Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,153,523 members, 7,819,881 topics. Date: Tuesday, 07 May 2024 at 04:50 AM

A Lecture For Atheists - Religion (8) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / A Lecture For Atheists (7947 Views)

Questions For Atheists ( Answer your easiest 5) / Yet Another Unanswered Question On Creation for atheists/scientists / Questions For Atheists!!! (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) ... (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: A Lecture For Atheists by maclatunji: 10:02am On Dec 25, 2013
Logicboy03:


You made a claim about God which science has no positioN on and you believe sceince supports your claim.

Is there a scientific conclusion on the existence of God in the first place? No, but you go ahead and hang your funny claims about god on science.


I made a logical argument agaimst the first cause argument but your reply was to claim that we donr know everything about the universe. That is not only a non seqiutur but a strawman as I never that I or ayone knows everything about the universe

Whilst you are here playing ostrich, other people are reading the article and opening their minds to reality. #Hehehehehe
Re: A Lecture For Atheists by Nobody: 10:02am On Dec 25, 2013
maclatunji:

Read my last post. Human knowledge of the universe is like the case of the 6 blind men of Indostan http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

It cannot be totally accurate, cannot suffice and at some point faith has to come in.


We know some things, and manythings we don't know, therefore, we should apply faith.


Mac, that is an unreasonable argument
Re: A Lecture For Atheists by sushieater: 10:02am On Dec 25, 2013
rationalmind:

Hahahaha, that's nairaland for you bro. Our views and thoughts evolve. Mine has evolved too.

Cool. I guess you're living up to your username.

Peace.

2 Likes

Re: A Lecture For Atheists by Nobody: 10:04am On Dec 25, 2013
maclatunji:

Whilst you are here playing ostrich, other people are reading the article and opening their minds to reality. #Hehehehehe



Is it me or is it that this guy came to troll atheists? Smh

2 Likes

Re: A Lecture For Atheists by Nobody: 10:09am On Dec 25, 2013
Logicboy03:


Is it me or is it that this guy came to troll atheists? Smh

grin grin I can imagine the frustration. These people can be very frustrating
Re: A Lecture For Atheists by Joshthefirst(m): 10:10am On Dec 25, 2013
sushieater:

Cool. I guess you're living up to your username.

Peace.
grin
Re: A Lecture For Atheists by cold(m): 10:11am On Dec 25, 2013
maclatunji:
I have claimed that God is independent of the rules of the universe because he created it and cannot rely on it. The science agrees with me.
Another fallacious & nonsensical argument. God cannot be taken out of the equation simply because you think it to be so. Here's something for you to chew on..
The old cosmological argument as a classical ‘proof’ for the existence of God is apparently alive and well. It is used in practically every debate for the existence of God that I’ve come across. They sometimes rewrite it a little, believing to have strengthened its points, but the argument remains the same. The argument seems to require both supposition, and circular reasoning, whilst attempting to seem logical. The argument is as follows:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

- In essence… you cannot get something from nothing.

I have several criticisms of this classical ‘proof’ for the existence of God that I’ll set out below, point by point.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
You may have noted several problems with the argument immediately, starting not with its first point, but with its overall premise that an infinite cannot possibly exist. The premise that an infinite cannot exist, in this case is negated by the idea that a creator was uncaused, and thus, infinite. On top of an infinite God, the argument presupposes that the first cause ‘created’ everything…. out of nothing. They attempt to argue that something from nothing is impossible, whilst arguing that something from nothing is possible, as long as an eternal overlord did it. They don’t in any way provide evidence for the presupposition that something – anything – is able to exist prior to time and space, or outside of time and space. And that’s a crucial point. They therefore have no logically sound base for their argument. We try to rationalise with them, debate respectfully, use grandiose philosophical terms on a level that they believe helps their cause, but I think perhaps we give the cosmological argument too much credit, when in fact its very fundamental premise is just a more eloquent rewording of: “Eternal sky man used magic“.

Secondly, the phrase “…that begins to exist” is vital to the flaw. It used to be simply “Everything has a cause”. Well, then, if everything includes itself, then we must say that a creator must also have a cause. This presented problems for the believer, and so the phrase “…that begins to exist” was added. But this addition isn’t free from flaws, in fact it multiplies them. It is clearly intense circular reasoning. It presumes two states of being. Things that begin to exist, suggests there are also things that don’t begin to exist, which suggests they’ve always existed, which exempts them from the entire argument. In turn, this means by splitting existence into two categories a) Things that begin to exist and by extension b) Things that don’t begin to exist, but exist anyway, those who use the cosmological argument defeat their own premise; that nothing can be infinite.

They are also trying to prove God, by exempting God from the argument. To put it a little more simply, it is like saying “Everything…. that is blue“. Everything encompasses itself, there is nothing excluded. But the addition of “..that is blue” suddenly changes the meaning of “everything” by exempting everything that isn’t blue. And so “…that begins to exist” exempts that which is presumed not to have a beginning, by which believers call “God”. The argument already presumes a God, whilst trying to prove a God. To put it simply, Point 1 can thus be rewritten as:
1. Everything, except God, has a cause.
Which means point 2. can be rewritten as:
2. The Universe (but not God) began to exist.
- If an exemption for “everything” exists – and the exemption is that which you’re trying to prove – then your argument is incomplete, and so it is flawed.

Also flawed, is the premise that everything has a cause. Hume argued that we can infer from our experience of houses, that an architect and builders are required for a house to exist. We know this from experience of how houses come to exist. But we have no experience of how universes – the chain itself, rather than the constituent parts – come to exist, and so it is not possible to draw the same inference as we would do for houses. In essence, causation applies to the constituent parts of the universe, but need not apply to the universe (and so, time) itself.

2. The universe began to exist.
This is a flippant attempt to link the beginning of the universe itself, to the beginning of everything within the universe, when in fact the two are separate. Causation requires time to exist. Therefore causation is a product of the universe, the universe need not itself be a product of the laws of causation observed within the universe. The argument “the universe began to exist” places the universe (the entire set, rather than the parts of the set) within itself, subject to the law of the parts of the set that it gave birth to.

There was no “before time“, there was no prior state of being in which the universe hadn’t “begun” to exist yet, and so there was never a possibility for something to exist in order to be the cause of the universe – and therefore time – itself. The word “begun” requires time. The word “before” requires time. The word “cause” requires time. If a cause existed, then time existed, which means the universe had already begun to exist.
To argue “you cannot get something from nothing” is meaningless when discussing the universe itself, because there has never been “nothing“, there has always been “something”.

Causality is linked necessarily to time. So the Kalam Cosmological argument, by including the phrase “…that begins to exist” suggests that something can exist outside of time and so has no cause, without actually providing evidence for that subtly made assertion. This is not a respectable argument for the existence of God, it is not a rational argument for the existence of God, and yet some of the key Theistic public speakers use it constantly. It isn’t in the slightest bit convincing.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
As noted above, this does not follow from the first two points, and therefore fails. It is a meaningless statement. Before making a case for the cosmological argument’s credibility, it seems to me that one must first produce the slightest piece of evidence that it is possible for something to exist outside of the all-encompassing confines of time and space. Which is of course both irrational, and self defeating. Existence requires time. And on that basis alone, the third point is irrational.

We non-believers simply say we do not know. Scientists are working on it. We just don’t know yet. In time, evidence will be gathered, theories formed, and conclusions drawn. It is simply not acceptable practice to notice a gap in our understanding, and place “God” without a significant amount of evidence for such an extraordinary claim, relying instead of horribly flawed philosophical talking points. The cosmological argument is one of those flawed talking points. It is nothing more than an eloquently formed synonym for “Eternal sky man used magic

2 Likes

Re: A Lecture For Atheists by Kay17: 10:12am On Dec 25, 2013
maclatunji:

Read my last post. Human knowledge of the universe is like the case of the 6 blind men of Indostan http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

It cannot be totally accurate, cannot suffice and at some point faith has to come in.

In essence you find faith more useful than knowledge and most of your reasoning is based on faith.

