Kay17:
A modification ought to be if everything remains equal, whatever begins to exist must have a cause.

But how do you prove this!

I'm feeling a little generous so I'll add

Premise 1

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

One can only make this statement based on our experience at the macro level. Let's say at the level of Newtonian physics. We see cause and effect almost everywhere and so its pretty easy to think that this would hold true in every situation. However,

Premise 2

The universe began to exist and

Premise 3

The universe has a cause

Taken all at once, we have the fallacy of equivocation and the fallacy of composition.

The equivocation.

Things beginning to exist in premise one are not the same as a Universe beginning to exist. A universe doesn't "begin to exist" the same way a car is said to begin to exist. The current theories of the beginning of the Universe AS WE KNOW IT, indicate that it was a quantum event. Things happen much differently at the quantum level than at the Newtonian level. This much is clear.

I have for instance asked my friend to tell me the cause of virtual particles and he couldn't except to insist that they did not occur in nothing (which was not the question I asked).

When a car is made, it is made from previously existing materials transformed and assembled to a purpose. So what is the Universe made out of? What was transformed and assembled to fashion out the Universe? According to inflation theory (please cross check as this is all from memory), the Universe AS WE KNOW IT, grew from a singularity of infinite mass/energy. All that expanded and became our world. So was the Universe made from the Universe? Or someone brought the materials and made the singularity and then set it off?

The point is, when talking about things that begin to exist, cars and Universes are in different leagues.

Fallacy of composition.

This occurs when you take your observation of parts of a thing and apply it to the entire thing.
I might examine the wings of a plane, the tires and the seats of a plane. None of these items can fly and then I conclude that the plane can't fly. Its the Blind Men of Hindustan all over again.

In the observable Universe, things do seem to be brought into being. However as noted, there is a quantum level that is far from what we are used to. We are yet to know about so many things in the Universe and for anyone who knows anything about quantum physics, it is downright laughable to apply personal observations to quantum phenomena. We are component parts of the Universe and as such, we cannot apply our limited observations to the whole. Its really simple.

Special pleading is the God part but I'm getting tired.

Quote I am also interested in any argument people put forward and to look at if they exhibit any logic?
Yes you do that well Mr KoloOyinbo--but it seems you back down every time I produce the word of God, and every time I mention what the bible say's, you start cursing and mocking, calling me names, declaring I am not a Christian. In the name of Jesus.
You work with dead works, faith comes from within, and it wouldn't matter what brother or sister in Christ their is, we don't curse each other, as you do.
By their fruits you will know them...

KoloOyinbo:


Please stop making silly assumptions about why I do things. You are wrong (yet again) I wanted to see what (if any astronomy/cosmology they were quoting). I am also interested in any argument people put forward and to look at if they exhibit any logic. In this case (as I thought it would) it proved easy (about 90 seconds thought) to spot the flaws in the logic.

Kay17:


1. The bolded is largely obtained by empirical observation and limited as an inductive experience.

2. Your argument is subtly based on the Big B.ang cosmological theory which you have always rejected. The idea that time and space are elastic and finite, is owed to this rejected cosmology. I find it a bit lazy and repugnant that you borrow/cherrypick the sections of the cosmological theory you like and disown the remainder. You have to come up with your own original ideas of how space, matter and time behave and correlate.

3. I have gone through hypotheses made by eminent physicists such as Stephen Hawkings and Penrose. From my understanding of their works, they (especially Stephen) conceives of the concept of imaginary time which as a vertical element which our familiar time lacks. He posits that this time (imaginary time) preexists our familiar time and preexists the Big Ban.g event. You should look that up. Very interesting.

@kolooyinbo

If you noticed my post, you would understand I'm not of Deepsight's ilk.

jayriginal:
We are yet to know about so many things in the Universe and for anyone who knows anything about quantum physics, it is downright laughable to apply personal observations to quantum phenomena. We are component parts of the Universe and as such, we cannot apply our limited observations to the whole. Its really simple.

Where this is true, it still forms no particular ground for disputing commonly observed laws of physics.

One should only do so where one has positive evidence that those laws are controverted by clear observations at quantum or other extraenous levels.

It begs the question to simply asseert, as you do, that since quantum laws or happenings are a mystery, then all known laws are laughable and should be condemned in discourses such as this - and cannot and should not be applied to understanding reality and existence as a whole.

If this reasoning is followed, as I have pointed out to you, nothing can ever be discussed in existential terms for all eternity - because every stage of knowledge will always remain "as far as we know." It is absurd to rebut the known with the unknown. The unknown, being unknown, cannot serve to rebut anything whatever. You rebut the known with the known.

Whether you recognize it or not, this is frankly the summary of what you say and this is the position you are taking and I hope you can see what a futilist position it is: a position which renders it impossible to have any sensible discussion on any logical matter. A position which renders it even absurd to make a statement such as that you will have breakfast at 8 a.m.

It is a position which is meaningless and has no substance or reason whatever.

It is not a position that any serious discussant can take seriously even for a moment. It simply shows that you are not inclined to be a serious discussant.

I have for instance asked my friend to tell me the cause of virtual particles and he couldn't except to insist that they did not occur in nothing (which was not the question I asked).

It is impossible and illogical to aver that something is causeless if it emerges within a given non-void environment.

Indeed, those who advance the issue of virtual particles recognize this even though you do not! - - - > Because the exact reason that they advance the issue of virtual particles in a quantum vacuum is to attempt to show that something may emerge from nothing! They thus know very well that the minute a non-void environment is the context, the argument would not fly. This is the very reason and also the only reason that a quantum vacuum is the field discussed.

It is beyond sad that this very elementary and obvious fact - which the makers of the argument know very well - misses you.

Fallacy of composition.

This occurs when you take your observation of parts of a thing and apply it to the entire thing.

Unless you think that a day will come when earth-man will have a birds eye view of the entire universe - and all possible universes and realities in existence in totality - then it must irrevocably be your position that no known principle or law should ever be used to attempt to understand the nature of existence.

Futile, no?

-------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANT POST-SCRIPT

Now, having said the foregoing, let me quickly note that it all matters not: for as I said before, you and I have worn ourselves bedraggled on this subject and it appears that we will never see eye to eye on it. I also doubt that there is much that is new that we can advance to one another to solicit our respective positions further. It is thus a useless waste of time and at this time in my life I am no longer particularly interested in these meaningless logical or illogical debates that lead no one anywhere and add no value of any kind no any person other than being a hollow vaunt of empty intellect for all discussants.

I therefore say to you that going forward I will be more interested in sharing with you the simple truths about life (that is - our lives as human beings) as I have come to see them by the grace of God (and receiving likewise your perspectives on simple truths of human life) and whether or not these simple truths appear ridiculous to you or not, I am sure that it will be more worthwhile than all these meaningless debates.

For you are a spiritual being of deep and profound quality and that is what I would prefer to discuss with you and everyone else.

Let the bandage fall: and begin to see the wonder that you are and the wonder that existence is.

Stay blessed.

DeepSight:

Where this is true, it still forms no particular ground for disputing commonly observed laws of physics.

A better description for these commonly observed laws of physics you mentioned, is human experience. Hence the Kalam cosmological argument works within the constraints of human experience.

brocab:
Quote I am also interested in any argument people put forward and to look at if they exhibit any logic?
Yes you do that well Mr KoloOyinbo--but it seems you back down every time I produce the word of God, and every time I mention what the bible say's, you start cursing and mocking, calling me names, declaring I am not a Christian. In the name of Jesus.
You work with dead works, faith comes from within, and it wouldn't matter what brother or sister in Christ their is, we don't curse each other, as you do.
By their fruits you will know them...

I never back down but as you never seem to understand there is little point in discussing anything with someone so rude, primitive, uneducated and just plain ignorant as yourself!

Where your recent post about Gods word came from when it had nothing whatsoever to do with what I was saying concerning the various Bible translations in accepted use and their suitability for any given situation is anybody's guess!

