Jump to content
Science Forums

The kca, a logical argument for the existence of god.


RevOfAllRevs

Recommended Posts

If it weren't so serious and dangerous in it's implications it would be funny to note the irony that perhaps the greatest argument against Darwin is that a case might possibly be made that some people if not all of Homo Sapiens seem to be de-volving. In the quest to attempt to achieve parity with Science, modern Religion seeks either to bring Science down to it's level ("Evolution is *only a theory*, jury isn't in yet" or "Carbon 14 dating isn't *that* accurate", or "atheism *** science is a cult", etc etc ad nauseum) or bring Religion up to Science's level vis a vis Intelligent Design even to the point of outright lying as proved in the Dover, Pa. trial transcripts and even mentioned in the wiki for "Of Pandas and People" here:

 

Of Pandas and People - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

So Big Religion acts as if the Scopes Trial 84 years ago and numerous judicial and legislative actions since never had occurred. Likewise, in this thread, we have RevofallRevs, amongst many others in other threads, trying to propose that they have come to religion through Science, not Faith, not only despite an utter lack of understanding of the rules of logic, nomenclature of Science, or even how a proper syllogism is constructed and tested, but instead offers up BigBang (Standard Model) as proof when this argument died, or should have, with it's most important proponent, Georges Lemaitre . Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

When Pope Pius X11 pontificated (I won't deny that particular pun was, in fact, intended) in 1951

 

present-day science, with one sweep back across the centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to the august instant of the Fiat Lux, when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, and the elements split and churned and formed into millions of galaxies

 

Lemaitre was very upset and though a lowly monsignior responded with some indignation and was quoted by and commented on by Farrell thusly

 

'The writers of the Bible were illuminated more or less—some more than others—on the question of salvation. On other questions they were as wise or as ignorant as their generation. Hence it is utterly unimportant that errors of historic or scientific fact should be found in the Bible, especially if errors relate to events that were not directly observed by those who wrote about them.'

 

“The idea,” he concluded, “that because they were right in their doctrine of immortality and salvation they must also be right on all other subjects is simply the fallacy of people who have an incomplete understanding of why the Bible was given to us at all.”

 

So Lemaître maintained that God preserved those truths in Scripture related to salvation. But Scripture had nothing to say on specific scientific questions, and might even be full of scientific errors.

 

The above quotes are all from Touchstone Archives: Priest of the Cosmos not a scientific publication but rather a religious one. Incidentally since this is a matter of historical fact these quotes and others, some more harsh, can be found in numerous sources by searching "Big Bang", "primeval atom", "Lemaitre" or even "Pope Pius XII". One excellent and thorough source is Roman Catholicism and modern science ... - Google Books

 

 

So it can be seen that even when the science of a thing is not overly complex or requiring high levels of mathematics or even reasoning power that many religion-ists simply cannot be bothered to research their "theories" (read: "envisionings" or other articles of mysticism and/or faith not requiring proof) or check their premises, even if the issue was settled to satisfaction 50 or 100 years ago, since they seem unable to wait for very long to preach and proselytize.

 

While it is occaisionally entertaining, it is always just so incredibly tedious and honestly makes me wonder sometimes how our ancestors ever decided to try to find some food on the ground instead of waiting for new fruit to grow on the dwindling number of trees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First I resent being called a troll. That is close if not a violation of this sites TOS. Wake up this is the THEOLOGY* forum, not the feel good atheist forum. Some people are more intelligent than others and some can put their emotional issues behind them. As a teacher I have had many people agree with the KCA. One more thing another thread does not mean another forum.

You want I should list the forums you've already posted the same stuff on? And then stalked off in a temper? This forum isn't your normal talking shop. Most people are here to learn things - I certainly am. You can't learn because you won't consider that your beliefs might be wrong. Maybe "troll" isn't quite the right word, but it comes awfully close.

What? Man are you are so off base. Did I ask for money? I could give a flying flip what you do with your money. I have devoted my life to helping others. I have two christian humanitarian missions, and a church. Before you say anything its all public record here in my home town.

Here's what I said:

Don't bother "bringing this up in another thread" for my benefit, please. I assure you, I've heard it all before. And so, I expect, have most people here. I replied to your original post because you were claiming that your beliefs were based on logic. I refuted on logical grounds, and nothing you have said has changed my position. You will not convince me that my money should be given to a church rather than a charity, that my time should be spent on my knees in prayer or worship rather than doing something worthwhile, that I should conduct line-by-line study of a book of folk-tales rather than a science textbook.

