₦airaland Forum

jayriginal: In the sense that I am not convinced of the existence of god, yes I am an atheist.

To the issue at hand, supposing it is proven for a fact that thoughts could positively or even negatively affect water crystals, I see no reason for it being decisive in the eternal debate about the existence of god.

Once an explanation can be found for it there would be no need to invoke god as we would know exactly how it works. It will simply be a fact.

I have read in some occultic books that humans radiate certain frequencies which can be transmitted and then picked up by others who are "tuned" in.
ASSUMING, this is proven it will simply be an established fact. Nothing else.
It will no more point to the existence of god than the "conscience" does.

If it were proven, do you not think that that could be highly suggestive of the existence of non-physical influence on the material world - and as such, infer the existence of a bigger reality than that apprehended by the strict materialist atheist?

^ ^ ^ Why is it possible to think of thought control computing but not possible for water crystals to be affected by thought? Do you not realize that exactly the same principles are at play? Thought affecting matter, its the same. At all events, if thoughts can conceivably control computing, that straightaway means that there are principles in nature that make such possible. You thus cannot countenance one and scoff at the other.

^ Just saying what would qualify as an uncaused cause.

ramalot: And yes, i think everything has a cause like we both agree, now tell me how exactly you KNOW that your god is exempt from a cause.

Lets imagine that this universe was actually constructed by beings just like us from another universe, who had so advanced that they commenced universe-engineering, planetary engineering and even life-engineering. Let's imagine this universe is their experiment. Now such beings would be "God" to us. And they would still require a cause.

If we can look at towards a cause of ALL things - a cause which was the cause even of the "God" described above, a root cause of ALL existence - now, that cause, is what I would call "God", and nothing else!

@ Ramalot -

^ ^ ^ Whoops! Looks like twas me who misunderstood him on the big b.ang!

ramalot: Sir, how can you possibly reconcile the bold parts of your text?

Really? On the one hand, you are talking about "science is a work of god," and on the other, the big b@ng or anything for that matter, sounds "too mythical" for you?

Let me put it as mild as possible: IT REQUIRES YOU TO BE GLUTTONOUSLY FIXATED ON "THE MYTHICAL" TO BELIEVE IN GOD. so if you believe in any god, you CAN NOT at the same time debunk ANYTHING for being even remotely 'mythical.'

I dont think he said the big b.ang sounds mythical. If you would slow down your anti-God reflex a little and read carefully, you would see that what he wrote was that the big ba.ng coming out of nothing is what sounds mythical to him.

He may not know that the bi.g bang is actually not said to "come out of nothing" - it is said to proceed from the point of a singularity. But I don't think that this changes the pith of his comment: namely that that event, in his mind (and I agree) must have required a cause, or triggering factor which we as yet do not know. For him, the cause or triggering factor is God - and that's not a ridiculous view to have, or is it?

Let me just say that when you say that it requires myth to believe in God, that actually depends on what a person's perception of God is. If a person sees God as a big man living in the clouds, that may be myth. If a person sees God as a causative and creative principle at the root of all existence - that certainly doesn't sound like myth to me.

Cheers.

Martian: I'm not putting scientist on a pedestal or agreeing with everything they say

Good. To be fair, neither does Jay.

but you were quick to discard the real scientist

I need to be clear that my comments were directed at his definition of "nothingness". Not him as a person or the generality of his works. Yes, I used words such as Joker, but i'm sure Jay understood it was specific to that position we were discussing in that thread.

but you don't see "arrant nonsense" in this water crystal business.
I just find it amusing.

I think I was the first to raise my hand in my OP by pointing out the study that showed no results for his claims. Infact it was fear of you that was part of my motivation for so doing o!

That's fair enough isn't it?

Need I think the idea "arrant nonsense"? Why? Surely you know that technologies that work with thought are already being developed. That suggests that the idea of thoughts interacting with the physical world is not necessarily strange or unnatural or unscientific.

Another very interesting video.

