Great! Thankfully I've already done that :

World's slowest bus driver imo.

It is this very place that I have been pressuring you over and over and over to actually address. I have accepted your concept of God and your premise that the universe exists for the sake of argument. But I certainly see no reason to accept Step 4, the conclusion that your concept actually exists. That is the point your argument breaks down. Your concept of God is one possible explanation for the premise that the universe began to exist, but it is hardly the only one. So how do you deduce that God actually exists?

Well weren't you wrong!

But it looks like subsequent steps are on a Mobius escalator.

Thanks everyone for your participation.


At long last -- so, what do we have of posters who have accepted Step 1, how many?

Only two ( 2 ), neeeel and uke_master.

Uke_master also accepts Step 2 but he is lost on Step 4.


If others have also accepted Step 1, please just either refer me with a link to your post, the number and the date and time of transmission, or just reproduce your acceptance statement when you write again in this thread.


Haters here, you will hate me for repeating the five steps again, but readers are happy to have them again, so that they will not have to look for them scrolling backward from this post.




Now, first with neeeel, he of the circular reasoning charge but not at all knowing the genuine working of the charge -- anyway let that pass for I will just hope that he has learned the genuine operation of circular reasoning which he missed totally.

Neeeel has read Steps 1 2 3 4 5 (accepting only Step 1), and he is very emphatic that he cannot accept that there are only two choices with the universe, namely: universe with a beginning or universe has always existed.

I would propose to Neeeel to produce at least one other choice aside from the two of universe having a beginning or universe having always existed.

Until we come to his other choices aside from the two described in Steps 2 and 4 (universe with a beginning), and in Steps 3 and 5 (universe having always existed), I will leave him out of the exchange of views.

Okay, that leaves only uke_master.



See next post from me, continuation of the present one.

[ Continuation ]



Okay, here is the post from uke_master -- for my reaction:


Have you done the expedition to search in the universe and in even the broader totality of existence, but just in the universe studied by scientists and where we have immediately our residence and are parts of, on the one hand for all the instances of existence which have a beginning, and on other hand for all the instances of existence which have always existed, starting with the part of the universe which is the nose in your face?

Try to recall from your expedition in the concrete actual reality of the universe where we reside and live in and operate in and are parts of, starting with the nose in our face, all the instances of existence which have a beginning, and also your having found out that there are no instances of existences that have always existed.

Write about your expedition in your next post.



See you guys again tomorrow.




Annex

No, your reasoning was circular. But we can leave that for now.

No, thats not what I am saying. I am saying that
1) we cant verify whether the universe had a beginning or not
2) in response to your point " verify that every instance of existence has a beginning" we cant verify that every instance of existence has a beginning, it may be that some instances of existence do have a beginning, and others dont.
3) you have never seen anything "come into existence" and so looking at cold hard reality does not help you verify whether everything that exists has a beginning

What we atheists have to do is to incorporate atheism as a religion and see whether the government sues the theists under blasphemy for insulting atheism.

“The Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured human mammals.”

Amen!

“Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong.”

“As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.”

No. YOU write about your expedition. I'm not trying to justify Step 4, I think it is bogus. YOU are trying to justify step 4. So YOU give me YOUR reasons why I should believe that this concept of yours actually exists. I am not making any claim and have no burden to justify it.

I've already accepted, for the sake of argument, that the universe and everything in it (like my nose) began to exist. But this doesn't demonstrate that God caused it to begin to exist.

I'll give you some examples of "classic" philosophically based arguments for the existence of God:
Cosmological: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
Kalam Comoslogical: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%...gical_argument
Ontological: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
Teleological: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

Read through those. Try to see how a formal argument is structured using a series of premises and conclusions. Try to phrase YOUR argument for why I should believe "step 4" in this way.

Whatever you do STOP ****ING REQUOTING YOUR ****ING POST. Part of a debate is about establishing appropriate framings. You ignore everyone else's attempt to frame the issue but insist on everyone else using EXACTLY your framing.

1) Seems like an artful dodge. I guess we really can't verify whether the universe had a beginning or not, since we can't go poking around in a time before time began.

The universe sure as hell looks like it had a beginning, though.

