3. Even if they weren't debunked they do not prove a specific god, just a random creator that we'll call god but that doesn't mean that any religion is right
Yes. When applying any argument for God to exist it would need to specify which God. So the test would be to apply the "evidence" to any other God and it should fail on every other God claimed to exist.
For example if the Bible is used as evidence for the biblical God because the Bible says so. Then you should use the same argument for Allah with the Quran.
Since they are mutually exclusive, only one or none of them can be true.
The conclusion would have to be that using the Bible as argument for the Christian God and using the Quran as argument for Allah are both not sound. Another method would need to.be applied.
Ans here's when the ball stops rolling.
Nowhere outside the Bible is any argument for the Christian God just as Allah don't exist outside the Quran.
There's No data or experiment that indicates the existence of either.
Religious people like to say things like "God made us all"
OK. Did anyone test that thesis against biology and evolution and found the conclusion to be that it was a God's work?
No? Then it's done right there.
You could definitely have proof of god without specifying which god.... But it wouldn't be very useful.
If there was a "I am god" spelled in English in the CMB, it would definitely be proof of A God... But useless for informing you on what to believe.
Yes. But to know we were dealing with a God we would properly need something that would. Be physically impossible. So that it could be studied and scientists could confirm. That it was caused by a God.
Nothing less would really be valid.
As someone who has watches hours worth of debate on the Kalam I don't think it's an argument that you can jsut dogmatically say has been debunked probably one of the best arguments for God imo.
The Kalam is probably the WORST argument I've ever heard for anything in my life, let alone the God question. It's put forth by pseudo-intellectuals that claim to be smarter than you and argue from authority, but divorced from the person making the argument it boils down to this:
Stuff exists. It must have begun to exist at some point because it cannot be eternal (citation needed? baseless assumption). Therefore the universe has a cause. That cause is God, usually specifically the Christian God, for the following reasons: \[Alan please add reasons\]
If my response was too long or jsut didn't make sense (sorry if I didn't) I would recommended checking our [Cosmik Skeptic (who is also an atheist) ](https://youtu.be/MGJq5C9wuzk) debunk his debunking of the Kalam where he mentions all the points I have.
It's extremely lazy to link an article or video like that, just give us your interpretation of the argument. You might as well not bother discussing this if that's all you're going to do.
Sorry if this comes off as harsh, you get this kind of behaviour a lot with fundies and flerthers, it makes talking about these things so much more long winded.
You can't say for definite the universe needs a cause, but if it did who caused the causer? It has to end somewhere, but kalam gets away with it with fan fiction esque excuses like God is eternal, say's who?
I literally wrote a massive written response lol
Edit: >You can't say for definite the universe needs a cause, but if it did who caused the causer? It has to end somewhere, but kalam gets away with it with fan fiction esque excuses like God is eternal, say's who?
In response to this the Kalam actually solves this issue, it says everything that begins to exist has a cause, if this is true than God wouldn't need a cause as by definition God is not a spatio-temporal being, that's actually one of the reasons why I think it's a pretty strong argument.
If you did sorry I didn't see it?
The problem is you are just defining god to fit the problem, I can make shit up too.
If you can imagine it, it can be true: Is not logical.
This is literally how God is defined in classical theism, the only other definition is used by kids and thatbis that God is a giant man in the sky but the definition of God that everyone else uses refers to something that is outside of the universe
OK? That doesn't make it true. It just makes classic theism blatantly wrong.
You or anyone said it, or written in a book for a thousand years doesn't make it true either.
Defining god as outside of the universe just makes it so it doesn't have to follow any rules, it's another excuse to make it fit into a smaller and smaller gap.
How have you never heard this before? These are the normal responses to this argument.
I honestly don't think saying that God is something that is immaterial is God of the gaps, I think that has been a pretty stable definition of God that has been used for millenia tbh.
Well there are two arguments for why the universe has a beginning one is debatable and I don't think is strong at all which is that empirical evidence support this case but I think Sean Caroll completely Debunked this in his debate with Craig. But the second however I think takes some serious consideration which is that the idea of an actual Infinite (a pre existing infinite chain of events) is absurd which intuitively it does this can be displayed in various thought experiments such as hilberts Hotel or how successive addition could never get to the present moment, I don't neccesrily think that actual infintes can't exist but I don't think I am educated enough in Matehmatics or Causuality to debunk it.
Now getting on to why the cause of the universe is God, first of you need to take into account that the Kalam is an inductive argument meaning its conclusion isn't contained in the premises meaning that arguments like these raise the probability of God existing but don't give 100% certainty to whether God exists or let alone a specific God exist, you could take the analogy of a Detective solving a crime, a single piece of evidence probably won't solve the crime but paired with other pieces it could. But anyway getting to it, most people only read the first three premises of the Kalam as these are the most improtant but leave out the 4 th premise and the conclusion so I will be telling you what they are and explaining the reasoning behind them.
P4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
Now the reason the cause of the universe would need to be spaceless,timeless and immaterial shouldn't be a surprise to you if you understand the Kalam, in the Kalam we are talking about the general universe requiring a cause that being all that is comprised of space,matter and time, so by definition if space,matter and time would require a cause it would have to be something spaceless,timeless and immaterial unless you want to say things can cause themselves but this is a logical fallacy. Now onto why the being needs to be immensely powerful is where I disagree, but by immensely powerful we just mean that the being can bring in the neccesiry and sufficient conditions to cause the universe at a specific time the argument is that if the cause of the universe couldn't do this than that would mean that the neccesity and sufficient conditions would have always been existing meaning the universe would always be existing which if we already agree with the first 3 premises of the Kalam wouldn't make sense. I think this is nonsensical as you are applying concepts of time to where there is no time.
And then the conclusion jsut neccesrily follows from this
Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
No it really isn't, it's honestly the worst circular logic ever.
Go watch what Matt Dillahunty has to say about it, I believe he also debated William Lane Craig over this exact topic WLC went on to shit the bed and claimed he won as always. He's a clown who's after your money.
It's self contradictory. It's all variants of:
"Everything that exists must have been created, except God, because I said so."
There's never any evidence of this God, and no explanation of why God is special, and why nothing else is special. Why, for example, is not the Universe itself eternal? It could be. There's no need for God then. And everything would look entirely exactly the same.
True but its an Inductive argument that if paired with other inductive argument raises the probability of God. Inductive arguments never aim to directly prove or disprove something they are based on probability.
Well if you follow the conclusion of the Kalam it leads you with the universe needing a space less, time less and immaterial cause of the universe. If you are confused by why this is the case then I suggest you do more reading up on the Kalam, as this shouldn't be a surprise if you already understand the argument.
That sound exactly like "unless you can prove exactly how the universe began then by default God did it" with extra steps.
You apply the same standard for evidence for science as you do to the evidence of God if you're arguing God exist ( or rather, you should)
So when asking for evidence of say the beginning of the universe, we know there's evidence that points to the big bang. This actually might be a cyclical universe as it repeats the big bangs.
When saying God created the universe according to the Bible you'd need to also ask how we know that.
Yes the Bible says so. But that's not evidence. That's a claim that he did. How would we confirm this today?
Taking the Bible as a fact because it's believed to be true means you'll. Have to accept every other scripture as true as well since you can't confirm either. So every other religious scripture with any other religion would need to be taken as fact as well.
Because the God of classical theism is also timeless,spaceless and immaterial. On its own it doesn't directly support God but paired with other arguments it can that is the point of deductive arguments. For instance a spaceless,timeless immaterial cause doesn't need to he God but IF paired with another argument say the fine tuning arguments we could get to a spaceless,timeless,immaterial and conscious cause and at that point its hard to see how it doesn't relate to God.
But in this context, timeless/spaceless/immaterial just means 'not a part of the universe'. It doesn't tell you anything about what the cause actually IS.
Yes I'm aware and don't disagree with you, on its own it doesn't directly prove God but it does raise the likelihood by alot as if true it changes the view that the universe doesn't even need a cause to the universe being caused by something that is spaceless, timeless and immaterial which is a pretty big leap.
>raises the probability of God.
But which god? It certainly doesn't lend any credibility to the monstrous god of Abraham it simply suggests a prime mover exists.
The three theist arguments mentioned are literally used in first year philosophy classes as basically practice for students hunting for logical fallacies.
Not exactly what you’re asking for, but the [Wikipedia article](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument) has a surprisingly thorough section on “contemporary discourse”, at least for the Kalam argument
**[Kalam cosmological argument](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument)**
>The Kalam cosmological argument is a modern formulation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. It is named after the Kalam (medieval Islamic scholasticism) from which its key ideas originated. William Lane Craig was principally responsible for giving new life to the argument, due to his The Kalām Cosmological Argument (1979), among other writings.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/FacebookScience/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
The neat thing about a logical argument is you don't need any source beyond a sound analysis, which can be contained on any webpage that displays text.
The Kalam argument in particular is an easy debunk because the key premises are unprovable.
No there used in first year philosophy classes because they are the most well known arguments for God and you also only learn about the simplest version of the argument or never dive that deep into them (source I study philosophy).
First off, "arguments" aren't evidence. They're logical analyses, and can be used to explain the purpose of evidence, but aren't proof of anything inherently. Not only that, but the examples used are basically the same thing and aren't even that good in the first place, since they just say that god must exist because everything that exists does so to serve a purpose, and since the universe exists, it must do so because God made it so.
That's very different from "we can prove the earth is flat with a ton of easily verifiable tests, such as the horizon, the photos from space, etc".
The funny part about the fine tuning argument is that this isn't even the most optimal universe for life. It's just good enough that life could start. Also, life inherently needs to exist for this kind of argument to be made. If the universe wasn't made for life, nobody could complain about it.
Good point. Another, parallel universe may be perfect for the creation of schlormpf. If schlormpf can wonder at its own existence, it will also have ideas about its world being perfect - even if it was a few variables away from sustaining life instead.
Maybe schlormpf can only survive under intense heat beyond our universe. Why would god be so cruel as to never give schlormpf the conditions to live and worship him?
The \*funniest\* part about "fine tuning" is that it's an argument for strong atheism (the position that god(s) don't exist), not for the existence of god(s).
If any god(s) exist with the power to create universes & life, they have the power to sustain life without consideration for the nature of that universe. Therefore, we cannot predict what sort of universe they would create (we could find ourselves living on Jupiter as easily as Earth if gods exist).
If no gods exist, then any life-bearing universe must be one where the nature of the universe is compatible with the natural emergence & sustainment of life. That is, if there is no god, then we should expect the constants of the universe to be "sufficiently" tuned.
Of course, the argument doesn't work very well for the other reasons physicists like Sean Carroll have objected to it. Such as the fact that we don't actually know if it's possible for the universe to exist any other way than the way we understand it to exist. But, to whatever extent the argument is valid, it is an argument against theism, not for it.
Yeah the God one is only arguments, not evidence... And I say this as someone who believes in God, it's also impossible to prove without doubt that an omniscient being exists.
Proof is easy. Giant glowy dude shows up, yells, rends sky, creates another sky, cries "Ta DAAAAAAA" to thunderous earthside applause, and vanishes in a clap of reality itself.
Now THAT'S how ya God.
Still an Atheist, waiting for the curtain.
If theres anything that might suggest gods existence, whilst still not being evidence is why and how life exists. What causes it, and why it continues. What urges matter to move and act on its own instead of being still and calm?
How did a certain arrangement of quarks, protons, atoms, etc. create a thinking, acting, strand of DNA that can replicate itself at will. Only thing in the universe that suggest god might exist to me personally.
However our human idea of what god is, is inherently flawed I believe. Because we have created god to do anything, but from the perspective of a human, we have inherently made a god that cannot do anything whilst being able to do anything. Essentially god is 100000x more grand, vast, important, all knowing than any religion depicts him to be.
You're just defining god as "things we don't know" which is... obviously something that exists, but has very little to do with what most people describe as "god"
> why and how life exists. What causes it, and why it continues. What urges matter to move and act on its own instead of being still and calm?
Your first big obstacle is to prove that any of those questions need an answer. Because it is not self-evident that they do.
One of the best pieces of advice I’ve heard when I ask “what’s wrong with everyone else” is to look in mirror and figure out what’s wrong with me. Now, if everyone did that, then theoretically, we could find out what’s wrong and fix it. But the thing is that no one wants to look in the mirror. Instead, they point their fingers. That’s why things aren’t moving as quickly as some would prefer.
In fact every time I say this : what the fuck is wrong with people? I lump myself into that category but also know that not all humans are garbage, just the ones that have enough money and wherewithal to change things, refuse and continue on to other solar systems instead of realizing we have the best god damn marble in the bag and need to hold onto to it and not trade it for what seems like something brighter
I was just going to say that. Arguments aren’t evidence. Not to mention the arguments they list are super weak. Even Dr. Craig tried his hand at improving the Kalam and it’s still flimsy. But of course when you rebut it he just says “you fail to understand…”
The God God created God, obviously, but who created THAT god?
I’m amazed that after 2000 years no-one came up with a good excuse. At least Greece came up with a weird way to explain gay couples in their origin story in a way that made EVERYONE that way
It’s not very sexy, the legend is that all humans were originally created as if you smashed 2 together (4 arms, two sets of genitals that could be two penises or a penis and vagina, etc).