Kay17:


A better description for these commonly observed laws of physics you mentioned, is human experience. Hence the Kalam cosmological argument works within the constraints of human experience.

And as human beings, will we ever experience something outside human experience?

Is there anything that can be argued, propounded or contended, by human beings which is outside human experience of reality?

Can you see the futility of that which you are advancing?

If you want to talk science, by all means do so. If you want to talk logic, feel free. Perhaps you subconsciously realise the flaws in the Kalam yet you keep arguing. God CANNOT be proven logically. The Kalam attempts to present a logical explanation for God and it has been refuted severally.

Now,

DeepSight:


Where this is true, it still forms no particular ground for disputing commonly observed laws of physics.

One should only do so where one has positive evidence that those laws are controverted by clear observations at quantum or other extraenous levels.

It begs the question to simply asseert, as you do, that since quantum laws or happenings are a mystery, then all known laws are laughable and should be condemned in discourses such as this - and cannot and should not be applied to understanding reality and existence as a whole.

Commonly observed laws of physics aka Newtonian Physics do not apply very well to the quantum level. Do you recall the saying of Einstein "God does not play with dice"?

Your hand cannot talk, your leg cannot talk, your eye cannot talk, therefore, you cannot talk. You cannot apply the characteristics of the components to the whole to reach a valid conclusion. Simple!

If this reasoning is followed, as I have pointed out to you, nothing can ever be discussed in existential terms for all eternity - because every stage of knowledge will always remain "as far as we know." It is absurd to rebut the known with the unknown. The unknown, being unknown, cannot serve to rebut anything whatever. You rebut the known with the known.

Ah, but you dont know what you are asserting, you just think so based on your convictions and a fallacious argument.

Whether you recognize it or not, this is frankly the summary of what you say and this is the position you are taking and I hope you can see what a futilist position it is: a position which renders it impossible to have any sensible discussion on any logical matter. A position which renders it even absurd to make a statement such as that you will have breakfast at 8 a.m.

It is a position which is meaningless and has no substance or reason whatever.

It is not a position that any serious discussant can take seriously even for a moment. It simply shows that you are not inclined to be a serious discussant.

Wrong again. It is a position which checks arguments from ignorance. Have you ever wondered why in most of the religions, the deities have huiman attributes? People imagine Gods as humans imbued with traits and emotions of humans. Thus Gods are angry, happy, jealous, sad etc. Gods fight, weep (rainfall), run, hide, smite, betray, protect etc. That is because we cannot think outside our everyday experience. Imagine a time when time did not exist? You cant. I cant. Even the sentence "a time when time did not exist" cant! Apply every day observations to every day phenomena. Do not force them on other phenomena that are clearly outside the scope of every day phenomena.

Its ok to seek to understand the wonders of the Universe (I once told you of hot ice and recently I learnt there is a cloud or planet somewhere full of rasberry scented rum {Sagittarius B2}) through your every day experience but as I reminded you in the past, it used to be the truth based on every day experience that the earth was flat. Anyone who would have suggested otherwise would have been scoffed out. In addition, until gravity was understood, it used to be the truth based on everyday experience that what ever was thrown into the air would come back to the ground.

It is impossible and illogical to aver that something is causeless if it emerges within a given non-void environment.

Indeed, those who advance the issue of virtual particles recognize this even though you do not! - - - > Because the exact reason that they advance the issue of virtual particles in a quantum vacuum is to attempt to show that something may emerge from nothing! They thus know very well that the minute a non-void environment is the context, the argument would not fly. This is the very reason and also the only reason that a quantum vacuum is the field discussed.

It is beyond sad that this very elementary and obvious fact - which the makers of the argument know very well - misses you.

In all this, it still does not answer the question, what is the cause of virtual particles? What really is beyond sad is your championing a flawed argument. Its much better for you to say you have faith and leave it at that. And I never said they were causeless by the way. I asked a question to get you to think. Sadly you arent.

Unless you think that a day will come when earth-man will have a birds eye view of the entire universe - and all possible universes and realities in existence in totality - then it must irrevocably be your position that no known principle or law should ever be used to attempt to understand the nature of existence.

Futile, no?

You cant force a position I have not adopted on me. If we all assumed that illnesses were caused by demons, we'd all be spilling bird blood on lepers. We would be binding and casting out demons instead of taking medicine. When you know something, you apply that knowledge to its appropriate setting. One of the most dangerous things to do is making universal statements based on a limited perspective.


I sincerely hope that is obvious to you.


FLIPPING THE KALAM
1) Everything that "begins to exist" has a cause which is physical (this is borne out of observation)
2) The Universe "began to exist"
3) The Universe has a purely physical cause, no God required.

DeepSight:


And as human beings, will we ever experience something outside human experience?

If you cant, on what basis do you pronounce what is outside your experience?

Is there anything that can be argued, propounded or contended, by human beings which is outside human experience of reality?

Yes we can argue. Its different from stating something as absolute fact

Can you see the futility of that which you are advancing?

The question is can you?

^^^ No matter. You haven't said anything new (and probably neither have i). As I said its a waste of time.

I would like to find time to share some of my new perspectives on the meaning life.
Please leave Mallam Madam Kalam,
Salaam.

DeepSight:


And as human beings, will we ever experience something outside human experience?

Is there anything that can be argued, propounded or contended, by human beings which is outside human experience of reality?

Can you see the futility of that which you are advancing?

By stressing on human experience, I wanted to remind you how frail it is and its limits. You ought to be conscious of its limits, sweeping generalizations such as "Everything that begins must have a Cause" which you often make, ought to be given their necessary qualifications. The manner in which you held up 'commonly observable physical laws' as an irrefutable authority whereas it is human understanding of that physical phenomenon we call physical laws.

If only the op would be so kind to show some actual mathematics for his argument,since we are afterall,talking physics here.

Kay17:


By stressing on human experience, I wanted to remind you how frail it is and its limits. You ought to be conscious of its limits, sweeping generalizations such as "Everything that begins must have a Cause" which you often make, ought to be given their necessary qualifications. The manner in which you held up 'commonly observable physical laws' as an irrefutable authority whereas it is human understanding of that physical phenomenon we call physical laws.

I hope that you sha have some non-human experience that you will rely on to validate the true nature of reality.
Good luck with that.

DeepSight:




Is there anything that can be argued, propounded or contended, by human beings which is outside human experience of reality?

Yes.
You and others call it God, Infinite Oneness, etc.

DeepSight:


I hope that you sha have some non-human experience that you will rely on to validate the true nature of reality.
Good luck with that.

We cannot help it but interpret reality through our lenses/perspective.

If i may repeat bertrand russell's rebutal to this failure of an argument: ''every human that exists has a biological mother,mankind exist,therefore mankind must have a biological mother''. See he just proved clara exists afterall!

Uneducated in what Mr KoloOyinbo?
Worldly lingo.
No-one can understand you anyway, I have come into this forum with full intentions to only write about the Lord, given scriptures, and spreading the truth in the word of God across our nations.
And yes I have wasted some of my time listening to you.
I chase after the truth Mr KoloOyinbo, and when the Spirit of God shows me things, it makes my day. Don't forget I am narrow minded in word and truth.
And if you were really a born again Christian as you say you are? You wouldn't try to make yourself over intelligent in the flesh-comparing yourself above the word of God, No-sinful flesh knows the secrets' written in the bible-only the Holy Spirit can teach you the mysteries written in word and truth.
Even the simple minded will agree with that..

Its usually Christians who are religious that show little loyalty towards outsiders and more loyalty towards their Church-shutting everyone else out, Like in Acts 15, the Pharisees didn't believe others were saved' without being circumcised, It was the Lord who invited the uncircumcised Gentiles to be saved, Jews believed one was saved obeying the law.

Like the religious Pharisees they felt they were the only ones closer to God, and in modern days its those R.C.Church who believe they have the only true Church of God. Shutting everybody else out' even the elect from other denominational who believe in Christ also.
Haven't you notice, listen to yourself, you have shut me out, and refuse to share any truth in word about our Lord and savour.

