Atheists Who Celebrate All The Good That God Causes.

Murder is unlawful, premeditated killing. I believe I only used the word murder to talk about harvesting the hospital visitor, and I'm pretty sure that would be both unlawful and premeditated (you can't really perform surgery in a blind rage).

Does the trolley problem play out differently if we premeditated the pulling of the lever or the pushing of the fat man or the organ harvest? I wouldn't say so, although I could be persuaded otherwise.

I'm not sure what the law says on the topic of pulling the lever, but certainly not pulling the lever i definitely legally permissible (due to the principle of the duty to rescue, although that has some exceptions, for instance if you are in some way responsible for the safety of the rails, or the parent of one of the five people). A bit of googling suggests that pulling the lever may make you guilty of second degree murder, so while I'm iffy on the legal details, I think it could fall under murder. Either way, there are plenty of differences between the law and morality, so it doesn't seem to me that the legal criterion is going to make much of a moral difference.

It seems to me that at least you could modify the trolley problem to construct two morally equivalent situations, but in which one includes murder and one includes merely killing. So no, I don't think it is clear that there would be a large moral difference in this case.

The wording I can find makes no mention of the methods, so I assume they're minimally invasive. We're not assessing the morality of any action that could come to happen while trying to harvest a person's organs, but trying to construct an example which is mostly morally equivalent to the original trolley problem. I would say the methods (grabbing, anaesthetics, stress etc) should be thought of as no more problematic than the methods by which the one person got tied to the rail tracks (thus making that aspect of the examples morally equivalent).

Sure.

Certainly, it is not nice to have to take hard moral decisions. And if the issues are indeed hard, there will always be people who disagreed with you and will hate you for your decision. That doesn't really effect what the moral decision is (although it might affect how morally permissible it is to guess the wrong answer).

Yes, some of the point of these examples is the fact that people will give different answers. I don't know that these particular Christians participate in the classical trolley problem, because they work with an additional piece of information (even though I don't think it is true), the piece "God would stop the trolley if he wanted to". If I had the information (and truly believed) "the trolley would stop if it was a good idea to stop it", I might behave differently too.

That being said, there are deontologists who would answer that they wouldn't pull the lever because they don't want to be guilty of the one man's death, and they have no moral responsibility towards the death of the 5 (this is indeed the situation that the original trolley problem was designed to highlight).

 

That's an interesting variation. Some would argue that we have no less duty towards ourselves than to the fat man, which has some implications about suicide. It also implies that the difference between you and the fat man is that you consented to the act. If you and the fat man both consented, does it seem morally better to sacrifice yourself or the fat man? I guess this boils down to a rather different moral question, happening on the side of the original issue.

 

As a general rule, being correct is not a decision of any person or body, it has to do with how it relates to reality. In this particular case, "reality" had to do with what atheists believe, so it would seem to me they'd be a good authority on what they believe, and they sided with me.

Not really. Considering other people's opinion is how we introduce at least some safe guard against being wrong. If we were justified in ignoring others' opinions, we could believe anything at all.

None of this seems to be able to address the idea that Christianity simply isn't true. Talking about faith is no better a solution for Christianity than it is for Islam. The point of the comparative religion is that your methods are unable to arrive at truth, so they are not good reasons to believe things.

Sure, I'm just saying that that's where the atheists' arguments are aiming. As I've mentioned before, my comment has to do with your assertion that atheists need to state 14 to be consistent with stating 12, but if their intent is to examine whether God exists, then 12 can assess that, and 14 cannot, so atheists would be consistent with their principle (of assessing whether God exists) by stating 12, but not 14.

You can ask people to do whatever you want, I'm addressing your assertion that stating 14 is the only way to be consistent with stating 12.

I would say determining how your ideological enemies think is your main intellectual duty. People who don't consider the thoughts of people believing differently are the ones who become dictators and terrorists.