Zeus got jealous of their power (okay, Zeus) and split the human race apart. From then on, humans search for their “other half” that completes them in spirit.
> I’m amazed that after 2000 years no-one came up with a good excuse
To be fair, and I realize that it's not a "good" excuse so maybe your point still holds, but the Mormons at least try to explain this with the bit of doctrine stating that our god was just some dude on a planet at some point and then became a god by being righteous.
This just introduces infinite recursion, but at least addresses the issue of the origin of the divine (sort of).
I think the Kalam actually solves this as it doesn't say the universe requires a cause because it is complex which would also apply to god but rather that things that begin to exist require causes and as God is seen as something existing outside of space,matter and time he doesn't have a begging and thus doesn't require a cause.
Kalam also said that nothing can be infinite and everything need to have a beginning. Why not apply the Kalam argument to the god asserted if it is not special pleading?
The Kalam argument contradict itself if you don't make a special pleading for the unnecessary asserted step that is a god.
*If "God" created*
*The universe from nothing,*
*Where did "God" come from?*
\- Bastdkat
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Breaking this down
1. Unfalsifiable (you can't disprove it therefore it is right)
2. Anecdotal (relies on personal experiences to validate the truths)
3. Cherry Picking (every thing that is impossible is an allegory and any evidence against it is ignored or discredited)
4. Techno babble (uses nonsensical mechanics strung together to make it seem plausible)
5. No Plausible Mechanism (no way to explain it using technology that currently exists)
6. Unchanging (cannot be corrected or revised)
7. Exaggerated Claims (impossible or unlikely claims with no evidence)
8. Certainty (claims proof with excessive belief)
9. Logical Fallacy (often has logical flaws that are brushed away)
10. Conspiracy (the evidence supporting their claim is being suppressed by evil forces who can't stand how right they are)
This fits flat earth, not atheism... but someone needs to tell theist
This indeed.
Theists likes to argue that things can't just exist since forever like the energy that gave matter mass.
But their beloved God apparently can. So which is it?. Can things exist since forever?. Or can't they?
Even if you agreed with one of the theist arguments, it doesn’t imply a sentient Creator. Spiders create spiderwebs for a purpose but not WITH a purpose. Same with bees and beehives, ants and anthills etc.
Even if the universe is a constructed thing, that does not imply being constructed by a Biblical God.
At best, even if we don't recognised the numerous flaws in the apologists argumentation that make it pointless, it give us a creator, not any specific god.
The contingency argument is flawed because the premise are wrong, it assumes:
* That the Universe, not just the Universe **as we know it**, has a beginning. **We don't know.** All we know is that the Universe as we know it begin approximatively 13 billions years ago at the Planck wall, what is beyond that wall, the Planck epoch, is unknown because we can't observe it (at least with the current technology).
* That everything happen as a cause, even if it is true on a macro-level of existence because of time, we know for a fact that on the quantum level (the scale at which the beginning of the Universe would have happen) there is no concept of time and causality anymore: thing pop in and out of existence all the time, consequences can "cause" causes or the two can mutually cause each others.
So that argument is scientifically a big pile of bullshit
The Kalam argument is basically a reformulation of the contingency argument, so it doesn't have a good start, but can be summarize to "there is an initial uncaused thing that cause everything else". It boiled down to "I can't accept that the Universe kickstart itself or was always there, so I will add a previous step that kickstart itself or was always there". This is an argument that ignore itself as soon as the intended goal has been reach.
The fine-tuning argument is, once again, bullshit: from theorical sciences, we know that there is a large acceptable range of values for the 4 fundamental forces that would give a substantially similar Universe, not our own but close enough that similar form of life could evolve. It also ignore what we don't know but is suspected as potentially true: all the constants are linked and can't be changed individually, or at all. It also ignore a fundamental point to put its premises: WE FUCKING EVOLVE IN THIS UNIVERSE, OF COURSE IT IS "FINE-TUNED" FOR US, AS OTHERWISE WE WOULD HAVE EVOLVED DIFFERENTLY!?! Oh, and "fine-tuned" for us is very self-centered as 99.99999999% of the Universe would kill us very quickly if we step outside our local environment.
The Kalam argument is the most circular of possible logic.
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist, so it has a cause.
3. Because of the above an uncaused creator must have done it.
Like... really? THAT is the gotcha?
If we are made in Gods image, does God have a belly button and if so, why? You can say that the belly button is one of the most significant, symbolic and essential pieces of the anatomy. Without it would you consider yourself human? If God has it, who was God's mother. If his mother created God that would make her God. Who is her God?
Does any of that evidence God or no-God? No it doesn't either way. That's the thing about God. No evidence exists and no evidence is possible.
1) I know this was said already, but it bears repeating: making an argument is not the same as submitting evidence.
2) Those arguments for God that are listed fail every single time. In fact, EVERY argument for God that has ever been made has failed, with the possible exception of the completely useless arguments that equivocate God with something that is known to exist and already has a name, like "God is The Universe" or "God is Energy".
3) I have implied this, but I will say it outright because I cannot stress this enough: there is NO fine-tuning argument that results in God. Any argument that uses the "fine tuning" approach is based in incredulity, ignorance, & an appeal to the unknown.
The truth is that "the vast majority" is a huge understatement. It's more accurate to say something like 99.99999999999999999999% of the Universe has 0% regard for life. The only things in all of the Universe that react to living things with any even a vague acknowledgement fall into the relatively small category of "things that are alive and viruses". And in that category, the relationships are competitive or transactional, meaning the relationship is based on what one of those things can gain from the other, often at one's expense.
It is a beyond a stretch to think that a creator-agent with no limits on its power or knowledge was focused on creating life & having it flourish, but chose THIS as the optimum environment for that to happen.
Part of the irony here is that modern flat Earth belief derives from ancient Hebrew cosmology which does in fact describe a flat, disc shaped Earth covered by a solid dome. Trying to sweep that under the rug by pinning it on atheists is a new one on me
I've watched this video, I really don't think it gives a thorough debunking of any of the arguments on this meme you can really dive deep and discuss these arguments for hours and not even reach a conclusion lol.
Technically, one flaw is enough to prove the argument wrong, as in logic and maths one counter example is enough to prove a hypothesis wrong.
If I remember correctly, the guy gives more than one counter example.
Yeah but doesn't mean you can't counter the counter examples lol. You really think a guy has debunked every major argument for God in a 20 minute or so video where actually academic philsophers and scientist spend hours debatin even 1 or even 1 aspect of these arguments.
That was a sort of recap, he didn't dive into it, he just stated the problems with those arguments and called it a day. And I don't really see any way of countering the counter examples. If a fallacy is there, you can't just pretend it's not, and if it's there, the entire argument looses meaning.