In the light of what joshthefirst has said about faith being absolute trust in God, do you toll that line?
Re: A Lecture For Atheists by Nobody: 10:22am On Dec 25, 2013
Nice work @cold
Re: A Lecture For Atheists by maclatunji: 10:41am On Dec 25, 2013
rationalmind:

Okay, let's see if I got it or not. You made an analogy of a child who doesn't know his mother who eventually meets someone claiming to be his mother. The child then says, no, no, you are not my mother, I have no mother.

Isn't that the analogy or is there something I'm missing?

Does the fact that the child in question does not accept her as his mother mean:

1. She is not his mother?

2.If it is proven that she is not his mother, does that mean he has no mother at all even if he doesn't know her?
Re: A Lecture For Atheists by maclatunji: 10:49am On Dec 25, 2013
Logicboy03:


We know some things, and manythings we don't know, therefore, we should apply faith.


Mac, that is an unreasonable argument

Hahahaha... In science an hypothesis or even theory serves as a bridge between what we know and what we do not know. If a scientist does not have faith in his theory, he would not postulate it even if he cannot prove it.

^All of this is beside the point. It is proven that human beings cannot truly understand the universe. Hence, there is no basis to say: "we will only believe when we have total proof". It is proven that the "total proof" is beyond your comprehension or capacity to comprehend.

At this stage, you must work within your constraints. #LOL
Re: A Lecture For Atheists by maclatunji: 10:52am On Dec 25, 2013
Kay 17:

In essence you find faith more useful than knowledge and most of your reasoning is based on faith.

In the light of what joshthefirst has said about faith being absolute trust in God, do you toll that line?

I find knowledge to be the door to faith. The more I study, the more my faith grows.

Putting absolute trust in God regarding what?
Re: A Lecture For Atheists by Nobody: 10:56am On Dec 25, 2013
maclatunji:

Does the fact that the child in question does not accept her as his mother mean:

1. She is not his mother?

Of course it doesn't. But will you blame the child for not accepting her as his mother?(Remember she provided no evidence). If your answer is yes, why? If no, then why do you think we should be blamed for not accepting God?

maclatunji: 2.If it is proven that she is not his mother, does that mean he has no mother at all even if he doesn't know her?

Of course not. Like I said in my initial reply. We have evidence that everyone has a mother. Therefore, the child will be silly to say he doesn't have a mother.

Unlike God, we have no evidence whatsoever for him. What we have are at best conjectures. Therefore, whoever says there is no God cannot be considered silly.
Re: A Lecture For Atheists by maclatunji: 10:58am On Dec 25, 2013
@Cold, your epistle has already been debunked. It has been established that whatever you are part of, you cannot totally master.

God is not a part of the universe. Hence, your epistle is Useless within this context. All those rules get thrown to the dustbin.
Re: A Lecture For Atheists by Nobody: 10:58am On Dec 25, 2013
maclatunji:

Hahahaha... In science an hypothesis or even theory serves as a bridge between what we know and what we do not know. If a scientist does not have faith in his theory, he would not postulate it even if he cannot prove it.

^All of this is beside the point. It is proven that human beings cannot truly understand the universe. Hence, there is no basis to say: "we will only believe when we have total proof". It is proven that the "total proof" is beyond your comprehension or capacity to comprehend.

At this stage, you must work within your constraints. #LOL

How has it been proven that human beings cannot truly understand this universe? I don't think I understand you
Re: A Lecture For Atheists by maclatunji: 10:59am On Dec 25, 2013
rationalmind:

Of course it doesn't. But will you blame the child for not accepting her as his mother?(Remember she provided no evidence). If your answer is yes, why? If no, then why do you think we should be blamed for not accepting God?



Of course not. Like I said in my initial reply. We have evidence that everyone has a mother. Therefore, the child will be silly to say he doesn't have a mother.

Unlike God, we have no evidence whatsoever for him. What we have are at best conjectures. Therefore, whoever says there is no God cannot be considered silly.

Did you read the post that my analogy was meant for?
Re: A Lecture For Atheists by MrTroll(m): 11:00am On Dec 25, 2013
maclatunji:

Hahahaha... In science an hypothesis or even theory serves as a bridge between what we know and what we do not know. If a scientist does not have faith in his theory, he would not postulate it even if he cannot prove it.

^All of this is beside the point. It is proven that human beings cannot truly understand the universe. Hence, there is no basis to say: "we will only believe when we have total proof". It is proven that the "total proof" is beyond your comprehension or capacity to comprehend.