Well, if you had had an interest in figuring out what makes sense to atheists, you would see that they're trying to be consistent to other principles than the ones you try to ascribe to them. Your idea that you would expect atheists to post threads about 14 or your ironic surprise at the four example atheists remaining quiet all rely on this principle that you would expect people to proclaim all the things they believe, a principle which they do not agree with. Their principle is to assess the existence of God, and that calls for the proclamation of 12, but not 14.

Given that you don't care about what atheists say, it is surprising to find you make so many statements about how you expect atheists to act. The very thread title seems devoted to it.

Why? Doing evil things shows that one is not omnibenevolent. Doing good things cannot tell you one way or the other.

 

Why would you point that out? It doesn't answer the question. If we can't figure our epistemology out, we're likely to just believe false things.

Well, arguments like the Kalam argument is why I abandoned the idea of atheism. Mind you, the Kalam argument doesn't specify a personal god, or the god of the Bible. Besides, good arguments have basically created the atheist and secular humanist movements from a world that was effectively completely religious, so yes, your arguments failing is not evidence of everyone having deaf ears, it is merely an argument that they're objectionable. Some more so than others, but anyone listing Pascal's wager as an argument for God doesn't know how to construct good arguments.

If you can't decide between high probability or low probability, then you haven't constructed a good enough argument. Humans are famously bad at assessing probabilities, if our beliefs rests on that, it's on very shaky ground.

 

Then why believe it? Why even consider pleasing God an option without assessing the same issues for Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Norse mythology etc.? Your points above are only relevant if you already have faith, they can't be used to justify having faith, any more than you can literally pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

 

Agreed.

I agree 100%.

That is exactly right. I completely agree with that.

My response would be this very post that you wrote.
I mean I could just quote your post.
I would tell them exactly what you have said in this post.
I could just quote your entire post to them.
_________________________________________
WillReadMore Writes:
"And I think that answer has to reflect the above - that
mankind can not know god's purpose or plan - that
there is no possibility of man judging god.

Faith has to extend to god being perfect even in
light of a kid dying of cancer. Faith is not based
on evidence."___WillReadMore
_______________________________________

Absolutely agreed.

Thanks for your comments.

PS
Actually I have told them what you said many times.
I did not phrase it exactly like you did, but the substance
was there, namely that Christianity is a Faith and
that humans cannot use Logic and Empiricism to
demonstrate the truth of Christianity, and that "without
faith it is impossible to please God" Heb.11:6 and
"the secret thing belong to God" Deut. 29:29 and
man is a sinner and his intellect has been severely
damaged and corrupted by the biases and prejudices
of our sinful nature so that we have to have help to
arrive at the truth and that means we have to listen to
the message of God given to us in the Bible. I have
quoted Job 1:22 to them several times "In all this Job
did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing.

JAG

 

It most certainly IS a decision of a person.
In this very post YOU decided that you were correct and that I was incorrect.
You claimed to have evidence that demonstrated you were correct and I was wrong.

I am claiming that you do NOT have such evidence.
I am claiming that you are wrong and that I am right.

You can safely "bet the farm" that the atheists here will agree with you.
Why?
Heh heh, because you and them are on the "same side."
Tribe is what they call that.
Ideological Tribe.

Its just a load of pure incorrectness to claim that persons don't make
decisions about what is, or is not, the truth regarding these
philosophical issues.

You may claim there is a truth-reality out there and that YOU have it.
But that is nohting more than what YOU say.
Most every human on the planet that disagrees with YOU is going to
claim that it is THEY and NOT , , , YOU , , that has got the truth-reality.

So? So what you have is millions of people who hold contradictory
positions, all running around claiming they it is THEY that have the
truth-reality. Its all 100% absurd nonsense.

Your reality. not my reality.
Your reality and my reality are opposites.

The following is not said with any hostility towards you or them.
But I don't care what they believe about {14}. I really do not.

They are my ideological enemies and they treat me as an enemy.
Anybody who reads my Opening Posts and my thread-posts
here knows that I am not a Troll or a Spammer. I write serious
OP's and serious posts. Just in the last 2 days I have had one
atheist here call me a Troll. I have been accused of spamming.