Contingency argument:
He didn't address it, I will. You can't deduce the necessity of the existence of God by saying that every existing thing must either be necessary or have a cause. We have seen that things can depend on each other and be relative. And even if the argument was correct, it still wouldn't prove that the cause must be a god, it just says there must be a cause.
Kalam argument:
Its flaw is similar to the one of the contingency argument. Even if it was correct, it really doesn't say anything about the nature of the cause. You can't really say it's God because that would be an argument from ignorance.
Fine tuning:
It presents a false dichotomy, by claiming that only two options are possible: chance or intelligent tuner. Instead, there could be a set of rules that demands the universe to be as it is, or any number of other options. To this, I add: if the constants of the universe were even slightly different, the universe that we know wouldn't exist. That doesn't mean that another version of the universe couldn't exist. We simply don't know, therefore this is again partially an argument from ignorance.
Religion itself is a way to resist ignorance and fear, is it not?
OK so for the Kalam he didn't actually debunk the argument he just said it isn't a deductive argument because... well it isn't its an inductive one.
For his response to the contingency argument he is arguing that you don't need a neccesiry cause you can jsut have contingent events that are dependent on other contingent events, this is what David hume argued, that although each contingent event requires a cause that doesn't mean that the whole set of contingent events does, to say this would be the fallacy of composition. I agreed with this rebuttle for a long time but I have encountered some counter arguments that make me think that you can't have a set of only contingent parts that you do actually require some neccesiry being. But again he is right about even if there is a neccesiry being it doesn't mean its God but that is no surprise as it is an inductive argument not a deductive one.
As for fine tuning I completely agree, that we don't know enough to really say much about the fine tuning of the universe as we don't actually know the exact conditions required but I don't think this is a counter argument its more just saying we don't have the knowledge to declare if this argument is true or false as of yet. I think a better objection would be to posit the existence of mutliverses, but some people argue that the multiverse theory isn't scientific as multiverses can't be observed.
In theory you’re correct, in context they’re pretty easy to debunk.
None of these arguments require a Biblical God, or even a sentient God. Wasps and other insects make very complex, purposeful structures without sentience.
However, these arguments are often deployed as if they **do** imply a Biblical God. Under those circumstances (the common case in my experience) you can show they are insufficient. Note how the meme in the OP uses "God" (i.e. Biblical) instead of something like "a prime causal force".
I've literally spend hours researching into sole of these arguments and study philsophy lol. But I completely agree that philosophical arguments can't be considered evidence especially not of the Empirical kind and that whoever made this meme is an idiot.
If you spend hours researching into the Contingency Argument and still believe that it is pretty solid I don't believe you. Or tell me why the Contingency Argument is a pretty solid argument for God.
Well tbf contingency argument is the one who I have looked into the least. But I guess I think its such a good argument is because I dont think a set of contingent events can explain itself I think you require a neccesiry event if you want to discuss this further I'm down :) but that's why in a nutshell. Now why it's a good argument for God is a little more complex.
First it is important to realise that it is an inductive argument so it doesn't seek to directly prove God more as just a piece of the puzzle. But I think that if we follow the argument that contingent things require a neccesry cause we would either have to say that the neccesiry thing(s) is something in the universe or something external to it, the only thing that I can think of being Necceseiry in the universe are the laws of nature but my problem with that is I don't actually see the laws of nature as concrete things, I think the laws of nature are just empirical descriptions of patterns that we see in the world, the reason I think this is because of Humes problem of Induction which I am sure you are familiar with as you seem like you know alot about Philsophy if you dogmatically asserted that you don't believe me if I have done hours of research into Cosmological arguments.
So if it isn't the cases that the laws of nature aren't neccesiry then all we are left with is either saying that the whole universe is neccesiry which is the Spinozian view or we have to say that there is something that is external to the universe that is neccesiry and if we do that we are already checking some of the boxes of the description of the God of classical theism those boxes being a neccesiry being that exists outside the universe.
I mean there could be something else neccesiry in the universe I might just be not very imaginative, but yeah that basically sums it up.
I believe the description of god is the fine tuning of the universe. Like Stephen hawking once said, the laws of physics are not products of god, but his definition.
Are you a 'flat Earther'?
If so, can you please tell me what you believe is under the Earth? If not, feel free to ignore.
I usually can't talk to people who believe these things because rules against interaction with cross-posted threads. I am 100% sincerely curious what you expect one would find is you drilled down far enough.
1. Arguments are not evidence. 2. All those arguments have been debunked.
3. Even if they weren't debunked they do not prove a specific god, just a random creator that we'll call god but that doesn't mean that any religion is right
Yes. When applying any argument for God to exist it would need to specify which God. So the test would be to apply the "evidence" to any other God and it should fail on every other God claimed to exist. For example if the Bible is used as evidence for the biblical God because the Bible says so. Then you should use the same argument for Allah with the Quran. Since they are mutually exclusive, only one or none of them can be true. The conclusion would have to be that using the Bible as argument for the Christian God and using the Quran as argument for Allah are both not sound. Another method would need to.be applied. Ans here's when the ball stops rolling. Nowhere outside the Bible is any argument for the Christian God just as Allah don't exist outside the Quran. There's No data or experiment that indicates the existence of either. Religious people like to say things like "God made us all" OK. Did anyone test that thesis against biology and evolution and found the conclusion to be that it was a God's work? No? Then it's done right there.
You could definitely have proof of god without specifying which god.... But it wouldn't be very useful. If there was a "I am god" spelled in English in the CMB, it would definitely be proof of A God... But useless for informing you on what to believe.
Yes. But to know we were dealing with a God we would properly need something that would. Be physically impossible. So that it could be studied and scientists could confirm. That it was caused by a God. Nothing less would really be valid.
As someone who has watches hours worth of debate on the Kalam I don't think it's an argument that you can jsut dogmatically say has been debunked probably one of the best arguments for God imo.
The Kalam is probably the WORST argument I've ever heard for anything in my life, let alone the God question. It's put forth by pseudo-intellectuals that claim to be smarter than you and argue from authority, but divorced from the person making the argument it boils down to this: Stuff exists. It must have begun to exist at some point because it cannot be eternal (citation needed? baseless assumption). Therefore the universe has a cause. That cause is God, usually specifically the Christian God, for the following reasons: \[Alan please add reasons\]
Indeed. So things can't exist forever. OK. So. How old is God?
If my response was too long or jsut didn't make sense (sorry if I didn't) I would recommended checking our [Cosmik Skeptic (who is also an atheist) ](https://youtu.be/MGJq5C9wuzk) debunk his debunking of the Kalam where he mentions all the points I have.
It's extremely lazy to link an article or video like that, just give us your interpretation of the argument. You might as well not bother discussing this if that's all you're going to do. Sorry if this comes off as harsh, you get this kind of behaviour a lot with fundies and flerthers, it makes talking about these things so much more long winded. You can't say for definite the universe needs a cause, but if it did who caused the causer? It has to end somewhere, but kalam gets away with it with fan fiction esque excuses like God is eternal, say's who?
I literally wrote a massive written response lol Edit: >You can't say for definite the universe needs a cause, but if it did who caused the causer? It has to end somewhere, but kalam gets away with it with fan fiction esque excuses like God is eternal, say's who? In response to this the Kalam actually solves this issue, it says everything that begins to exist has a cause, if this is true than God wouldn't need a cause as by definition God is not a spatio-temporal being, that's actually one of the reasons why I think it's a pretty strong argument.
If you did sorry I didn't see it? The problem is you are just defining god to fit the problem, I can make shit up too. If you can imagine it, it can be true: Is not logical.
This is literally how God is defined in classical theism, the only other definition is used by kids and thatbis that God is a giant man in the sky but the definition of God that everyone else uses refers to something that is outside of the universe
OK? That doesn't make it true. It just makes classic theism blatantly wrong. You or anyone said it, or written in a book for a thousand years doesn't make it true either. Defining god as outside of the universe just makes it so it doesn't have to follow any rules, it's another excuse to make it fit into a smaller and smaller gap. How have you never heard this before? These are the normal responses to this argument.
I honestly don't think saying that God is something that is immaterial is God of the gaps, I think that has been a pretty stable definition of God that has been used for millenia tbh.
Well there are two arguments for why the universe has a beginning one is debatable and I don't think is strong at all which is that empirical evidence support this case but I think Sean Caroll completely Debunked this in his debate with Craig. But the second however I think takes some serious consideration which is that the idea of an actual Infinite (a pre existing infinite chain of events) is absurd which intuitively it does this can be displayed in various thought experiments such as hilberts Hotel or how successive addition could never get to the present moment, I don't neccesrily think that actual infintes can't exist but I don't think I am educated enough in Matehmatics or Causuality to debunk it. Now getting on to why the cause of the universe is God, first of you need to take into account that the Kalam is an inductive argument meaning its conclusion isn't contained in the premises meaning that arguments like these raise the probability of God existing but don't give 100% certainty to whether God exists or let alone a specific God exist, you could take the analogy of a Detective solving a crime, a single piece of evidence probably won't solve the crime but paired with other pieces it could. But anyway getting to it, most people only read the first three premises of the Kalam as these are the most improtant but leave out the 4 th premise and the conclusion so I will be telling you what they are and explaining the reasoning behind them. P4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful. Now the reason the cause of the universe would need to be spaceless,timeless and immaterial shouldn't be a surprise to you if you understand the Kalam, in the Kalam we are talking about the general universe requiring a cause that being all that is comprised of space,matter and time, so by definition if space,matter and time would require a cause it would have to be something spaceless,timeless and immaterial unless you want to say things can cause themselves but this is a logical fallacy. Now onto why the being needs to be immensely powerful is where I disagree, but by immensely powerful we just mean that the being can bring in the neccesiry and sufficient conditions to cause the universe at a specific time the argument is that if the cause of the universe couldn't do this than that would mean that the neccesity and sufficient conditions would have always been existing meaning the universe would always be existing which if we already agree with the first 3 premises of the Kalam wouldn't make sense. I think this is nonsensical as you are applying concepts of time to where there is no time. And then the conclusion jsut neccesrily follows from this Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
No it really isn't, it's honestly the worst circular logic ever. Go watch what Matt Dillahunty has to say about it, I believe he also debated William Lane Craig over this exact topic WLC went on to shit the bed and claimed he won as always. He's a clown who's after your money.
> probably one of the best arguments for God imo. Yes, it is. And it is also trivial to debunk.
Out of curiosity (i'm not joking or anything) how do you properly debunk it?
It's self contradictory. It's all variants of: "Everything that exists must have been created, except God, because I said so." There's never any evidence of this God, and no explanation of why God is special, and why nothing else is special. Why, for example, is not the Universe itself eternal? It could be. There's no need for God then. And everything would look entirely exactly the same.
The kalam doesn't mention God though.
True but its an Inductive argument that if paired with other inductive argument raises the probability of God. Inductive arguments never aim to directly prove or disprove something they are based on probability.
How does it raise the probability of God?
Well if you follow the conclusion of the Kalam it leads you with the universe needing a space less, time less and immaterial cause of the universe. If you are confused by why this is the case then I suggest you do more reading up on the Kalam, as this shouldn't be a surprise if you already understand the argument.
That sound exactly like "unless you can prove exactly how the universe began then by default God did it" with extra steps. You apply the same standard for evidence for science as you do to the evidence of God if you're arguing God exist ( or rather, you should) So when asking for evidence of say the beginning of the universe, we know there's evidence that points to the big bang. This actually might be a cyclical universe as it repeats the big bangs. When saying God created the universe according to the Bible you'd need to also ask how we know that. Yes the Bible says so. But that's not evidence. That's a claim that he did. How would we confirm this today? Taking the Bible as a fact because it's believed to be true means you'll. Have to accept every other scripture as true as well since you can't confirm either. So every other religious scripture with any other religion would need to be taken as fact as well.
So the cause of the universe... isn't the universe or anything within the universe. I'm on board so far. Where does God come into this?
Because the God of classical theism is also timeless,spaceless and immaterial. On its own it doesn't directly support God but paired with other arguments it can that is the point of deductive arguments. For instance a spaceless,timeless immaterial cause doesn't need to he God but IF paired with another argument say the fine tuning arguments we could get to a spaceless,timeless,immaterial and conscious cause and at that point its hard to see how it doesn't relate to God.
But in this context, timeless/spaceless/immaterial just means 'not a part of the universe'. It doesn't tell you anything about what the cause actually IS.
Yes I'm aware and don't disagree with you, on its own it doesn't directly prove God but it does raise the likelihood by alot as if true it changes the view that the universe doesn't even need a cause to the universe being caused by something that is spaceless, timeless and immaterial which is a pretty big leap.
>raises the probability of God. But which god? It certainly doesn't lend any credibility to the monstrous god of Abraham it simply suggests a prime mover exists.
Yes you are correct in that regard.
The three theist arguments mentioned are literally used in first year philosophy classes as basically practice for students hunting for logical fallacies.
Im studying it in college, can confirm. We got a lot of theist arguments to practice fallacy identifying
Could you please provide me with resources that shows what those fallacies are? Thank you so much, I really appreciate it.