2)Not even sure what this means, really. But I'd be curious to hear an example of an "instance of existence" that does not have a beginning.

3)I know of a few things that have "come into existence." You or me, for example. I'm not talking about our physical bodies, either.

If we cant verify it, then how is saying that we cant verify it, an "artful dodge"

How would you know?

Depends what you mean? I have never seen anything come into existence, so I cant state whether every instance of existence has a beginning or not.

How would you define "Come into existence" ? I would doubt its the same way that we define that universes come into existence.

Also, you dont "know" that these things have come into existence. You assume it, but there is no proof that such things as you and me exist, and no proof that they came into existence. Have you ever seen anything come into existence?

Okay, first with neeeel.



Dear neeeel, first look up the word tergiversation, and examine the way you use your mind.


To your 1, just consult the vast majority of current cosmologists.

To your 2, give examples of instances of existence with a beginning and instances of existence that have always existed, you should be able to do that if you have undertaken the expedition in Step 4 or Step 5, even just an expedition into the terrain of your face: there is a nose there which is an example of something which has a beginning; the nose is just one part of the universe, there are so many other instances of existence which have a beginning, all you have to do is conduct versatile and subtle investigation of the universe, starting as I said with the nose in your face -- the quality of versatile and subtle investigation, that is required in critical thinking, and critical thinking is how mankind gets to come to certainty with his knowledge of the reality in the world.

To your 3, yes I have encountered a lot of things that have come to existence, for example, the egg pie I saw a baker produce from the very beginning of his task to bring about the existence of an egg pie; another example, the production of water from hydrogen and oxygen in the school laboratory -- look up with google, “how to produce water from oxygen and hydrogen.”


Learn this lesson from critical thinking, never talk on and on and on without bringing forth examples from the concrete actual reality of the world we live in and are parts of


Dear readers, so neeeel has not produced other alternatives aside from the universe having a beginning or universe having always existed, and I thought that was the gist of his thinking that there are other alternatives in addition to the two I bring up, namely, universe with a beginning or universe having always existed.


Tell you what, neeeel, order your thoughts and come up with just one for the present, of a critical comment on Steps 2 3 4 5, no need to dwell on Step 1 because you accept that already.

So, I will no longer bother with you unless you put your thoughts in order, and keep to just one item at one time: you do have a propensity for dodging and muddling.




Readers, for my reaction to uke_master, see next post.



====================

Annex

Here we go, uke_master.


But you say: Well, you cannot demonstrate, but others better with employing their mental and physical resources can, so don’t begrudge them, instead learn from them.



You say you cannot understand Step 4 though you accept it, so I am asking you whether you have made the expedition; now you are getting stubborn, and unreasonable, refusing to undertake the expedition in Step 4.

To demonstrate to yourself that there are instances of existence with a beginning, as I said already, start with your nose, it has a beginning, yes, no?

Now for things which you or we do not have access, then infer from the things we do have access, to come to the knowledge of things beyond our direct access, but we are extrapolating with reasoning on facts accessible to us, then we do come to them distant from us but also having a beginning, for example, the existence of sub-atomic particles.

Or you can do thought experiments but keep your feet on the ground as you think, okay?


Summing up, dear uke_master, let us we two work on how to do an expedition, is that all right with you: since you accept Step 4 which is the expedition phase of researchers who are into the existence or non-existence of God -- but they are on the side of God existing, in concept as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning, so they or we take up with Step 4.

If you are disposed, tell me in your next post, and I will be your guide.


Now I will just reproduce my system of argument for the convenience of readers.

Let me make this clear: if you block requote that post of yours, for any reason, to any person, at any point again in this thread, this will be the last serious response you get from me.

A direct insult deserves a direct response: everything you have said in this thread demonstrates that you are a complete moron.

Exactly backwards. I understand it but don't accept it. In particular, as soon as you get to this: "wherefore an entity is needed". This statement is easy to understand but I don't accept it. It simply isn't justified. You haven't provided a shred of justification. You don't even seem to understand WHY you need to justify it.

I have been trying to get you to address this for a dozen posts now. I get that you have your concept, your definition of God. I get that you have your premise, that everything began to exist. Now the question is this: why does that imply God, and only God, is "needed".