They pop in and call me ignorant all the time. They take delight
in posting snide snippy hostile ugly nasty one-liner insults
upon Christianity and often upon me personally. True not
every one of them does that --- but a lot of them do that.

Yeah , , ,
Atheists pop into my threads and post insults, mockery, and
ridicule regularly and all that without me giving them any
reasons to do that. Everybody here in this Religion Forum
knows that I do not "go looking for trouble" and that if I am
treated with civility and politeness that I will respond with
civility and politeness.

Hey, don't get me wrong I am a "big boy" -- I understand that
this is the Internet and I do not have "hurt feelings" about their
insults, mockery, and ridicule. In the vast majority of instances
I just ignore it and go on to more productive activities. But the
point is that its nonsense to pretend that atheists and Christians
are not ideological enemies. We are enemies. So? So I do NOT
care what they believe about {14}. I will continue to post my
{1} through {14} as long as this thread lives -- if that be 100
years hence, By the way, my view is that both you and they
know that my {14} thingy is the truth. What I think is that {14]
got under your skin and you can't "shake it off" and neither
can they. God wants to "get His foot in the door" and you
don't like that. Anyway that's what I think. Otherwise this
thread would have died a natural death a long time ago.
But it never seems to die, does it?
Read Revelation 3:20

They are not authorities on anything, so far as I am concerned.
I do not care what they believe with regard to {14}
My view is they are befuddled and their beliefs are incorrect.
They assert the same things about me.
We are ideological enemies, remember?

Ah there it is!
Tribe.
Ideological Tribe.
"and they sided with me"___Swensson
I'll bet they did.
JAG scratches his head. "I wonder why? , , /sarcasm
They will "side with you" on this issue forever.
Why? 'Cause they "don't like" the concept of {14} -- it makes them uncomfortable.
Makes you uncomfortable too, in my opinion.
Why? Because if {14} is actually true, then that means there
actually IS a God and they can now say goodbye to their
atheism.
In your case you might have to eventually say goodbye to
your Secular Humanism.

Here is a truism: In both Atheism and Secular Humanism it is
Yourself that functions as God -- or Yourself in combinations
with Other Persons Of Your Tribe. So? So it is sinful selfish
human nature that does NOT want to "give that up" and
you {and they} know very well that John 3:16 asks you to
give that up and make God the God of your life. You don't
want to do that.

You would have to be God to know that Christianity is not true.
You'd have to be Omniscient -- all knowing for starters.

JAG

 

Good points.

But, even if I have a duty to myself I find it hard to believe that my duty to myself would constitute a justification for throwing someone else to their death.

I haven't thought this through even a little bit. Comparing my duty to myself to my duty to others or even figuring out what my duty to others actually is isn't easy.

So, what IS my duty to others?

And, now for a MAJOR digression!

You once asked me to explain when I suggested there was something good about the Bible regardless of whether the religion is valid - this is a gross misrepresentation of the exact conversaiont, I'm sure.

But, there is an encounter with Jesus in Matthew (as I remember, but have had a hard time finding agains) where Jesus goes WAY beyond the golden rule in terms of our duty to our fellow man.

His statement included that we have a duty to others that includes helping others. Someone in his company suggested that they don't normally run into people who need much help. The answer to that was that our duty includes searching hospitals, poor houses, prisons, etc. to find people who have needs, to figure out the nature of those needs, and then to supply those needs.

The golden rule allows people to say that if they were a prisoner, they wouldn't expect help. The golden rule lets ME judge.

But, this directive from Jesus totally passes that. What mankind judges to be deserved is not even an issue. There is a duty to our fellow man that is not conditioned and that requires action.

I'm going to try to find that again.

 

Please remember that I am 100% atheist.

I am one of those you make comments about.

 

I am glad to hear that.
Maybe as time goes on you will abandon Secular Humanism.
I hope so. Why? Because John 3:16 is as real as it gets.

No argument can or will ever do that.
The Teleological Argument {Intelligent Design} is true because
this fine-tuned Universe cannot be explained merely by natural
processes, but the Teleological Argument will NOT take you to
the God of the Bible. Nor to any known god{s} but it will take
you to an Intelligent Designer.

