Final Regress and First Causes.

[End Bringer]

I find this paraphrase to be very similar to many conversations I've had here regarding God's existence.

http://sntjohnny.com/front/a-conversation-on-final-regress-and-first-causes/436.html

[JustMyron]

Except that on this forum, the "them" aren't straw-men who just insult you and give one word answers while you give eloquent paragraphs. That apologetic website misrepresents the atheist position, making it seem simpler, less logical and more easily refutable than it actually is.

[truthseeker]

I find this paraphrase to be very similar to many conversations I've had here regarding God's existence.

http://sntjohnny.com/front/a-conversation-on-final-regress-and-first-causes/436.html

So, if we are going to talk about final regress, where did God come from? 

[End Bringer]

Except that on this forum, the "them" aren't straw-men who just insult you and give one word answers while you give eloquent paragraphs. That apologetic website misrepresents the atheist position, making it seem simpler, less logical and more easily refutable than it actually is.

I beleive that's the point of a paraphrase: boils it down. Though I I thought there were a few "them" posts that could almost be like you, Former Believer, or Vynn verbatem. So in effect it's not even a straw-men at all. Atheist's really do argue that way (the guy has had plenty of conversations with atheists to know). And the attitude and general arguement is so similar to what you find here, you're kidding yourself if you think atheists here don't make the same general arguement.

So, if we are going to talk about final regress, where did God come from?

See, JustMyron? It's almost like looking in a mirror:

Them:  But if everything requires a cause then that would include God.

Me:  Who said everything requires a cause?  The whole point of our conversation to this point has been on the general agreement that something has always existed- without a cause.  So you are misrespresenting the argument.  The argument is really, best known through William L. Craig, is that everything with a beginning has a cause.

[hideousmonster]

I have trouble with the first cause argument for several reasons.
1. We don't understand the relationship between time and space enough to even make an educated guess about what the universe looked like before the light we can see was produced.
2. We can't look into the past. The best we can do is try to piece together a history that would be consistent with the scientific observations we've made.
3. Even if the universe did have a cause, scientific observation will never be able to tell us whether that cause was a who or a what.
4. If there's a god right now, then there should be better evidence available to us right now, than just speculating about a past we can't observe. If we can observe signs of a universal, conscious, governing intelligence today, then maybe one day we'll engineer the technology to hear it tell us how it all began.

[End Bringer]

I have trouble with the first cause argument for several reasons.
1. We don't understand the relationship between time and space enough to even make an educated guess about what the universe looked like before the light we can see was produced.

We do know enough. We know enough to know they can't be infinite. Otherwise we'd never get to this point in time.

2. We can't look into the past. The best we can do is try to piece together a history that would be consistent with the scientific observations we've made.
3. Even if the universe did have a cause, scientific observation will never be able to tell us whether that cause was a who or a what.

I believe that's also addressed by the blog. So it's rather silly to postulate that the cause will never be known threw scientific observation, when it is stated that the cause will never be known through scientific observation. Thus the other avenues of investigation.

4. If there's a god right now, then there should be better evidence available to us right now, than just speculating about a past we can't observe. If we can observe signs of a universal, conscious, governing intelligence today, then maybe one day we'll engineer the technology to hear it tell us how it all began.

Then let's get some things straighten up. It's not a matter of there being NO evidence, it's a matter that you think the evidence should be "better". This is of course based on nothing but your personal opinion of what constitutes "better". If other people find the current evidence to be satisfactory, you are in no position to dismiss theist's views.

I swear atheist's responses are so over-used I'm convinced atheists are no longer capable of original thought anymore.

[Airyaman]

I swear atheist's responses are so over-used I'm convinced atheists are no longer capable of original thought anymore.

And theists are? You base your thought process on a 1900+ year old set of desert scribblings.

[jewbacca]

I swear atheist's responses are so over-used I'm convinced atheists are no longer capable of original thought anymore.

And theists are? You base your thought process on a 1900+ year old set of desert scribblings.

Let's be honest, most people use canned responses that seem to fit their personal bias out of laziness.

[Airyaman]

Yep, but the canned responses can be fitting of some people.

[jewbacca]

Airyaman, maybe so, but using canned responses betrays a hidden desire to not think.