Please actually address the issue. Read the links I gave. Basically do anything but block requote yourself again.

I already said I accepted this for the sake of the argument. Try to pay attention to what others say.

Lol, the guy is block quoting the same passage over and over concurrently at another forum too: http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/foru...12162&start=45

+1 this is great

Depends what you mean by existence. The nose hasnt just popped into existence. It is made up of stuff that, as far I as I know, has always been here, just that that stuff has been rearranged into the form of a nose. So, in one sense, yes, it "began to exist", but it didnt begin to exist in the way that universes begin to exist, so I havent seen anything begin to exist, I have just seen already existing things change form. I have no idea if these already existing things( qarks, atoms, energy, etc) have always existed, or have a beginning. Its not possible for me to verify this in concrete actual reality.

Similarly, this is just changing form. at what point is a pie a pie? When all the ingredients are laid out? When its cooking in the oven? When its taken out of the oven ready to eat? At no point does the pie just pop into existence, except as a concept in your head.

Even if I accept that the universe has a beginning, you need to show why an entity is needed to bring about that beginning.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA do you people even know there is a real world out there?
This tread is the biggest collection off bs i ever seen, how old/sane are you people?.
Yes it did happen, well tell why it happened, no you tell me how it happened, no you proof why it happened, no you proof if it happened at all, and you call this philosophy?

it is running around in circles, but hey as a believer in god what else can you do he?.
Well let me tell you as a atheist, god as described in all religious books can not exist, science proofed that, so all your holy books are full of fables[story's made up by man].
And there is not ONE!! shred of scientific evidence[you know, the standard to proof if something happened and/or is possible] there is more then humans, animals, and the force of nature on or off this earth.

And if you think there is, well there are doctors for that, and answering questions with questions, that is just not able to give answers that make sense, or have any at all.

No the bible and god, are humanity's most brilliant inventions, because believe me that is all god is a man-made invention just like taxes but only more brilliant and! more profitable.

I am sorry but it is reality there is no proof to the contrary, otherwise then the spoken and/written words of human beings.

Fact proven by science: millions of years ago there where dinosaurs on this planet.

Said by believers in god: in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth[o and the believe is he did it 6000 years ago in 6 days], a 100% proven lie.

I rest my case.

Ye, you certainly showed us how its done

I wonder if Petjax is a false flag operation to make atheists look bad.

welcome to my world

No enough people here do a much better job in this then i ever are willing to do .

You are demanding a standard of evidence that can never, ever be met. You can't go back and tinker around before t=0. I'll say it again-- it's a dodge.

I've seen a lot of different ways that atheists avoid the various premises of the kalam, this is just your way of averting it. It's weak, though, bro.

We can't go back and visually "verify" lots of things in science that we believe to be true based on the available evidence. We can't "verify" that this certain mammal evolved from that animal unless we develop a time machine.


All you have to do is some cursory reading on the subject.

You might want to start here.

wiki:

Again, you are demanding to "see" something come into existence that only came into existence once. And probably isn't going to come into existence again, based on the current theories, which say there will be no big crunch.

I haven't seen man evolve, but I believe he did based on the preponderance of evidence.

As to your last comment, if you really don't believe that you or I exist, well, I can't help you with that. There are a few psychologists that post here that you could talk to about that.

I agree with you to a point, but there can be no physical evidence of what happened before the big bang ( or at least, we havent found any yet) so any theories as to beginnings can only be speculation, although maybe well founded and logical speculation. The actual facts of the big bang do not tell us what happened before the big bang. There is no way of telling whether the universe popped into existence from nothing, was created by an entity, was formed from some "foam", or some other explanation. So comparing the coming into existence of noses and pies, for which we do have some physical evidence, to coming into existence of universes, doesnt seem very useful to me.





what evidence is there to show us how the universe came into being? note that the big bang is not evidence of how it came into being.


You are stating that you and I came into existence, and you have evidence of it.

now you are saying that you cant help me. Sounds like you dont know it at all, and have no evidence( other wise you would be able to show me the evidence) . As I said, its just assumption on your part.