Did I accuse you of asking for money? It's quite clear that I was talking about organised religion in general. I'm sure you never pass the collecting plate in your churches. Wriggle and spin again.

The evidence is there, if you reject the MANY (caps for emphasis only) evidences and cling to old 1920's ideas about theology, region and metaphysics, that's your right and I much differently than you respect your beliefs and refuse to stoop to your level of hostility and name calling. When the mud slinging starts its a sure indication that you have lost the debate.

I debate. I don't sling mud, and I strongly object to the accusation. Bad boy! :hihi:

 

Despite what you - and several hundred other religious zealots - have said on this forum, there is NO convincing evidence for God. Not the Christian god, or Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Norse, Greek, Roman...

 

I don't need to listen to your arguments to know that you have nothing new and convincing. If you did, I wouldn't be reading it on this forum. It'd be on every front page in the country and all over the internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it weren't so serious and dangerous in it's implications it would be funny to note the irony that perhaps the greatest argument against Darwin is that a case might possibly be made that some people if not all of Homo Sapiens seem to be de-volving. In the quest to attempt to achieve parity with Science, modern Religion seeks either to bring Science down to it's level ("Evolution is *only a theory*, jury isn't in yet" or "Carbon 14 dating isn't *that* accurate", or "atheism *** science is a cult", etc etc ad nauseum) or bring Religion up to Science's level vis a vis Intelligent Design even to the point of outright lying as proved in the Dover, Pa. trial transcripts and even mentioned in the wiki for "Of Pandas and People" here:

 

Well, there really is no impact on Darwin's great idea, since evolution does not have a direction... It is neither positive nor negative... just a process of change/mutation, random selection, kin selection, and genetic drift.

 

While I agree with you that Idiocracy is becoming far too prophetic for my own personal comfort, I needed to point out that evolution stands and Darwin is safe regardless of the direction describing the overall change within homo sapiens. :hihi:

 

 

Hey! Did you just call me a monkey! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is why I said, no more is required than faith. Your attempt to deduce God from the premise of God is circular and attenuated. The question here is not: Whether you are correct about God. The question here is: whether you are persuasive to others about your argument.

 

Different strokes for different folks my friend. I get about an email a week thanking me so yes I do reach a few people that may not be able to take God purely on faith. Science and the secular paradigm of our public schools conspire against us. I fell victim to the God is dead neo Darwin paradigm of my upbringing.

 

After I got in college my professors were rabidly anti religious left wing atheists and they spoke a good game, Darwin could explain everything God wasn't needed. That worked for a while but I being capable of critical thinking was sure the evidence pointed towards God not away. So after I became religious I decided to use science to save some souls to even the score out a bit. My way gives non spiritual people a way to begin to let God in to thier secular thoughts and ultimately discover the truth, or what I consider the truth, that God created the universe and there is reasonable evidence to support it.

 

Your peril is the bootstrapping of your argument. Your conclusion is only supported by itself. You provide nothing else, except: God is the creator, therefore God is the creator.

 

Well you have only been exposed to one of my evidences for the existence of God, the KCA. I have attempted to show proof that KCA meets the conditions for a formal cosmological argument which relies on logic and reason. God is necessary because nothing begins to exist without a cause, therefore for the reasons given prior to this post the cause can be reasonably assumed to be God.

 

We haven't even touched on God as a necessary being* or other cosmological and ontological evidences nor any of the other evidences like the Goldie locks problem of the universe being fine tuned for life.(nor do I want to until we get a consensus on the KCA). And there is always the chance that I am wrong. However I am only sharing my reasons that I believe in God.

 

Rev, God is possible and your conclusion maybe 100% correct. But, that is not the point. The point is: you are not persuasive, yet you assert to be persuasive.

 

Well we are all a work in progress. I am not satisfied with my success rate but I should have some time before I start preaching. I own my own Church ABOTCC but do not preach choosing instead of putting my energies in the Christian humanitarian missions. Maybe one day I will be able to command the same salvation rate as Billy Ghram! (just kidding).Nevertheless and everything considered, I don't judge my success on your criteria my friend. However advice is always invited especially when its civil and cordial!

 

In discourse there are only two possiblities: (1) You are geniunely positing a persuasive argument to enlighten others, or (2) you are positing a disingenuous argument to swindle others.

 

I have no motive to swindle others so I pick door number one. Additionally the KCA is a well known and valid argument. If I asked for a thousand dollar love gift well maybe I might be a false prophet. I would tell you that healthy paranoia and being on the lookout for false prophets will help you and I welcome any investigation, thats why I make my credentials as well as my business records (for the humanitarian missions and chruch) public record or will send my college transcripts etc

 

Here, your argument is logically flawed and disingenuous. Therefore, my conclusion is you are attempting to swindle readers. You got balls, but little reason.

