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 1693921703 11-25-2023, 05:43 PM
-
#31
  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
I'm reigniting the R in R&P.

For me (atheist) it's the argument from contingency (original was Leibniz I think). I'll still refute it easily but it's the one that made me reconsider my stance more than anything.

Continue...
Misc Crypto Crew
BTC to $200k
post 1693922063 11-25-2023, 05:53 PM
-
#32
  1. Stizzel
  2. Rothbardian
  1. Stizzel
  2. Rothbardian
  3. Join Date: Apr 2008
  4. Location: Your Mom
  5. Posts: 83,753
  6. Subscribers: 1
  7. Rep Power: 384419
You're not an atheist, you're a statist

Stop fraudin
“It’s the bill of rights, not the bill of requests. Rights are not up for negotiations.” Thomas Massie, MAGA enemy #1
post 1693922073 11-25-2023, 05:53 PM
-
#33
  1. GreatOldOne
  2. Cthulhu fhtagn
  1. GreatOldOne
  2. Cthulhu fhtagn
  3. Join Date: Jan 2013
  4. Posts: 39,712
  5. Rep Power: 210947
KCA does seem to suggest an immaterial, atemporal cause of the universe. It's taken and used as evidence for a personal God, which I don't think it shows...but it does seem to suggest there is some kind of 'Great Whatever'.

I think Berkeley does argue well for a Godlike mind (something more powerful than human), but he too goes overboard imo and ends up with a 'perfect God'.

I wouldn't say I'm atheist anymore, though, but rather panentheist.
post 1693922203 11-25-2023, 05:57 PM
-
#34
  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 Stizzel⏩
You're not an atheist, you're a statist

Stop fraudin
I'm a committed FASist. It exists and it is terrible
Misc Crypto Crew
BTC to $200k
post 1693922323 11-25-2023, 06:02 PM
-
#35
  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⏩
KCA does seem to suggest an immaterial, atemporal cause of the universe. It's taken and used as evidence for a personal God, which I don't think it shows...but it does seem to suggest there is some kind of 'Great Whatever'.

I think Berkeley does argue well for a Godlike mind (something more powerful than human), but he too goes overboard imo and ends up with a 'perfect God'.

I wouldn't say I'm atheist anymore, though, but rather panentheist.
KCA has so many holes it's pretty much unintelligible

If we rigorously define "begins to exist" we can posit that everything that we have ever observed that "begins to exist" obeys:

x begins to exist at time t
there existed time before t
there was a time interval t1 to t where x did not exist

But the universe does not fulfil the second two requirements. Therefore we cannot use inductive logic to extrapolate our macroscopic experiences to the universe. That's just the first of many objections
Misc Crypto Crew
BTC to $200k
post 1693922763 11-25-2023, 06:14 PM
-
#36
  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⏩
KCA has so many holes it's pretty much unintelligible

If we rigorously define "begins to exist" we can posit that everything that we have ever observed that "begins to exist" obeys:

x begins to exist at time t
there existed time before t
there was a time interval t1 to t where x did not exist

But the universe does not fulfil the second two requirements. Therefore we cannot use inductive logic to extrapolate our macroscopic experiences to the universe. That's just the first of many objections
You can have something begin without a preexisting time. As if a race that begins at the pistol. When dealing with the universe, time begins at the start. Are we going to say the universe didn't begin? There was not a start of inflation? That doesn't seem right.

3rd there isn't required by anything. The notion is begin to exist, not what happens before time...which is incoherent. Time begins with the universe...which seems based on our observations to have a starting point.

I've read all the objections and used to argue them myself...but they're wrong. However, KCA never gets to a personal creator...just an immaterial, a temporal cause of existence.

You can apply the same argument to existence in the moment. Trying to get rid of the KCA by saying cause doesn't apply because of something related to time doesn't work.

You also can't function without notions of beginning and cause, so it's pretty hard and unproductive to argue those away.
post 1693924113 11-25-2023, 06:48 PM
-
#37
  1. Bodhy
  2. Paddling to New Zealand
  1. Bodhy
  2. Paddling to New Zealand
  3. Join Date: Mar 2020
  4. Posts: 17,326
  5. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By isingmodel⏩
KCA has so many holes it's pretty much unintelligible

If we rigorously define "begins to exist" we can posit that everything that we have ever observed that "begins to exist" obeys:

x begins to exist at time t
there existed time before t
there was a time interval t1 to t where x did not exist

But the universe does not fulfil the second two requirements. Therefore we cannot use inductive logic to extrapolate our macroscopic experiences to the universe. That's just the first of many objections
Where does that definition come from, though?
Back off, Warchild.

Seriously.
post 1693924223 11-25-2023, 06:50 PM
-
#38
  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 Bodhy⏩
Where does that definition come from, though?
Name a single thing that we've ever observed beginning to exist that doesn't fit that definition
Misc Crypto Crew
BTC to $200k
post 1693924423 11-25-2023, 06:54 PM
-
#39
  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⏩
You can have something begin without a preexisting time. As if a race that begins at the pistol. When dealing with the universe, time begins at the start. Are we going to say the universe didn't begin? There was not a start of inflation? That doesn't seem right.

3rd there isn't required by anything. The notion is begin to exist, not what happens before time...which is incoherent. Time begins with the universe...which seems based on our observations to have a starting point.

I've read all the objections and used to argue them myself...but they're wrong. However, KCA never gets to a personal creator...just an immaterial, a temporal cause of existence.

You can apply the same argument to existence in the moment. Trying to get rid of the KCA by saying cause doesn't apply because of something related to time doesn't work.

You also can't function without notions of beginning and cause, so it's pretty hard and unproductive to argue those away.
You've missed the point of my post srs.
Misc Crypto Crew
BTC to $200k
post 1693924653 11-25-2023, 06:59 PM
-
#40
  1. Polaris
  1. Polaris
  3. Join Date: Feb 2003
  4. Posts: 63,700
  5. Rep Power: 567256
Whatever the truth is - it's almost certainly something way beyond our comprehension (like we can understand the idea of infinity, on an intellectual level, but comprehending it actually existing in reality is a different thing).

The point is - we have no fuking idea. When I hear the term "Atheist" I interpret that (accurately, or not, a whole lot seem to be this way) as a hardcore materialist/nothing exists outside of empirical evidence and our 5 senses, which I think is beyond silly. To be clear - I have zero problem with "I haven't seen evidence of x, therefore I don't believe it" vs "anything outside of my narrow paradigm is Bullshyt, and anyone considering such things is a moron".
post 1693925383 11-25-2023, 07:12 PM
-
#41
  1. ymer
  1. ymer
  3. Join Date: Feb 2005
  4. Posts: 24,422
  5. Rep Power: 86672
Post deleted by user
post 1693925573 11-25-2023, 07:16 PM
-
#42
  1. BlackJack619
  2. Registered User
  1. BlackJack619
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2012
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 17,066
  6. Rep Power: 143443
0+0 will always equal 0

Prove me wrong.
As
post 1693925653 11-25-2023, 07:18 PM
-
#43
  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 not great arguments for atheism anymore. it's a huge LARP by pseudo intellectuals and "muh scientists".
post 1693927023 11-25-2023, 07:52 PM
-
#44
  1. ClivesTriceps
  2. Indian troll farm bot
  1. ClivesTriceps
  2. Indian troll farm bot
  3. Join Date: Nov 2019
  4. Posts: 19,776
  5. Rep Power: 330918
Religion has always been a powerful tool for controlling masses, however, it was also used as an explanation for how the world worked before the dawn of scientific discovery. Clinging onto religion in the modern world is a waste of mental space.
Wort ew in th wold.
post 1693927693 11-25-2023, 08:12 PM
-
#45
  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 Polaris⏩
Whatever the truth is - it's almost certainly something way beyond our comprehension (like we can understand the idea of infinity, on an intellectual level, but comprehending it actually existing in reality is a different thing).

The point is - we have no fuking idea. When I hear the term "Atheist" I interpret that (accurately, or not, a whole lot seem to be this way) as a hardcore materialist/nothing exists outside of empirical evidence and our 5 senses, which I think is beyond silly. To be clear - I have zero problem with "I haven't seen evidence of x, therefore I don't believe it" vs "anything outside of my narrow paradigm is Bullshyt, and anyone considering such things is a moron".
A very reasonable response which I mostly agree with however can you not (at least for the sake of argument) tip your hat in the direction of naturalism or theism based on which worldview requires the least assumptions and least unnecessary metaphysical baggage
Misc Crypto Crew
BTC to $200k
post 1693928173 11-25-2023, 08:27 PM
-
#46
  1. Stizzel
  2. Rothbardian
  1. Stizzel
  2. Rothbardian
  3. Join Date: Apr 2008
  4. Location: Your Mom
  5. Posts: 83,753
  6. Subscribers: 1
  7. Rep Power: 384419
Originally Posted By ClivesTriceps⏩
Religion has always been a powerful tool for controlling masses, however, it was also used as an explanation for how the world worked before the dawn of scientific discovery. Clinging onto religion in the modern world is a waste of mental space.
Some are worse than others tbh. Opie's is by far the worst though

“It’s the bill of rights, not the bill of requests. Rights are not up for negotiations.” Thomas Massie, MAGA enemy #1
post 1693928183 11-25-2023, 08:27 PM
-
#47
  1. rectifryer
  2. enlightened
  1. rectifryer
  2. enlightened
  3. Join Date: Sep 2012
  4. Posts: 25,634
  5. Rep Power: 208783
Creation is a paradox which proves its beyond its own power or possibility to exist.
Boycott foodservice industry crew
post 1693928233 11-25-2023, 08:27 PM
-
#48
  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 Stizzel⏩
Some are worse than others tbh. Opie's is by far the worst though

Consuming alcohol while pregnant is worse than all of these though. My condolences srs
Misc Crypto Crew
BTC to $200k
post 1693930503 11-25-2023, 09:34 PM
-
#49
  1. Polaris
  1. Polaris
  3. Join Date: Feb 2003
  4. Posts: 63,700
  5. Rep Power: 567256
Originally Posted By isingmodel⏩
A very reasonable response which I mostly agree with however can you not (at least for the sake of argument) tip your hat in the direction of naturalism or theism based on which worldview requires the least assumptions and least unnecessary metaphysical baggage
I mean...I lean more towards Theism of some sort. "Naturalism"...where did the laws of nature come from/what determined them? What maintains them?

Is it some divine intelligence? Are they lines of code and algorithms in a simulation? Something else?

We can't come up with any logical way to explain how all of this happened, that actually makes sense to us.

Everything came from nothing? Some divine being did it (and if so, then where did that come from?) If this is a simulation, then how far back does that go (how many simulations within a simulation are we in until you get back to the original existence that made the first simulation?) etc etc
post 1693930673 11-25-2023, 09:40 PM
-
#50
  1. Bodhy
  2. Paddling to New Zealand
  1. Bodhy
  2. Paddling to New Zealand
  3. Join Date: Mar 2020
  4. Posts: 17,326
  5. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By isingmodel⏩
Name a single thing that we've ever observed beginning to exist that doesn't fit that definition
I think that is your definition though, is that the one typically employed in the argument? The issue here is, are your conditions actually necessary elements of this definition or just accidental or non-necessary ones?


I kind of think these debates get boring, they always end up in semantic hair splitting with no one willing to make a concession or even interpret alternative arguments charitably.
Back off, Warchild.

Seriously.
post 1693930723 11-25-2023, 09:41 PM
-
#51
  1. Cleveland33
  2. Registered Gooner
  1. Cleveland33
  2. Registered Gooner
  3. Join Date: Jan 2010
  4. Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
  5. Posts: 66,951
  6. Rep Power: 497612
as an atheist, let me just say that atheists are the worst
post 1693930803 11-25-2023, 09:45 PM
-
#52
  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 ClivesTriceps⏩
Religion has always been a powerful tool for controlling masses, however, it was also used as an explanation for how the world worked before the dawn of scientific discovery. Clinging onto religion in the modern world is a waste of mental space.
I don't think the topic is religion.
post 1693932613 11-25-2023, 11:14 PM
-
#53
  1. YouNeedJesusNow
  2. Repent
  1. YouNeedJesusNow
  2. Repent
  3. Join Date: Oct 2023
  4. Posts: 281
  5. Rep Power: 1950
Originally Posted By ClivesTriceps⏩
Religion has always been a powerful tool for controlling masses, however, it was also used as an explanation for how the world worked before the dawn of scientific discovery. Clinging onto religion in the modern world is a waste of mental space.
This is true that the few people with means and status have used religion to take advantage of the poor and the common hardworking people.
i.e. Roman Catholic Indulgences leading to The Protestant Reformation.


Unfortunately, because of the few from the past centuries and even today, some people now lump all religion as false without looking for real truth themselves.
Instead people are now bogged down in politics, the media and educational indoctrination.