Water has Memory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=KKLO3eQ81tc

Caveat: But also contains the work of Masaru Emoro - whose work the jury is still out on. As well as relates experiences some of which are unverifiable. But good to watch nonetheless.

^ Yes indeed. No quarrelling with that. You asked someone a question, just offered my own view.

Martian: If you insist on intelligent design, then there must be a purpose? What is the purpose of your god(whatever it is that intelligently designed the universe) ?

Self-Expression

Why do you think it's singular?

By definition an ultimate cause is singular.

Martian: @both

About the topic, I think it's just human hubris to think our thoughts or prayers can alter the molecular structure of anything. I'm still reading about it though.

Can you consider teh question I put to Jay? -

I was wondering. . . .IF it is proven that indeed for example, thoughts could create beautiful water crystal shapes. . . I was wondering if such a thing could or would be decisive or irrelevant in the mind of the atheist, regarding the existence of God.

Please note the "If".

^ ^ ^ Haba, easy na, did you not read my OP? i ALREADY acknowledged the criticism and I even cited the wiki page where a large verification test was done on his ideas with negative results. Here is what I wrote -

Deep Sight: So let me be the first to shoot down the work of Masaru Emoto by referring to the studies, debunking and criticisms stated here -

"A better-controlled "triple-blind" follow-up study published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration did not yield positive results. More than 1,900 of Mr. Emoto's followers focused gratitude on water bottles in a vault over a period of three days. The water was then frozen and compared to two different sets of controls in a very elaborate protocol. Crystals from all three groups were not, on average, considered to be particularly beautiful (scoring 1.7 on a scale of 0 to 6, where 6 was very beautiful). Crystals from the experimental group were also rated slightly less beautiful than a set of controls. An objective comparison of contrast did not reveal any significant differences among the samples."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto

Any takers?

Note the bolded above! So it appears that you did not read the OP through, did you?

As regards Jay's Nobel laureate, I retain my stand. His Nobel Prize does not entitle him to spew arrant nonsense. I must be specific about the nonsense I refer to - not the genrality of his work. Jay knew I was speaking specifically about the man's definition of "nothingness" and his ascription of properties to "nothingness" such as "instability" , also calculating the somethingness/ nothingness probability ratio, and other such balderdash.

I am certain you yourself would not be inclined to agree that "nothingness" has properties? Please let us not continue this religiosification of science such that scientists are now priests and nobles in the religion of science and their word now becomes inviolable truth! You cannot criticize me for calling nonsense for what it is - unless you will tell me that the ascription of properties to "nothingness" is not nonsensical.

Its that simple. Or will you say it is blasphemous for a non-scientist to take a view on a scientist's theory or proposition? Is it "not allowed" to criticize Nobel winning scientists? Are they off limits for criticism? Very soon we will have a fully Talibanised science community along with its hordes of talibanised adherents, if we are not careful here!

But hey, let's try not to derail this thread at such an early stage.

Thanks Jay. I dont know if you are an atheist, but I was wondering. . . .IF it is proven that indeed for example, thoughts could create beautiful water crystal shapes. . . I was wondering if such a thing could or would be decisive or irrelevant in the mind of the atheist, regarding the existence of God.

Atheists?

I once attended a workshop where the relationship between words, thoughts and even music - to forms of water crystals was extensively discussed.

Is it possible that indeed our words and thoughts do influence the shapes of such things as water crystals? If they do, surely this should have profound implications for the mind of the strictly materialist atheist and should provoke a rethinking of one's entire worldview?

Here are some links on the work of Japanese reseacher - Masaru Emnoto, who claims that indeed water crystals are affected by words and thoughts -

http://www.unitedearth.com.au/watercrystals.html


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnbZN54IZNE

http://www.spiritual-knowledge.net/articles/human-word.php

I do realize ofcourse, that the hardened materialist will reject this outright and also reprimand me for promoting "psuedo-science", "silly urban legends" and other such. So please, ogas (Martian?) hold ya fire. Let us discuss first if there is any possibility in this first, before thinking outwards. I do not claim to know anything on this subject, please!

