The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[FelrikTheDeleted]

[…]Except it fails to explain how that unmoved mover is the Christian God,[…]

Probably because it wasn’t intended to prove the existence of the Christian God.

[Tarsonis]

Um no, no it isn't. It's the Cosmological argument. Those aren't the same thing. Perhaps you need to spend more time on RationalWiki. Nice try though.

>Implying RW is a credible source.

I wasn’t, actually... thats was kind of the point.

But seriously, the problem with the Cosmological Argument is that it attempts to solve a problem of infinite regress. Except it fails to explain how that unmoved mover is the Christian God,

well as felkirk pointed out, it doesn’t. That’s a seperate question.

(Kalam is a different argument), it fails to explain by what mechanism God would will himself into existence,

God doesn’t will Himself into existence, God is and always is. Argument isn’t that there’s not an eternal first, but rather that eternal first must have a will of its own.

and it definitely doesn’t address that pesky fact: The Order of Creation described in Genesis is somewhat out of order with the actual Big Bang.

That’s not actually a problem. At least not for me I’m not a literalists in regards to Genesis 1-11

[Grenartia]

The God of the Gaps.

Um no, no it isn't. It's the Cosmological argument. Those aren't the same thing. Perhaps you need to spend more time on RationalWiki. Nice try though.

I haven't been on RW in years. And yet, you're arguing the God of the Gaps. Call it whatever you like, but its not going to not be the God of the Gaps.

[Grenartia]

Well, I mean, there was that one time with King Phillip and the Knights Templar...

Both of which were larger concerns than a wandering lunatic.

It wasn't simply a wandering lunatic. Ignoring the merits of whether or not Bruno was a lunatic (he wasn't), Copernicus was still beginning to catch on, and heliocentrism ran contrary to Catholic dogma. This was also after the Reformation, so the Catholic hierarchy was keenly aware of how one man going against established teaching could undermine their authority.

[Tarsonis]

Um no, no it isn't. It's the Cosmological argument. Those aren't the same thing. Perhaps you need to spend more time on RationalWiki. Nice try though.

I haven't been on RW in years. And yet, you're arguing the God of the Gaps. Call it whatever you like, but its not going to not be the God of the Gaps.

Except it’s not. Cosmological argument has nothing to do with scientific discovery. It’s a logical proof, not just a blazed “goddidit” when something isn’t comprehensible to science.

And I said go back to RW because this kind of edgelord bullshit is the the exact flavor for that site.

[Grenartia]

1. I never denied that proof was never obtained during Einstein's life. Simply that it wasn't avaliable until after he presented his hypothesis.

2. Well, everything in his cosmological hypotheses (other than the infinite universe, which is obtained through simple logic) logically follows from the base assumption that every star is a sun. And even that in and of itself isn't so drastic of a leap to make.

On what logical basis can you assert every star to be a sun (without observing it)? You're presenting Bruno as a logician more than a scientist.

You cannot assert every star is a sun without observing it. However, thankfully for Bruno, simply looking at the sky is itself an observation. Its easy to notice that the apparent size of an object gets smaller with increasing distance. Its also simple to observe that a sufficiently bright light can be seen from a long distance away in darkness. It is again, simple to observe that the sun is very, very, very bright. With these basic facts in mind, it can be deduced that if the sun were viewed from very far away, it would look very much like a star. Thus, one can easily presume that a star is simply a sun that is very far away.

And yes, I suppose I am presenting Bruno as a bit more of a logician than a scientist. Doesn't diminish the impact of his hypotheses at all.

[New haven america]

Then what, praytell, is your point?

Exactly the point I made. You can identify what created the universe, but then you have to identify what created that, and then what created that, and so on and so on. No matter how far you walk it back eventually you'll have to get to that which was not created.

If you want to go with that line of logic, then who/what created God?

This argument goes both ways.

[Tarsonis]

Exactly the point I made. You can identify what created the universe, but then you have to identify what created that, and then what created that, and so on and so on. No matter how far you walk it back eventually you'll have to get to that which was not created.

If you want to go with that line of logic, then who/what created God?

This argument goes both ways.

Ffs look up 6 posts where I answered that question already.

Or really, what part of “that which was not created” did you fail to grasp?

[New haven america]

If you want to go with that line of logic, then who/what created God?

This argument goes both ways.

Ffs look up 6 posts where I answered that question already.

No, not my job.

[Grenartia]

I haven't been on RW in years. And yet, you're arguing the God of the Gaps. Call it whatever you like, but its not going to not be the God of the Gaps.

Except it’s not. Cosmological argument has nothing to do with scientific discovery. It’s a logical proof, not just a blazed “goddidit” when something isn’t comprehensible to science.

And I said go back to RW because this kind of edgelord bullshit is the the exact flavor for that site.

