The Seven Types of Atheism
- Thread starter Ahanu
- Start date
There is a percentage of the world that believes in G!d.
Disproving or proving the existence of G!d has always been lacking.
The percentage of those that disbelieve don't know do not agree.
The percentage that believe do not believe the same thing.
Disproving or proving the existence of G!d has always been lacking.
The percentage of those that disbelieve don't know do not agree.
The percentage that believe do not believe the same thing.
If you didn't know, I am not a scientist or a theologian, barely a high school graduate.
The kalam argument does not prove anything...
Ahanu
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,291
- Reaction score
- 561
- Points
- 108
As an atheist who is involved in mystical subjects, what is your take on consciousness?
powessy
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 401
- Reaction score
- 192
- Points
- 43
Of course hearts also. We are who we are now in the after, you are who you are now, this is as you have been forever you just started experiencing something here from the point of knowing nothing at all.
Powessy
powessy
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 401
- Reaction score
- 192
- Points
- 43
I am still waiting to see inside of an atom but I have seen things so small it would take an electron microscope to see these things. I have travel through space visited other worlds and experienced time forward or the ability to see the future, all within my mind and as real as the key board in front of me. I also ask questions about the other things you have mentioned here, for i live math and science, If I try hard enough and have enough accumulated time, and if I know something about something I can sometimes find time there to see the things I want to see.
Powessy
Powessy,
Congrats on the length of the last two messages!
Congrats on the length of the last two messages!
That's a very general question. Can you narrow it down, as I think I'd enjoy discussing this?
Before letting the Kalam Argument go:
https://www.scientificexploration.org/forum/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-debunked
Having read this more carefully, the writer is claiming to 'debunk' the Kalam Argument by saying that whatever caused the Big Bang is whatever caused the BB. As in: We don't know yet, but one day we will.
He is being very disingenuous. The BB was a singularity. Gravity was infinite, space and time did not exist, energy itself did not exist, the laws and forces of the cosmos did not exist.
The methods of physics and mathematics break down at infinity. There is no way to ever know.
Time and space and gravity, and the (immense) energy and forces that became the whole universe came into existence from nothing out of nowhere, via an infinitely small and dense singularity. Not very small and very dense, but infinitely so.
John Prytz's glib smartass handwaving (concealed behind the smokescreen of attacking the stupid naivety of those proposing a divine force) only proves how desperate some scientific atheists are to duck the main question, imo.
I've said before that the scientific method started with Roger Bacon insisting that science come up with evidence instead of saying 'God/the devil/magic is the reason'.
That was good.
This has turned in the last few years to these noisy You Tube science stars aggressively crusading that God does not and cannot exist. They have the right to their opinion, of course. But it is still just their opinion, and them being scientists does not give their sneeeing opinion about God any special weight.
They cannot know what happens outside nature. The BB singularity was the origin of all nature -- which includes everything.
Ok, the Kalam Argument does not prove a divine force. But to disprove a divine force, the Kalam Argument must first be disproved.
No-one's done so yet. Because no-one can prove that nothing ever comes from nothing.
edited ...
https://www.scientificexploration.org/forum/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-debunked
Having read this more carefully, the writer is claiming to 'debunk' the Kalam Argument by saying that whatever caused the Big Bang is whatever caused the BB. As in: We don't know yet, but one day we will.
He is being very disingenuous. The BB was a singularity. Gravity was infinite, space and time did not exist, energy itself did not exist, the laws and forces of the cosmos did not exist.
The methods of physics and mathematics break down at infinity. There is no way to ever know.
Time and space and gravity, and the (immense) energy and forces that became the whole universe came into existence from nothing out of nowhere, via an infinitely small and dense singularity. Not very small and very dense, but infinitely so.
John Prytz's glib smartass handwaving (concealed behind the smokescreen of attacking the stupid naivety of those proposing a divine force) only proves how desperate some scientific atheists are to duck the main question, imo.
I've said before that the scientific method started with Roger Bacon insisting that science come up with evidence instead of saying 'God/the devil/magic is the reason'.
That was good.
This has turned in the last few years to these noisy You Tube science stars aggressively crusading that God does not and cannot exist. They have the right to their opinion, of course. But it is still just their opinion, and them being scientists does not give their sneeeing opinion about God any special weight.
They cannot know what happens outside nature. The BB singularity was the origin of all nature -- which includes everything.
Ok, the Kalam Argument does not prove a divine force. But to disprove a divine force, the Kalam Argument must first be disproved.
No-one's done so yet. Because no-one can prove that nothing ever comes from nothing.
edited ...
Last edited:
The thing is, from my point of view, that the kalam argument can be applied when there is causality.
As you stated, what we perceive as the flow of time was not present at the singularity.
A cause precedes its effect, in kalam.
There is no way to precede anything when there's no way to order events temporally.
Kalam works well within the universe we are used to. I don't think it holds when its presuppositions are not given.
Are you disputing the 2nd proposition then? That the universe had a beginning?
Fallacy of composition[edit]
The argument also suffers from the fallacy of composition: what is true of a member of a group is not necessarily true for the group as a whole. Just because most things within the universe require a cause/causes, does not mean that the universe itself requires a cause. For instance, while it is absolutely true that within a flock of sheep that every member ("an individual sheep") has a mother, it does not therefore follow that the flock has a mother.
What a lot of twaddle ...
No, just pointing out that, at the beginning, conditions were such that what we would recognize as causality did not exist, because as you rightfully pointed out, time did not exist.
Last edited: