Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum » Atheists what is the strongest argument for theism? Theists the inverse question?
  1. Results 31 to 60 of 86
  2. Page 2 of 3
  3. First
  5. 1
  6. 2
  7. 3
  9. Last

Thread: Atheists what is the strongest argument for theism? Theists the inverse question?

post 1693943163 11-26-2023, 09:35 AM
-
#31
  1. GreatOldOne
  2. Cthulhu fhtagn
  1. GreatOldOne
  2. Cthulhu fhtagn
  3. Join Date: Jan 2013
  4. Posts: 39,712
  5. Rep Power: 210947
Originally Posted By isingmodel⏩
I'm asserting that in premise 1 of the KCA, "begins to exist" necessarily takes the form I described "x exists at t, there is time before t, and there is a time interval before t where x does not exist". This isn't controversial, it's just how everything we have ever observed is described. Cars began to exist, people began to exist, trees began to exist, all satisfying the above form.

So if you want to use inductive reasoning to support premise 1, then "the universe" in premise 2 has to take the same form as "everything" in 1. But the universe of course does not - there is no time interval before t where the universe was not existing. It's a basic equivocational fallacy that makes the argument a non sequitur. It's just one of many problems with the KCA.
If the universe has an age, which we think it probably does...then it has a beginning.

You're not going to be able to say the universe doesn't have a beginning because there was a time before cars.
post 1693943803 11-26-2023, 09:52 AM
-
#32
  1. rectifryer
  2. enlightened
  1. rectifryer
  2. enlightened
  3. Join Date: Sep 2012
  4. Posts: 25,634
  5. Rep Power: 208783
Originally Posted By GreatOldOne⏩
If the universe has an age, which we think it probably does...then it has a beginning.

You're not going to be able to say the universe doesn't have a beginning because there was a time before cars.
Yes. The other argument is basically saying "there is no time before the universe thus there was no beginning" while ignoring that time itself had a beginning.

You have to love how atheists quote science but then come up with the most random untestable theories.
Boycott foodservice industry crew
post 1693944653 11-26-2023, 10:14 AM
-
#33
  1. Reliance012
  2. Registered User
  1. Reliance012
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jul 2012
  4. Posts: 7,601
  5. Rep Power: 51600
I’ve yet to see any credible evidence supporting a higher power. But if I had to choose, the fine tuning argument is probably the best put forth for deism, despite it being unconvincing overall.
"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."
post 1693945693 11-26-2023, 10:36 AM
-
#34
  1. rectifryer
  2. enlightened
  1. rectifryer
  2. enlightened
  3. Join Date: Sep 2012
  4. Posts: 25,634
  5. Rep Power: 208783
Originally Posted By Reliance012⏩
I’ve yet to see any credible evidence supporting a higher power. But if I had to choose, the fine tuning argument is probably the best put forth for deism, despite it being unconvincing overall.
Do you think an omnipotent being can create it self?

More importantly, do you think the universe can?

Not an attack or trick question.
Boycott foodservice industry crew
post 1693946673 11-26-2023, 11:00 AM
-
#35
  1. Reliance012
  2. Registered User
  1. Reliance012
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jul 2012
  4. Posts: 7,601
  5. Rep Power: 51600
Originally Posted By GreatOldOne⏩
If the universe has an age, which we think it probably does...then it has a beginning.

You're not going to be able to say the universe doesn't have a beginning because there was a time before cars.
There are a multitude of models consistent with both the Big Bang and an eternal universe. Most prominent physicists today will tell you they simply don’t know (yet) if our universe is eternal. The problem is the vocabulary — “beginning” 13.8 bya is referring to a thermodynamic beginning; what happened at the Big Bang is not understood. There’s also no justification for extrapolating the notion of cause and effect — governed by laws within* our universe — to the universe as a whole. Sean Carroll has talked extensively on this topic. The larger point is that the premise of KCA is not supported in the slightest. It’s an argument from incredulity.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FgpvCxDL7q4

William Lane Craig tried to argue it here, and it didn’t turn out well.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X0qKZqPy9T8
"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."
post 1693947153 11-26-2023, 11:17 AM
-
#36
  1. Reliance012
  2. Registered User
  1. Reliance012
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jul 2012
  4. Posts: 7,601
  5. Rep Power: 51600
Originally Posted By rectifryer⏩
Do you think an omnipotent being can create it self?

