felixomor:


"Or" does not mean "and" bros.
Please answer those questions,

I beg u

It's quite obvious you know nothing about atheism. Just so conspicuous bro. Honestly, your obviating questions to veering into another subject just to prove a point only put you in a conundrum.

jimmyjenseng:


It's quite obvious you know nothing about atheism. Just so conspicuous bro. Honestly, your obviating questions to veering into another subject just to prove a point only put you in a conundrum.

To show how blind u are, u dont even know I was using his own analogy to explain.
Please if u dont have anything aside ad hominem, stay away.

jimmyjenseng:


It's quite obvious you know nothing about atheism. Just so conspicuous bro. Honestly, your obviating questions to veering into another subject just to prove a point only put you in a conundrum.

Are you an atheist ?

KingEbukasBlog:


Well there are top 5 Arguments I think

1.Cosmological Argument

2. Moral Argument

3. Teleological Argument

4. Ontological argument

5. Leibeinz Contingency Argument

No atheist have been able to refute these arguments . These make theism very logical .

Noted!

felixomor:


To show how blind u are, u dont even know I was using his own analogy to explain.
Please if u dont have anything aside ad hominem, stay away.

I see you have problem with conjunction and its functions. The definition for atheism is well written on that post.
I made no mistake about your obviating questions. I've been observing your posts for some time now and the way you try to play smart only exposes the flaws in what you defend.
Smh....

jimmyjenseng:


I see you have problem with conjunction and its functions. The definition for atheism is well written on that post.
I made no mistake about your obviating questions. I've been observing your posts for some time now and the way you try to play smart only exposes the flaws in what you defend.
Smh....

Please keep quiet and just stay away from my mention.

KingEbukasBlog:


You can't ask for proof for the existence of God if you are an atheist . Atheism is all about the non existence of God . Theists say there is God , atheists say there is no God

It doesn't matter how many times u say it... It won't change the fact that atheism is either a belief or a rejection of a belief... Both the dictionary and philosophers attest to this fact... U don't like it but it's still the fact

randomperson:

It doesn't matter how many times u say it... It won't change the fact that atheism is either a belief or a rejection of a belief... Both the dictionary and philosophers attest to this fact... U don't like it but it's still the fact

Ur conversion of "or" to "and" is not hiding still.

Is it too early to draw the obvious conclusion that atheism is grossly illogical

5 pages now and even atheists don't know the meaning of atheism

KingEbukasBlog:
Is it too early to draw the obvious conclusion that atheism is grossly illogical

5 pages now and even atheists don't know the meaning of atheism

Even in the absence of religious argument.

Somebody is even subtly changing "OR" (used for equivalent synonymous items) in a definition to "AND" just in order to create an escape route.

Hmmmmm.

THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF AN INFINITE REGRESS IN TIME PRECLUDES AN ETERNAL UNIVERSE

If we are to assume that the universe never began to exist:

1. The universe has always been.

2. Therefore it is infinitely old.

3. Therefore an infinite amount of time has elapsed before today.

4. But day infinity of the universe couldn't have been reached(since any day you choose to call day infinity has an infinite number of days stretching behind it, and we have to pass those days before we get to day infinity).

5. The day after day infinity couldn't have been reached either. Neither could the day after that.

6. Therefore today couldn't have been reached.

7. But today has been reached.

8. Therefore the process of reaching it was not infinite.

9. Therefore the universe began to exist.

Cc: Desepiero, Vanceastro

DoctorAlien:
THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF AN INFINITE REGRESS IN TIME PRECLUDES AN ETERNAL UNIVERSE

If we are to assume that the universe never began to exist:

1. The universe has always been.

2. Therefore it is infinitely old.

3. Therefore an infinite amount of time has elapsed before today.

4. But day 1 of the universe couldn't have been reached(since any day you choose to call day 1 has an infinite number of days stretching behind it).

5. The day after the beginning couldn't have been reached either. Neither could the day after that.

6. Therefore today couldn't have been reached.

7. But today has been reached.

8. Therefore the process of reaching it was not infinite.

9. Therefore the universe began to exist.

ETERNAL still implies a time dimension.
A universe with no spacetime is not eternal, but TIMELESS

Vanceastro:
ETERNAL still implies a time dimension. A universe with no spacetime is not eternal, but TIMELESS

What is time?
Was there a universe without space? Where was it?
Meanwhile, eternal means having no beginning and no end.
Read my modified post though.

