Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Atheism irrefutable.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    Mass is increased in a gravitational field. Gravity, the law of gravity is temporal. Two masses are greater than their sum, by the amount of GMm/(rc2).
    No, you are describing the effects of gravity, and not gravity.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      No, you are describing the effects of gravity, and not gravity.
      Gravity how it is caused by matter is not well understood. Matter is temporal and causes gravity and space time. Gravity and acceleration are otherwise the same thing and due to time dilation.
      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

      Comment


      • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        Gravity how it is caused by matter is not well understood.
        That is why your assertions do not carry any weight.

        Matter is temporal and causes gravity and space time. Gravity and acceleration are otherwise the same thing and due to time dilation.
        Matter and energy are nor demonstrated to be temporal, and no matter and energy do not cause gravity. When you describe the temperal effects of gravity on matter you are not describing gravity, which as you said is not well understood. We only know about gravity by observing the effects of gravity.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          That is why your assertions do not carry any weight.
          So your assertions carry more weight. The fact is that the gravitational constant has the units of space, mass and time.


          Matter and energy are nor demonstrated to be temporal, and no matter and energy do not cause gravity. When you describe the temperal effects of gravity on matter you are not describing gravity, which as you said is not well understood. We only know about gravity by observing the effects of gravity.
          Again, the units of measurement. Otherwise metaphysical arguments.
          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

          Comment


          • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
            So your assertions carry more weight. The fact is that the gravitational constant has the units of space, mass and time.
            No it is not my assertions.

            Gravity is defined a force. The 4th and weakest of natural forces, What you describe the effects of gravity in terms the effects on mass in terms of space and time. The units of measurement describe the effects not gravity itself.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              No it is not my assertions.

              Gravity is defined a force. The 4th and weakest of natural forces, What you describe the effects of gravity in terms the effects on mass in terms of space and time. The units of measurement describe the effects not gravity itself.
              Gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration being it is time dilation.
              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

              Comment


              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                No, the concept of 1+1=2 does not need a God.
                But…why not ?

                STM that assertion, too, needs justifying. If it does not, then that concept is being given Divine status, by being accorded self-sufficiency. Any entity that allegedly “does not need a God”, is - by implication - God. For arithmetical statements to be true, or even possible, some entity sufficient to account for them is needed. If they are to be intelligible, and if there is to be an entity for them to be intelligible to, then some entity to account for all those phenomena, and their relations to one another, is needed.

                That concept needs to be accounted for. As do the other phenomena mentioned. God is what accounts for all phenomena, in all their aspects, whether mental or extra-mental; material or spiritual; potential or actual; or of any other kind. But if phenomena which have nothing in common are all to be accounted for, that which accounts for all of them, cannot simply be another one of them: it must be sufficient to account for them, and must also transcend them. It must exceed them, without being alien to them. God is the Source of arithmetic, because the qualities that come together to make arithmetic possible and actual, reflect something in God. God is not a larger-than-life calculation, any more than God is a larger-than-life cat or human being. God is not “like” anything in the universe - the things that comprise the universe, reflect or resemble something of God.

                The truth that 1 + 1 = 2, is an evidence of God. Its stability, is evidence of the Faithfulness of God, Whose Providence extends to all creation. The concept 1 + 1 = 2 does not, as a matter of everyday life, require any reference to God. That shows, not that God is not the Source of arithmetic, but that, if God and arithmetic are to be thought of as related, there can be some ways in which God and arithmetic are not related. Cats do not wear shoes - it does not follow that cats and shoes cannot be related to each other in other ways; it follows only that they are not, in actual reality, related in that way. It is perfectly possible that cats are related to shoes, by playing with them, or hunting for mice in them: there is nothing in the concepts or natures “cat” & “shoes” to make this unintelligible, impossible, meaningless, or fictional. Fictions about cats wearing shoes are entirely possible. This is certain, because they exist. What is not possible, is that a cat would walk into a clothes-shop, and ask for the shoe department. Because cats are not able to function in that way.