It doesn't have to be a "goddidit" to be God of the Gaps. The simple fact is, the argument you presented uses gaps in scientific knowledge to assert that a deity MUST exist. That is inherently God of the Gaps. You cannot argue your way around that. Embrace it if you must, but you're only being intellectually dishonest by denying it.

[Luna Amore]

Ffs look up 6 posts where I answered that question already.

No, not my job.

Reading other people's posts is kind of a hallmark of an online forum.

[Lord Dominator]

No, not my job.

Reading other people's posts is kind of a hallmark of an online forum.

That's debatable

[Grenartia]

If you want to go with that line of logic, then who/what created God?

This argument goes both ways.

Ffs look up 6 posts where I answered that question already.

Or really, what part of “that which was not created” did you fail to grasp?

Your post did not adequately answer the question. If you're going to apply the Cosmological Argument God of the Gaps to the universe, you must also apply it to what created the universe, by your own argument. You can't half-ass the job. If you claim God created the universe, then your own argument requires you explain the origin of God. God of the Gaps applies to God just as equally as it does to science.

[Northern Davincia]

On what logical basis can you assert every star to be a sun (without observing it)? You're presenting Bruno as a logician more than a scientist.

You cannot assert every star is a sun without observing it. However, thankfully for Bruno, simply looking at the sky is itself an observation. Its easy to notice that the apparent size of an object gets smaller with increasing distance. Its also simple to observe that a sufficiently bright light can be seen from a long distance away in darkness. It is again, simple to observe that the sun is very, very, very bright. With these basic facts in mind, it can be deduced that if the sun were viewed from very far away, it would look very much like a star. Thus, one can easily presume that a star is simply a sun that is very far away.

And yes, I suppose I am presenting Bruno as a bit more of a logician than a scientist. Doesn't diminish the impact of his hypotheses at all.

A hypothesis has to be testable, otherwise it is a notion. There was even less supporting his idea of an infinite universe or extraterrestrial life.

[Grenartia]

You cannot assert every star is a sun without observing it. However, thankfully for Bruno, simply looking at the sky is itself an observation. Its easy to notice that the apparent size of an object gets smaller with increasing distance. Its also simple to observe that a sufficiently bright light can be seen from a long distance away in darkness. It is again, simple to observe that the sun is very, very, very bright. With these basic facts in mind, it can be deduced that if the sun were viewed from very far away, it would look very much like a star. Thus, one can easily presume that a star is simply a sun that is very far away.

And yes, I suppose I am presenting Bruno as a bit more of a logician than a scientist. Doesn't diminish the impact of his hypotheses at all.

A hypothesis has to be testable, otherwise it is a notion. There was even less supporting his idea of an infinite universe or extraterrestrial life.

Are you saying that the claim that the stars are distant suns is untestable? Because it is testable, and in fact, it has been tested. And his hypothesis was proven to be correct.

[Northern Davincia]

A hypothesis has to be testable, otherwise it is a notion. There was even less supporting his idea of an infinite universe or extraterrestrial life.

Are you saying that the claim that the stars are distant suns is untestable? Because it is testable, and in fact, it has been tested. And his hypothesis was proven to be correct.

I'm speaking in the context of the knowledge Bruno had available. His ideas were impossible to test during his lifetime.

[Salus Maior]

Ffs look up 6 posts where I answered that question already.

No, not my job.

And it's certainly not his job to cater to you whenever you demand something.

If you actually care, the information is already posted. It's irritating to continually tread the same ground just because not everyone's been part of the discussion from the beginning.

[Salus Maior]

He wasn't, as you imply, some random guy who had a fever dream and went out like some homeless guy on a street corner yelling incoherent rambling. He was an educated man, and used logic to defend his hypotheses. Plenty of times, scientific inspirations have come from rather unscientific places (Einstein's insights about Relativity, for instance, came from daydreaming while working at the patent office). The genetic argument doesn't really apply here, since he did make an honest and sincere effort at justifying himself.

Regardless, that wasn't what he was executed for.

[Grenartia]

Are you saying that the claim that the stars are distant suns is untestable? Because it is testable, and in fact, it has been tested. And his hypothesis was proven to be correct.

I'm speaking in the context of the knowledge Bruno had available. His ideas were impossible to test during his lifetime.

That is not a legitimate criterion to use. Plenty of hypothesized phenomena were thought to be impossible to test during the hypothesizer's lifetime.

But, going back to Einstein and relativity, let's examine gravitational waves. Their existence was doubted, even by Einstein, but they were heavily implied in the relativistic equations. He died 20 years before we even got indirect evidence, through examining pulsar mergers. It took another 4 decades, almost an entire century from relativity's first prediction of them, in order to directly observe them, and that required technology that quite frankly, wasn't even thought of when he published the first paper on relativity, much less actually existing when he died (lasers being another half-decade away when he died).

[Tarsonis]

Ffs look up 6 posts where I answered that question already.