The Christian then has to believe by Faith that the Intelligent
Designer is the God of the Bible.

And there ARE many arguments to support the claim
that the Intelligent Designer is the God of the Bible -- these
arguments are found in the works of Christian Apologists,
but they never can rise to the certainty-level of 2 + 2 + 4
so we have to be satisfied with them rising to the level of
High Probability --- and this is subjective. So? So it is not
possible to eliminate the necessity of Faith from Christianity:
■ "without faith it is impossible to please God"
■ "for by grace are you saved through faith"
■ "believe on on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved"
■ "whoever believes on Him will have Eternal Life"
■ "he that comes to God must believe that He exists and
that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him"

Christianity does not advance in the world based on arguments.
The Christian Faith advances in the world supernaturally through
the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit.

You probably didn't see this:

Peter Kreeft on Pascal's Wager
"Suppose you, the reader, still feel that all of these arguments are
inconclusive. There is another, different kind of argument left. It has
come to be known as Pascal's Wager. We mention it here and
adapt it for our purposes, not because it is a proof for the
existence of God, but because it can help us in our search
for God in the absence of such proof."___Peter Kreeft

JAG

 

I doubt it.
Romans 1:18-20

``

 

It seems Kalam depends on an infinite being an impossibility. I would add that there are surely better descriptions of the argument than the one on the site Jag posted. Even the one in wiki is better. A further caveate is that this isn't a topic of which I've receivd any formal education or otherwise spent much time.

Physicists wroking on isses of how quantum field theory works and topics concerning what actually happened at t=0 of our universe don't rule out the notion of an infinite in which fluctuations in energy fields could result in such events. In fact, that's not at all an uncommone model. And, our physics within this universe is known to be broken . Physicists work hard on this stuff, as there is huge potential in figuring out how our physics is broken, etc. And, in so doing strange new discoveries are made - such as the increasing rate of expansion (and what force is overcoming gravity), dark mater, etc.

At one time we didn't know about vacuum energy - the fact that in our own universe there are fluctuations in the vacuum of space that cause particles to be constantly coming in and going out of existence. It's been known that photons (for one example) behave as both discrete points and as waves - and that a photon could be no more than a ripple in a field. How much of our matter is any different from that?

Beyond that, it is not at all satisfying to me to suggest that the "all" (including our universe and beyond) can't be infinite, so there must be an infinite god.

That sounds to my untrained mind as no more than a cheat.

To me, Kalam is a seriously fragile argument based on a gigantic assumption that mankind is not curretly able to test.

 

No. You treated me with disdain, mockery, monumental spam and as an "enemy" for post after post...

... until you stated that you fully agreed with what I was saying about mankind's inability to judge a god.

I helped you with YOUR belief, and how that small aspect might be best communicated to those who don't share your belief. I did so though Ido not share your beliefs. And, I did so with reasonabl respect.

Please remember that.

Also, I pointed out a way in which we do not have to be seen as "enemies" as you so frequently describe it. That direction does require some work both by some atheists who want to pretend god can be tested and by those who believe in god who insist that the way this universe works can not be understood through observation.

Again, I know something of your belief and I am not here to change your mind about your religion.

There IS a way forward. This should not be a war zone. You aren't going to save souls as your religion calls for by using the tactics of war.

 

I can decide. I do decide. So do you. So what is the issue?
The issue is that you & I do not agree on what is, or is not,
a good argument that has High Probability.

You mentioned "a good argument" up there.

Who is going to decide if an argument is a "good" argument?
Somebody has to decide on that question.
It is a question.
So somebody has to answer the question.

There is no such thing as , , ,
The World Wide Authority On What Is, Or Is Not, Good Arguments.
So THEY can't answer the question.

Human beings make assertions as if their assertions had authority.
"This is a good argument"
"This is a poor argument."
They then offer their reasons in support.
Their positions are contradictory.
Their reasons-in-support are contradictory.
This does not deter them.
They continue to assert their positions are THE truth-reality.

