Studies that say NDEs are not real.

[abelcainsbrother]

Infinite regression
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

[Kenny]

Infinite regression
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

You might wanna put this explanation in your own words because the link you provided demonstrates your argument as false

Ken

[abelcainsbrother]

Infinite regression
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

You might wanna put this explanation in your own words because the link you provided demonstrates your argument as false

Ken

It shows infinite regression goes all the way to infinity and cannot be broken.It shows all things have a cause and are caused by something else.

[Kenny]

.

[Kenny]

So your think that a person can be an atheist even if they believe in the existence of the God of the Bible and believe that He is creator of everything, but denies that He is a God but is perhaps a spirit, fairy, etc...

Yes. That is not MY position, and I doubt there are many atheists who feel that way, but in theory, a person can take that position and still be atheist.

and then when asked how you define God you say "Creator of the universe, non evolving always existing".

Yes. That's my definition. Another atheist might have another definition. My definition is influenced by my christian upbringing.

The dictionary definition of an atheist is someone who lacks a belief in God, but you're saying that there are atheists out there who might believe that the God of the Bible exists but not recognize Him as God, even though your definition of God is the same as how the Bible defines God.

You don't see a contradiction there?

The Aztec believed in a Sun God. I believe the God of their religion exist; I can see it in the sky right now. But because I don't recognize it as God, I am not a Sun worshipper.

Ken

[Kenny]

Infinite regression
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

You might wanna put this explanation in your own words because the link you provided demonstrates your argument as false

Ken

It shows infinite regression goes all the way to infinity and cannot be broken.It shows all things have a cause and are caused by something else.

The link only gives a definition of infinite regression; it doesn't prove anything. If a person does not believe everything was caused by something else, infinite regression is not an issue. Your argument fails.

Ken

[NobodySpecial]

The dictionary defines it as "lack of belief in God or Gods. It doesn't say "lack of belief in the existence of what someone might call God". Again; people worship the Sun. You believe in the existence of the Sun. Does this make you anti theist because you don't want to worship it?

Ken

For simplification I'm going to use 'I AM' when referring to the God of the Bible.

I just want to clarify: You believe that 'I AM' exists but you don't recognize Him as God - despite the fact that your definition of what it means to be God is the same way 'I AM' defines Himself in the Bible. Is that what you're saying?

[Kenny]

The dictionary defines it as "lack of belief in God or Gods. It doesn't say "lack of belief in the existence of what someone might call God". Again; people worship the Sun. You believe in the existence of the Sun. Does this make you anti theist because you don't want to worship it?

Ken

For simplification I'm going to use 'I AM' when referring to the God of the Bible.

I just want to clarify: You believe that 'I AM' exists but you don't recognize Him as God - despite the fact that your definition of what it means to be God is the same way 'I AM' defines Himself in the Bible. Is that what you're saying?

No. I am saying in theory a person who believes differently than I do could believe I AM exists, not believe he is God and remain atheist.

Ken

[abelcainsbrother]

Infinite regression
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

You might wanna put this explanation in your own words because the link you provided demonstrates your argument as false

Ken

It shows infinite regression goes all the way to infinity and cannot be broken.It shows all things have a cause and are caused by something else.

The link only gives a definition of infinite regression; it doesn't prove anything. If a person does not believe everything was caused by something else, infinite regression is not an issue. Your argument fails.

Ken

No my argument does not fail because all things have a cause and all things are caused by something else and you are saying nope not in all cases,which is outside logic,reason and reality.Also its not my argument it is from Aquinas.

[Kenny]

abelcainsbrother
No my argument does not fail because all things have a cause and all things are caused by something else
Ken
Prove it. If you have no proof, all you have are opinions and it should be stated as such.

abelcainsbrother
and you are saying nope not in all cases,which is outside logic,reason and reality

Ken
I am saying we don't know enough about the Universe to make such a statement. BTW your God explanation is outside scientific logic, reason, and reality as well.

abelcainsbrother
Also its not my argument it is from Aquinas.

Ken
Aquinas does not make up the rules! Just because he says it doesn't make it so. If you are going to quote his position, you will be asked to defend it.

Ken

[bippy123]

Infinite regression
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

You might wanna put this explanation in your own words because the link you provided demonstrates your argument as false

Ken

It shows infinite regression goes all the way to infinity and cannot be broken.It shows all things have a cause and are caused by something else.

