(3) Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
(4) The Big Bang began to exist.
(5)Therefore, the Big Bang has a cause for its coming into being. This cause is God.

1. Again, assumption.
2. Possibly. But it is an assumption due to limits of physics.
3. Assumption
4. The big bang is a process, but we'll roll.
5. Non-sequitur

You fall at 5, and arguably at 1 and 2/3.

1. So are you saying that we can have infinite causation?
2. Since we're dealing with what physics currently says happened it isn't an assumption, barring further discoveries.
3. See 1
4. No problem.
5. Hardly, since all I'm doing is assigning a name to whatever caused the BB. We aren't even close to the point where we define what constitutes God. You've jumped the gun.

Continued next post for space conciderations

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
(1.1) Whatever exists has a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external ground.
(1.1.1) There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence, because an infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause which means there is no cause of existence.
(1.2) Whatever begins to exist is not necessary in its existence.
(2) The universe began to exist when the Big Bang occurred.
(2.1) Whatever exists has a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external ground.
(2.1.1) There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence, because an infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause which means there is no cause of existence.
(2.2) Whatever begins to exist is not necessary in its existence.
(2.3) If the Big Bang has an external ground of its existence, then there exists a cause of the Big Bang, who, outside the Big Bang, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and powerful.
(4) The Big Bang began to exist.
(4.1) The Big Bang is not necessary in its existence.
(5) Therefore, the Big Bang has a cause for its coming into being.
(5.1) This cause is defined by (2.3).
(8) Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
The uncaused cause must be God.

1. assumption.
1.1 OK, if you say so.
1.1.1 Assumption.
1.2 OK
2. We could assume that. However, physics doesn't take us that far, so another assumption.
2.1 As 1.1
2.1.1 Because you say so or aesthetically prefer that?
2.2 OK
2.3 Non-sequitur
4. As a process, perhaps, but see 2.
4.1 OK, but it is a process.
5. Possibly, but we get back to the limits of physics.
5.1 see 2.3
8? Non-sequitur.

1. Infinite causation again? Cause and effect are as fundamental to physics as it gets.
1.1 No Problem
1.1.1 Sorry, but we're talking observable phenominon. There as yet is NO evidence for quantum physics, only theory. You cannot bring in hypotheticals without evidence to try and overturn cause and effect.
1.2 Fine
2 Again, until evidence presents itself otherwise.
2.1 Ok
2.2 Ok
2.3 Hardly. If 2.2, then each of those characteristics MUST apply to the external cause, since what is being caused is in time, space, etc. Particularly since time, space, etc. is said to begin when BB occured. You cannot create what you are a part of already. Remember, no evidence for quantumphysics. Your objection fails.
4. Process or event, it occurs and has a beginning.
4.1 Same as 4
5 Ok
5.1 Same as 2.3 for same reasons. Objection fails.
8 (used an earlier draft for this posting) Again we're assigning whatever this uncaused cause is the name of "God." Not Judeo-Christian God, not Muslim God, not Hindu God. Whatever it is, we're calling it by the name God.

So far the argument stands, but doesn't prove anything. That comes later in the paper.

Continued

Originally posted by papabryant


1.1.1 Sorry, but we're talking observable phenominon. There as yet is NO evidence for quantum physics, only theory. You cannot bring in hypotheticals without evidence to try and overturn cause and effect.

What? All science is theories... Even Einstein warned against mistaking the map for the territory.

Quantum physics is the foundation of many technologies we use today, and yet you somehow discredit it?

I thought you were trying to be scientific.

(A) The universe displays order, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves.
(B) Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
(C )Not chance.
(D) Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design.
(E) Design comes only from a mind, a designer.
(F) Therefore the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer.


A. yeah, sort of. In nature there's a degree of order.
B. No. Physics is not necessarily random. I thought it was ordered?
C. Haha, of course. Pure assertion.
D. This depends on the assertion at C.
E. This is more wishful-thinking than a coherent argument. We can see 'design' in nature which does not necessarily need a mind.
F. I'm sure he believes that.