At this stage, you must work within your constraints. #LOL
this is nonsense.

There is nothing like faith or belief in science.

All you, Mac have done here is simply making silly strawman arguments and lolling away your ignorance.

Where is it proven that humans cannot truly understand the universe?

Who has said they will believe when they have total proof?

Who has proven that total proof is beyond human comprehension?

What the heck is even this total proof?
Re: A Lecture For Atheists by maclatunji: 11:02am On Dec 25, 2013
rationalmind:

How has it been proven that human beings cannot truly understand this universe? I don't think I understand you

Read this: http://www.sol.com.au/kor/11_01.htm
Re: A Lecture For Atheists by maclatunji: 11:04am On Dec 25, 2013
Mr Troll: this is nonsense.

There is nothing like faith or belief in science.

All you, Mac have done here is simply making silly strawman arguments and lolling away your ignorance.

Where is it proven that humans cannot truly understand the universe?

Who has said they will believe when they have total proof?

Who has proven that total proof is beyond human comprehension?

What the heck is even this total proof?

This guy is confused. #LWKMD
Re: A Lecture For Atheists by Nobody: 11:06am On Dec 25, 2013
maclatunji:

Did you read the post that my analogy was meant for?

I don't know how that affects my answer. You used the analogy to respond to me saying you are just begging the question.
Re: A Lecture For Atheists by MrTroll(m): 11:07am On Dec 25, 2013
maclatunji: @Cold, your epistle has already been debunked. It has been established that whatever you are part of, you cannot totally master.

God is not a part of the universe. Hence, your epistle is Useless within this context. All those rules get thrown to the dustbin.
see ignorance on display. Mcheew!

Keep la laing.
Re: A Lecture For Atheists by Nobody: 11:15am On Dec 25, 2013
maclatunji:

Read this: http://www.sol.com.au/kor/11_01.htm


Hehehehe, this maclatunji na joke. Is this really your proof? The opinion of an anonymous website owner who used the subjective opinion of einstein to support himself. grin grin. The word "proof" don suffer for your hand.

Back to the argument itself, logicboy has answered you. If our rational minds and common sense cannot grasp the reality of this universe, then your belief in God already falls flat. In the sense that if God is the reality of this universe, your rational mind and common sense cannot grasp it. So, where did all "knowledge" about God come from?
Re: A Lecture For Atheists by maclatunji: 11:20am On Dec 25, 2013
rationalmind:

Hehehehe, this maclatunji na joke. Is this really your proof? The opinion of an anonymous website owner who used the subjective opinion of einstein to support himself. grin grin. The word "proof" don suffer for your hand.

Back to the argument itself, logicboy has answered you. If our rational minds and common sense cannot grasp the reality of this universe, then your belief in God already falls flat. In the sense that if God is the reality of this universe, your rational mind and common sense cannot grasp it. So, where did all "knowledge" about God come from?

Disprove this:

Quantum physics tells us that reality is far
beyond human perception and intuition.
In other words, our rational mind and
common sense are just not capable of
understanding the true nature of reality.

It is not by stringing words together.
Re: A Lecture For Atheists by Nobody: 11:25am On Dec 25, 2013
maclatunji:

Disprove this:

Quantum physics tells us that reality is far
beyond human perception and intuition.
In other words, our rational mind and
common sense are just not capable of
understanding the true nature of reality.

It is not by stringing words together.

Lol, I should disprove what you are yet to prove. Lol, you so much like begging the question.

You should first tell us how quantum physics says reality is beyond human perception and intuition.

When uve done that, we can start talking about disproving.
Re: A Lecture For Atheists by cold(m): 11:27am On Dec 25, 2013
maclatunji: @Cold, your epistle has already been debunked. It has been established that whatever you are part of, you cannot totally master.

God is not a part of the universe. Hence, your epistle is Useless within this context. All those rules get thrown to the dustbin.
In other words,i have no choice but to accept your postulations as fact..ok
Re: A Lecture For Atheists by wiegraf: 11:59am On Dec 25, 2013
maclatunji:

Disprove this:

Quantum physics tells us that reality is far
beyond human perception and intuition.
In other words, our rational mind and
common sense are just not capable of
understanding the true nature of reality.

