[ATLian]

so i guess there is no,"intelligent tangible, physical or empirical evidence." for wormholes?

Did you notice the "or" in my statement? There is evidence, only it's not physical (meaning physically observable) yet. The evidence is intelligent and empirical.



Early Christian philosophers and thinkers came up with ideas exactly due to their faith.

In other words, you are stating that because Newton believed in Christ, he discovered the theory of gravity? See what happens when you let blind faith take over your rational thinking capacities? And those are the kind of arguments that are so quickly trashed as being fallacies by anybody willing to spend a second thinking about them rationally. To show how erroneous your statement above is, What about the thinkers who were not Christian, how did they come up with their ideas? What about the atheist thinkers like Gallileo?

There are some things that should only be said when you're talking to a bunch of fellow Christians who think like you, coz then they will blindly cheer you and encourage you. Lakini in forums like this, when you say stuff that clearly makes no sense, then you will be called out on it.

[ATLian]

do some research and look for any successful counter arguments against the cosmological argument.

Cosmoligical argument is a nutshell claims:

A: Everything that begins to exist must have a cause
B: The universe begun to exist
C: The universe must have a cause
D: That cause is god (Jehovah, the Christian god)

Here is the number one question, which attacks the core of this argument and practically nullifies it: If A, B and C are correct, then how do you know that Jehovah is the cause in "D"? It could be Allah, Ganesh, a force of physics, etc. The only reason you believe that the "cause" in "D" is Jehovah is because you are a Christian with blind faith in your religion! Period. Same reason why the Hindu believes that that cause is Brahma and the Muslim believes it is Allah - BLIND FAITH!

Also, how do you know that the "First Cause", which is Jehovah in this case, wasn't caused. Again, you don't know, you just believe with blind faith that he has always been there!

Finally, there could be multiple uncaused "Causes" that exist, why do you assume that it's only your god that is an uncaused cause? Again, Blind Faith, just blindly following the words of your religion and holy book.

Like you well know, blind faith has no room in an intellectual discussion! Keep that to discussions with your fellow Christians, but in an open forum, you will be challenged to justify your statements.

BTW what I wrote above is bila doing any research on the weaknesses of the Cosmological argument. It's from what I can recall. If I did some research, I could find authors with better written explanations to explain it better.

Bottom line is it is a very flawed argument. It does sound logical, but it is still fundamentally flawed. It falls in the class of the "All Cats Are Cows" logic i.e. both sound very logical and correct, but both are still very fundamentally flawed:

A: All cats have a tail and 4 legs
B: All cows have a tail and 4 legs
C: therefore all cats are cows

[ernestombayo7]

Did you notice the "or" in my statement? There is evidence, only it's not physical (meaning physically observable) yet. The evidence is intelligent and empirical.

Wao you don't even know what empirical means.Sad.
Empirical evidence,Definition,originating in or based on observation or experience
capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.

In other words, you are stating that because Newton believed in Christ, he discovered the theory of gravity? See what happens when you let blind faith take over your rational thinking capacities? And those are the kind of arguments that are so quickly trashed as being fallacies by anybody willing to spend a second thinking about them rationally. To show how erroneous your statement above is, What about the thinkers who were not Christian, how did they come up with their ideas? What about the atheist thinkers like Gallileo?

I am trying to look for the point where i said that Atheists can't come up with ideas.Or you need a Christian belief to come up with scientific discoveries.Pliz help.

PS: who told you that Galileo was an atheist?

There are some things that should only be said when you're talking to a bunch of fellow Christians who think like you, coz then they will blindly cheer you and encourage you. Lakini in forums like this, when you say stuff that clearly makes no sense, then you will be called out on it.

wooo, i am so scared.

Cosmoligical argument is a nutshell claims:

A: Everything that begins to exist must have a cause
B: The universe begun to exist
C: The universe must have a cause
D: That cause is god (Jehovah, the Christian god)

where did you get this version of the cosmological argument.Trying to set up a straw man?The most widely known cosmological argument does not have D.

Here is the number one question, which attacks the core of this argument and practically nullifies it: If A, B and C are correct, then how do you know that Jehovah is the cause in "D"? It could be Allah, Ganesh, a force of physics, etc.

This clearly shows that you have no idea what your saying.Do you know what it takes to invalidate an argument?

You must show which of the premises is false,or if the conclusion is false or it does not follow from the premises.

now given the original cosmological argument:

A: Everything that begins to exist must have a cause
B: The universe begun to exist
C: The universe must have a cause

Which premises are you referring to when you ask how do you know that God is jehovah?you have not even touched the argument and you claim to have "nullified" it.Are you agreeing with A,B,C?if so then you agree with the argument.

The only reason you believe that the "cause" in "D" is Jehovah is because you are a Christian with blind faith in your religion! Period. Same reason why the Hindu believes that that cause is Brahma and the Muslim believes it is Allah - BLIND FAITH!

mmh, irrelevant.read above.

Also, how do you know that the "First Cause", which is Jehovah in this case, wasn't caused. Again, you don't know, you just believe with blind faith that he has always been there!

read above.Which premises are you talking about?A,B or C.Without attempting to tackle the premises or the conclusion, the argument stands successful.

Like you well know, blind faith has no room in an intellectual discussion! Keep that to discussions with your fellow Christians, but in an open forum, you will be challenged to justify your statements.

exactly!now can you drop your blind atheistic faith and keep that discussion to your fellow atheists,tackle the arguments for once,bring something new to the table.i suggest you visit IIDB - Powered by vBulletin an atheist run site with pretty intelligent Atheist who give some good arguments against Theism.Chest thumping is usually for rugby players.

BTW what I wrote above is bila doing any research on the weaknesses of the Cosmological argument. It's from what I can recall.

that explains alot.

Bottom line is it is a very flawed argument. It does sound logical, but it is still fundamentally flawed. It falls in the class of the "All Cats Are Cows" logic i.e. both sound very logical and correct, but both are still very fundamentally flawed:

A: All cats have a tail and 4 legs
B: All cows have a tail and 4 legs
C: therefore all cats are cows

interesting.

[ATLian]

wooo, i am so scared. ..... Wao you don't even know what empirical means.sad.

ernest, clearly it's time for me to stop debating with you since with such comments, it looks like you're incapable of having a mature discussion. When you start retorting with childish comments, the focus of the debate gets shifted, and i just cannot get caught up in such discussions. You keep it childish, i'll try once more to approach it from the mature rational side. I'll just comment on two things:



empirical evidence,definition,originating in or based on observation or experience capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment. again, did you notice the or?

not everything can be observed with your eyes in the way you see water boiling or a heated metal turn red. To use a primary school example, heat cannot be observed, it can only be experienced. And that experience constitutes empirical evidence! that's why empirical evidence is about observation or experience! you cannot be serious that you did not realise that, and that that was your only issue with the definition!



the most widely known cosmological argument does not have d.

we are talking about the cosmological argument for the existence of the christian god! of course it has to have d. The only reason christians use the cosmological argument is to prove that jehovah must exist. Therefore it would be completely stupid and time-wasting for them not to put option d when arguing about whether or not god exists!

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by ATLian

Almost every major religious figure had his disciples. Mohammed had his men who took over from him, so did the Buddha, the Indian gods had their witnesses and disciples, etc. If you claim that testimonies should be believed because they were being offered by the people closest to the religious figure, then that argument has to hold across all relions, not just your religion of choice!

Is it blind faith to examine those claims to verify their integrity? From what I've read, there's been no succesful argument put forth against the resurrection.

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by ATLian

we are talking about the cosmological argument for the existence of the christian god! of course it has to have d. The only reason christians use the cosmological argument is to prove that jehovah must exist. Therefore it would be completely stupid and time-wasting for them not to put option d when arguing about whether or not god exists!

No, no, no!! The Cosmological argument makes one point, (which is the universe was caused to exist) and then some of the other arguments are used to prove that the cause is an Intelligent being and the remaining arguments are used to prove that the Intelligent being is Jehovah.