[truthseeker]

I find this paraphrase to be very similar to many conversations I've had here regarding God's existence.

http://sntjohnny.com/front/a-conversation-on-final-regress-and-first-causes/436.html

So, if we are going to talk about final regress, where did God come from? 

OK, then I'll answer my own question.  The Biblical God is said to be eternally self existent.  Which leads me to the following conclusions:

1.  This is merely an "assertion", which is a line of argumentation I know you love to criticize, EB.  LOL
2.  This means that Atheists and Theists have the same problem - how do it start?  All we have are theories, beliefs, and dare is say, "assertions."
3.  Nobody really knows!

[Airyaman]

Airyaman, maybe so, but using canned responses betrays a hidden desire to not think.

That's because there is nothing worth thinking about in this thread. Its ideas have been hashed and rehashed in other threads. Why start all over with the same arguments?

[truthseeker]

Airyaman, maybe so, but using canned responses betrays a hidden desire to not think.

That's because there is nothing worth thinking about in this thread. Its ideas have been hashed and rehashed in other threads. Why start all over with the same arguments?

Some people just don't get it and so need reinforcement. 

"Repetition is the mother of learning."

[End Bringer]

OK, then I'll answer my own question.  The Biblical God is said to be eternally self existent.  Which leads me to the following conclusions:

1.  This is merely an "assertion", which is a line of argumentation I know you love to criticize, EB.  LOL
2.  This means that Atheists and Theists have the same problem - how do it start?  All we have are theories, beliefs, and dare is say, "assertions."
3.  Nobody really knows!

Lol. And JustMyron thinks it's a strawman. Seems almost every response raised is indeed a "them" post. It's even sadder when one is pointed out how his objection has been already raised and addressed, and STILL makes the same objection. hehe.

[Airyaman]

Airyaman, maybe so, but using canned responses betrays a hidden desire to not think.

That's because there is nothing worth thinking about in this thread. Its ideas have been hashed and rehashed in other threads. Why start all over with the same arguments?

Some people just don't get it and so need reinforcement. 

"Repetition is the mother of learning."

Maybe so, but my experience with some is that they'll keep throwing out the same baseless assertions without budging. All it does is make you want to give up because they refuse to even think outside of their theological box.

[End Bringer]

That's because there is nothing worth thinking about in this thread. Its ideas have been hashed and rehashed in other threads. Why start all over with the same arguments?

You seem to miss the fact that that was the idea in the very first post- it's pretty much how other threads have played out. With the way the blog went, that should tell you something.

[Airyaman]

Have you stopped to wonder why? Its simple. The theist, if they are to remain within the boundaries of an old holy book, have nothing new to bring. Therefore, the non-theist in turn is limited in response. The situation would be much different if the faith of so many continued to grow and evolve with time, but such is not the case.

[SkunkButt]

I find this paraphrase to be very similar to many conversations I've had here regarding God's existence.

http://sntjohnny.com/front/a-conversation-on-final-regress-and-first-causes/436.html

So, if we are going to talk about final regress, where did God come from? 

Where indeed?

Scientists, cosmologists, astronomers and mathmetations can verify the beginnings of the universe up to 10 to the power of negative 43 seconds close to the event. They cannot as of yet determin its cause beyond that milestone.

Creationists assert that the universe was formed by an everlasting god. An assertion made with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence (not my original). Sagan may have said that.

So if one would want to choose one theory what would you feel more confident with?

[JustMyron]

See, JustMyron? It's almost like looking in a mirror:

Oh, it starts off promising, I'll grant you that. The problem is that naturally, theists don't know of any atheist argument they can't refute, or any way that their currently accepted arguments can be refuted, otherwise they'd be atheists, or theists with different ideas. So you end up with a shallow and inaccurate representation of your opponent, instead of the human opponents you have to deal with here. You can claim that everyone who doesn't think like you is shallow and uninformed, but really that's just arrogance.

[truthseeker]

OK, then I'll answer my own question.  The Biblical God is said to be eternally self existent.  Which leads me to the following conclusions:

1.  This is merely an "assertion", which is a line of argumentation I know you love to criticize, EB.  LOL
2.  This means that Atheists and Theists have the same problem - how do it start?  All we have are theories, beliefs, and dare is say, "assertions."
3.  Nobody really knows!

Lol. And JustMyron thinks it's a strawman. Seems almost every response raised is indeed a "them" post. It's even sadder when one is pointed out how his objection has been already raised and addressed, and STILL makes the same objection. hehe.