Or really, what part of “that which was not created” did you fail to grasp?

Your post did not adequately answer the question. If you're going to apply the Cosmological Argument God of the Gaps to the universe, you must also apply it to what created the universe, by your own argument. You can't half-ass the job. If you claim God created the universe, then your own argument requires you explain the origin of God. God of the Gaps applies to God just as equally as it does to science.

All ask your the same question, “what part of that which was not created” was too hard for you?
Don’t bother answering cause I’m done with you. I’m not gonna bother with this intellectual dishonesty.

[Grenartia]

He wasn't, as you imply, some random guy who had a fever dream and went out like some homeless guy on a street corner yelling incoherent rambling. He was an educated man, and used logic to defend his hypotheses. Plenty of times, scientific inspirations have come from rather unscientific places (Einstein's insights about Relativity, for instance, came from daydreaming while working at the patent office). The genetic argument doesn't really apply here, since he did make an honest and sincere effort at justifying himself.

Regardless, that wasn't what he was executed for.

Except it was, because his hypotheses were determined to be heretical. And he was executed for heresy.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Ffs look up 6 posts where I answered that question already.

Or really, what part of “that which was not created” did you fail to grasp?

Your post did not adequately answer the question. If you're going to apply the Cosmological Argument God of the Gaps to the universe, you must also apply it to what created the universe, by your own argument. You can't half-ass the job. If you claim God created the universe, then your own argument requires you explain the origin of God. God of the Gaps applies to God just as equally as it does to science.

God, by His very nature, exists outside of the parameters of the universe (i.e. outside of space-time). Such cannot be said for any material origin of the universe, and the beginning of the universe must predate the laws of physics, as otherwise the Big Bang would have happened much earlier than it happened. Moreover, that there was a beginning proves that time and space did not always exist, which also must prove that there exists something beyond our conception of existence.

[Grenartia]

Your post did not adequately answer the question. If you're going to apply the Cosmological Argument God of the Gaps to the universe, you must also apply it to what created the universe, by your own argument. You can't half-ass the job. If you claim God created the universe, then your own argument requires you explain the origin of God. God of the Gaps applies to God just as equally as it does to science.

All ask your the same question, “what part of that which was not created” was too hard for you?

The part where it didn't make any sense and as far as I can tell, you haven't actually said in this thread. And furthermore, there's no obvious application of the sentence fragment "that which was not created", to this discussion.

If I am incorrect on this point, and you have, indeed, made a post containing that fragment in a context that actually makes sense, I would like to see a link to it, however, not even the search bar has revealed such a post.

Don’t bother answering cause I’m done with you. I’m not gonna bother with this intellectual dishonesty.

>calling me intellectually dishonest
>literally refusing to even attempt to prove me wrong or concede the argument

Kden.

If my questions are making you question your faith, then that is not my problem, though I would have expected better from somebody who makes a point of saying in their sig that they went to Yale Divinity School.

[Luminesa]

Um no, no it isn't. It's the Cosmological argument. Those aren't the same thing. Perhaps you need to spend more time on RationalWiki. Nice try though.

>Implying RW is a credible source.

But seriously, the problem with the Cosmological Argument is that it attempts to solve a problem of infinite regress. Except it fails to explain how that unmoved mover is the Christian God, (Kalam is a different argument), it fails to explain by what mechanism God would will himself into existence, and it definitely doesn’t address that pesky fact: The Order of Creation described in Genesis is somewhat out of order with the actual Big Bang.

First of all, I think his point was exactly that RW is not a credible source.

Second, Genesis is not meant to be taken literally. It’s a theological discourse on the origins of the beliefs of the Jewish people. Also the Big Bang theory was thought-up by a Catholic scientist, fun fact.

[Luminesa]

All ask your the same question, “what part of that which was not created” was too hard for you?

The part where it didn't make any sense and as far as I can tell, you haven't actually said in this thread. And furthermore, there's no obvious application of the sentence fragment "that which was not created", to this discussion.

If I am incorrect on this point, and you have, indeed, made a post containing that fragment in a context that actually makes sense, I would like to see a link to it, however, not even the search bar has revealed such a post.

Don’t bother answering cause I’m done with you. I’m not gonna bother with this intellectual dishonesty.

>calling me intellectually dishonest
>literally refusing to even attempt to prove me wrong or concede the argument

Kden.

If my questions are making you question your faith, then that is not my problem, though I would have expected better from somebody who makes a point of saying in their sig that they went to Yale Divinity School.

You’re really inflating your posts to be a lot more important and devastating than they actually are, if you actually think that stepping out of a useless argument = “I’m losing my faith, oh nu”. The point here is he has been explaining himself and you continue to argue on a single term. He’s been arguing with you, I think the point of the matter is you don’t want an answer. No answer is good enough for someone who truly thinks a person stepping out to chill means they’ve somehow converted them to atheism or whatever.