So let me be the first to shoot down the work of Masaru Emoto by referring to the studies, debunking and criticisms stated here -

"A better-controlled "triple-blind" follow-up study published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration did not yield positive results. More than 1,900 of Mr. Emoto's followers focused gratitude on water bottles in a vault over a period of three days. The water was then frozen and compared to two different sets of controls in a very elaborate protocol. Crystals from all three groups were not, on average, considered to be particularly beautiful (scoring 1.7 on a scale of 0 to 6, where 6 was very beautiful). Crystals from the experimental group were also rated slightly less beautiful than a set of controls. An objective comparison of contrast did not reveal any significant differences among the samples."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto

Any takers?

Beaf: Exactly! For me, its an opposition party like ACN actually defining true federalism as meaning greater dependence on the FG through increased awuf money that really gets my goat. Why go through all the motions and hypocritical soundbytes to make a na'ked bid for awuf?
Everybody across the board is casting beady eyes on a piece of awuf oil loot.

Nigeria really lacks leadership at state and LG levels. Aside from Akpabio who is spending 83% of his budget on capital projects, there doesn't seem to be anyone remotely interested in in developing the cadres of govt that are directly responsible to the people.
We might mention the likes of Lamido, Chime, Amaechi, Fashola and Oshiomole, but none comes remotely close to the bar Akpabio has set.

I feel a lot of pain from realising that most people do not even have a clue about what their LG and state govt reponsibilities to them are, talkless of them having the slightest understanding of the cogs that make the wheel of development spin.

I pity the way this country is shaping to turn out in the next decade or so when oil is projected to lose market importance.

Fair enough, but whats the point developing greater income from certain sources at the state level if the larger percentage of it will revert to the Federation under the laws? What does the constitution say on monies sourced from mineral wealth for example?

I think the first step towards encouraging greater local income generation will be to fix the laws to make certain that the localities have the first bite on what they create - whilst a minimalist tax thereon reverts to the Federation. If any.

^ Seems lost on you that all knowledge can only ever be "as far as we know". Enjoy.

^ ^ ^ Lolz. Convince yourself bro. You wrote out the "as far as we know" version, didnt you?

Good! So As far as we know, the CA is right and valid and your suppositions are wrong.

Wake me up when we know different.

*snorring* zzzzzzzzzzzz

[Dreaming]: Oh dear, this fellow still evades the "nothingness" which has properties such as instability. This fellow still celebrates those who say that. This fellow is yet to give an example of a single. . . yawn, this dream is boring. . . .

^^^ Everything is as far as we know. We can only work with how far we know. So, since you accept that "as far as we know", those premises are correct, then you are the one who has ceded the debate> As far as we know, you are wrong. Period.

When we know something else, then YOU can come back with the voodoo, thanks.

Repeated Post. Deleted.

Repeated Post. Deleted.

Repeated Post. Deleted.

This is actually one of the strangest conversations I have ever had on this forum. I doubt that I have ever been confronted with a greater degree of bizarre suppositions and willfull ostrich-playing than I have seen on this thread. At this point it is obvious that we are not in a thousand years going to see eye-to-eye on this issue, but before I let the matter finally rest, I need to point out and restate a number of things. I am certain you will still play the ostrich and refuse to see that which is unspeakably simple, but I will set them all out for the sake of the reader who may happen upon this thread at any time in the future.

