₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
Do know that I read his argument and did not reply until you asked why no one had replied, and my response was to tell you why not.

Your reply made me assume you didn't, they didn't correlate to his post at all.

The entire argument is based on assumptions that I disagreed with but saw no reason to respond to until you asked why not. But if you think as you do above, then so be it.

I do not think it is okay for us to address a logically consistent argument with strawmans

budaatum:
Because its full of silly assumptions!

Actually, it isn't. It's assumptions are logically consistent.

Why must something be eternal? Do things not evolve into being? Even scripture says everything was void, so what is eternal about it?

It is called argument of contingency.

If everything is contingent, an infinite regression of contingencies is logically absurd therefore there must be a necessarily thing at the apex of it all.

So, it is either there is an infinite regression of contingent causes which is absurd

Or

There is an eternal thing (necessary thing) that started it all.

So, this isn't an absurd premise.

See? According to op, things don't change over time, yet pick up a Bible and read how a wrathful God changes to a loving Jesus over time!

He didn't mention the bible God or any particular deity at all.

He argued for God in an ontological sense.

Where did this come from?

Now see. An admission of change over time that was denied in premise 2 and 3!

Did you understand his argument at all?

I'm not sure you did.

Anything eternal is unchanging

Anything changing is not eternal.

That's the premise.

His conclusion therefore, since the universe changes, it cannot be eternal.

He explained this to detail.

(You can refute his position by providing an equally logically consistent alternative to its fundamental assumptions)

I'm starting to think you are not reading people's argument to understand them Buda, you are reading to reply.

And see a conclusion that does not quite follow from the premises stated! Or are things true because one says things are true?

Actually it does follow the premises precisely and the argument is quite solid.

It is an ontological argument of contingency.

1. Everything in the universe is contingent.
2. There cannot be an infinite regression of contingencies
3. There must be a necessary thing (non-contingent thing)
4. This non-contingent thing is God.

His argument is actually sound. Your reply seem to be replying something else.

Why aren't they people on this nice thread?

solite3:
it is not an assumption, the age of the universe was actually estimated.

lmao actually your idea that the universe had a beginning is an assumption

The current measurement of the age of the universe is 13.799±0.021 billion (109) years within the Lambda-CDM concordance model.[1][2] The uncertainty has been narrowed down to 21 million years, based on a number of studies which all gave extremely similar figures for the age. These include studies of the microwave background radiation, and measurements by the Planckspacecraft, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and other probes. Measurements of the cosmic background radiation give the cooling time of the universe since the Big Bang,[3] and measurements of the expansion rate of the universe can be used to calculate its approximate age by extrapolating backwards in time.

there is no account for the origin of atoms does not mean the universe has no origin.

This estimation accounts for periods after the cosmic inflation or bang.

Again, the Big Bang theory doesn't account for the beginning of the cosmic atom therefore, the causality of the universe doesn't fall within the provisions of a contingent factor.

Furthermore, the Big Bang isn't in fact a scientific conclusion at the moment, it is still subject to debate with another alternate theory of an everlasting cyclical universe in equal consideration by cosmologists, this idea speculates an oscillating universe of bangs and contraction, an eternal universe.

So you see? You are basing your argument that the universe has a beginning based on scientific models that do not conclusively assert a beginning for the universe.

Try again?

solite3:
why not? sincerely you know the answer

No. I don't. And for an answer so apparent, it is proving to be stupendously hard for you.

Perhaps you don't know it?

by my sixth sense. How about you?

By your sixth sense? That's how you recognize design? What does that even mean?

Tartar9 you see that the guy doesn't even know how he knows what is designed or not.

Please, what is sixth sense? How does it work? How does this sixth sense translate to material or deductive perspective?

You are creating more problems for yourself here.

It actually does?
you a big beautiful compound with a very big house and well trimmed flowers and a well kept field. if somebody tells you that house made itself and the compound will you believe it?

I would not deny its possibility.