A. Fine
B. You misunderstand the question. Did order come into existance by random chance, or by the actions of an intelligent agent.
C. Here is where you utterly fail, because you didn't read everything. If you had read everything, you would have noted Ross' 19 "Order criteria" and the following paragraph:

(B) is problematic, because in actuality it could be either chance or design. Neither possibility is completely ruled out of the equation, although mathematical probability can help us determine the likelihood of one over the other. In looking at the data in Appendix 2, # we can determine that the mathematical probability of 75 requirements for the creation of a life sustaining planet (which is only one part of the necessary requirements for life) occurring is approximately 10 -99 . This exceeds the maximum possible number of planets in universe, which is approximately 10 22 . # And since the possibility of life by necessity has other requirements too numerous to mention that are just as statistically complex, we can safely eliminate chance as a probability for the creation of the universe, although as stated we cannot eliminate it as a possibility.

Statistical probability says that it is more likely by an order of magnatude, that the Universe came into existance as a result of an intelligent agent rather than chance, to the point chance approaches STATISTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.


Your objection fails. But I applaude the effort, sincerely.

Now it is my turn to say I will examine the rest later, as I need to take my son to the doctor in about an hour. I will be back tomorrow.

Good job, Melatonin. I enjoyed this.

Originally posted by papabryant
Its called an introduction...

Fair enough, you just gave a link to a blog with numerous posts, I took one part because I was time-challenged.

Well, thank you for admiting you didn't read it. Kudos from me.

Not all. I still haven't. I skimmed.

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
(2) The universe began to exist when the Big Bang occurred.
(3) Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
(4) The Big Bang began to exist.
(5)Therefore, the Big Bang has a cause for its coming into being. This cause is God.

1. Again, assumption.
2. Possibly. But it is an assumption due to limits of physics.
3. Assumption
4. The big bang is a process, but we'll roll.
5. Non-sequitur

You fall at 5, and arguably at 1 and 2/3.

1. So are you saying that we can have infinite causation?

Why not? And don't give me Craig's BS.

This must be shown to be necessarily true for us to take it seriously. It would even be an assumption to accept that causation applies to all things that 'begin'.

2. Since we're dealing with what physics currently says happened it isn't an assumption, barring further discoveries.

You don't get what I'm saying. You are essentially attempting to suggest the big bang 'began to exist' (I assume you really mean 'universe'). The problem is that physics takes us down to planck time. At that point classical physics fails. This is well-known to physicists.

We are stuck at a fraction of a second. No time = 0. No beginning. So it is an assumption to suggest there is one, especially when we accept the limits of the physics that take us there.

3. See 1

Nope, You are applying causation to a period in which we don't even know if time exists. If we accept that space-time is a property of this state of the universe, then whence time? Whence causation 'before' this universe?

Causation is a temporal process. A causes B. A leads to B.

If you want my opinion, we will eventually take time back before this current state of this universe. And so causation will apply. However, you are making a logical error by generalising our experience to other quite different situations.

You haven't even established the universe needed a cause.

5. Hardly, since all I'm doing is assigning a name to whatever caused the BB. We aren't even close to the point where we define what constitutes God. You've jumped the gun.

Heh. Nope, it is a non-sequitur. Unless your definition of god is what caused the BB. If it needed one.

I would like to ask a question at this point. At (1) you state 'whatever begins to exist', suggesting that we have things that 'begin to exist' and others that 'do not being to exist'.

What sort of things fit the second set in your mind? and the first? For it to be a meaningful distinction, we must be able to apply it in some way. You see, if I say their are dogs and not-dogs, I can show examples showing it is a meaningful categorisation.

So, what are those things that 'do not begin to exist'?

I'll leave the other arguments till later, as they all follow on.