 

 
EB, are you for real?  Or, are you just some smart a-- 12 year old kid who got a certificate in your local church "Defense of Christianity" Sunday School Class? LOL  

[JustMyron]

OK, then I'll answer my own question.  The Biblical God is said to be eternally self existent.  Which leads me to the following conclusions:

1.  This is merely an "assertion", which is a line of argumentation I know you love to criticize, EB.  LOL
2.  This means that Atheists and Theists have the same problem - how do it start?  All we have are theories, beliefs, and dare is say, "assertions."
3.  Nobody really knows!

Lol. And JustMyron thinks it's a strawman. Seems almost every response raised is indeed a "them" post. It's even sadder when one is pointed out how his objection has been already raised and addressed, and STILL makes the same objection. hehe.

Nice dodge, but let's stop talking about me and focus on the challenge presented to your argument. Why not answer the statement that your "answering your own question" is merely an assertion?

[Assyriankey]

EB, do you believe in the scientific theory of Black Holes?

This question is relevant to causation so please bear with me.

[End Bringer]

Oh, it starts off promising, I'll grant you that. The problem is that naturally, theists don't know of any atheist argument they can't refute, or any way that their currently accepted arguments can be refuted, otherwise they'd be atheists, or theists with different ideas. So you end up with a shallow and inaccurate representation of your opponent, instead of the human opponents you have to deal with here. You can claim that everyone who doesn't think like you is shallow and uninformed, but really that's just arrogance.

And likewise atheists don't know any arguement they can't deny. It's called self-deception. Being proven more and more as the clock goes by.

Nice dodge, but let's stop talking about me and focus on the challenge presented to your argument. Why not answer the statement that your "answering your own question" is merely an assertion?

Problably because the answer has already been addressed, and STILL the same objection is raised: Them: 'What caused it/How do it start?' 'Me: The whole point of our conversation to this point has been on the general agreement that something has always existed- without a cause/start.' It's true, you guys are a hoot.

[Airyaman]

And likewise atheists don't know any arguement they can't deny. It's called self-deception. Being proven more and more as the clock goes by.

And how are die-hard theists any different? When people latch onto what they "believe", they are very resistent to opposing views. Don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise.

To the average agnostic/atheist here, your posts on various threads have been thoroughly ripped apart. Yet, you cannot see that. If another theist of like-mindedness (or even close) came on here, he would jump on your bandwagon and agree with your points.

Get it?

[End Bringer]

And likewise atheists don't know any arguement they can't deny. It's called self-deception. Being proven more and more as the clock goes by.

And how are die-hard theists any different? When people latch onto what they "believe", they are very resistent to opposing views. Don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise.

Aha! But then that goes into what they found that belief on. While in the case of this topic, theist's can reasonably found their belief on reasoning and what the scientific data suggests. Atheists...well pure dogmatisim, and the 'faith' that they'll find some other "evidence" some time in the future.

To the average agnostic/atheist here, your posts on various threads have been thoroughly ripped apart. Yet, you cannot see that. If another theist of like-mindedness (or even close) came on here, he would jump on your bandwagon and agree with your points.

And to me, they haven't. But you can not see that. That's generally what happens when one plays judge-jury-prosecuter all at the same time in a discussion. So quite frankly, your responses are nothing to bat an eye at.

Get it?

Better than you problably like.

[End Bringer]

EB, are you for real?  Or, are you just some smart a-- 12 year old kid who got a certificate in your local church "Defense of Christianity" Sunday School Class? LOL  

In other words you're calling me a "Prig", right? ;)

[JustMyron]

And likewise atheists don't know any arguement they can't deny. It's called self-deception. Being proven more and more as the clock goes by.

Wait a second... did you just acknowledge that what I said is correct? But... that's not in the script... 

Let's see if I can get in another point. I contend that having conversations is better than reading scripts, because sometimes, people will say things you don't expect and can point out your self-deceptions in a way that canned scripts cannot. And, supplemental point: your efforts to ridicule your opponents are counter-productive, whether you're looking to convince them that you're correct, or help them find the areas in which you have deceived yourself (we all have them, even you, and everyone needs other people to point them out). Unless you can demonstrate what your method is accomplishing, I think you should lay off the ridicule and open yourself up to actual challenge, provided you can find people who are willing to do the same with you so it's an actual conversation.