Again, the problem here isn't what is designed and if i believe it is designed

The problem is about You telling me how you recognize something is designed?

What qualities connotes design and intent from apparent observations?

It is proving to be very difficult for you.

solite3:
Because there is evidence that thr universe has an origin.

Actually there isn't.

The Big bang accounts for expansion of a singularity (cosmic atom) doesn't account for the origin of the atom that expanded (it could be eternal) So, No. Your assumption that there is evidence that the universe has a beginning is false.

Secondly, the Big Bang isn't in fact a scientific conclusion at the moment, it is still subject to debate with another alternate theory of an everlasting cyclical universe in equal consideration by cosmologists

nothing can come into existance without a cause.
God didnt come into existence he was already in existence from all eternity.

And what stops the universe from doing thusly considering the new information i furnished you with above?

tartar9:
I think he meant anything that begins to exist.

Would he be right then to assume the universe began to exist?

By design,we mean something which couldn't have emerged from random chance.

Lol. This doesn't say anything, this is like saying, by cup i mean anything that is a cup.

How do you recognize something that can't emerge by chance?

What are the qualities observed that connote design?

1StopRudeness:
Dishonest??you funny man..there’s no prize to win here neither a medal to take home.....
my observations are summaries,

And they are not infallible, they can be subject to error just as they apparently are now.

u are the one that picked one and biasely expanded it to justify the atheism claim

Nope. It has always been used as a counter argument

...first of,I don’t think Christians claim being rich is exclusive to serving God.. it can’t be cos the Bible christians reference clearly points out God blesses all his creation(math 5v45) and as for riches seed time and harvest is standard for everyone(Gen 8v22)..

I have seen, countless times and that gave rise to the counter argument as Hopefullandlord rightly pointed out

Perhaps, You atheist are the one assuming that a Christian claimed God blessed him authomatically means a non-Christian getting blessed shouldn’t be possible.....isn’t that fallacy?? Cos I don’t think it’s written anywhere that riches are exclusive to any one...

Nope. Atheist aren't assuming it, we interact and argue with Christians often and even on this board, such arguments often crop up.

solite3:
God is not included because God didn't come into existence but he is self existent.
my argument is based on physical phenomena

So, you have agreed that something can in fact exist without being caused.

Good.

Thank you for refuting your own argument.

Now, moving on: If God can exist without being caused, why can't the universe exist without being caused?

solite3:
I thought the answer is obvious.

Apparently not, since you can't even tell.

what if someone says a car is not made but simply a result of many complex processes over a long period of time.
How does that sound to you.

Sounds like a possibility you can refute by just pointing out how design and intent can be deduced.

I'm still holding on to faith that you can answer this question: How do you recognize design?

science can never disprove God but only further buttress the point that things where made.

This has absolutely no relation to what we are discussing here. Stick to the premise.

solite3:
your view of God is wrong, that is where you are getting it wrong.
the biblical God is not subject to the laws of physics, he created it but he was not created.
It makes sense because if God is not created we cant define him by whatever rules binding on the creation example according to physical laws anything subject to physical laws must have an otigin but God is not.

lol.

Your premise: Nothing can exist without being caused

Second premise: God is something (hence not nothing)

Therefore, God can't exist without being caused.

This is not my doing, this is an implication of your syllogism.

If God can exist without being caused then that refutes your initial position that nothing can exist without being caused.

You see how your argument and your belief are self refuting?

If you see a car parked in a garage, how do you know it was design? the sincere answer to this question is my answer to yours.

I take it that you don't know then?

Cus that is the only explanation to why you would ask someone the exact same question they asked you.

solite3:
I believe there is God, the one who created all things my premise is that nothing can exist without something acting to bring it to existence, even science supports this.

Doesn't this premisw suggest that God too must then require something acting to bring it into existence since God is something and your premise says Nothing can exist except caused

I believe from my observation of the material universe that the creator must have intelligence because for example man which is very complex cannot be by accident but by a delibrate design.

what do you think?