People now believe their professor, news pundit, politician, or whatever new trends as facts but in reality they are all paid for opinions to the highest bidder.


I grew up in the Catholic Religion but then realized the truth that I was lost in a religion of tradition with no meaning to it.
I then realized that it's not a religion were looking for but a direct relationship with God and that is found through accepting Christ gift of Salvation.


Where we no longer depend on any religion or good works but depend on his work on the Cross. Salvation is not found in a church or tradition,
but it's available right now to anyone willing to seek the truth sincerely with all their heart and they will find it in his word.
Break Addiction Today

https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=184331113
post 1693934223 11-26-2023, 01:30 AM
-
#54
  1. foXs
  2. ♞♞♞♞♞♞♞
  1. foXs
  2. ♞♞♞♞♞♞♞
  3. Join Date: Nov 2009
  4. Age: 39
  5. Posts: 7,709
  6. Rep Power: 38384



A simple explanation of Atheism, a term that has been butchered to death.
♞♞♞♞♞♞♞♞♞♞♞♞♞♞♞♞

Chance Favors the Prepared Mind
post 1693936913 11-26-2023, 05:57 AM
-
#55
  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⏩
You've missed the point of my post srs.
I'm not sure that I am. You seem to be asserting that in order to begin there must be a t(-1) where time begins at t0 and leads to t(present). That's unsupported.

Do you believe the universe has an age?
post 1693937483 11-26-2023, 06:31 AM
-
#56
  1. Bodhy
  2. Paddling to New Zealand
  1. Bodhy
  2. Paddling to New Zealand
  3. Join Date: Mar 2020
  4. Posts: 17,326
  5. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By GreatOldOne⏩
I'm not sure that I am. You seem to be asserting that in order to begin there must be a t(-1) where time begins at t0 and leads to t(present). That's unsupported.

Do you believe the universe has an age?
This is my claim as well. OP employs his own definition, but I don't think this is the one used in discussions of the argument.

AFAIK the Big Bang model is still the most empirically accurate and successful model of the early universe and it posits a literal beginning of time and space. I've never heard of a cosmologist thinking the problem of cosmic origins is abated simply because the Big Bang is the beginning of time itself.
Back off, Warchild.

Seriously.
post 1693940373 11-26-2023, 08:12 AM
-
#57
  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⏩
I'm not sure that I am. You seem to be asserting that in order to begin there must be a t(-1) where time begins at t0 and leads to t(present). That's unsupported.

Do you believe the universe has an age?
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.
Misc Crypto Crew
BTC to $200k
post 1693940783 11-26-2023, 08:30 AM
-
#58
  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 Bodhy⏩
This is my claim as well. OP employs his own definition, but I don't think this is the one used in discussions of the argument.

AFAIK the Big Bang model is still the most empirically accurate and successful model of the early universe and it posits a literal beginning of time and space. I've never heard of a cosmologist thinking the problem of cosmic origins is abated simply because the Big Bang is the beginning of time itself.
It posits a beginning of classical spacetime. Strong evidence of this is given by work like the BGV theorem:https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012

Till we can model the very early universe with quantum gravity however (big bang cosmology is based in GR, which does not of course work at the very start) no one can say whether the universe has an absolute beginning in the sense that people think. There are proposed cosmological models that are eternal both into the past and the future that are compatible with the BGV theorem eg this:https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0111191

Tl;dr it is nowhere near as simple as universe had an absolute beginning, beginnings need cause, therefore God.
Misc Crypto Crew
BTC to $200k
post 1693941723 11-26-2023, 08:56 AM
-
#59
  1. freeheeler
  2. Registered User
  1. freeheeler
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jun 2002
  4. Location: United States
  5. Age: 65
  6. Posts: 11,675
  7. Rep Power: 83841
Originally Posted By BlackJack619⏩
0+0 will always equal 0

Prove me wrong.
Liberals would beg to differ

2+2 = 7. Prove me wrong
Scubastevo :-What percentage of women have STDs? (serious) If I just wanted to go bareback with any girl that I could get with, what are my chances of ending up bed ridden with STDs?
post 1693943053 11-26-2023, 09:32 AM
-
#60
  1. NESBrah
  2. Banned
  1. NESBrah
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Nov 2023
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 953
  6. Rep Power: 0
The atheism/religion topic got burned out by youtube atheists whoWAYoverdid the anti-religion stick from around 2008 - 2012.
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