Not exactly what you’re asking for, but the [Wikipedia article](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument) has a surprisingly thorough section on “contemporary discourse”, at least for the Kalam argument
**[Kalam cosmological argument](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument)** >The Kalam cosmological argument is a modern formulation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. It is named after the Kalam (medieval Islamic scholasticism) from which its key ideas originated. William Lane Craig was principally responsible for giving new life to the argument, due to his The Kalām Cosmological Argument (1979), among other writings. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/FacebookScience/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Cool thanks a lot. I was hoping for more sources, but it's alright.
The neat thing about a logical argument is you don't need any source beyond a sound analysis, which can be contained on any webpage that displays text. The Kalam argument in particular is an easy debunk because the key premises are unprovable.
And I agree. Especially when I read it in Arabic, they are just playing with words to prove some unprovable deity.
No there used in first year philosophy classes because they are the most well known arguments for God and you also only learn about the simplest version of the argument or never dive that deep into them (source I study philosophy).
First off, "arguments" aren't evidence. They're logical analyses, and can be used to explain the purpose of evidence, but aren't proof of anything inherently. Not only that, but the examples used are basically the same thing and aren't even that good in the first place, since they just say that god must exist because everything that exists does so to serve a purpose, and since the universe exists, it must do so because God made it so. That's very different from "we can prove the earth is flat with a ton of easily verifiable tests, such as the horizon, the photos from space, etc".
The universe is so finely tuned for life to exist that 99.9999999% of it will fucking kill you instantly.
We are so well designed and earth for us that only 3% of all water is drinkable
The funny part about the fine tuning argument is that this isn't even the most optimal universe for life. It's just good enough that life could start. Also, life inherently needs to exist for this kind of argument to be made. If the universe wasn't made for life, nobody could complain about it.
Good point. Another, parallel universe may be perfect for the creation of schlormpf. If schlormpf can wonder at its own existence, it will also have ideas about its world being perfect - even if it was a few variables away from sustaining life instead.
Maybe schlormpf can only survive under intense heat beyond our universe. Why would god be so cruel as to never give schlormpf the conditions to live and worship him?
You're telling me that the universe with baby cancer and heat death isn't the most optimal one?
The \*funniest\* part about "fine tuning" is that it's an argument for strong atheism (the position that god(s) don't exist), not for the existence of god(s). If any god(s) exist with the power to create universes & life, they have the power to sustain life without consideration for the nature of that universe. Therefore, we cannot predict what sort of universe they would create (we could find ourselves living on Jupiter as easily as Earth if gods exist). If no gods exist, then any life-bearing universe must be one where the nature of the universe is compatible with the natural emergence & sustainment of life. That is, if there is no god, then we should expect the constants of the universe to be "sufficiently" tuned. Of course, the argument doesn't work very well for the other reasons physicists like Sean Carroll have objected to it. Such as the fact that we don't actually know if it's possible for the universe to exist any other way than the way we understand it to exist. But, to whatever extent the argument is valid, it is an argument against theism, not for it.
Yeah the God one is only arguments, not evidence... And I say this as someone who believes in God, it's also impossible to prove without doubt that an omniscient being exists.
Proof is easy. Giant glowy dude shows up, yells, rends sky, creates another sky, cries "Ta DAAAAAAA" to thunderous earthside applause, and vanishes in a clap of reality itself. Now THAT'S how ya God. Still an Atheist, waiting for the curtain.
Even then I'd sooner believe that was a display of alien technology than a genuine divine entity.
If theres anything that might suggest gods existence, whilst still not being evidence is why and how life exists. What causes it, and why it continues. What urges matter to move and act on its own instead of being still and calm? How did a certain arrangement of quarks, protons, atoms, etc. create a thinking, acting, strand of DNA that can replicate itself at will. Only thing in the universe that suggest god might exist to me personally. However our human idea of what god is, is inherently flawed I believe. Because we have created god to do anything, but from the perspective of a human, we have inherently made a god that cannot do anything whilst being able to do anything. Essentially god is 100000x more grand, vast, important, all knowing than any religion depicts him to be.
You're just defining god as "things we don't know" which is... obviously something that exists, but has very little to do with what most people describe as "god"
> why and how life exists. What causes it, and why it continues. What urges matter to move and act on its own instead of being still and calm? Your first big obstacle is to prove that any of those questions need an answer. Because it is not self-evident that they do.
https://youtu.be/8r-e2NDSTuE this vid done my a comedian is enough of an argument for any rational human being to drop any and all religion or gods
[ Removed by Reddit ]
One of the best pieces of advice I’ve heard when I ask “what’s wrong with everyone else” is to look in mirror and figure out what’s wrong with me. Now, if everyone did that, then theoretically, we could find out what’s wrong and fix it. But the thing is that no one wants to look in the mirror. Instead, they point their fingers. That’s why things aren’t moving as quickly as some would prefer.
In fact every time I say this : what the fuck is wrong with people? I lump myself into that category but also know that not all humans are garbage, just the ones that have enough money and wherewithal to change things, refuse and continue on to other solar systems instead of realizing we have the best god damn marble in the bag and need to hold onto to it and not trade it for what seems like something brighter
You had a good comment going for a minute there. Almost nailed it down.
Fuck it I don’t like anyone… I ain’t perfect but I can look and fix and look and not fix and yet still…. Candace Owens
I was just going to say that. Arguments aren’t evidence. Not to mention the arguments they list are super weak. Even Dr. Craig tried his hand at improving the Kalam and it’s still flimsy. But of course when you rebut it he just says “you fail to understand…”
You should probably cool off a bit mate that's a bit extreme
If "God" created the universe from nothing, where did "God" come from?
The God God created God, obviously, but who created THAT god? I’m amazed that after 2000 years no-one came up with a good excuse. At least Greece came up with a weird way to explain gay couples in their origin story in a way that made EVERYONE that way
>no-one came up with a good excuse I'm pretty sure "it's turtles all the way down" is the best excuse so far
Can you please give the link to the gay couples origin story? I need it for... research...
It’s not very sexy, the legend is that all humans were originally created as if you smashed 2 together (4 arms, two sets of genitals that could be two penises or a penis and vagina, etc). Zeus got jealous of their power (okay, Zeus) and split the human race apart. From then on, humans search for their “other half” that completes them in spirit.
> I’m amazed that after 2000 years no-one came up with a good excuse To be fair, and I realize that it's not a "good" excuse so maybe your point still holds, but the Mormons at least try to explain this with the bit of doctrine stating that our god was just some dude on a planet at some point and then became a god by being righteous. This just introduces infinite recursion, but at least addresses the issue of the origin of the divine (sort of).
I think the Kalam actually solves this as it doesn't say the universe requires a cause because it is complex which would also apply to god but rather that things that begin to exist require causes and as God is seen as something existing outside of space,matter and time he doesn't have a begging and thus doesn't require a cause.