How do you recognize design?

Ihedinobi3:
For someone who thinks that absolute statements are arrogant, you sure make a bunch of them very easily.

Eeeehn, I guess I'm not that perfect then huh?

I'm guessing my statement about the bible got you pissed?

I'm sorry about that then

tintingz:
Whether it's bond or not, compassion still exist among animals. Humans also create bond in the society, we have some humans who don't care about his fellow human, in the case of humans there is concept of right and wrong, in animals I don't think there is.

What he is trying to say is, animal bond, social order and behaviors in this regard are inherent in their nature, they are genetic, passed from parents to offspring. A swallow wasn't taught how to make a nest, these traits are intuitive in them.

An ants may have a society of several hundreds of thousands but each individual's behavior aren't contemplated, they are innate, genetically coded.

Human social bonds are abbarational because humans have no such biological trait triggered towards social bonds more than a handful of people.

But somehow, we created a social bond of millions, somehow created a relationship that unites the whole planet - that is not normal.

This is because we are thinking beings who know it is thinking.

Other animal's actions are impulsive, intuitive and inherent.

Human actions are contemplative.

There is a difference between an animal that does something because it is wired genetically to do it (An ant helping an injured ant) it is not out of pity, compassion or some grasp of the concept of morality, it does it because it is made exactly like that.

Humans on the other hand do things they really do not have to do because they contemplate.

That's why you can't ascribe similar behaviors in humans and animals to similar causality.

I believe that's what he is trying to say

shadeyinka:
I don't know if this is supposed to be a clickbait or a deliberate attempt to argue.

If the end goal of arguments will promote knowledge am in for it. You well know that viyon02 isn't as experienced as you, so stop your sarcasm and educate with facts if need be. Not everyone in NL is science biased and even if they are, you can't be masters of Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Mathematics at the same time.

Who told you I was being sarcastic? How many times have you seen me use sarcasm before?

Viyon02 is correct on what he said.

That's not sarcasm at all.

shadeyinka:
The moon other than the sun has the greatest gravitational influence on the earth. The earth can do without all the other planets in our solar system and nothing serious would have changed on the earth.

Uuuuhm, this is pretty wrong. The earth can't do without other planets in the solar system.

If you remove other planets from this solar system, the earth as you know it, is over.

It will be pretty much destroyed.

Your argument of Jupiter attracting asteroids os possible but the probability is extremely small.

Actually it isn't small at all. It really happens. His argument on that is 100% correct.

The solid angle of the earth covered by Jupiter is not even up to 0.1% of the exposed area of the earth.

Lol. You have no idea how gravitational tugs and resonant orbits work.

Do you have:

1. The book of negros - Lawrene Hill

2. Broca brain - Carl Sagan

CAPSLOCKED:
FROM THE GREATEST ENCYCLOPEDIA EVER — THE BIBLE.

A CHRISTIAN READS THE BIBLE ALONE AND CLAIMS TO KNOW THE ORIGIN OF OUR SPECIES, DNA, MICROBIOLOGY, ASTRONOMY, ONCOLOGY, THE BIRTH OF STARS, THE REASON FOR EARTHQUAKES, THE FORMATION OF VOLCANOES, THE CURE FOR CANCER, THE CAUSES OF SLEEP PARALYSIS, HOW TO BUILD A 50,000 CAPACITY SHIP...... AND EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD.

DON'T TRY THESE FOLKS.

Lol. I feel certain that he didn't get that from the bible. The bible isn't that smart

LordReed:
Where did you learn this from?

His number 1 is kind of correct. (The gas giants) Saturn/Jupiter's (mostly jupiter) gravity serve as a large attraction to most asteroid/meteor breakout in the solar system, minimizing the amount of such bodies that make it into the inner solar system - Without this, life wouldn't exist on earth or at least life as we know it.