More importantly, do you think the universe can?

Not an attack or trick question.
I don’t know if the universe could create itself. Nothing in contemporary cosmology suggests it is impossible. I also don’t know if the universe was created at all.

I would say it’s theoretically possible for an omnipotent being to arise over time from physical laws. I don’t know if that constitutes creating itself.
"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."
post 1693952923 11-26-2023, 01:52 PM
-
#37
  1. brooootal
  2. Banned
  1. brooootal
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Nov 2023
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 998
  6. Rep Power: 0
From an atheist POV, the strongest argument for theism in general is simply that we cannot explain why anything exists at all. Of course, presupposing a "why" is itself fallacious, but our universe is peculiar given its parameters. We have anomalies like the hierarchy problem and other seemingly finely tuned parameters. That said, given a Bayesian anthropic approach, where you consider that we had to have arisen in certain kinds of universes to even ask the question, it reduces the scale of how contrived this all is substantially. Still, there is a lot we do not understand. Is there room for a deity in this discussion? Perhaps, but the caveat should be to even clarify what a deity is. The idea that any religion on Earth has even the vaguest inkling of how the universe was created is laughable. Every current religion is a lie.

You'll notice all I can argue is that there is a possibility for a deity, given the vague idea of what a deity is as a creator of the universe. Nowhere in there is any evidence or logical argument for such an existence. People believe because they want to believe, and it's pathetic.
post 1693953083 11-26-2023, 01:55 PM
-
#38
  1. brooootal
  2. Banned
  1. brooootal
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Nov 2023
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 998
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By rectifryer⏩
Do you think an omnipotent being can create it self?

More importantly, do you think the universe can?

Not an attack or trick question.
By definition, it would have to be able to create itself. It would also have to be able to do that which it cannot do, which is itself retarded.
post 1693954153 11-26-2023, 02:18 PM
-
#39
  1. GreatOldOne
  2. Cthulhu fhtagn
  1. GreatOldOne
  2. Cthulhu fhtagn
  3. Join Date: Jan 2013
  4. Posts: 39,712
  5. Rep Power: 210947
Originally Posted By Reliance012⏩
There are a multitude of models consistent with both the Big Bang and an eternal universe. Most prominent physicists today will tell you they simply don’t know (yet) if our universe is eternal. The problem is the vocabulary — “beginning” 13.8 bya is referring to a thermodynamic beginning; what happened at the Big Bang is not understood. There’s also no justification for extrapolating the notion of cause and effect — governed by laws within* our universe — to the universe as a whole. Sean Carroll has talked extensively on this topic. The larger point is that the premise of KCA is not supported in the slightest. It’s an argument from incredulity.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FgpvCxDL7q4

William Lane Craig tried to argue it here, and it didn’t turn out well.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X0qKZqPy9T8
You can go round and round about it, but either the universe began to exist or it did not. If it began to exist, then the principle of sufficient reason will say there is a cause.

If it is eternal, there is the same kind of argument for sustaining existence in the moment one to the next.

However it is considered, it would seem imo there is an atemporal, immaterial cause of existence, right now,...or, there is no principle of sufficient reason. I used to think that, but I changed my mind.
post 1693954923 11-26-2023, 02:33 PM
-
#40
  1. isingmodel
  2. Registered User
  1. isingmodel
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2019
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 11,925
  6. Rep Power: 57442
Originally Posted By GreatOldOne⏩
If the universe has an age, which we think it probably does...then it has a beginning.

You're not going to be able to say the universe doesn't have a beginning because there was a time before cars.
The universe may have a definitive beginning, science hasn't answered that.