 

That is your right but you have no evidence to back up your statements except for vague unverifiable claims. Your veiled hostility and and unreasonable posts tell me what the real reason for your insults are. Please and read up on the KCA before if you decide to post on the subject again.

 

Thanks for your reply

 

Peace through tolerance of others beliefs ~

 

 

*God and other nessessary beings;

God and Other Necessary Beings (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

; {>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find your response both spineless and specious. Specious because that is the first response I have ever made to you where I copy/pasted anything, so your suggestion that this is somehow a regular phenomenon is without merit. Spineless because the text which I posted directly counters the claims you are making, with specifics and counters, yet you have flatly written it off and failed to address the criticisms within.

 

So... if you truly wish to "progress," then you should truly address the criticisms offered in response to your OP, regardless of their source.

 

Please refrain from using personal insults this is not the place for personal remarks. So again I do not read long cut and pastes, I don't know if this site has rules against posting a page of cut and paste but most do.

 

Again please state in your own words why you have a problem with the KCA.

 

And have a nice afternoon!

 

 

; {>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it weren't so serious and dangerous in it's implications it would be funny to note the irony that perhaps the greatest argument against Darwin is that a case might possibly be made that some people if not all of Homo Sapiens seem to be de-volving. In the quest to attempt to achieve parity with Science, modern Religion seeks either to bring Science down to it's level ("Evolution is *only a theory*, jury isn't in yet" or "Carbon 14 dating isn't *that* accurate", or "atheism *** science is a cult", etc etc ad nauseum) or bring Religion up to Science's level vis a vis Intelligent Design even to the point of outright lying as proved in the Dover, Pa. trial transcripts and even mentioned in the wiki for "Of Pandas and People" here:

 

Of Pandas and People - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

What does this have to with the KCA. This is not a thread for you to tell me about your disdain for religion. I think that the members of religious organizations are simply better educated than not too long ago. And science has its own fraudulent skeletons in the closet. Think Piltdown man. I think that the PhD Christian apologists are a very good thing for science and religion and bodes well for the future.

 

religion acts as if the Scopes Trial 84 years ago and numerous judicial and legislative actions since never had occurred. Likewise, in this thread, we have RevofallRevs, amongst many others in other threads, trying to propose that they have come to religion through Science, not Faith, not only despite an utter lack of understanding of the rules of logic, nomenclature of Science, or even how a proper syllogism is constructed and tested, but instead offers up BigBang (Standard Model) as proof when this argument died, or should have, with it's most important proponent, Georges Lemaitre . Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Again I don't understand why you are mentioning all that information in my thread about the KCA. However, just for fun, I will enlighten you to a few facts about ID. For starters ID has no standard theory so until it does we cant kill it. Because it does not exist. The KCA makes no apologies and is not associated with ID. Creationist science has many PhD mixed amongst the ranks and again I think that is a very good thing. What frustrates secular interests is that laypeople and religious PhDs are finally wising up and challenging some bad science. This PO'es the darwin lovers to no end because we have the intellectual ammo to gag the most hostile and arrogant of the science priests. (think of the wanna be scientist Dawkings*) So, I have to say that I find the improving IQ of my religious brothers and sisters satisfying.

 

The above quotes are all from Touchstone Archives: Priest of the Cosmos not a scientific publication but rather a religious one. Incidentally since this is a matter of historical fact these quotes and others, some more harsh, can be found in numerous sources by searching "Big Bang", "primeval atom", "Lemaitre" or even "Pope Pius XII". One excellent and thorough source is Roman Catholicism and modern science ... - Google Books

 

Again this thread is supposed to be about the KCA not your Personal opinion about ID. However start a thread on ID, I would be happy to have a look at it. I don't suscribe to 'traditional ID' by the way. Disclaimer; you can ignore the above paragraph if you are trying to discredit the big bang theory. The BB does have relevance to the KCA

 

So it can be seen that even when the science of a thing is not overly complex or requiring high levels of mathematics or even reasoning power that many religion-ists simply cannot be bothered to research their "theories" (read: "envisionings" or other articles of mysticism and/or faith not requiring proof) or check their premises, even if the issue was settled to satisfaction 50 or 100 years ago, since they seem unable to wait for very long to preach and proselytize.