                From a Christian POV, it is an act of worship & obedience to God, to believe that 1 + 1 = 2. The truth of this sum, is as much from God as explicitly religious truths. It is as useful, in its own way, as any other knowledge, for knowing God. God is glorified as truly by the truths of arithmetic, as by those of the Bible.

                If, in the universe God has created, 1 + 1 = 2, then Christians have a duty to accept that truth. The Authority & Truthfulness of God are behind the multiplication table, no less truly than behind the Bible. The truths of mathematics are as truly a revelation of God’s Wisdom & Power, as the truths of the NT are. Knowing the value of Π is not “saving knowledge”, but it is a reminder that all good, and all truth, has the One God alone for its Source. That Archimedes was not a Jewish or Christian theist, does not make the truth of the Archimedean principle any less true, or any less a gift of God. God is not alien to His creation: whatever in it has being or good, is from God.
                Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 12-24-2018, 04:10 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
                  But…why not ?

                  STM that assertion, too, needs justifying. If it does not, then that concept is being given Divine status, by being accorded self-sufficiency. Any entity that allegedly “does not need a God”, is - by implication - God. For arithmetical statements to be true, or even possible, some entity sufficient to account for them is needed. If they are to be intelligible, and if there is to be an entity for them to be intelligible to, then some entity to account for all those phenomena, and their relations to one another, is needed.

                  That concept needs to be accounted for. As do the other phenomena mentioned. God is what accounts for all phenomena, in all their aspects, whether mental or extra-mental; material or spiritual; potential or actual; or of any other kind. But if phenomena which have nothing in common are all to be accounted for, that which accounts for all of them, cannot simply be another one of them: it must be sufficient to account for them, and must also transcend them. It must exceed them, without being alien to them. God is the Source of arithmetic, because the qualities that come together to make arithmetic possible and actual, reflect something in God. God is not a larger-than-life calculation, any more than God is a larger-than-life cat or human being. God is not “like” anything in the universe - the things that comprise the universe, reflect or resemble something of God.

                  The truth that 1 + 1 = 2, is an evidence of God. Its stability, is evidence of the Faithfulness of God, Whose Providence extends to all creation. The concept 1 + 1 = 2 does not, as a matter of everyday life, require any reference to God. That shows, not that God is not the Source of arithmetic, but that, if God and arithmetic are to be thought of as related, there can be some ways in which God and arithmetic are not related. Cats do not wear shoes - it does not follow that cats and shoes cannot be related to each other in other ways; it follows only that they are not, in actual reality, related in that way. It is perfectly possible that cats are related to shoes, by playing with them, or hunting for mice in them: there is nothing in the concepts or natures “cat” & “shoes” to make this unintelligible, impossible, meaningless, or fictional. Fictions about cats wearing shoes are entirely possible. This is certain, because they exist. What is not possible, is that a cat would walk into a clothes-shop, and ask for the shoe department. Because cats are not able to function in that way.

                  From a Christian POV, it is an act of worship & obedience to God, to believe that 1 + 1 = 2. The truth of this sum, is as much from God as explicitly religious truths. It is as useful, in its own way, as any other knowledge, for knowing God. God is glorified as truly by the truths of arithmetic, as by those of the Bible.

                  If, in the universe God has created, 1 + 1 = 2, then Christians have a duty to accept that truth. The Authority & Truthfulness of God are behind the multiplication table, no less truly than behind the Bible. The truths of mathematics are as truly a revelation of God’s Wisdom & Power, as the truths of the NT are. Knowing the value of Π is not “saving knowledge”, but it is a reminder that all good, and all truth, has the One God alone for its Source. That Archimedes was not a Jewish or Christian theist, does not make the truth of the Archimedean principle any less true, or any less a gift of God. God is not alien to His creation: whatever in it has being or good, is from God.
                  If the physical existence was not all of the above would true regardless.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    Gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration being it is time dilation.
                    So what?!?!?! This would be true regardless of whether God exists or not.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • [QUOTE=37818;565618]So your assertions carry more weight. The fact is that the gravitational constant has the units of space, mass and time.

                      Your's nor mine actually carry no weight. The nature of our physical existence is as it is regardless of what we believe.