Brothers in Christ always stick together no-matter what. True Christians fight the same spiritual war' everyday back to back Mr KoloOyinbo....
Unless you are religious, without the Spirit, how can one fight any spiritual war.

KoloOyinbo:


I never back down but as you never seem to understand there is little point in discussing anything with someone so rude, primitive, uneducated and just plain ignorant as yourself!

Where your recent post about Gods word came from when it had nothing whatsoever to do with what I was saying concerning the various Bible translations in accepted use and their suitability for any given situation is anybody's guess!

DeepSight:



I would like to find time to share some of my new perspectives on the meaning life.
Please leave Mallam Madam Kalam,
Salaam.

Anytime.

brocab:
Uneducated in what Mr KoloOyinbo?
Worldly lingo.
No-one can understand you anyway, I have come into this forum with full intentions to only write about the Lord, given scriptures, and spreading the truth in the word of God across our nations.
And yes I have wasted some of my time listening to you.
I chase after the truth Mr KoloOyinbo, and when the Spirit of God shows me things, it makes my day. Don't forget I am narrow minded in word and truth.
And if you were really a born again Christian as you say you are? You wouldn't try to make yourself over intelligent in the flesh-comparing yourself above the word of God, No-sinful flesh knows the secrets' written in the bible-only the Holy Spirit can teach you the mysteries written in word and truth.
Even the simple minded will agree with that..

Its usually Christians who are religious that show little loyalty towards outsiders and more loyalty towards their Church-shutting everyone else out, Like in Acts 15, the Pharisees didn't believe others were saved' without being circumcised, It was the Lord who invited the uncircumcised Gentiles to be saved, Jews believed one was saved obeying the law.

Like the religious Pharisees they felt they were the only ones closer to God, and in modern days its those R.C.Church who believe they have the only true Church of God. Shutting everybody else out' even the elect from other denominational who believe in Christ also.
Haven't you notice, listen to yourself, you have shut me out, and refuse to share any truth in word about our Lord and savour.

Brothers in Christ always stick together no-matter what. True Christians fight the same spiritual war' everyday back to back Mr KoloOyinbo....
Unless you are religious, without the Spirit, how can one fight any spiritual war.

You still did NOT address this point.
"Where your recent post about Gods word came from when it had nothing whatsoever to do with what I was saying concerning the various Bible translations in accepted use and their suitability for any given situation is anybody's guess!" Did you even understand what I was saying about the various translations?

Yet again you go off on a tangent. Your post demonstrate a lack of logical thought, tendency to misunderstand what is being said and no understanding of scripture whatsoever!

Are you on drugs Mr KoloOyinbo

KoloOyinbo:


You still did NOT address this point.
"Where your recent post about Gods word came from when it had nothing whatsoever to do with what I was saying concerning the various Bible translations in accepted use and their suitability for any given situation is anybody's guess!" Did you even understand what I was saying about the various translations?

Yet again you go off on a tangent. Your post demonstrate a lack of logical thought, tendency to misunderstand what is being said and no understanding of scripture whatsoever!

No one can answer the Kalam argument its about taking you away from Christ, It's another key to draw you away deeper away from Christ Himself. its rubbish..

Everything that exists has a cause.
The universe exists
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
God does not have a cause.
Therefore god does not exist.
Q.E.D.

*post stolen from reddit user /u/sit_up_straight

KoloOyinbo:
[size=1pt]WOW! A lot of intertwining debates here!

My thoughts currently are running in three strands:

1. From a logical point of view we have a problem as the first premise requires proof.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause;

How can we prove this? Especially as the cause - a Creator - would then require a cause. And that cause also requires a cause - ad infinitum!

Now this part here does not follow either:

From the conclusion of the initial syllogism, we can put forward the next part
The universe has a cause;
If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;

DONT GET ME WRONG. I do actually believe in a personal Creator but this flawed and incorrect logic is not proof. Anyone who studies logic for even a short while can demolish the argument as it is inconsistent within itself.