 

We agree with most of science so I don’t know what you are talking about. Again this topic is supposed to be about the KCA please attempt to stay on topic and not use it to vent your hate of religion.

 

While it is occaisionally entertaining, it is always just so incredibly tedious and honestly makes me wonder sometimes how our ancestors ever decided to try to find some food on the ground instead of waiting for new fruit to grow on the dwindling number of trees.

 

" occaisionally"? When you are running down a belief system perhaps you should watch your spelling a bit better? And again please get back on topic.

 

: {?

 

*When Selfish Gene author Richard Dawkins challenged physicist John Barrow on his formulation of the constants of nature at last summer at Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellowship lectures, Barrow laughed and said, “You have a problem with these ideas, Richard, because you're not really a scientist. You are a biologist."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" occaisionally"? When you are running down a belief system perhaps you should watch your spelling a bit better?

When choosing to attack somebody for their spelling in a post, you should make damn well sure that your own spelling is perfect, or you wind up looking like quite a fool.

 

 

Again your not making too much sense.

You, of course, meant to type "you're," as in "you are." :hihi:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then share your evidence, and note the standard of evidence expected in a scientific arena. All you've presented thus far is logic, and logic [math]\ne[/math] evidence.

 

 

Evidence comes in many forms. So I would disagree with you. Black holes can not be observed directly but we use gravitational evidences* ie circumstantial evidence to claim they exist. The KCA was just the first component and that's what this thread supposed to be about. When we finish up with this thread plan on more. Its easy for you guys because you have only me to thump on. I have to respond to as many as four or five not counting the other threads. So Its much more difficult for me than you to cover many subjects. My task is exponentially more difficult. However chaos is my comfort zone so stay tuned!

 

; {>

 

along with other evidences

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When choosing to attack somebody for their spelling in a post, you should make damn well sure that your own spelling is perfect, or you wind up looking like quite a fool.

 

 

 

You, of course, meant to type "you're," as in "you are." :hihi:

 

Yes but I don't make a habit of attacking others intellect either. BTW, I have looked like a fool many times in the past so no worries. Hey I am human only Jesus Christ was perfect.

 

Now lets get back on topic shall we ?

 

; {>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there really is no impact on Darwin's great idea, since evolution does not have a direction... It is neither positive nor negative... just a process of change/mutation, random selection, kin selection, and genetic drift.

 

While I agree with you that Idiocracy is becoming far too prophetic for my own personal comfort, I needed to point out that evolution stands and Darwin is safe regardless of the direction describing the overall change within homo sapiens. :shade:

 

 

Hey! Did you just call me a monkey! :lol:

 

Please get back on topic.

 

 

; {>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but I don't make a habit of attacking others intellect either. BTW, I have looked like a fool many times in the past so no worries. Hey I am human only Jesus Christ was perfect

um rev, that would be speculation and conjecture and there is no way to qualify your concept of Jesus with evidence, so i will not ask you for back up. For if i do, then your borderline proselytizing will go certainly cross that line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but I don't make a habit of attacking others intellect either. BTW, I have looked like a fool many times in the past so no worries. Hey I am human only Jesus Christ was perfect.

 

Well, Jesus did have some pretty major problems. I know you don't watch videos online, so I share this humorous little bit for our other readers... so THEY can see how your comment is really rather hollow and baseless. Enjoy. :shade:

 

 

YouTube - What Would Jesus NOT Do? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOfjkl-3SNE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys can go at it yourself as it seems this is a no win situation. : {>

 

Rev, that is how it is when the argument fails on simple logic. No one can win such argument.

But, I suppose you can talk about faith. Or you can structure an argument from some well known fundamental scientific premise such as an atom or genetics; and deduce that discounting higher power is not possible. Or, somthing else that makes some sense. You do not have to be convincing, but you must be persuasive to some extent. An observer has to have something reasonable to weigh on.

But, the way your argument started here, it made no sense. You can not start with God and end with God. You have to start with something other than God, and end with God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find your response both spineless and specious. Specious because that is the first response I have ever made to you where I copy/pasted anything, so your suggestion that this is somehow a regular phenomenon is without merit. Spineless because the text which I posted directly counters the claims you are making, with specifics and counters, yet you have flatly written it off and failed to address the criticisms within.

 

So... if you truly wish to "progress," then you should truly address the criticisms offered in response to your OP, regardless of their source.

You may recall that some of your responses were nothing more than links and a note saying something to the effect of "this disproves your theory". Bristling and name calling doesn't change that. There is more than enough weight in what you are arguing to have to resort to that.

 

Your friendly neighborhood moderator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...