However you simply can't use inductive logic related to causal relationships of material objects in time, and apply it to the beginning of the universe itself. It's a basic equivocation fallacy. The KCA does not stay consistent from premise to premise and the argument always ends up a non sequitur.
Misc Crypto Crew
BTC to $200k
post 1693955343 11-26-2023, 02:42 PM
-
#41
  1. brooootal
  2. Banned
  1. brooootal
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Nov 2023
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 998
  6. Rep Power: 0
It's conceivable to talk about logical, mathematical cause outside of temporal causality. It does lead to existential questions about such mathematical objects and Platonism though.
post 1693955833 11-26-2023, 02:55 PM
-
#42
  1. isingmodel
  2. Registered User
  1. isingmodel
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2019
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 11,925
  6. Rep Power: 57442
Originally Posted By brooootal⏩
From an atheist POV, the strongest argument for theism in general is simply that we cannot explain why anything exists at all. Of course, presupposing a "why" is itself fallacious, but our universe is peculiar given its parameters. We have anomalies like the hierarchy problem and other seemingly finely tuned parameters. That said, given a Bayesian anthropic approach, where you consider that we had to have arisen in certain kinds of universes to even ask the question, it reduces the scale of how contrived this all is substantially. Still, there is a lot we do not understand. Is there room for a deity in this discussion? Perhaps, but the caveat should be to even clarify what a deity is. The idea that any religion on Earth has even the vaguest inkling of how the universe was created is laughable. Every current religion is a lie.

You'll notice all I can argue is that there is a possibility for a deity, given the vague idea of what a deity is as a creator of the universe. Nowhere in there is any evidence or logical argument for such an existence. People believe because they want to believe, and it's pathetic.
I find the fine tuning problem actually subverts theism. The god of monotheism by definition could not be limited by the physical parameters (cosmological constant, magnitude of the strong interaction, and whatever else you can argue are "finely tuned") of the universe, he can create and maintain life regardless (the afterlife being a prime example) and so if there is such a thing as a fine tuning problem, it almost has to confirm naturalism...
Misc Crypto Crew
BTC to $200k
post 1693955873 11-26-2023, 02:56 PM
-
#43
  1. lasher
  2. Crypto-Theist Shill
  1. lasher
  2. Crypto-Theist Shill
  3. Join Date: May 2004
  4. Location: Malta
  5. Posts: 34,760
  6. Rep Power: 79633
Imagine thinking this isn't all a simulation either way.
'On many levels, mathematics itself operates as Whiteness. Who gets credit for doing and developing mathematics, who is capable in mathematics, and who is seen as part of the mathematical community is generally viewed as White' - Rochelle Gutierrez, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Illinois.
post 1693956293 11-26-2023, 03:06 PM
-
#44
  1. brooootal
  2. Banned
  1. brooootal
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Nov 2023
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 998
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By isingmodel⏩
I find the fine tuning problem actually subverts theism. The god of monotheism by definition could not be limited by the physical parameters (cosmological constant, magnitude of the strong interaction, and whatever else you can argue are "finely tuned") of the universe, he can create and maintain life regardless (the afterlife being a prime example) and so if there is such a thing as a fine tuning problem, it almost has to confirm naturalism...
The point is that if we believe these are free parameters and our universe is one of many that could have arisen like this, then it being so finely tuned raises eyebrows. But it only raises eyebrows if you don't take into account that we have to exist in the first place to ask the question. That narrows the possibilities considerably.
post 1693956623 11-26-2023, 03:13 PM
-
#45
  1. GreatOldOne
  2. Cthulhu fhtagn
  1. GreatOldOne
  2. Cthulhu fhtagn
  3. Join Date: Jan 2013
  4. Posts: 39,712
  5. Rep Power: 210947
Originally Posted By isingmodel⏩
The universe may have a definitive beginning, science hasn't answered that.

However you simply can't use inductive logic related to causal relationships of material objects in time, and apply it to the beginning of the universe itself. It's a basic equivocation fallacy. The KCA does not stay consistent from premise to premise and the argument always ends up a non sequitur.
I don't see the equivocation, as the universe can fairly be said to begin at time zero. If you say the universe itself isn't subject to the principle of sufficient reason you are inventing unnecessary metaphysical entanglement, which is what Occam's razor is for...

Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.
*except perhaps the universe, which may have begun to exist with no cause.

Aren't you forced into that position?

In this formulation, "God" gets out of criticism because it's supposed to be eternal and what avoids infinite regress of cause.

None of this informs you about the nature of the first cause, or cause of existence itself between moments except that it would be a temporal and immaterial.

A fair criticism of KCA would be it just doesn't get you very far...but imo it is a strike against materialism. But it's not invalid AFAIK.
post 1693956943 11-26-2023, 03:20 PM
-
#46
  1. brooootal
  2. Banned
  1. brooootal
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Nov 2023
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 998
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By GreatOldOne⏩
I don't see the equivocation, as the universe can fairly be said to begin at time zero. If you say the universe itself isn't subject to the principle of sufficient reason you are inventing unnecessary metaphysical entanglement, which is what Occam's razor is for...

Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.
*except perhaps the universe, which may have begun to exist with no cause.

Aren't you forced into that position?

In this formulation, "God" gets out of criticism because it's supposed to be eternal and what avoids infinite regress of cause.

None of this informs you about the nature of the first cause, or cause of existence itself between moments except that it would be a temporal and immaterial.

A fair criticism of KCA would be it just doesn't get you very far...but imo it is a strike against materialism. But it's not invalid AFAIK.
One subtlety: the universe could exist eternally in principle and still have the thermodynamic notion of time's arrow begin from a point, beyond which it is impossible to speak of "before" from the POV of anyone within the universe because there is no record of it within the universe. You can imagine this happening with poincare recurrences or with inflation creating pockets of isolated spacetime that then become essentially budding new universes.
post 1693957433 11-26-2023, 03:30 PM
-
#47
  1. ghostfacedup
  2. Registered User
  1. ghostfacedup
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 16,948
  5. Rep Power: 80672
There's a reason many "scientists" are becoming theists and turning away from atheism. Atheism burned itself out.
post 1693957543 11-26-2023, 03:32 PM
-
#48
  1. brooootal
  2. Banned
  1. brooootal
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Nov 2023
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 998
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By ghostfacedup⏩
There's a reason many "scientists" are becoming theists and turning away from atheism. Atheism burned itself out.
lol...name one
post 1693957783 11-26-2023, 03:38 PM
-
#49
  1. ghostfacedup
  2. Registered User
  1. ghostfacedup
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 16,948
  5. Rep Power: 80672
Originally Posted By brooootal⏩
lol...name one
you can literally google this. only about 33% of scientists identify as atheist now...it will continue to decline.
post 1693957903 11-26-2023, 03:41 PM
-
#50
  1. brooootal
  2. Banned
  1. brooootal
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Nov 2023
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 998
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By ghostfacedup⏩
you can literally google this. only about 33% of scientists identify as atheist now...it will continue to decline.
Lol humor me and link it.

Better yet, name a single prominent physicist from current times who switched from being atheist/agnostic to being theist.
post 1693957993 11-26-2023, 03:44 PM
-
#51
  1. ghostfacedup
  2. Registered User
  1. ghostfacedup
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 16,948
  5. Rep Power: 80672
Originally Posted By brooootal⏩
Better yet, name a single prominent physicist from current times who switched from being atheist/agnostic to being theist.
lol, no. that's now how this works.
post 1693958033 11-26-2023, 03:45 PM
-
#52
  1. brooootal
  2. Banned
  1. brooootal
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Nov 2023
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 998
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By ghostfacedup⏩
lol, no. that's now how this works.
It is. I originally asked you to name one.