To be honest, I don’t think that I can successfully mention all the gravely strange and terrifyingly illogical suppositions which you have advanced in this discussion. Compounded by the, might I say, cowardly, and at times contradictory refusal to support that which you say. In one breath you say you have no need to rely on science for anything that you say: this informs your refusal up till date to advance even a single example of an uncaused material thing. I think that this is most cowardly and even unsporting. But it pales into insignificance beside the fact that in another breath, the self-same YOU, produce for me the writings of Stenger, in which he makes mention of supposedly uncaused physical phenomena. When I ask you to discuss these: you again balk, and say that you are not interested. Well then, kind sir, please refrain from cutting and pasting things to me which you then proceed to state you are not interested in discussing! That comes across as both cowardly and dishonest, and I sincerely mean no insult there bro. It is rather unseemly that we would have a discussion which devolves on these self same issues: and you would repeatedly claim that you have no need to give a single example of that which you advance: you would then subtly do so by quoting someone else; and then bluntly refuse to discuss that which you have quoted.

I have had a lot of trouble on this forum with people who have conducted themselves in a similar manner. In all cases they end up saying the very same things about me which you are now saying: namely that I am deliberately misconstruing their words, and other such. In my view, the truth is simply that people do not like the appearance of that which they themselves have uttered once I show them the logical implications of their very own words.

There are many things which you have said explicitly on this thread: and which you now are appearing to deny. In this post, I will not bother to quote them: once I am done in this post, I will reserve my next post to extracting those quotes and shewing them unto thee, that thou mayest behold for thyself that which thou hast done and said. For my part, let me here accept that yes, you were right that I said the Cosmological Argument was the best argument. I didn’t remember my exact words, and I accept that. At all events, it is an excellent argument in my view: and it stands to common reason and logic. And yes, I do emphatically reject your notion that it is based on assumptions – that is in itself an eminently absurd notion – and your notion that it is “junk” is beyond untenable: it is unintelligible.

The Pith of the Discourse

You assert that the Cosmological Argument is based on ‘assumptions.’ I say that it is not. I say that it is based on that which we observe as common place in all that we see.

You assert that we cannot rely on that which we observe and know because it is possible that we may know differently tomorrow. I assert that until we know differently, we cannot assume that which we currently observe to be false. This only stands to reason. The only person working with assumptions here is the person who hinges his argument on an imagination about futuristic knowledge which he knows nothing of. His basis for assuming that current knowledge could be rendered false tomorrow is the fact that some pieces of knowledge have been rendered false in the past. He is making assumptions. But he alleges that the man who stands firmly on currently observed and commonsensical knowledge, is the one arguing from ignorance. This is frankly unbelievable.

Now lets take it step by step again.

In discussing the validity of the Cosmological Argument, we naturally assess the premises upon which it is built. Those very premises are what you describe as assumptions. It beggars belief for you to be able to sit poker faced and call basic principles observed in everyday existence “assumptions.” It seems to me that the weight of your very absurd statement is lost on you. You fail to recognize that your very existence is predicated on the so called ‘assumption’ that you now deride. Because the fact of the matter is that you, Mr. Jayriginal, and every single thing, person or process that you have known and interacted with since you were born – ALL operate within causative chains. As such the law of cause and effect is hardwired into all that we know of and observe. As such it is staggering that anyone would refer to the law of cause and effect in material phenomena as “as assumption.”

It is sad, that people force themselves into making such eminently absurd statements simply on account of a desperation to deny causality in the universe: and therewith perhaps deny the existence of God.

My friend: If I’ve said it once, i’ve said it a thousand times; the first premise of the cosmological argument is nothing but the law of cause and effect. The same law operative in the fact that nothing may move without a triggering factor. These are so basic, and so unfathomably commonsensical, that I still cannot believe I am writing pages and pages in trying to make a fellow man see that he cannot sit back and deride these as assumptions. These laws are so intrinsic to the nature of reality, and so commonsensical that you must understand my strain, when I am then called upon to “adduce proof” of same! It is frankly staggering, that you cannot see that any person making suggestions against basic causality is rather the person who needs to adduce proof.

All he needs to do is produce one single example of an uncaused material thing.

Now rather than do that, you, who are arguing against basic and commonly observed causality, sit back and state that you have no need to adduce even a single example!

Astonishing!

However it is obvious that the sources you cite do not agree with you on that score. They clearly recognize the need to adduce examples of their staggering claims. That is why you have had various people citing examples such as virtual particles, radioactive decay, and proton decay, as uncaused phenomena. I said, very well, let us discuss this, and what’s your reaction? No! “I don’t rely on science! I have no need for examples! Etc!”

Say what you will, but that just amounts to throwing in the towel and shirking the debate. I retreat from nothing: you repeatedly retreating from discussing these casts your position in very poor light – it makes it abundantly obvious that you simply dread the fact that these would be shown up to be nonsensical propositions in the same way as virtual particles being uncaused has been shown to be not just nonsensical, but frankly ediotic. I opened a thread to discuss the radioactive decay thing, again, you balked. You say you are not interested. And in the OP there, I showed that I could not see how that adds up. Silence from you when the science comes up. And yet you quote for me the credentials of others and expect me to thereby take your argument seriously? The truth is that you have said one big fat nothing throughout this thread! “I don’t need examples. I don’t rely on science. I don’t need proof” etc. That amounts to zero over ten, son. You aint said nada. Probably because your argument is nada.

So that is the first and most basic point in this discussion: namely that the first premise of the Cosmological Argument is nothing but a repetition of the law of cause and effect: the self same rule observable in all motion about us. If you wish to call it an assumption, then you necessarily call the law of cause and effect an assumption. You necessarily also call the laws of motion nothing but assumptions. The second premise follows naturally and holds true: it holds true even if one argues that the singularity always existed: it holds true for the simple reason that, whatever it was, the expansion called the big bang was movement. As such, it required a trigger.

Now I am painfully struck by the fact that the atheistic scientist who derides mythical religious notions, in his desperate bid to deny the existence of a primordial causative factor, proceeds to tender the most magical and unscientific notions imaginable: movement without any trigger, expansions without any causation, voodoo and black magic of the most laughable kind: and you sit here and expect me to take these notions seriously. What do you do? You begin to cite to me the academic qualifications of the people who say these things. And by the way, yes, that is nothing but appealing to authority. I see no reason why else you would set out their academic or other qualifications within the context of this debate. Frankly, their qualifications are useless. If they peddle ridiculous notions such as these, they are dunderheaded dolts who have wasted their time being educated in the first place. YES: NA ME TALK AM.

Now when these things are put to you, you assert that one is advancing an argument from ignorance. You fail to make the most elementary distinction between proven concepts and unproven concepts. In the notion that you advance, every single piece of knowledge in mankind’s history is nothing but arguments and statements from ignorance. Because you fail to recognize that everything we know, and will ever know, is “as far as we know”. That is so simple, I honestly don’t know how it could elude you. We can only know as far as we know. As such, the term “as far as we know” is a valid prefix to every single statement that we can make. In your rendition of things, this means that every statement that we can make is only made from ignorance. That is wrong: the statements are made from that which we know: if you know differently, dunk the proof on the table son, it’s that simple.

Having said this, yes, I accept your rendition of the CA as you wrote it –

AS FAR AS WE KNOW, Whatever begins to exist has a cause
AS FAR AS WE KNOW, the Universe began to exist
therefore AS FAR AS WE KNOW, the Universe has a cause.

Works for me!

That simply means that “As far as we know, your position is and remains wrong.”

Until and unless proven otherwise.

Simples.

Just so you recognize how tedious you are being, I once advanced the simple equation 0 + 0 = 0 to an atheist on this forum. Such a simple and obviously true equation. He raked up a storm about it – screaming that that was only “as far as we know” and could be wrong elsewhere. Quaint! Now its your turn I guess. Perhaps if I tell you that I am typing this text using my fingers on a keyboard, you will remind me that that is only as far as we know. Ride on.

Now just a postscript on “nothingness”. “Nothingness” is not “the simplest state of things” or some other such hogwash recalibrated in different words. Nothing is exactly what the word states: nothing at all. By very definition, it is non existent. It is thus beyond absurd to ascribe properties such as instability to “nothingness.” It’s nonsensically silly. I don’t care who wrote it or how many prizes they won. Its dirty, empty, clueless frog spin, and I will not have it.

Tragedy is, you, who wish to sit with science (whilst refusing to discuss science), are the one who offers up this pot of ludicruous voodoo whilst attempting to debunk simple commonsense, and calling such common sense “assumptions”.

^ ^ ^ You cannot say that that which is observed in every single thing about us (causative chains) is "unproven" or "an assumption". That is the fundamental falsehood which you peddle which is shocking and untenable.

And, Stenger's definition of "nothing" is, and remains, frankly nonsensical. You cannot run away from that simply by citing his credentials. That's just an appeal to authourity. I asked you directly if "nothing" can have properties? You shied away from that and began to cite his credentials. That joker described "nothingness' as being "unstable". That is spin: and lousy spin at that; and you ought to have the courage to call it out for what it is.

Later.

Finally, your answers completely evaded the core contradictions I pointed out. You simply issued denials and then wrote on non-related matters. Address the contradictions squarely. One of them is -

1. You accept the law of cause and effect for material things

2. You accept that the universe is a material thing

3. You reject the first premise of the cosmological argument as a baseless assumption

4. And yet the first premise of the cosmological argument is simply a repetition of the law of cause and effect - which you say you accept!

I am mildly surprised on your reaction to the water analogy. You totally missed it. The analogy was directed at showing your mis-use of the "as far as we know" qualification.

All knowledge, my friend, will eternally remain "as far as we know".

That cannot render all knowledge "arguments or statements from ignorance."

If that were the case, my saying that "As far as we know, Jayriginal is a human being" will simply be a statement from ignorance, no?

ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary" ), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
BASIC ARGUMENT
Arguments that appeal to ignorance rely merely on the fact that the veracity of the proposition is not disproven to arrive at a definite conclusion. These arguments fail to appreciate that the limits of one's understanding or certainty do not change what is true. They do not inform upon reality. That is, whatever the reality is, it does not “wait” upon human logic or analysis to be formulated. Reality exists at all times, and it exists independently of what is in the mind of anyone. And the true thrust of science and rational analysis is to separate preconceived notion(s) of what reality is, and to be open at all times to the observation of nature as it behaves, so as truly to discover reality.

Actually, reading this definition of "Argument from ignorance" its very obvious that you are the one it applies to; for you are the one declaring that we do not know what may be disproven tomorrow. That is surely a cute argument from ignorance is it not? Note also that it refers to relying on the fact that a proposition is not disproven yet. That infers a sort of argument where a non-proven assertion is made, and then backed up with the fact that it is not disproven yet. You have to understand that it cannot refer to proven and observed phenomena. Because if it does, then there is no use in saying or writing or even thinking anything at all, as all such will be branded statements or thoughts from ignorance.

You have interpretedx this very very very wrongly, my friend.

The transition of nothing-to-something is a natural one, not requiring any agent. As Nobel laureate physicist Frank Wilczek has put it, "The answer to the ancient question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' would then be that 'nothing' is unstable."29 In the non boundary scenario for the natural origin of the universe I mentioned earlier, the probability for there being something rather than nothing actually can be calculated; it is over 60 percent.30

In short, the natural state of affairs is something rather than nothing. An empty universe requires supernatural intervention— not a full one. Only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there is no God.

This last, is the most amazing piece of illogic I have ever encountered in my life.

In the first place, the writer has ZERO understanding of the concept of "nothing." He has assigned properties to "nothingness" - such as that it is "unstable"! Wow. I didn't know that "nothingness" could have properties! He goes further to say that the probability of something versus nothing even has a calculation.

This is spin: and pathetic spin at that. Do tell me you recognize spin when you see it. I certainly hope you dont have a knee-jerk approval of every pseudo-scientific write-up that simply is anti-God's existence.

It's simply horrible, twisted and also very ignorant. If you agree with that which is written here, do let me know, and we can then see further.

Good grief.

In the first write up that you posted for me, I have seen a lot of sad illogicalities. However given the length of the article I am not disposed to respond line by line. I will simply tell you the primary reason I must discountenance it as poor and of no use to this discussion, and then I will extract two short paragraphs relating to the Cosmological Argument.

The primary reason I discard the entire write-up is that it states that it is addressing itself against the view that the universe must have required a super-natural miraculous event to have caused it.

This is pointless for me because I do not believe in any supernatural or miraculous events.

I believe that everything is natural and follows logic, including God itself.

In his writings, Craig takes the first premise to be self-evident, with no justification other than common, everyday experience. That's the type of experience that tells us the world is flat. In fact, physical events at the atomic and subatomic level are observed to have no evident cause. For example, when an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause of that event. Similarly, no cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus.

This is shocking reasoning actually. It often surprises me the way people dig up very mediocre writings with very poor logic and then refer to such as some sort of authourity. Much the way people point to Richard Dawkin’s writings – which are frankly kindergarten-ish discourses.

Just look at the above. I will break it down and comment on it.

It says –

“In his writings, Craig takes the first premise to be self-evident, with no justification other than common, everyday experience. That's the type of experience that tells us the world is flat.

Just look at this, and for the sake of Helen of Troy, please bring out your honest hat. This statement infers that observations based on common, everyday experience are not to be trusted. Is this your view, Jay? Do you think for example that our common everyday observation that people need to breathe in order to survive should perhaps be derided as an argument or statement from ignorance?

This writer is inferring that relying on common everyday experience leads to conclusions such as a flat earth. Is this correct? I think verily not. In the first place, the flat earth notion was wrong not because people relied on common experience – it was wrong because they didn’t rely on the proper common experience. The proper common experience would simply have been something like looking round at the circular horizon, and several other apt common experiences that ought to have shown a flat earth notion to have been wrong. As such, the mere fact that people sometimes select wrong experiences to decide their conclusions and therefore come to wrong notions DOES NOT IN ANYWAY MEAN THAT IT IS BAD, WRONG, OR ILLOGICAL TO RELY ON COMMON EXPERIENCE AND OBSERVATION IN DRAWING CONCLUSIONS

Indeed, I might ask you what is to be relied on, if not such?

Your write further states –

“In fact, physical events at the atomic and subatomic level are observed to have no evident cause. For example, when an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause of that event. Similarly, no cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus.”

I would invite you that we should take this up in a thread I opened some days ago specifically for such –

https://www.nairaland.com/906545/radioactive-decay-as-argument-existence

Craig has retorted that quantum events are still "caused," just caused in a non predetermined manner—what he calls "probabilistic causality." In effect, Craig is thereby admitting that the "cause" in his first premise could be an accidental one, something spontaneous—something not predetermined. By allowing probabilistic cause, he destroys his own case for a predetermined creation.

I think this is wrong for the simple reason that it leaps over the first and most fundamental question of the creation riddle: why something instead of nothing? There must be a something in existence – of whatever nature – before things can happen “accidentally” to such a “something.” This is why I say these write-ups are kindergartenish. Do accidents happen to, within, or from a “nothing”?

I see the final installment has some thoughts on this question, but you will agree it simply attempts to wish the question away and does not in anyway answer it! Indeed the final paragraphs are the worse pieces of spin, illogic and pseudo-science I have ever seen in my life. Its not necesasry to believe in God, but its shameful for people to go to the length of such twisted spin and obvious illogic simply to murder the God they anyway claim is non-existent.

Quote from Jayriginal”

X
This is very misleading. The burden of proof cannot rest with me. YOU are the one who advanced the CA as the most convincing argument for the existence of god. The burden is therefore on you. You might write pages fro here to Jupiter and the burden will not shift until you effectively discharge it which you have failed to do.
X fails.

Y.
I have only asked you for proof. How does questioning something shift the burden of proof to the questioner? That is absurd if you think about it.
Asking for proof or expressions of doubt do not in anyway shift the burden of proof from the one who asserts (you). Indeed, if I agreed with you, there would be no burden to discharge and we wouldnt have this argument.

I am sure I did not say that it was the most convincing argument for the existence of God. I said it was one of the most convincing. Now the key point which you seem to be missing is that in discussing the issue, we perforce consider the premises on which the cosmological argument is hinged.

Those premises are in line with common observation and common logic. A person such as you, who contradicts them by referring to them as baseless assumptions, will have to show exactly why they are so: given the fact that in all that we observe, nothing moves without a triggering factor. The onus to show why this is a “baseless assumption” or “junk” as you put it, must rest squarely on you. because you are the one advancing a notion contrary to common observation and common logic

Nevertheless I will not make heavy weather of this point: wherever the burden of proof rests is not so important: readers will at all events be able to decide for themselves that which is in line with logic, based on what is put forward.

As such, you may either put forward your foot, or withhold it: it’s your choice. No matter.

All your emphasis on "as far as we know" and "for today" highlights the weakness of your argument.

This is a very disturbing thing for you to argue or state! I hope you realize that all knowledge that mankind has – and will ever have, - will always remain “as far as we know” – as such – everything that mankind will ever know – in your summation, kind sir – will simply eternally be statements of ignorance!

Clap for yasef!

I hope you can see the meaning in this: that it makes no sense to deride statements made on the basis of known observation as being arguments from ignorance.

This is especially so when the statements made are based on very simple knowledge which it is fair to say is conclusive: such as the composition of water for example. Thus, when the most simple and fundamental laws of motion are used in concluding that everything that moves requires a triggering factor, it is very strange, and even absurd, I think, to describe such as an argument or statement from ignorance. It is actually an argument or statement based on current knowledge - which knowledge has NOT YET been disproven, and which may not be disproven.

Anytime the phrase "as far as I know" or its equivalent is used, it points out to the inconclusive nature of the statement/evidence/proof etc

Accordingly, there isn’t one single bit of concluded knowledge anywhere in mankind’s history, because, as I already told you, all knowledge is only “as far as we know.”

I hope you can see how terribly tedious and untenable your “argument from ignorance” idea is, with regard to this discussion.

And yet, I say to you again, that since in ALL that we observe, we see causative chains – it behoves you to bring to the table even just one example of an uncaused material thing – and then and only then, can your declaration that we are making assumptions be taken seriously.

@ Jayriginal,

I am in the middle of preparing a response to you. But something just occured to me regarding one of your responses, and I'd just like to get it quickly out of the way.

Can you answer these two sets of quick questions for me?

First Set

1. You affirmed twice that you accept the law of cause and effect for material things. Confirm again please.

2. Is the universe a material thing?

Second Set

1. You stated that the qualification "As far as we know" denotes an argument from ignorance.

2. Do you agree that this qualification applies to ALL knowledge of mankind?

3. Does it not therefore follow that everything mankind knows and says simply amounts to arguments and statements from ignorance?

Thanks.

Odumchi, great talent.

If you are interested in exploring commercial oppurtunities for your work, please contact me at addetti@gmail.com

God itself being the eternal element that could not but be - the self-existent compound of all self-existent principles- does not cease to create, or I might say - "expand." Therefore an infinite and limitless amount of sparks of the God element will eternally proceed from it: finding form and expression in the many infinite forms existing in God's very infinity of nature.

There is no use relying wholly on the Bible in this matter: Jesus himself stated clearly that there was much else to impart: but he could only impart that which mankind needed: namely the teaching of love and nothing more.

There are many worlds in existence and as such souls emanating from the energy of God's manifestation would continue to enter the worlds eternally and infinitely. I personally believe that souls incarnate in different worlds in the course of their journeys. As such, I would not limit the question of amount of souls to earthly reproduction alone: or the adamic supposition alone.

The above are just my personal beliefs and are not intended as proof, logic or evidence of anything please, nor do I claim to be able to adduce proof for same.

Cheers.