It is not by stringing words together.

Lol. And later on your brah will come ban me for calling you a clown. Exactly how is this not stringing words together fatuously?

Nice to see your source display his level of intellectual prowess. The many predictions confirmed (no other theory has been confirmed to degrees of accuracy as the SM, EVER), I guess all the many scientists involved, from planck through Einstein to Weinberg today, the many thousands involved researching it eg cern and the lhc, are clueless? It being unintuitive (to some, mind you) doesn't in any way mean it is beyond our abilities. I grew up learning a certain family of languages, I suppose that means I can never learn Chinese which does just about everything differently, no?

As for the gray areas, like I said in my deleted post, left to you clowns spirit is responsible for sneezing.

Many of the people involved with this work are religious, you even note that, but fail to note they keep their faith out of their work. You though, great Mac, know better

You seem to worship ignorance. I'd recommend you stay out of matters that aren't your business, but that's a waste of time.

3 Likes

Re: A Lecture For Atheists by maclatunji: 12:10pm On Dec 25, 2013
rationalmind:

Lol, I should disprove what you are yet to prove. Lol, you so much like begging the question.

You should first tell us how quantum physics says reality is beyond human perception and intuition.

When uve done that, we can start talking about disproving.

I anticipated this: You see under quantum physics, different rules operate but if you insist on applying those rules to the world as humans perceive and understand it, it becomes something else:

One of the rules of quantum physics is:

The universe is interconnected with faster-
than-light transfers of information.

Compare that to Einstein's theory of relativety that says nothing can travel beyond the speed of light.
Re: A Lecture For Atheists by Nobody: 12:15pm On Dec 25, 2013
maclatunji:

I anticipated this: You see under quantum physics, different rules operate but if you insist on applying those rules to the world as human's perceive and understand it, it becomes something else:

One of the rules of quantum physics is:

The universe is interconnected with faster-
than-light transfers of information.

Compare that to Einstein's theory of relativety that says nothing can travel beyond the speed of light.


How does this prove reality is beyond human perception and intuition?

Scientists are busy working on the string theory aka "theory of everything" trying to reconcile the differences between quantum mechanics and theory of relativity and you are here telling them not to bother because reality and perception is beyond them.

Smh.
Re: A Lecture For Atheists by maclatunji: 12:20pm On Dec 25, 2013
Another rule under quantum physics is:

Your consciousness affects the behaviour of
subatomic particles

This one is the ultimate challenge: the implication is that- "If you are studying and are aware of it, it will change its behaviour".

What do you do? Accept that you cannot truly understand it for studying it would not yield the required information.
Re: A Lecture For Atheists by wiegraf: 12:47pm On Dec 25, 2013
maclatunji: Another rule under quantum physics is:

Your consciousness affects the behaviour of
subatomic particles

This one is the ultimate challenge: the implication is that- "If you are studying and are aware of it, it will change its behaviour".

What do you do? Accept that you cannot truly understand it for studying it would not yield the required information.

Lol no, that's just one interpretation. I dont eben think its the most supported one these days. Again, the model is incomplete. There is 'strangeness' involved with observing a system, which cannot be done without altering the system in some way mind you, and its state, no doubt, but that does not mean it's magic. Proper scientists are exploring various options eg multi verse and hidden dimensions (which would especially hinder human perception, or that of any conceivable intelligent life form even, but still definitely not beyond our understanding. Also note; perception, not understanding) a LA string theory and others to explain these.

Keep your proud ignorance to yourself, don't get in their way with your silly godidit

3 Likes

Re: A Lecture For Atheists by GeneralShepherd(m): 1:39pm On Dec 25, 2013
If you could reason with religious people on nairaland then they won't be called religious people!

Sometimes it seems they stick there fingers in their ears and keep repeating the mantra 'god did it'

(1) (2) (3) ... (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (Reply)

When The Grace Of GOD Becomes A Roller-coaster To Hell. / Myths And Truths Of Islam[An Exposé] / Rome's Sodomite Pedophile Agenda Subtle Sodomization Of African Children

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 90
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.