The link only gives a definition of infinite regression; it doesn't prove anything. If a person does not believe everything was caused by something else, infinite regression is not an issue. Your argument fails.

Ken

No my argument does not fail because all things have a cause and all things are caused by something else and you are saying nope not in all cases,which is outside logic,reason and reality.Also its not my argument it is from Aquinas.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause. That is aquinas argument... Except for the first uncaused necessary first cause . This is the first cause argument.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

The argument is basically very simple, natural, intuitive, and commonsensical. We have to become complex and clever in order to doubt or dispute it. It is based on an instinct of mind that we all share: the instinct that says everything needs an explanation. Nothing just is without a reason why it is. Everything that is has some adequate or sufficient reason why it is.
Philosophers call this the Principle of Sufficient Reason. We use it every day, in common sense and in science as well as in philosophy and theology. If we saw a rabbit suddenly appear on an empty table, we would not blandly say, "Hi, rabbit. You came from nowhere, didn't you?" No, we would look for a cause, assuming there has to be one. Did the rabbit fall from the ceiling? Did a magician put it there when we weren't looking? If there seems to be no physical cause, we look for a psychological cause: perhaps someone hypnotized us. As a last resort, we look for a supernatural cause, a miracle. But there must be some cause. We never deny the Principle of Sufficient Reason itself. No one believes the Pop Theory: that things just pop into existence for no reason at all. Perhaps we will never find the cause, but there must be a cause for everything that comes into existence.

If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing.

Now the whole universe is a vast, interlocking chain of things that come into existence. Each of these things must therefore have a cause. My parents caused me, my grandparents caused them, et cetera. But it is not that simple. I would not be here without billions of causes, from the Big Bang through the cooling of the galaxies and the evolution of the protein molecule to the marriages of my ancestors. The universe is a vast and complex chain of causes. But does the universe as a whole have a cause? Is there a first cause, an uncaused cause, a transcendent cause of the whole chain of causes? If not, then there is an infinite regress of causes, with no first link in the great cosmic chain. If so, then there is an eternal, necessary, independent, self-explanatory being with nothing above it, before it, or supporting it. It would have to explain itself as well as everything else, for if it needed something else as its explanation, its reason, its cause, then it would not be the first and uncaused cause. Such a being would have to be God, of course. If we can prove there is such a first cause, we will have proved there is a God.

Why must there be a first cause? Because if there isn't, then the whole universe is unexplained, and we have violated our Principle of Sufficient Reason for everything. If there is no first cause, each particular thing in the universe is explained in the short run, or proximately, by some other thing, but nothing is explained in the long run, or ultimately, and the universe as a whole is not explained. Everyone and everything says in turn, "Don't look to me for the final explanation. I'm just an instrument. Something else caused me." If that's all there is, then we have an endless passing of the buck. God is the one who says, "The buck stops here."

If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing. If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car's motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train. That would be impossible, of course. But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible.

[abelcainsbrother]

="abelcainsbrother"]Infinite regression
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

You might wanna put this explanation in your own words because the link you provided demonstrates your argument as false

Ken

It shows infinite regression goes all the way to infinity and cannot be broken.It shows all things have a cause and are caused by something else.

The link only gives a definition of infinite regression; it doesn't prove anything. If a person does not believe everything was caused by something else, infinite regression is not an issue. Your argument fails.

Ken

No my argument does not fail because all things have a cause and all things are caused by something else and you are saying nope not in all cases,which is outside logic,reason and reality.Also its not my argument it is from Aquinas.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause. That is aquinas argument... Except for the first uncaused necessary first cause . This is the first cause argument.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

The argument is basically very simple, natural, intuitive, and commonsensical. We have to become complex and clever in order to doubt or dispute it. It is based on an instinct of mind that we all share: the instinct that says everything needs an explanation. Nothing just is without a reason why it is. Everything that is has some adequate or sufficient reason why it is.
Philosophers call this the Principle of Sufficient Reason. We use it every day, in common sense and in science as well as in philosophy and theology. If we saw a rabbit suddenly appear on an empty table, we would not blandly say, "Hi, rabbit. You came from nowhere, didn't you?" No, we would look for a cause, assuming there has to be one. Did the rabbit fall from the ceiling? Did a magician put it there when we weren't looking? If there seems to be no physical cause, we look for a psychological cause: perhaps someone hypnotized us. As a last resort, we look for a supernatural cause, a miracle. But there must be some cause. We never deny the Principle of Sufficient Reason itself. No one believes the Pop Theory: that things just pop into existence for no reason at all. Perhaps we will never find the cause, but there must be a cause for everything that comes into existence.