DoctorAlien:


What is time?

Was there a universe without space? Where was it?

Meanwhile, eternal means having no beginning and no end IN TIME.

Read my modified post though.

lol so you can't conceive of a spaceless, timeless universe, but you appreciate a spaceless, timeless creator? You see anything that applies to this Universe applies to God.

DoctorAlien:
THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF AN INFINITE REGRESS IN TIME PRECLUDES AN ETERNAL UNIVERSE

If we are to assume that the universe never began to exist:

1. The universe has always been.

2. Therefore it is infinitely old.

3. Therefore an infinite amount of time has elapsed before today.

4. But day infinity of the universe couldn't have been reached(since any day you choose to call day infinity has an infinite number of days stretching behind it, and we have to pass those days before we get to day infinity).

5. The day after day infinity couldn't have been reached either. Neither could the day after that.

6. Therefore today couldn't have been reached.

7. But today has been reached.

8. Therefore the process of reaching it was not infinite.

9. Therefore the universe began to exist.

Cc: Desepiero, Vanceastro

Stephen Hawkings and so many cosmologists have admitted that the universe began to exist

The atheists are the ones who are redefining "nothing" and claiming the univese created itself (logical absurdity) .

There are so many new inventions like the world ensemble , the ekpyrotic universe all have been debunked .

Vanceastro:

lol so you can't conceive of a spaceless, timeless universe, but you appreciate a spaceless, timeless creator? You see anything that applies to this Universe applies to God.

The presence of space and time makes the universe what it is .

Vanceastro:

lol so you can't conceive of a spaceless, timeless universe, but you appreciate a spaceless, timeless creator? You see anything that applies to this Universe applies to God.

I have just proven to you that the universe was caused i.e. it began to exist. The Cause of this universe must necessarily exist outside this universe, because the cause cannot be contained in its effect.

KingEbukasBlog:


The presence of space and time makes the universe what it is .

and spacetime is just a part of thr universe not all of it. So showing me a point in the past where spacetime collapses doesn't mean the universe began to exist at that point.

KingEbukasBlog:


Stephen Hawkings and so many cosmologists have admitted that the universe began to exist

The atheists are the ones who are redefining "nothing" and claiming the univese created itself (logical absurdity) .

There are so many new inventions like the world ensemble , the ekpyrotic universe all have been debunked .

The cosmological argument, properly presented, destroys every nonsense about an eternal universe.

KingEbukasBlog:


Well there are top 5 Arguments I think

1.Cosmological Argument

2. Moral Argument

3. Teleological Argument

4. Ontological argument

5. Leibeinz Contingency Argument

No atheist have been able to refute these arguments . These make theism very logical .

Really, with my limited knowledge of logic and philosophy, I can refute the first two arguments off the top of my head..
1. The cosmological arguments basically says that everything has a cause, the universe was caused by god, and god is the uncaused cause. And there are modified versions that include a god who doesn't have beginning in time and a god that's necessary.
Well, these premises are not consistent with only theism. They will also support multiple creators or perhaps a group of super intelligent aliens. Or a single story intelligent alien. The premises only lead to the conclusion that the earth was created and does nothing to show that the creator is god.
Again, the premises are in themselves faulty... So, while the argument is valid, it is not sound because the premises are unreliable. For example, if I say "A- All boys are humans; B- All humans are stupid. Conclusion- All boys are stupid." The argument is valid but unsound because the second premise is faulty... So when, u draw your conclusions from unproven premises like: God is necessary or god doesn't have a beginning in time, you are using faulty premises as the basis of your argument.

As regards the moral argument, will just ask this:
"Is killing wrong because God condemned it or did god condemn it because it is wrong."
If killing is wrong because God condemns it, then god acts without reason. If God condemns it because it is wrong then there is a higher reason than god
By the way, none of those arguments give a logical reason why there MUST be a god... not to talk of a god in the mold of the one believed by Christians

felixomor:


Even in the absence of religious argument.

Somebody is even subtly changing "OR" (used for equivalent synonymous items) in a definition to "AND" just in order to create an escape route.

Hmmmmm.

It seems u don't have access to a dictionary...
noun (plural atheisms)
(narrowly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs).
(broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist).
(very broadly) Absence of belief that any deities exist (including absence of the concept of deities).
(loosely) Absence of belief in a particular deity, pantheon, or religious doctrine (notwithstanding belief in other deities).