Probability is all you have to go on in all these highly controversial
philosophical issues. You most certainty do not have 10 + 10 = 20
certainty. Take the so-called "Social Issues" and "Political Issues" as
examples:

Abortion
Homosexual Marriage
Pornography
Free Speech
Racism .
Pollution
Homelessness
Climate Change
Overpopulation
LGBTQ Adoption Rights
The Iraq War
Dozens more , , ,

Intellectuals on all sides of all those issues make arguments both
FOR and AGAINST and all in between. You know very well their
arguments do NOT rise to the certainty-level of 40 + 40 = 80.

So?

So that leaves Probability. And here on Probability somebody has to decide
if each argument has low, middle, or high Probability. You can use % if you
want to, and grade each argument on this scale and give your reasons
in support.

10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%'
70%
80%
90%
99%
______

There is no 100% because 100% is 40 + 40 = 80 certainty.
The Republicans and Democrats and Independents bicker
and haggle and fuss and argue back and forth all the time
on all those issues up there.

Now this post ought to settle this question. But it will NOT.

It will not be long before we see once again this objection:

"Humans are famously bad at assessing probabilities,
if our beliefs rests on that, it's on very shaky ground."

I'm not blaming anybody.. Just pointing out human nature. My
view is that human nature is NOT going to "let go" of its "sacred
cows" whether they be religious "sacred cows" or Secular
Humanist's "sacred cows" --- and one "sacred cow" is the
constant assertion that "what I believe is true" and "what you
believe is not true" and here are my correct reasons why I
know I am correct and that you are incorrect.

JAG

 

Well, maybe we can be friends after all.
You are a polite poster, me thinks.
Allow me to apologize for the distain and mockery.
However I am not giving up {14} and what you call "spam."
If you tell me again that atheists don't believe in God you will see {14} again.

I did fully agree with that.
I thought there for a second that you had become a Christian. /Big Grin

You helped me. Yes you did. Thank you
Yes you had reasonable respect.
Are we friends now? , , , /Grin

Okay I will.
And thank you again.

Atheists and Christians are enemies on the Internet. Fact.
You may wish it otherwise, but it ain't gonna be like you wish.
But , , , You & I , , do not have to be enemies.

Anti-theists and Theists are locked down in a war and its not going
to go away because you have idealistic hopes for peace.

But I am here to change your mind , , LOL , , , they call it Evangelism.

Maybe not here on this Forum so much.
But on the Internet At Large it is a war zone and will remain one.

Take a smell of this on the web:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant
character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust,
unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic
cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal,
genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal,
sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
___Richard Dawkins

That sounds real friendly to Christians, don't it? /sarcasm

I don't use the tactics of war.
Just because I keep telling Swensson that atheists are my ideological
enemies {which they most certainly are} does not mean that I wage war
on them. I do not. I basically leave them alone. You know it.

Sorry.
You mean well.
But you are incorrect:
Read this below carefully:

Start quote.
"New Atheism is a term coined by the journalist Gary Wolf in 2006 to
describe the positions promoted by some atheists of the twenty-first
century. This modern-day atheism is advanced by a group of thinkers
and writers who advocate the view that superstition, religion and
irrationalism should not simply be tolerated but should be countered,
criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever their influence
arises in government, education, and politics." ___Off the web

They have a name for that. They call it WAR. Ideological War.
It is what it is,

JAG

 

You're right in that we cannot rule out the notion of an infinitely quantum fluctuation, and I don't think the Kalam argument assumes that. It simply says that if that is the cause of the universe, then that is what we mean by God. It is (in my interpretation) a linguistic point rather than a metaphysical one.

If we do away with assumptions that God is personal or that God is the God of the Bible (all things which the Kalam argument doesn't argue, and which we need to throw out anyway in order to consider for instance Hinduism or Deism) then nothing is keeping us from simply sticking the label "god" on whatever concept we decide on is the cause of the universe, in any sense of the word.