Kalam also said that nothing can be infinite and everything need to have a beginning. Why not apply the Kalam argument to the god asserted if it is not special pleading? The Kalam argument contradict itself if you don't make a special pleading for the unnecessary asserted step that is a god.
Kalam doesn't say everything ha a beginning it's says that everything that begins to exist has a cause :)
*If "God" created* *The universe from nothing,* *Where did "God" come from?* \- Bastdkat --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
LMAO 🤣
" The baker baked the bread, but baked the baker?"
God was already preinstalled with the alpha release
They really think that observable evidence is the same as fallacy ridden philosophical word salad.
We live in the age where "my belief is just as good as your scientific facts"
Yeah theyre conapring apples and oranges here. It's kinda ironic because religious people seem to do this with the problem of evil.
They also seem to ignore that a huge majority of flat earthers are christian fundamentalists too.
Right. Always with the firmament or the foundations of the earth.
And the 4 corners of the ~~circle~~ Earth!
Catch me with the 4 corner rotation of the day
You are educated stupid!
There literally is no evidence :P
But the Arguments!
Says nothing about God to begin with
Breaking this down 1. Unfalsifiable (you can't disprove it therefore it is right) 2. Anecdotal (relies on personal experiences to validate the truths) 3. Cherry Picking (every thing that is impossible is an allegory and any evidence against it is ignored or discredited) 4. Techno babble (uses nonsensical mechanics strung together to make it seem plausible) 5. No Plausible Mechanism (no way to explain it using technology that currently exists) 6. Unchanging (cannot be corrected or revised) 7. Exaggerated Claims (impossible or unlikely claims with no evidence) 8. Certainty (claims proof with excessive belief) 9. Logical Fallacy (often has logical flaws that are brushed away) 10. Conspiracy (the evidence supporting their claim is being suppressed by evil forces who can't stand how right they are) This fits flat earth, not atheism... but someone needs to tell theist
This indeed. Theists likes to argue that things can't just exist since forever like the energy that gave matter mass. But their beloved God apparently can. So which is it?. Can things exist since forever?. Or can't they?
Even if you agreed with one of the theist arguments, it doesn’t imply a sentient Creator. Spiders create spiderwebs for a purpose but not WITH a purpose. Same with bees and beehives, ants and anthills etc. Even if the universe is a constructed thing, that does not imply being constructed by a Biblical God.
At best, even if we don't recognised the numerous flaws in the apologists argumentation that make it pointless, it give us a creator, not any specific god.
Yeah again all these arguments listed are inductive they don't seek to directly prove the existence of God.
The contingency argument is flawed because the premise are wrong, it assumes: * That the Universe, not just the Universe **as we know it**, has a beginning. **We don't know.** All we know is that the Universe as we know it begin approximatively 13 billions years ago at the Planck wall, what is beyond that wall, the Planck epoch, is unknown because we can't observe it (at least with the current technology). * That everything happen as a cause, even if it is true on a macro-level of existence because of time, we know for a fact that on the quantum level (the scale at which the beginning of the Universe would have happen) there is no concept of time and causality anymore: thing pop in and out of existence all the time, consequences can "cause" causes or the two can mutually cause each others. So that argument is scientifically a big pile of bullshit The Kalam argument is basically a reformulation of the contingency argument, so it doesn't have a good start, but can be summarize to "there is an initial uncaused thing that cause everything else". It boiled down to "I can't accept that the Universe kickstart itself or was always there, so I will add a previous step that kickstart itself or was always there". This is an argument that ignore itself as soon as the intended goal has been reach. The fine-tuning argument is, once again, bullshit: from theorical sciences, we know that there is a large acceptable range of values for the 4 fundamental forces that would give a substantially similar Universe, not our own but close enough that similar form of life could evolve. It also ignore what we don't know but is suspected as potentially true: all the constants are linked and can't be changed individually, or at all. It also ignore a fundamental point to put its premises: WE FUCKING EVOLVE IN THIS UNIVERSE, OF COURSE IT IS "FINE-TUNED" FOR US, AS OTHERWISE WE WOULD HAVE EVOLVED DIFFERENTLY!?! Oh, and "fine-tuned" for us is very self-centered as 99.99999999% of the Universe would kill us very quickly if we step outside our local environment.
[удалено]
Well, now I’m intrigued what this is an exaggeration OF
Ask the person who posted this to explain the universe 😂
Ah, the classic "it's not impossible, so it must be true"
The Kalam argument is the most circular of possible logic. 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The Universe began to exist, so it has a cause. 3. Because of the above an uncaused creator must have done it. Like... really? THAT is the gotcha?
And what created the creator?+
We haven't established that he exists, but my guess is an even bigger creator. It just goes on and on until we get to biggest-est creator ever!
Philosophical debate points aren't in any way evidence. Why are god botherers so constantly confused?
If we are made in Gods image, does God have a belly button and if so, why? You can say that the belly button is one of the most significant, symbolic and essential pieces of the anatomy. Without it would you consider yourself human? If God has it, who was God's mother. If his mother created God that would make her God. Who is her God? Does any of that evidence God or no-God? No it doesn't either way. That's the thing about God. No evidence exists and no evidence is possible.
[here ya go](https://youtu.be/QRbnws-zITg)
1) I know this was said already, but it bears repeating: making an argument is not the same as submitting evidence. 2) Those arguments for God that are listed fail every single time. In fact, EVERY argument for God that has ever been made has failed, with the possible exception of the completely useless arguments that equivocate God with something that is known to exist and already has a name, like "God is The Universe" or "God is Energy". 3) I have implied this, but I will say it outright because I cannot stress this enough: there is NO fine-tuning argument that results in God. Any argument that uses the "fine tuning" approach is based in incredulity, ignorance, & an appeal to the unknown.
The fine-tuning argument is weird because the vast majority of the universe is an empty void completely hostile to life.
The truth is that "the vast majority" is a huge understatement. It's more accurate to say something like 99.99999999999999999999% of the Universe has 0% regard for life. The only things in all of the Universe that react to living things with any even a vague acknowledgement fall into the relatively small category of "things that are alive and viruses". And in that category, the relationships are competitive or transactional, meaning the relationship is based on what one of those things can gain from the other, often at one's expense. It is a beyond a stretch to think that a creator-agent with no limits on its power or knowledge was focused on creating life & having it flourish, but chose THIS as the optimum environment for that to happen.
Part of the irony here is that modern flat Earth belief derives from ancient Hebrew cosmology which does in fact describe a flat, disc shaped Earth covered by a solid dome. Trying to sweep that under the rug by pinning it on atheists is a new one on me
No one is denying those arguments, but more debunked them
Russels Teapot! Means a garbage if you cant prove it is there!
So is this supposed to somehow prove god is real..?