                      Again, the units of measurement. Otherwise metaphysical arguments.
                      The metaphysical arguments you propose only exist from the human perspective. Units of measurement are human constructs to describe the universe from our perspective. Again . . .

                      Matter and energy are nor demonstrated to be temporal, and no matter and energy do not cause gravity. When you describe the temporal effects of gravity on matter you are not describing gravity, which as you said is not well understood. We only know about gravity by observing the effects of gravity.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                        In all such arguments existence is not what needs proof, God does.

                        The argument can be made that a god is not necessary based on self evident truth. A theist needs to answer the question why truth needs a god to be true?

                        For example, the simple concept of 1 + 1 = 2. Why does that need God to be true?
                        Value--of which in my world there are only two denominations, true and false, which form the basis of all goods and evils--seems to require a mind for its existence. God identifies Himself as Truth in Scripture. So the question must be asked, do we create truth in existence or find it already present? If the former, atheism can be (and probably is) true. If the latter, the only answer I can fathom is that truth must be part of the fabric of reality itself and was woven into it by a Mind. To date I know of no one else but God who has stepped forth [in revelation] to claim that role. If the above is true--that we find rather than create value--the self-evident truth I see is that atheism must be wrong.

                        But an account has to be given of the fact that there exists subjective truth and falsity. I like vanilla, you like chocolate. Subjective truths about empirical existence are inert and non-controversial. Conferred value, which is objectively reached by a consensus of subjective minds, is another example of value controlled by human minds. An example is money: we (U.S.) confer value on circular metal pieces of various denominations and sizes, and paper-cloth foldable bills with imprinted alpha numeric symbols and use it for the purchase of goods and services. The conferred truth of a dollar bill is mutable; if torn into pieces it can be said to be falsified beyond its assigned value and is useless.

                        I've been working for some years on a lay metaphysic whereby information is the base of all existents, empirical and non-empirical. Value--truth, mostly--is a condition of existence for all information and thus all existents. One corollary of this view is that even the manipulation of value by subjective human minds is not possible without the truth-bearingness embedded into the things we apply our subjectivity toward. This requires a compatibilist universe. Example: in the empirical realm, mutability is only possible within the realm of control imposed by the immutable. I.e., the four non-contact forces, whose truth dictates their modus operandi, are immutable control elements that dictate the behaviors of the so-called material realm they rule over. Matter is only mutable within the range of changes allowed by its supervising immutable forces, hence a compatibilist structure. The atoms that form the dollar bill are limited to changes allowed by the immutable forces that direct them. Thus, the base information of atoms [subatomic constituents as we currently know them] is immutably true and can only operate (mutate) according to the immutable laws that govern them. The operation of matter is its truth value. If truth is found within existents, then design is the only obvious conclusion for their existence.

                        The interesting part is that from a value endued reality--which contains both descriptive and prescriptive existents, both operating within the compatibilist structure--a normative "value mechanism" can be extrapolated which suggests reasons why prescriptive-based schools of thought that fuel beliefs like atheism even exist. Too cumbersome to go into here, but simple antithetical pressure between prescriptive truth and falsity (falsity only exists fragmentally within human souls) can be logically seen to produce opposition to immutable truth [God] in the cognitive functions, i.e., beliefs, motivations, etc. This opposition naturally creates predispositions to produce arguments that oppose the source of this prescriptive "antagonism", absolute truth.

                        On the basis laid out above, I feel atheism, if not technically (logically) refutable, is nonetheless explainable and effectively reduces the probability of its truth-bearingness to near zero anyway.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          It has existence. Uncaused existence. So unless uncaused Existence is not God, then yes, God being uncaused Existence would be the fundamental self evident truth by which all other self evident truths are self evident.
                          . . . but it is not a prima facie truth that could argue for the existence of God as being self-evident, unless you make the circular assumption that an 'outside cause' is necessary Cause of Existence. The nature of our physical existence could possibly be the eternal Laws of Nature. Draw no convincing argument either way.
                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-21-2019, 06:40 PM.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Anomaly View Post
                            Value--of which in my world there are only two denominations, true and false, which form the basis of all goods and evils--seems to require a mind for its existence. God identifies Himself as Truth in Scripture. So the question must be asked, do we create truth in existence or find it already present? If the former, atheism can be (and probably is) true. If the latter, the only answer I can fathom is that truth must be part of the fabric of reality itself and was woven into it by a Mind. To date I know of no one else but God who has stepped forth [in revelation] to claim that role. If the above is true--that we find rather than create value--the self-evident truth I see is that atheism must be wrong.