Originally posted by papabryant
Statistical probability says that it is more likely by an order of magnatude, that the Universe came into existance as a result of an intelligent agent rather than chance, to the point chance approaches STATISTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.

You are making a false dichotomy. There is what appears to be natural randomness, there is non-random natural process (e.g., natural selection), there is intelligence.

Your objection fails. But I applaude the effort, sincerely.

I don't think you established that at all.

Now it is my turn to say I will examine the rest later, as I need to take my son to the doctor in about an hour. I will be back tomorrow.

Good job, Melatonin. I enjoyed this.

Hope he's fine.

Cheers.

[edit on 18-12-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Rocketgirl

Originally posted by Chaoticar
Well, seeing as the classes seem to be optional, I don't see what the problem is:
* If you "don't believe in religion" don't take "Religion 101"
* If you "don't believe in evolution" don't take "Biology 101"

As long as no-one's being "indoctrinated" into atheism/theism, where's the problem?

By the way, I'm agnostic - feel free to believe/disbelieve in God/s, but I really don't give a damn about your beliefs, or lack thereof.

Some college students like me who go to a religious college/university don't have an option not take a class based on religion. I think that is unfair because there are some students who go to a private religious college/university even if they don't believe in God. Why do some students go to colleges/universities like this? because of the student body size (it's small) and because you get more attention from your professors....etc.

Sorry if someone has already said this, but weigh your options. If religious institutions upset you that much than you have no business being there. Those who are religious shouldn't have to accomodate YOUR beliefs for going to THEIR school. Find another school, or better yet, start a college that fits your ideal description, that's how those schools were started.

And now on the lighter side a stab at both sides of the debate:




Oh and translations on the signs, it is a little blury:
Fundamentalists:
"I never question anything therefore I know everything."
"I only like the parts of the Bible that agree with me."
"Let me insult, belittle, scare and condeme you. Then I'm sure you'll want to believe what I do."
"Judge not lest ye be judged -Jesus was totally joking on that one."
"Give to my ministry. And by 'my ministry' I mean ME."

Atheists:
"I don't get it. That makes you stupid."
"I KNOW that what I don't know is all there is to know."
"I believe passionately that you should not believe passionately."
"Some religious people judge others. I judge them. That does not make me religious."
"If you can't prove it, then it doesn't exist. Everything real is already proved."



[edit on 18-12-2008 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

The problem with Indoctrination is that state run schools in Australia have Religious Instruction as part of the carriculum. There are no alternatives!!

I had a lengthy discussion with my daughter's headmaster about this problem. He said, "If you don't want your daughter to take part in the class, just tell me." I replied, "Ok, consider yourself as told. Now, what will she do while the other kids are being Indoctrinated?"

His answer? "She will sit at the rear of the room with her back to the class and do maths or some other work with the other kids who don't do the class."

I asked, "But isn't that like punishing the kids, sitting there working while the others are singing songs, playing games and such?"

He replied, "Well, if you want to start a program, tell me your idea and we will see if the P&C would agree to it, in which case you would have to fund it yourself."

End of discussion!!

I then went and spoke with the Religious Instructor and asked what was involved in becoming one. She told me that she had to attend a three day workshop on teaching Christianity to small kids, and then be accepted as an accredited Instructor.

I asked her if they also included other religions at the workshop and she said, "No. Why would they?"

So dear ATS'ers, the belief is ingrained, our modern cultures are based on the Christian belief-system and there is little room for dissent.

In the end I would talk with my daughter about what she learned in the classes, and made a point of informing her that the person Instructing her was not a Teacher, it was only a person telling them what they believed.

From that day forward my girl understood that the person was not a School Teacher, teaching truth. (ok, let's not all get into the pros and cons of the Truth here).

In the end, we should not be forcing Beliefs on children who are not ready or able to make a discerning judgement for themselves. That is Brainwashing them!!

[edit on 18-12-2008 by Tayesin]