DoctorAlien:


I have just proven to you that the universe was caused i.e. it began to exist. The Cause of this universe must necessarily exist outside this universe, because the cause cannot be contained in its effect.

Again cause and effect requires time which doesn't exist before the universe. So again the universe did not begin to exist.
Also ya 9-point argument fails because you assume the Universe exists within a TIME DIMENSION. Actually it's the other way round. SPACE&TIME are dimensions that exist within this universe. Shikena.

Vanceastro:

Again cause and effect requires time which doesn't exist before the universe. So again the universe did not begin to exist.

What is time?

Also ya 9-point argumeny fails because you assume the Universe exists within a TIME DIMENSION. Actually it's the other way round. SPACE&TIME are dimensions are exist within this universe. Shikena.

Nope. I never said the universe exists within time. That is a strawman you constructed.

Refute my argument.

KingEbukasBlog:


That's not true .

Three physicists Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin proved that the universe had a finite past with the borde-guth-vilenkin theorem . This theory proves that spacetime cannot be extended to an infinite past but must reach a boundary at some time in finite past .

Allen Guth was asked in the debate between William Craig and Roy Carol if the universe had a begining and he clearly said he doesn't know. The universe might be eternal but no know knows. Wilam Craig as usual takes part of a study quote mines it, gives it his own meaning and claims that is what the author meant.

The 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper (pdf) shows that “almost all” inflationary models of the universe (as opposed to Dr. Craig’s “any universe”) will reach a boundary in the past – meaning our universe probably doesn’t exist infinitely into the past.

Dr. Craig seems to interpret this information as “the universe definitely began to exist” although that is a bit presumptuous. For example, this theorem doesn’t rule out Stephen Hawking’s no-boundary proposal which states that time may be finite without any real boundary (just like a sphere is finite in surface area while it has no “beginning”).

Furthermore, the author of the Arizona Atheist blog asked Vilenkin if his theorem with Guth and Borde proves that the universe had a beginning, and Vilenkin responded:

f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.

However, Craig’s main problem is that a beginning of the universe can still be described in scientific terms. Nothing in the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper suggests a beginning from “absolute nothingness” (as Craig often claims). In fact, the opposite is true. The authors write,

What can lie beyond the boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event.

This “quantum nucleation event” refers to a paper Vilenkin wrote in 1982 (pdf) which discusses the universe coming into being through quantum mechanics. Interestingly, many theists use Vilenkin’s paper as evidence that the universe came from “literally nothing” but Craig has already criticized this work.

Oddly, I’ve been unable to find any article of Craig’s (scholarly or otherwise) which actually quotes from the 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper. Instead he almost exclusively quotes a paragraph from Vilenkin’s 2006 book Many Worlds in One (amazon) which discusses the 2003 paper:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (pg. 176).
Now that’s a pretty straight forward quote which at least seems to favor Craig’s argument, but on the very same page Vilenkin writes,

"Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist.
Vilenkin then concludes this statement by suggesting that cosmic origins could be described in “purely scientific terms” – a task which he attempts in the chapter which follows."

https://www.google.com.ng/amp/s/debunkingwlc./2010/07/14/borde-guth-vilenkin/amp/

DoctorAlien:

What is time?



Nope. I never said the universe exists within time. That is a strawman you constructed.

Refute my argument.

you said something about the universe not being infinite OLD IN TIME. I am asking in what time dimension is that comparison taking place, in the same time dimension that collapses some 14 billions years ago? Smh

dalaman:


Allen Guth was asked in the debate between William Craig and Roy Carol if the universe had a begining and he clearly said he doesn't know. The universe might be eternal but no know knows. Wilam Craig as usual takes part of a study quote mines it, gives it his own meaning and claims that is what the author meant.

The 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper (pdf) shows that “almost all” inflationary models of the universe (as opposed to Dr. Craig’s “any universe”) will reach a boundary in the past – meaning our universe probably doesn’t exist infinitely into the past.

Dr. Craig seems to interpret this information as “the universe definitely began to exist” although that is a bit presumptuous. For example, this theorem doesn’t rule out Stephen Hawking’s no-boundary proposal which states that time may be finite without any real boundary (just like a sphere is finite in surface area while it has no “beginning”).

Furthermore, the author of the Arizona Atheist blog asked Vilenkin if his theorem with Guth and Borde proves that the universe had a beginning, and Vilenkin responded:

f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.