2. From an Astronomical point of view the posts I have read so far seen to have taken the stance of the Big Bang theory (I HATE that term with its silly connotations of explosion etc - it is an EXPANSION NOT AN EXPLOSION). One I actually agree with (as an ex astronomer) and that has the most observational evidence to support it. The are modifications to this theory of course (oscillating universe) and other theories (steady state) which don't seem to be addressed here.

It actually does not matter which theory you pick. None of them can be used as proof of a Creators existence NOR INDEED as proof that a creator does not exist.

Theology tells us (or attempts to tell us - depending on your own religious point of view or lack thereof) who made the Universe and why.

Science tell us HOW.

We must not make the all too common mistake of confusing WHY something happens with HOW something happens.

3. This is much more debatable (and an area where I would have MAJOR disagreement with the likes of Richard Dawkin) - It is inherently IMPOSSIBLE to prove that God exists - It is equally IMPOSSIBLE to prove that God does not exist. So any argument claiming to prove God's existence must therefore be flawed.

The lack of proof of the first premise and the logical gap and contradiction pointed out above show that this argument fails also.

On a personal note (and please feel very free to agree or disagree) while there are (to my mind) INDICATIONS pointing to a personal Creator they are not sufficient PROOF. I have analysed carefully WHY I choose to believe in God and come to this conclusion.
[/size]
I believe in God because to believe in God is the second most ridiculous idea in the Universe!!!!!!!

What is the MOST ridiculous?

Why - NOT to believe in God of course!

The greatest minds known to Humanity have been searching for a proof of Gods existence for thousands of years now and have not just failed but failed miserably. As a Christian that is a good thing!!!! A Christian believes that we are saved through FAITH/ If there was a proof, we would not need Faith!

I agree with most of what you said but I don't understand how you came to that conclusion. You acknowledge religious belief is solely based on faith but still assume it's less ridiculous that lack of...

DProDG:

I agree with most of what you said but I don't understand how you came to that conclusion. You acknowledge religious belief is solely based on faith but still assume it's less ridiculous that lack of...

In the absence of ANY form of actual proof and given that proof for EITHER stand (existence of God or Non existence of God) cannot by the nature of things exist we are left with only FAITH.

Both stances are ridiculous so I choose what I personally believe to be the less ridiculous the EXISTENCE of God.

On a personal note the Universe works because of many scientific laws and values that if changed even by a miniscule amount would render the Universe unworkable. This is NOT a proof of God or indeed anything else but SEEMS to be to be a INDICATION.

Just vary one of the physical constants in the Universe and see what would happen!

KoloOyinbo:


In the absence of ANY form of actual proof and given that proof for EITHER stand (existence of God or Non existence of God) cannot by the nature of things exist we are left with only FAITH.

Both stances are ridiculous so I choose what I personally believe to be the less ridiculous the EXISTENCE of God.

On a personal note the Universe works because of many scientific laws and values that if changed even by a miniscule amount would render the Universe unworkable. This is NOT a proof of God or indeed anything else but SEEMS to be to be a INDICATION.

Just vary one of the physical constants in the Universe and see what would happen!

Supposing you mean the christian God(and not the deistic), it brings in the bible with a lot of unsubstantiated and supernatural claims. Although you might have different interpretations to reconcile all that with reality, it comes down to it vs "I do not know", faith vs rationality.

Deism on the other hand simply comes down to the god of the gaps although I doubt that's what you mean.

In the case of the fine-tuning argument has long been debunked. For instance...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy1c7-CG6kk

DProDG:


Supposing you mean the christian God(and not the deistic), it brings in the bible with a lot of unsubstantiated and supernatural claims. Although you might have different interpretations to reconcile all that with reality, it comes down to it vs "I do not know", faith vs rationality.

Deism on the other hand simply comes down to the god of the gaps although I doubt that's what you mean.

In the case of the fine-tuning argument has long been debunked. For instance...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy1c7-CG6kk

Actually no, I am just referring to the concept of GOD in general.

The fine tuning is NOT an argument merely what I find as a personal indication. I was an astronomer for over 20 years.