                            But an account has to be given of the fact that there exists subjective truth and falsity. I like vanilla, you like chocolate. Subjective truths about empirical existence are inert and non-controversial. Conferred value, which is objectively reached by a consensus of subjective minds, is another example of value controlled by human minds. An example is money: we (U.S.) confer value on circular metal pieces of various denominations and sizes, and paper-cloth foldable bills with imprinted alpha numeric symbols and use it for the purchase of goods and services. The conferred truth of a dollar bill is mutable; if torn into pieces it can be said to be falsified beyond its assigned value and is useless.

                            I've been working for some years on a lay metaphysic whereby information is the base of all existents, empirical and non-empirical. Value--truth, mostly--is a condition of existence for all information and thus all existents. One corollary of this view is that even the manipulation of value by subjective human minds is not possible without the truth-bearingness embedded into the things we apply our subjectivity toward. This requires a compatibilist universe. Example: in the empirical realm, mutability is only possible within the realm of control imposed by the immutable. I.e., the four non-contact forces, whose truth dictates their modus operandi, are immutable control elements that dictate the behaviors of the so-called material realm they rule over. Matter is only mutable within the range of changes allowed by its supervising immutable forces, hence a compatibilist structure. The atoms that form the dollar bill are limited to changes allowed by the immutable forces that direct them. Thus, the base information of atoms [subatomic constituents as we currently know them] is immutably true and can only operate (mutate) according to the immutable laws that govern them. The operation of matter is its truth value. If truth is found within existents, then design is the only obvious conclusion for their existence.

                            The interesting part is that from a value endued reality--which contains both descriptive and prescriptive existents, both operating within the compatibilist structure--a normative "value mechanism" can be extrapolated which suggests reasons why prescriptive-based schools of thought that fuel beliefs like atheism even exist. Too cumbersome to go into here, but simple antithetical pressure between prescriptive truth and falsity (falsity only exists fragmentally within human souls) can be logically seen to produce opposition to immutable truth [God] in the cognitive functions, i.e., beliefs, motivations, etc. This opposition naturally creates predispositions to produce arguments that oppose the source of this prescriptive "antagonism", absolute truth.

                            On the basis laid out above, I feel atheism, if not technically (logically) refutable, is nonetheless explainable and effectively reduces the probability of its truth-bearingness to near zero anyway.
                            In a roundabout way you are describing a circular argument for the existence of God, even though you say 'not technically (logically) refutable' you claim the probability is near zero in a roundabout logical subjective argument based on your assumptions. Your assumptions spell out your conclusions as with the the argument of 37818.

                            Fundamentally there is no objective verifiable evidence for the existence nor the non-existence of God(s). Logical Arguments only carry the weight of the assumptions and those that accept the assumptions, therefore circular in these cases.
                            Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-21-2019, 06:41 PM.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              In a roundabout way you are describing a circular argument for the existence of God, even though you say 'not technically (logically) refutable' you claim the probability is near zero in a roundabout logical subjective argument based on your assumptions. Your assumptions spell out your conclusions as with the the argument of 37818.

                              Fundamentally there is no objective verifiable evidence for the existence nor the non-existence of God(s). Logical Arguments only carry the weight of the assumptions and those that accept the assumptions, therefore circular in these cases.
                              Uncaused reality/being/existence. Either that is God or one denies God is God.

                              What is subordinate to reality/being/existence is not God.
                              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                Uncaused reality/being/existence. Either that is God or one denies God is God.

                                What is subordinate to reality/being/existence is not God.
                                No, you are simply assuming that the uncaused reality is a god. In that case we are not denying that god is god, we are denying that there is a god, or a distinct causer of existence.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                26 responses
                                94 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post alaskazimm  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                79 responses
                                415 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post alaskazimm  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X