[Airyaman]

Aha! But then that goes into what they found that belief on. While in the case of this topic, theist's can reasonably found their belief on reasoning and what the scientific data suggests.

You have yet to support this assertion, and yes, you have hinted at this numerous times.

Atheists...well pure dogmatisim, and the 'faith' that they'll find some other "evidence" some time in the future.

You need to rearrange this whole last bit. Its the atheists who use reasoning and scientific data. Theists, OTOH, abuse these things and twist them beyond recognition.

And to me, they haven't. But you can not see that. That's generally what happens when one plays judge-jury-prosecuter all at the same time in a discussion. So quite frankly, your responses are nothing to bat an eye at.

You just proved my point.

Get it?

Better than you problably like.

Not really. I was hoping you would. Perhaps now you will be more reasonable with your responses on this board.

[truthseeker]

EB, are you for real?  Or, are you just some smart a-- 12 year old kid who got a certificate in your local church "Defense of Christianity" Sunday School Class? LOL 

In other words you're calling me a "Prig", right? ;)

No, that was my attempt at sarcasm.  Sometimes I think you are participating in this forum just to jerk some chains, or become the martyr for Jesus.  You do seem like a smart guy who is trying very hard to defend your faith.  I actually am going to compliment you here, EB.  Most Christians will just preach to the choir about why unbelievers are wrong in their thinking, but you have chosen to actually go out and wrestle with the infidels.  You are following Paul's injunction to, "take every thought captive to Christ". 

Cheers!

[End Bringer]

And likewise atheists don't know any arguement they can't deny. It's called self-deception. Being proven more and more as the clock goes by.

Wait a second... did you just acknowledge that what I said is correct? But... that's not in the script... 

But fairly apt attitude from the script. ;)

Let's see if I can get in another point. I contend that having conversations is better than reading scripts, because sometimes, people will say things you don't expect and can point out your self-deceptions in a way that canned scripts cannot. And, supplemental point: your efforts to ridicule your opponents are counter-productive, whether you're looking to convince them that you're correct, or help them find the areas in which you have deceived yourself (we all have them, even you, and everyone needs other people to point them out). Unless you can demonstrate what your method is accomplishing, I think you should lay off the ridicule and open yourself up to actual challenge, provided you can find people who are willing to do the same with you so it's an actual conversation.

It's more a little jab at the ribs than ridicule.

If find the saying "Takes two to tango." to be quite apt for this situation. We've already seen how people's challenges have been summarized and addressed, yet STILL make the same challenge regardless. Someone who doesn't want to be convinced, simply won't be. No matter how much evidence, logic, or reason is put to them. That's what this thread proves. Further it proves they go one like a broken record. The lyrics may change, but the tuine stays the same. Heck, even these responses of yours are simply:

Them:  I don’t know why you have to get so angry.

I again use the word "hoot" in good spirits.

You have yet to support this assertion, and yes, you have hinted at this numerous times.

Seems all I need to do to support it is point you to an scientific support for the creation of the universe ala Big Bang. Which should be fairly common knowledge by now.

You need to rearrange this whole last bit. Its the atheists who use reasoning and scientific data. Theists, OTOH, abuse these things and twist them beyond recognition.

By "twist", you mean "use"? Because I don't see how using the fact that the universe had a beginning is 'twisting' the scientific data that says "the universe had a beginiing". That's about as 'twisty' as a straight line.

But alright, what scientific data can you sight to suggest the universe didn't have a beginning? Or what scientific data can you sight for the inexistance of...anything? Remember you're taking the scientific high road. I want charts and data and experimentation repeated a thousand times with the same result.

Not really. I was hoping you would. Perhaps now you will be more reasonable with your responses on this board.

Hehehe, I think you'll be in for some disappointment.

No, that was my attempt at sarcasm.  Sometimes I think you are participating in this forum just to jerk some chains, or become the martyr for Jesus.  You do seem like a smart guy who is trying very hard to defend your faith.  I actually am going to compliment you here, EB.  Most Christians will just preach to the choir about why unbelievers are wrong in their thinking, but you have chosen to actually go out and wrestle with the infidels.  You are following Paul's injunction to, "take every thought captive to Christ".

Well thanks.