Sorry but I don't follow ANY science or philosophy etc on youtube. If the points were worth anything at all they would be in an academic treatise. Youtube has too must amateur stuff and where it is correct it has been simplified so much to make it comprehensible to the layman that it is often next to useless.

Thanks for the interest.

MODIFICATION.

I did break my habit and watched a little of the video. It only took 30 seconds for this guy to make a mistake! LOL. About 26 seconds in he uses the word IF!

Then talks about possible and probable!

Didn't watch it to the end after that level of misunderstanding was displayed.

KoloOyinbo:

In the absence of ANY form of actual proof and given that proof for EITHER stand (existence of God or Non existence of God) cannot by the nature of things exist we are left with only FAITH.
Both stances are ridiculous so I choose what I personally believe to be the less ridiculous the EXISTENCE of God.
On a personal note the Universe works because of many scientific laws and values that if changed even by a miniscule amount would render the Universe unworkable. This is NOT a proof of God or indeed anything else but SEEMS to be to be a INDICATION.
Just vary one of the physical constants in the Universe and see what would happen!

That just tickles the imagination. It is either we have existence or not.

The idea of God itself is a loaded one. It is a metaphysical statement and since such statements are unprovable given volatility behind metaphysics, it is safe to conclude that Gods are human creations.

KoloOyinbo:


Actually no, I am just referring to the concept of GOD in general.

The fine tuning is NOT an argument merely what I find as a personal indication. I was an astronomer for over 20 years.

Sorry but I don't follow ANY science or philosophy etc on youtube. If the points were worth anything at all they would be in an academic treatise. Youtube has too must amateur stuff and where it is correct it has been simplified so much to make it comprehensible to the layman that it is often next to useless.

Thanks for the interest.

MODIFICATION.

I did break my habit and watched a little of the video. It only took 30 seconds for this guy to make a mistake! LOL. About 26 seconds in he uses the word IF!

Then talks about possible and probable!

Didn't watch it to the end after that level of misunderstanding was displayed.

The fine tuning of the universe/the fine tuning argument for God's existence, as long as the former gives you the conclusion("indication", they're pretty much the same thing.

You can't expect a generally accepted treatise on God's existence. I'm not exactly sure what your point with "if", "possible/probable" was but that's btw. Basically, the argument assumes there is only one possible way/form the universe could exist while ironically, it could have infinite forms with distinct laws.

Kay17:


That just tickles the imagination. It is either we have existence or not.

The idea of God itself is a loaded one. It is a metaphysical statement and since such statements are unprovable given volatility behind metaphysics, it is safe to conclude that Gods are human creations.

They/He/She/It COULD be (a) human creation(s). Or equally likely true! There is no way of testing and the greatest philosophers have sought for the answer to this for millennia, in vain.

A conclusion has not been found (and by the nature of things) cannot be found.

Not too sure what the 'either we have existence or not' refers to. It proves nothing EITHER way.

These threads are good fun though to see amateur philosophers discover for themselves what any useful University course will teach them in first year.

DProDG:


The fine tuning of the universe/the fine tuning argument for God's existence, as long as the former gives you the conclusion("indication", they're pretty much the same thing.

You can't expect a generally accepted treatise on God's existence. I'm not exactly sure what your point with "if", "possible/probable" was but that's btw. Basically, the argument assumes there is only one possible way/form the universe could exist while ironically, it could have infinite forms with distinct laws.

He based his argument on a statement beginning with the word IF! Thus rendering ALL that followed suspect.

KoloOyinbo:


They/He/She/It COULD be (a) human creation(s). Or equally likely true! There is no way of testing and the greatest philosophers have sought for the answer to this for millennia, in vain.

A conclusion has not been found (and by the nature of things) cannot be found.

I see these issues in terms of claims. God does not come down to inform us of his existence, rather humans like the clergyman stand up to speak for him. They say things like God exists. People actually put these God ideas out to the public. Our familiarity with the concept of God develops from what we are told about Him. Now if you consider these claims untenable by virtue of being metaphysical statements, it dawns that they are inventions despite their familiarity. So making it easy to dismiss as false.