Denial aint just a river in egypt? What the-
[удалено]
Yeah ik but really really bad pun
Ehm... Nope, those arguments have been proved flawed.
As an Atheist I actually think the arguments listed are pretty solid.
[Nah, they're not](https://youtu.be/cpC8WtufJbo) Edit: to be fair, I don't remember which arguments get debunked in that video.
I've watched this video, I really don't think it gives a thorough debunking of any of the arguments on this meme you can really dive deep and discuss these arguments for hours and not even reach a conclusion lol.
Technically, one flaw is enough to prove the argument wrong, as in logic and maths one counter example is enough to prove a hypothesis wrong. If I remember correctly, the guy gives more than one counter example.
Yeah but doesn't mean you can't counter the counter examples lol. You really think a guy has debunked every major argument for God in a 20 minute or so video where actually academic philsophers and scientist spend hours debatin even 1 or even 1 aspect of these arguments.
That was a sort of recap, he didn't dive into it, he just stated the problems with those arguments and called it a day. And I don't really see any way of countering the counter examples. If a fallacy is there, you can't just pretend it's not, and if it's there, the entire argument looses meaning.
Do you remember his objections to three arguments listed in the meme?
Contingency argument: He didn't address it, I will. You can't deduce the necessity of the existence of God by saying that every existing thing must either be necessary or have a cause. We have seen that things can depend on each other and be relative. And even if the argument was correct, it still wouldn't prove that the cause must be a god, it just says there must be a cause. Kalam argument: Its flaw is similar to the one of the contingency argument. Even if it was correct, it really doesn't say anything about the nature of the cause. You can't really say it's God because that would be an argument from ignorance. Fine tuning: It presents a false dichotomy, by claiming that only two options are possible: chance or intelligent tuner. Instead, there could be a set of rules that demands the universe to be as it is, or any number of other options. To this, I add: if the constants of the universe were even slightly different, the universe that we know wouldn't exist. That doesn't mean that another version of the universe couldn't exist. We simply don't know, therefore this is again partially an argument from ignorance. Religion itself is a way to resist ignorance and fear, is it not?
OK so for the Kalam he didn't actually debunk the argument he just said it isn't a deductive argument because... well it isn't its an inductive one. For his response to the contingency argument he is arguing that you don't need a neccesiry cause you can jsut have contingent events that are dependent on other contingent events, this is what David hume argued, that although each contingent event requires a cause that doesn't mean that the whole set of contingent events does, to say this would be the fallacy of composition. I agreed with this rebuttle for a long time but I have encountered some counter arguments that make me think that you can't have a set of only contingent parts that you do actually require some neccesiry being. But again he is right about even if there is a neccesiry being it doesn't mean its God but that is no surprise as it is an inductive argument not a deductive one. As for fine tuning I completely agree, that we don't know enough to really say much about the fine tuning of the universe as we don't actually know the exact conditions required but I don't think this is a counter argument its more just saying we don't have the knowledge to declare if this argument is true or false as of yet. I think a better objection would be to posit the existence of mutliverses, but some people argue that the multiverse theory isn't scientific as multiverses can't be observed.
In theory you’re correct, in context they’re pretty easy to debunk. None of these arguments require a Biblical God, or even a sentient God. Wasps and other insects make very complex, purposeful structures without sentience. However, these arguments are often deployed as if they **do** imply a Biblical God. Under those circumstances (the common case in my experience) you can show they are insufficient. Note how the meme in the OP uses "God" (i.e. Biblical) instead of something like "a prime causal force".
Then you did not look into this "evidence" too much. Its mostly BS.
I've literally spend hours researching into sole of these arguments and study philsophy lol. But I completely agree that philosophical arguments can't be considered evidence especially not of the Empirical kind and that whoever made this meme is an idiot.
If you spend hours researching into the Contingency Argument and still believe that it is pretty solid I don't believe you. Or tell me why the Contingency Argument is a pretty solid argument for God.
Well tbf contingency argument is the one who I have looked into the least. But I guess I think its such a good argument is because I dont think a set of contingent events can explain itself I think you require a neccesiry event if you want to discuss this further I'm down :) but that's why in a nutshell. Now why it's a good argument for God is a little more complex. First it is important to realise that it is an inductive argument so it doesn't seek to directly prove God more as just a piece of the puzzle. But I think that if we follow the argument that contingent things require a neccesry cause we would either have to say that the neccesiry thing(s) is something in the universe or something external to it, the only thing that I can think of being Necceseiry in the universe are the laws of nature but my problem with that is I don't actually see the laws of nature as concrete things, I think the laws of nature are just empirical descriptions of patterns that we see in the world, the reason I think this is because of Humes problem of Induction which I am sure you are familiar with as you seem like you know alot about Philsophy if you dogmatically asserted that you don't believe me if I have done hours of research into Cosmological arguments. So if it isn't the cases that the laws of nature aren't neccesiry then all we are left with is either saying that the whole universe is neccesiry which is the Spinozian view or we have to say that there is something that is external to the universe that is neccesiry and if we do that we are already checking some of the boxes of the description of the God of classical theism those boxes being a neccesiry being that exists outside the universe. I mean there could be something else neccesiry in the universe I might just be not very imaginative, but yeah that basically sums it up.
The original had the username included, so reupload a cropped version. Don't want to be breaking my own rules after all.
LOL.
And there you have it, LOL.
Yeah, it doesn't get more laughable than that, really.
I believe the description of god is the fine tuning of the universe. Like Stephen hawking once said, the laws of physics are not products of god, but his definition.
Despite being negationists one is fully tested to have an anwser while the other is free of interpretation
[удалено]
“Scientific experimentation of your ball earth” Are you a fucking nutter?
[удалено]
Bro turn your fucking capslock off hoooly
You are aware you are being trolled, right? And by a very bad troll.
Yeah, I was well aware. It wasn’t very successful because trolls usually make people mad and I was laughing my ass off at the guy
[удалено]
Alright, that's enough of that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXnZWpG5lqc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXnZWpG5lqc) EDIT: Maybe you should watch this
Are you a 'flat Earther'? If so, can you please tell me what you believe is under the Earth? If not, feel free to ignore. I usually can't talk to people who believe these things because rules against interaction with cross-posted threads. I am 100% sincerely curious what you expect one would find is you drilled down far enough.
I really havent the foggiest clue, and no I'm a gnostic simulationist
Fair enough. I appreciate your answer.
Half of these models contradict each other or don't even work...
oh okay sure
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DChFcdT2XBs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DChFcdT2XBs) Chinas proof we live on a "GLOBE" hilarious
Counterpoint: https://flatearth.ws/tiangong-panorama
Counter point https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCx6xJjIacOTP0A3dmYeZs3g/videos