However, Craig’s main problem is that a beginning of the universe can still be described in scientific terms. Nothing in the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper suggests a beginning from “absolute nothingness” (as Craig often claims). In fact, the opposite is true. The authors write,

What can lie beyond the boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event.

This “quantum nucleation event” refers to a paper Vilenkin wrote in 1982 (pdf) which discusses the universe coming into being through quantum mechanics. Interestingly, many theists use Vilenkin’s paper as evidence that the universe came from “literally nothing” but Craig has already criticized this work.

Oddly, I’ve been unable to find any article of Craig’s (scholarly or otherwise) which actually quotes from the 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper. Instead he almost exclusively quotes a paragraph from Vilenkin’s 2006 book Many Worlds in One (amazon) which discusses the 2003 paper:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (pg. 176).
Now that’s a pretty straight forward quote which at least seems to favor Craig’s argument, but on the very same page Vilenkin writes,

"Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist.
Vilenkin then concludes this statement by suggesting that cosmic origins could be described in “purely scientific terms” – a task which he attempts in the chapter which follows."

https://www.google.com.ng/amp/s/debunkingwlc./2010/07/14/borde-guth-vilenkin/amp/

This article is pointless since Vilenkin admitted that their research indicates that the universe had a beginning since it had a finite past.

Its simple logic , if something has a finite past then it has a beginning .

KingEbukasBlog:


Well there are top 5 Arguments I think

1.Cosmological Argument

2. Moral Argument

3. Teleological Argument

4. Ontological argument

5. Leibeinz Contingency Argument

No atheist have been able to refute these arguments . These make theism very logical .

Athiest have debunked these arguments. I on my own have debunked the moral argument. You claimed you'll get back to it and ran away from it since last year.

Vanceastro:
you said something about the universe not being infinite OLD IN TIME. I am asking in what time dimension is that comparison taking place, in the same time dimension that collapses some 14 billions years ago? Smh

Where did the time collapse?

You have not answered my question: what is time?

And if I may add: how is it necessary to the existence of cause and effect?

KingEbukasBlog:


This article is pointless since Vilenkin admitted that their research indicates that the universe had a beginning since it had a finite past.

Its simple logic , if something has a finite past then it has a beginning .

You aren't listening to what they are saying. It's not simple logic. Their theorm doesn’t rule out Stephen Hawking’s no-boundary proposal which states that time may be finite without any real boundary (just like a sphere is finite in surface area while it has no “beginning”).

randomperson:

Really, with my limited knowledge of logic and philosophy, I can refute the first two arguments off the top of my head..
1. The cosmological arguments basically says that everything has a cause, the universe was caused by god, and god is the uncaused cause. And there are modified versions that include a god who doesn't have beginning in time and a god that's necessary.
Well, these premises are not consistent with only theism. They will also support multiple creators or perhaps a group of super intelligent aliens. Or a single story intelligent alien. The premises only lead to the conclusion that the earth was created and does nothing to show that the creator is god.

You just admitted the existence of God(s)

randomperson:
Again, the premises are in themselves faulty... So, while the argument is valid, it is not sound because the premises are unreliable. For example, if I say "A- All boys are humans; B- All humans are stupid. Conclusion- All boys are stupid." The argument is valid but unsound because the second premise is faulty... So when, u draw your conclusions from unproven premises like: God is necessary or god doesn't have a beginning in time, you are using faulty premises as the basis of your argument.

You didn't show why the premise is faulty .

randomperson:
As regards the moral argument, will just ask this:
"Is killing wrong because God condemned it or did god condemn it because it is wrong."
If killing is wrong because God condemns it, then god acts without reason. If God condemns it because it is wrong then there is a higher reason than god
By the way, none of those arguments give a logical reason why there MUST be a god... not to talk of a god in the mold of the one believed by Christians

This is just the Euthyphro dilemma in disguise and it is a false dilemma because God's own nature or character defines with is good .

dalaman:


You aren't listening to what they are saying. It's not simple logic. Their theorm doesn’t rule out Stephen Hawking’s no-boundary proposal which states that time may be finite without any real boundary (just like a sphere is finite in surface area while it has no “beginning”).

Stephen Hawking admitted he was wrong with his no-boundary proposal here : http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

KingEbukasBlog:


You just admitted the existence of God(s)




You didn't show why the premise is faulty .



This is just the Euthyphro dilemma in disguise and it is a false dilemma because God own nature or character defines with is good .

Is the sharia law God? It displays God's character according to muslims. Is it good?