 

I'm sure there is an argument there, but my point was that maybe you have the same duty to yourself as you have against the fat man who you didn't want to throw onto the tracks. If it is so, then if you're not willing to throw the fat man on the tracks, you're not allowed to throw yourself on the tracks either. Indeed, people often fail to apply morality to themselves unbiasedly (my go-to example are workers who will champion work-life balance as a concept, but still end up working late). And if we say that our self-sacrifice is indeed morally good, would we be justified in manipulating the fat man into giving up his own life?

Hm, it seems to me this is all golden rule though. Golden rule says "treat others as you wish to be treated", it doesn't say "treat others whom you meet as you wish to be treated" or "treat others as you expect to be treated".

If I was in a hospital, I would wish to be helped, so golden rule suggests I should help them, even if I didn't come across them naturally. If I was in prison, I might not expect help, but I might wish for it (that being said, for the prison example in particular, I might not want all criminals to be let loose, even if I was in prison, but I might still want some other form of help).

 

I post the following just in case anyone is interested in reading
William Lane Craig's version of the Kalam.

Start quote.
"Ghazali formulates his argument very simply:
“Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning;
now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses
a cause for its beginning.” [1]

Ghazali’s reasoning involves three simple steps:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

Let’s look at each step of this argument.

Premise 1 , , ,see the article at the link:
Read More:
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/wri...ature-of-god/the-kalam-cosmological-argument/

``

 

FYI,
Here is Peter Kreeft's version of the Kalam Argument.
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#6

Here is Kreeft's conclusions regarding the Kalam:

Start quote.
Question 3: But is this cause God—a he and not a mere it?

Reply: Suppose the cause of the universe has existed eternally.
Suppose further that this cause is not personal: that it has given
rise to the universe, not through any choice, but simply through
its being. In that case it is hard to see how the universe could
be anything but infinitely old, since all the conditions needed
for the being of the universe would exist from all eternity. But
the Kalam Argument has shown that the universe cannot be
infinitely old. So the hypothesis of an eternal impersonal
cause seems to lead to an inconsistency.

Is there a way out? Yes, if the universe is the result of a free
personal choice. Then at least we have some way of seeing
how an eternal cause could give rise to a temporally limited
effect. Of course, the Kalam Argument does not prove
everything Christians believe about God, but what proof
does? Less than everything, however, is far from nothing.
And the Kalam Argument proves something central to the
Christian belief in God: that the universe is not eternal and
without beginning; that there is a Maker of heaven and
earth. And in doing so, it disproves the picture of the
universe most atheists wish to maintain: self-sustaining
matter, endlessly changing in endless time."
End quote.
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#6

 

Good point - what we think of as atributes of a god is certainly an issue in comparing religions or hunting for god.

 

Interesting.
I have never heard of a moral argument against self-sacrifice
for others. Fascinating.
I have heard it said that an argument can be made to
support anything no matter how outrageous.

Let me try one:

Mothers ought NOT to love their children.

Support:

{1} Children who grow up without being loved are
more likely to develop tough hard constitutions
which will enable them to better cope with adversity.

{2} Children who grow up without being loved are
more likely to reject emotion based decision making
because love is an emotion.

{3} Love is highly over-rated and has proven to be a
disappointment in marriages as evidenced by high
divorce rates. Children need to learn this by not
being loved by their mothers.

[4} Love is a major theme of religion and religion is
dangerous and children need to be influenced
against religion by not being loved by their mothers.

/laugh out loud
I was just seeing what I could "come up with."

Of course, I don't believe any of that is true,
but some of it sounds 1/2 way reasonable,
don't it?

_______________

By the way , , ,
The argument against self-sacrifice as a moral good strikes
at the heart and soul of Christianity.

"For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced
that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died
for all, that those who live should no longer live for
themselves but for him who died for them and was
raised again."___2 Cor. 5:14-15

Add John 3:16
"for God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son"

JAG

``

 

I think there is an issue that creeps in at about the time that we say "the universe began to exist".

Science has tracked this universe back to an incredibly early point in time, after which it expanded in a hugely rapid manner and finally we reach today.

But, science doesn't say anything about t=0. We have zero physics that works then.

And, we don't know what is outside this particular universe - either now or "before" t=0 for this universe. Our tools don't reach that far.

Unfortunately, if we want to know how this universe came about, THAT is where one would have to look - "outside" of our universe.

One of the things we know is that time is a part of this universe - not of anything else. So, it isn't even propert to talk about "before" this universe as time only has meaning inside this universe. So as far as I know we have no idea of what "time" might even mean outside our universe - even whether time exists.

And, I think we also have little to go on with respect to knowing what "space" might mean outside our universe.

So suggesting that space can't be infinite suggests we know something that we do not know.

That's my problem with Kalam. It's based on the idea that there can't be an infinite. We're humans living inside a universe that has space-time. So, its easy for us to forget that our concepts of space-time only apply to inside this universe that came about. Outside that? What does "infinite" even mean?

Frankly, I just think this is one more dead end in the search for evidence of god. God has to be accepted by faith alone.

Cosmology just doesn't change that.

 

In shorter form:

Astrophysicists can do better than that. They know how old this universe is. They've measured that using a number of independet methodologies that come to pretty close agreement. The answer is that our universe is about 13.8 billion years old - old, but not infinite.

But, the problem being addressed is how this universe came to exist.

I think for that, you have to look OUTSIDE this universe to understand the environment in which this universe was born. The age of the universe only says something about when it happened - not how it happened. And, our concepts of space-time, infinity, etc., all apply ONLY inside this universe.

Does "outside our universe" have time? does it have space? are space and time inseperable as they are in our universe? is it infinite out there? We are NOT there yet.

So, the Kalam argument clearly depends on a key assumption concerning infinity that we just have no way of supporting.

 

Good points.

I think the duty part still comes in, though.

I don't believe the normal interpretation of the golden rule is that we have a duty to search out people in need in order that we might help them.

I know this does happen. There are those who go to prisons to meet with those there in order to help with their needs.

My parents did that. My mother was once a registered nurse, so she was able to identify and advocate for medical needs not being met. They had a good relationship with those running the state prison, and that worked. Prisons have all sorts of groups of inmates working on various objectives - seven steps to freedom, lifer's club, etc.- open to those who can offer an outside perspective, teaching acredited courses (my father was a university professor), etc.

 

Time is simply the units of measurement between events, right?

Space is simply the units of measurement between objects, right?

So?

So if that's true, then its reasonable to believe that time and space
will always be with us both here, and on Christian lights, in Eternity.
How so? Because its reasonable to believe that there will always
be objects and events as long as there are intelligent beings afoot.

What does t=0 mean?

I don't know that there is more than one Universe. Do you?
My use of "know" means "with certainty." Like I know 2 + 2 = 4

You put outside in quotes "outside", but we don't know there is an
outside of our Universe, do we?

Repeat:
~ Maybe there is no "outside" our Universe.
~ If time is the unit of measurement between events, then as long
as there are events there will be time, can you even conceive of any
kind of Universe that had zero events? I cannot.

Same question:
If space is the units of measurement between objects, then can you
conceive of a Universe without any objects? I cannot.

I don't know? i don't know if that is true or not?

Well, you'd have to believe that the Universe NEVER began to exist.

Wow! Now THAT would take some FAITH, wouldn't it?

If you can believe that an impersonal Universe ALWAYS existed
and natural processes produced YOU and Me, and indirectly
produced a working Rolex Watch [via mankind} then you can
believe in God --- it makes more sense to believe that God, who
IS Intelligent, never had a beginning that to believe that a
non-intelligent Universe never had a beginning and still
coughed up YOU & Me and Swensson, right?

To me infinite refers only to God. Who is Intelligent. And who
Designs stuff. This alone can explain the fine-tuned Universe.

Maybe not.
Maybe we're making progress.
As you might say: We're "moving forward."

Agreed.
Yet not Fideism.
There ARE some arguments for God, just none that rise to
the 2 + 2= 4 level of certainty
.

Give it time.
This is 2020 A.D.
By the time we hit 10,000 A.D. Cosmology will have undergone
a radical transformation.

JAG