If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing.

Now the whole universe is a vast, interlocking chain of things that come into existence. Each of these things must therefore have a cause. My parents caused me, my grandparents caused them, et cetera. But it is not that simple. I would not be here without billions of causes, from the Big Bang through the cooling of the galaxies and the evolution of the protein molecule to the marriages of my ancestors. The universe is a vast and complex chain of causes. But does the universe as a whole have a cause? Is there a first cause, an uncaused cause, a transcendent cause of the whole chain of causes? If not, then there is an infinite regress of causes, with no first link in the great cosmic chain. If so, then there is an eternal, necessary, independent, self-explanatory being with nothing above it, before it, or supporting it. It would have to explain itself as well as everything else, for if it needed something else as its explanation, its reason, its cause, then it would not be the first and uncaused cause. Such a being would have to be God, of course. If we can prove there is such a first cause, we will have proved there is a God.

Why must there be a first cause? Because if there isn't, then the whole universe is unexplained, and we have violated our Principle of Sufficient Reason for everything. If there is no first cause, each particular thing in the universe is explained in the short run, or proximately, by some other thing, but nothing is explained in the long run, or ultimately, and the universe as a whole is not explained. Everyone and everything says in turn, "Don't look to me for the final explanation. I'm just an instrument. Something else caused me." If that's all there is, then we have an endless passing of the buck. God is the one who says, "The buck stops here."

If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing. If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car's motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train. That would be impossible, of course. But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible.

[/quote]

Thanks Bippy,you have explained it in great detail to which I agree,I think as time goes on the first idea gets modified over time which is the way I'm trying to explain it.I heard a teaching on Aquinas and so I'm going by a modified version of Aquinas's first idea.It takes time to explain it out in detail like you have but I think based on the teaching I seen you can make the point focusing on a few of the most important bullet points.
The way I heard this taught seems to be a modified version that focuses on the most important point and that is a cause,we can point out that all things have a cause and get the job done,but I think that if we agree allnthings have a first cause? This can be expounded upon to say all things have a cause but also all things that have a cause are caused by something else too,but then we could take it even a step forward and even say all things have a cause and all things are caused by something else but also all things are willed into being also.

If we can use these arguments effectively? They cannot be refuted but I think that for me it is the way I'm going about explaining it.I've got my bullet points down and am kinda trying it out and it has helped me,because it has helped me see where I was not totally sound in my argument so that now I will learn from it and will be better prepared if it comes up again.I'm going to go over all of this especially your post above that really explains it in great detail and improve on the way I present this.My overall points have still not been refuted,I just got a little messed up about infinite regression the way I presented it.I shall improve.

[Kenny]

everything needs an explanation. Nothing just is without a reason why it is. Everything that is has some adequate or sufficient reason why it is.

While everything may have an explanation, we will not always know what that explanation is. There is just so much about this Universe that we just don’t know, and we must be willing to admit what we don’t know, while we continue to seek answers.

Ken

[bippy123]

everything needs an explanation. Nothing just is without a reason why it is. Everything that is has some adequate or sufficient reason why it is.

While everything may have an explanation, we will not always know what that explanation is. There is just so much about this Universe that we just don’t know, and we must be willing to admit what we don’t know, while we continue to seek answers.

Ken

Kenny, when did the first cause argument say that we shouldn't seek answers ?
But the question now is... is scientism the only way we should seek answers with

[Kenny]

everything needs an explanation. Nothing just is without a reason why it is. Everything that is has some adequate or sufficient reason why it is.

While everything may have an explanation, we will not always know what that explanation is. There is just so much about this Universe that we just don’t know, and we must be willing to admit what we don’t know, while we continue to seek answers.

Ken

Kenny, when did the first cause argument say that we shouldn't seek answers ?
But the question now is... is scientism the only way we should seek answers with

What other ways would you suggest?

Ken