[ndigila]

I've had this discussion with TypeR before, but Atlian, I'd like to get your view. If the supernatural world doesn't exist, why does man constantly behave as if it does? (And i'm not only dealing with the belief in a Supernatural being, I'm dealing with free will and objective morals).

Also if the natural universe is all there is and it's the creator of your brain, and your thoughts are formed by the reaction of your brain to this purely natural universe, how does your brain come up with thoughts and ideas that the natural universe doesn't have, (things like unicorns and flying witches)?

[ernestombayo7]

Originally Posted by ATLian

wooo, i am so scared. ..... Wao you don't even know what empirical means.sad.

ernest, clearly it's time for me to stop debating with you since with such comments, it looks like you're incapable of having a mature discussion. When you start retorting with childish comments, the focus of the debate gets shifted, and i just cannot get caught up in such discussions. You keep it childish, i'll try once more to approach it from the mature rational side. I'll just comment on two things:

read your comments that i was replying to.and tell me whether thats mature.

empirical evidence,definition,originating in or based on observation or experience capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment. again, did you notice the or?

not everything can be observed with your eyes in the way you see water boiling or a heated metal turn red. To use a primary school example, heat cannot be observed, it can only be experienced. And that experience constitutes empirical evidence! that's why empirical evidence is about observation or experience! you cannot be serious that you did not realise that, and that that was your only issue with the definition!

I know the meaning of empirical,your the one who is not using the word correctly.Empirical needs and experiment,or observation.We can't experiment on wormholes as you claimed.And we can't observe them.So your claim that:
Did you notice the "or" in my statement? There is evidence, only it's not physical (meaning physically observable) yet. The evidence is intelligent and empirical. is contradictory.Empirical is equal to physical evidence.

the most widely known cosmological argument does not have d.

we are talking about the cosmological argument for the existence of the christian god! of course it has to have d. The only reason christians use the cosmological argument is to prove that jehovah must exist. Therefore it would be completely stupid and time-wasting for them not to put option d when arguing about whether or not god exists!

The cosmological argument is not to prove the Christian God.its to prove a supernatural cause of the universe.Other arguments are needed to show that the supernatural cause is the Christian God.

When you add option D,your trying to Set up a straw man so as to attack the argument.As long as A,B,C are shown to be true,the argument is a success.Whoever that God is,the argument succeeds.And in the process disproves atheism.(which is the lack of belief of the existence of gods)

[Genuwine]

Originally Posted by chotadipo

I personally hold that faith should only be defaulted to when a rational answer is not forthcoming, but once it comes, we should make a conscious effort to move away from faith and accept facts.

Faith or as some would say gut feeling should be used as a means of exploring new frontiers and not an end to itself. The latter would severly limit our ability to first reason, and second to develop on our understanding of what is around us.

Thesits ask me, how do you reconcile yourself to that fact that everything has to have hard evidence yet do not bat an eyelid when trying to justify things that are intangible and immeasurable like telling someone, I love you"? My answer has always benn that if you concentrate on the said and not on the deeds you will miss the essence of an act. This explains why it is easy to breed fundamentalists using religion.

Theists, what is your take?

What is happening here is that we are getting confused between the certitude that comes from faith and the certitude that comes from rational
demonstration.

The certitude that comes from faith should more truly be termed adherence and it of its nature is stronger than the certitude that comes from demonstration because it is connected to a force that is stronger than that of
reason viz. the power of God etc.

What you adhere to in faith is stronger than your rationality because it involves your whole being.

These are the distinctions that make looking for rationality of the apodeictic kind in matters of faith a futile project. Faith is a matter of adherence and not one of rational certainty so combing the scripture for contradictions is beside the point because even if you find them and you very likely will, no rational offence has been commit.

[ATLian]

Originally Posted by ndigila

From what I've read, there's been no succesful argument put forth against the resurrection.

I'd think the #1 successful argument is that people just do not resurrect.

If the Pokomo religion held that their main guy resurrected, very few (including Christians) would believe it. It's the same way we non-Christians view the claim of Jesus' resurrection - a myth!