The scientist and cosmologist Carl Sagan once referred to it in his book as Shepherd planet. It literally act as a protective shield for the inner solar system.

His number 2 is also correct. The resonant orbits created by the gravitational pull of Jupiter not only helps in the case of number one, but also helps stabilize the earth's orbit as his number two posits

Him arguing that it was intentionally put there for this purpose though would be another thing all together but he is correct to assert that Jupiter as a matter of fact serves this purpose.

tintingz:
Some animals do show compassion, I don't know if they(animals) know it's right or wrong.

An animal exhibiting similar behavior as humans doesn't necessarily mean they are influenced similarly.

An ant helping another injured ant is impulsive, reactionary.

There is a difference between a being that can think

And a being that not only thinks but knows it thinks.

hucknall:
what are they? some examples will do

Greed
Arrogance
Thou shall not take the name of the lord God in vain (pun)
Lying
Using curse words
Abortion (where it is legal)

I know I'm taking it slow in order to avoid misunderstanding.

Still waiting for you to do the needful. I feel certain that one of us will learn a thing or two

hucknall:
to be clear, you guys are saying is there are no personal moral.

That's what I am saying.

It is an imaginary order hence intersubjective

Ok. How is this different from taking red wine or any other type of wine as holy communion?

I need to understand that

hucknall:
'looking out for themselves' as an atheist you look out for only yourself.

LMAO Morality can't exist in isolation my dude.

hucknall:
you managed to exclude it from religion.

Actually I didn't. Religion falls under these:

3. Belief in a central authority
4. Shared imaginary order/belief

Let's not go to that side.
these standards are set by
powers and submission is achieved through fear and when you fail to abide you are punished right?

Not necessarily.

There are moral requirements that are not an obligation hence bears no legal implications.


P.s: Remember the premise you trying to prove here is that an atheist cannot be moral. It is taking quite a long time to.

adoyi8:
Fantastic story. I was in the village in march this year for my one of my aged in-law's burial. It was a traditional burial so there were lots of meat. A cow, pigs and goats. Some of the meats were sacrificed so many 'Christians' refused to eat them. Just like you said there was lots of meat, palm wine and beer. Thank God I wont have to write a story like yours because it is one thing to have a good time with your kinsmen and it is another to do it with a clean conscience.

If i no follow you for facebook, wetin I gain?.

Haha

NLmember:
Really?

Compassion and kindness are a part of conscience

Animals sometimes show compassion to each other

Animals in the wild


So when animals show compassion it means they were informed by a prevailing moral provision which was learned by the animal?

Actually No, because you are assuming that animal's behavior is controlled by a sense of right and wrong which is a baseless claim at best.

Conscience requires a sense/basic graps of the concepts of right - wrong.

hakeem4:
atheism is amoral. it does not tell you what is right or wrong

True statement

NLmember:
Stories

I know what your choice is though

I never knew that you come preinstalled with omniscience.

I guess, life surprises me everyday.

NLmember:
OK please can you think about it and let me know which you prefer? Thanks
Be honest in your reply

I just have. I actually don't know since it is still not something I consider or feel is important at all.

It is like asking me if I prefer a woman whose favourite color is red or one whose favourite color is pink.

I don't fu_cking know cus the factors listed are insignificant to my choice on that particular issue

NLmember:
Conscience is not religion or symptom of religiousness.

Its just an evolutionary instinct to promote easy coexistence.

Conscience is informed.

It is shaped.

It may not necessarily be religiously influenced but it is aa a result of a prevailing moral provision learnt/followed by an individual

There is no such thing as a pre-installed moral compass (conscience) due to evolutionary reasons.

That's absurd.

That would suggest morality is intrinsic (objective) which I doubt you'd agree to.

NLmember:
Would you choose a hardcore atheist wife over a liberal and open minded christian woman?

I haven't actually thought about it since whether someone is a Christian or atheist has never come up in my considerations when deciding why I want to date or marry someone.