This is like Trump's "People are saying". Which people? Who? Where?
post 1693958093 11-26-2023, 03:46 PM
-
#53
  1. ghostfacedup
  2. Registered User
  1. ghostfacedup
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 16,948
  5. Rep Power: 80672
Originally Posted By brooootal⏩
It is. I originally asked you to name one.
I don't need to.
post 1693959173 11-26-2023, 04:13 PM
-
#54
  1. brooootal
  2. Banned
  1. brooootal
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Nov 2023
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 998
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By ghostfacedup⏩
I don't need to.
kin any case, the sociology of irrational belief without evidence (a principle antithetical to science itself) is irrelevant to this discussion
post 1693959503 11-26-2023, 04:20 PM
-
#55
  1. isingmodel
  2. Registered User
  1. isingmodel
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2019
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 11,925
  6. Rep Power: 57442
Originally Posted By brooootal⏩
The point is that if we believe these are free parameters and our universe is one of many that could have arisen like this, then it being so finely tuned raises eyebrows. But it only raises eyebrows if you don't take into account that we have to exist in the first place to ask the question. That narrows the possibilities considerably.
I agree it raises a question, I just meant the answer cannot be God. Because that suggests God could not create life unless the physical parameters were set to a specific configuration.

That couldn't be true if God is omnipotent and immaterial.
Misc Crypto Crew
BTC to $200k
post 1693959663 11-26-2023, 04:24 PM
-
#56
  1. brooootal
  2. Banned
  1. brooootal
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Nov 2023
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 998
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By isingmodel⏩
I agree it raises a question, I just meant the answer cannot be God. Because that suggests God could not create life unless the physical parameters were set to a specific configuration.

That couldn't be true if God is omnipotent and immaterial.
That could still be true. Life requires certain things. Yeah idk what omnipotence even is tbh. But ignoring that, life requires our universe to be a certain way. This fictional God could maybe have other projects going that don't have life.
post 1693959903 11-26-2023, 04:29 PM
-
#57
  1. ghostfacedup
  2. Registered User
  1. ghostfacedup
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 16,948
  5. Rep Power: 80672
Originally Posted By brooootal⏩
kin any case, the sociology of irrational belief without evidence (a principle antithetical to science itself) is irrelevant to this discussion
but the opinions of scientists are not.
post 1693960193 11-26-2023, 04:37 PM
-
#58
  1. Irezumi
  2. Graveyard of Empires
  1. Irezumi
  2. Graveyard of Empires
  3. Join Date: Jul 2007
  4. Location: Yorba Linda, California, United States
  5. Posts: 13,130
  6. Rep Power: 80291
As a Nhilist..I honestly have no issues with religion because I actually take the time to attempt to understand it. I'll even go as far as saying it's required because of our "evil" nature...my personal opinion is that the only thing keeping a believer decent is the promise of a divine reward which I was never a fan of but again...the means justify the ends. I don't feel our minds can comprehend the numbers that describe just how far reaching the universe is and that's what drives our belief that we are somehow special enough to be created in the image of the almighty creator but to each his own...religion is a good thing...it's aim is to better man...to teach us to be humble and understand there are far greater and more important things...it's man who corrupts it and turns it into a cancer. Regardless, it's essentially all voodoo to me but I'm not the psuedo intellectual atheist who would go out of my way to insult what is essentially the most important aspect of someone's life.
LE6920CA Magpul
DDM4 V7
Glock 19 Gen 3
post 1693960553 11-26-2023, 04:48 PM
-
#59
  1. isingmodel
  2. Registered User
  1. isingmodel
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2019
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 11,925
  6. Rep Power: 57442
Originally Posted By brooootal⏩
That could still be true. Life requires certain things. Yeah idk what omnipotence even is tbh. But ignoring that, life requires our universe to be a certain way. This fictional God could maybe have other projects going that don't have life.
On naturalism yes. On theism life is not limited by physical parameters! God can create life even if the mass of the electron was 1 billion times higher no? Otherwise he can't be God (of monotheism anyway)? Does he not sustain the afterlife which is non physical?
Misc Crypto Crew
BTC to $200k
post 1693960653 11-26-2023, 04:50 PM
-
#60
  1. brooootal
  2. Banned
  1. brooootal
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Nov 2023
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 998
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By isingmodel⏩
On naturalism yes. On theism life is not limited by physical parameters! God can create life even if the mass of the electron was 1 billion times higher no? Otherwise he can't be God (of monotheism anyway)? Does he not sustain the afterlife which is non physical?
That's what I mean though. Omnipotence just leads to a bunch of illogical conclusions. Like God can make 1=0.
Quick Navigation Top Misc
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts