It's pointless attacking most of them, because they have no defensive soldiers, which means I had to untrain mine also.  DT is cool, but that's what I really dislike about it.

Well, I could just let them attack and attack... sooner or later they're going to level up and out of range, right?

As everyone here probably knows, I'm a Christian, so I went looking for Christian alliances at DT and found two that I enjoy - The Christian Alliance and Christian Knights.  What I didn't know is how many times people would be declaring war on them just because of the fact that they're a Christian alliance.

It was tough building and getting constantly mass-attacked, but survivable.  I didn't want to quit the alliance just because being a member was tough, but it did occur to me from time to time.

Well, this time it's more than a mass-attack situation.  Think of a word worse than war and it will suffice - maybe the word "murder" would be nice.  There's an alliance by the name "Dark Mass" who started out massing the heck out of me.  Then I started getting more and more... and more attacks.  I'm guessing these came from the several allies Dark Mass has.  

I realize the fact that DT is just a game and all that, but this has gotten to the point of annoyance.  I never thought players in a game could annoy me this much.  

So some questions for the experienced players... before I rant and rant and rant:

1.  It would be wrong for me to leave Christian Alliance just because I can't handle the pressure, right?  

2.  If I do leave Christian Alliance, will the alliances who were in war with them still attack me so freakin much?

Or should I just grit my teeth and stick in there?

Could be worse...

Imagine having a '72 RoadRunner in top condition getting completely totalled.  I bought one several months ago, then made the mistake of letting my brother drive it.  Talk about getting depressed.  

Hmm... I'd rather worship Gabriel... my cat.  

Have you guys ever battled any other alliances at Dark Throne?  I'm new here and am still new at DT, but TGA seems to be a relatively quiet alliance.

Everytime I pass those things, they're broke.  

Not sure if everyone can view it...  click the link here.

Yeah, yeah, it's a wheelchair... don't laugh too bad. <_<  

GandalfTheOld,

Good day.  I have a response to this:


Why does it just have to be Jesus teaching it?  You do realize Jesus didn't write one single word in the New Testament, right?  Therefore, if we aren't to acknowledge what other books have to say (i.e. Paul), then we aren't to acknowledge the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.  I don't think you'll go so far, though, because that would stop the discussion.  

With that in mind, I'll delve into scripture from both the Old Testament and New Testament...

1.  Genesis 1:26-27
(26) "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..."
(27) "So God created man in his own image..."

  An anti-Trinitarian cannot deny the fact that in verse 26 God states "in our image... after our likeness...".  What kind of response would they have?  The only one would be, "but in verse 27 it states, "in his own image...".  Yet, they only answered a question with a circular question, for it leads back to, what about the "our"?  Their response is circular reasoning and it's best and is, therefore, not a rational position to hold.
  What about the Trinitarian position?  We can easily answer that in verse 26 God is stressing to show us that He is made up of other parts; hence, why he states "our...", yet those parts make up "him"; hence, "hist own image...".  

2.  Mathew 27:46
"At about three o'clock Jesus cried out with a loud shout, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why did you abandon me?"

  Let's take this in the anti-Trinitarian point-of-view, which states that God is one and only one with nothing making up that one (if you believe the opposite of that, then you're a Trinitarian).
So, taking it the anti-Trinitarian way, Jesus is stating:

"Jesus cried out with a loud shout... Myself, Myself, why did I abandon myself"?

  How can anti-Trinitarians hold such a contradicting view.  This is calling Jesus a lunatic -- he shouts out to himself and then asks himself questions?  Surely, anyone reading this must concede that Jesus was demonstrably shouting out to someone else.

  However, I know of only [one] comeback to this point -- that it was the human part of Jesus that was crying out.  But this is just absurd.  Points to consider:

1.   What is this "human" self?  Did Christ invade a human body and take it over?  I was under the impression that Christ was "himself" and grew up as "himself" (wholly human with divine attributes), therefore, crossing out this comeback with "his human part...".
2.  They may as well state that Jesus was confused over his own body and couldn't contain it (yet, he performed miraculous deeds)... whatever this "human self" is?

3.  John 14
(1) "...Jesus told them.  "Believe in God and believe also in me."
(2) "There are many rooms in my Father's house..."
(6) "Jesus answered... I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one goes to the Father except through me."
(7) "Now that you have known me," he said to them, "you will know my Father also, and from now on you do know him and you have seen him."
(9-10) Jesus answered... "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father... I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me"

  Jesus has shown an obvious degree of separation, yet completeness between himself and the Father.  Jesus states, "I am in the Father and the Father is in me", so this agrees with the Trinitarian position 100%; unless, you dare hold the position that God is holding upon false personalities for no reason at all.  
  Jesus also puts it forth that no one goes to the Father except through him.  What anti-Trinitarians hold is that Jesus was stating, "no one goes to me except through me".  This is basically stating that no one is to go to Christ; except, if they go through Christ.  The question "huh?" can't help, but be asked.  Keep in mind:

1.  Why did Christ not just state that; why state "father"?
2.  The statement "no one goes to me except through me" makes no sense, for, if you go through him, then you are still [in a sense] going to him.  How can you go to without going through or towards?
3.  Why would God create fake personalities that don't exist?
4.  It makes much more sense with the literal reading -- "no one goes to the father except through me".

  But, this is just two of the many scriptures -- what about verse 1 above?  According to anti-Trinitarians, Christ is stating, "Believe in me and believe also in me."  But that's an obvious contradiction and makes no sense to be said.  The original statement is the one that makes sense and it agrees with the Trinitarian position.

  Other questions are:
1.  Why say, in verse 2, "my Father's house...", if, according to the anti-Trinitarian belief, there is no reason to say "Father", but there is only reason to say "... many rooms in my house..." < if their belief is true, Christ would have stated that, but He shows a degree of separation between himself and the Father --

2.  The confusion still reigns when reading verse (7).  If anti-Trinitarians are right, Jesus would have said, "Now that you have known me, you will know me also, and from now on you do know me and have seen me".  Surely, such a contradicting statement needn't be held... so why hold it?  The four points above are valid on this, because I don't think I need to go any further.

I'll get into the other subjects after this one.

Ciao,

Spawn

Concluding Post on Kalam

This will be my concluding post concerning the Kalam Cosmological Argument.  Since it's the concluding post, it may become quite lengthy.  My apologies.


Out of nothing, nothing comes


It matters not.  Even if I grant you such an untenable, unjustified, and over-complex position, you’re still backed into a corner.  If the law of cause and effect began to exist at the Big Bang, then we can still use it to determine that the universe itself did have a cause.  It doesn’t matter at all whether it exists after the Big Bang or before the Big Bang.  What matters is that we can use this law to determine the universe as having a cause.
If the law began to exist, then we can use the law to judge itself.  According to the law of cause and effect, if it had a beginning, even the law itself had a cause for it’s existence.


I never said the law is to be used outside of our universe; though I do find it debatable (read above).


If something came into existence uncaused, then what did it come from?  There is no cause to it’s existence, so all that’s left is popping into existence from nothing.  The absence of everything leaves nothing.


But there is no definition to “spontaneous” at all which agrees with you - that spontaneous means “uncaused”.  The only challenge you offer to my definition is “words have many definitions”, which isn’t a direct reply to something which values a more direct approach.  I gave a definition, which not only a physics professor gave me, but a definition that an atheistic physicist even agrees with.  

1.  You’re yet to provide a definition which agrees with you, besides something which remains unjustified.
2.   You skipped over my physicist friend’s response.  He said even if no cause is found, it doesn’t entail no cause exists - one just hasn‘t presently been observed.  Scientists don’t blindly assume.  


If you’re example isn’t to be considered as demonstrable evidence/proof, then we can just go ahead and discard it, no?

You’re jumping to the conclusion, though.  I still disagree that you’ve given any example which is true.  All the scientists I know (even my atheist friend) disagrees with you.  I’m not using an argument from authority; though such arguments can be used, I believe.

Hovind is far from correct.  Even if he were to produce one evidence for a young earth, he, being an honest scientist, still has to respond to other available evidence.  He can’t just take that evidence, leap over opposing demonstrable evidence, then raise his hands in triumph.  Every scientist (even Darwin) had to disprove opposing evidence before positing their belief as tentatively true.


Serial Killer Defense

I was thinking about such a response and realized a serial killer can use it.  Imagine a situation in which David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) actually did kill his victims, but claimed that some human similar to him came into existence uncaused, killed the victims, then ran off into the moonlight.

The only difference between yours and David’s claim is the degree of complexity, but that matters not.  David can use the basics of your response as his defense and in your eyes be truly innocent.  

Seeing that I didn’t think of this earlier, I’ll respond to some expected replies.

1.  What of fingerprint evidence and such?  Remember that David posited another something like him coming into existence uncaused.  Fingerprints matching David’s is expected.

2.  The situation is way to complex to be parallel.  The situation is complex, but I’m not attacking the complexity of yours, so you shouldn’t attack the complexity of David’s.  Attack the complexity of David’s, then the complexity of yours values response also.  
All that I’m doing in this example is using the reasoning you’re using, then imaginatively placing it in David’s hands for defense.

God Created Something From Nothing?

I’m enjoying this part of the discussion.  In my opinion, this is the strongpoint of the discussion for you.  As Rocky Marciano would say, though, “you’ve hurt me, but I’m still standing”.  So, I think my response is still very much valid.  You type in opposition:


How is it circular, though?  Your summation of my position is a strawman at best.  I’m just saying I find it at the very least plausible for God to speak His thoughts into reality granted His omnipotence.  As an example, I gave human consciousness.  All I have to do is think of a purple rabbit and the image of a purple rabbit appears in my mind… and I’m not even omnipotent (nowhere near it).  Now, imagine an omnipotent God doing this.  I see no reason why He can’t consciously choose which thoughts He wants to make reality and which He doesn’t.  

Imagine if no human alive had the power to just think of a purple rabbit and get an image of it in their mind.  Just thinking about a human being able to do this would lead to intense skepticism, because those humans would be limited to not having that ability.  In the same sense, just as those humans wouldn’t have the ability to do that, nor do we have the ability to do that which God does.  This is a very reasonable argument, which still values a response.


It’s not that scientists don’t understand, but that, if they claim to understand that is a philosophical, not scientific discussion.  Any scientist will agree with me.  


Proving and Disproving God’s Existence


I can prove the existence of God, deductively, depending on the person.  A friend of mine, Strawman, does it all the time at MxPx’s forum.  I do find it possible to prove God’s existence in an epistemological fashion - I.e. that God’s existence is more probable in light of proof X.  
God’s existence has 20 supposed proofs for it, while you have no arguments against His existence.  So, you see, you may disagree with my proofs, but at least I do have proofs to debate/discuss.  You have no proof of God’s non-existence.  

I’m glad you brought this up, though.  You said you can’t disprove God’s existence, but this is what atheism is - the belief that God does not exist.  It isn’t the belief “God’s existence is unlikely”; though some negative atheists would digress.  If you say God’s existence is unlikely, then there still remains the possibility of God’s existence being likely; therefore, moving you into something more along the lines of agnosticism (someone not knowing for sure).

Even if I had no evidences for God’s existence, it would still be likely for God to exist.  To say otherwise is a logical fallacy.


CONCLUSION

In conclusion to the Kalam Argument, I see it as coming out unscathed; though you may disagree.  You attacked premise 1 with one example, which remains unjustified, highly speculative, and unscientific.  It’s very unusual for one of my atheist friends to agree with me, but one does here… and that one happens to be a physicist.  Not only him, but every physicist I e-mailed agreed that you’re misinterpreting the example (I gave one of them as example).

To support my conclusion to the Kalam, I believe I used the Anthropic Principle, showed opposing beliefs as demonstrably fallacious, then I used the “inference to best explanation”.
You may respond to them now, but we’ve already discussed the third for a bit and I went in-depth in proving the God hypothesis as a better explanation than those in opposition.  I’ve also went in-depth in showing opposing beliefs as demonstrably fallacious.  Therefore, I find the God hypothesis, according to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, as very likely to be correct.


If you want we can delve into some other arguments?  Perhaps the Teleological argument or JP Holding’s “Impossible Faith” argument I gave?  If you don’t have the time, then I understand.

-Spawn

Now, it's your turn to be patient with my reply.  I'll give one as soon as I can.

P.O.D's video to Alive

England

Yeah, I'm unusually verbose.  Sorry about that.

Your reply is in no rush at all.  I'm sure both of us need a rest from this discussion... I do anyway.

Later.

FROM NOTHING, NOTHING COMES


I’ve searched my heart out, but I can’t find that in any well-known atheistic philosopher’s argument, so I have to ask you for a link to a credible scientist proposing this as true or a scientifically reviewed paper would be nice.  All of the articles I’ve read have explained all of what you typed; except for the “it will often stay there for millions of years until without a cause”.  What I do read is that the electrons fall back down to a lower energy level “spontaneously”.  Spontaneity is in every scientifically reviewed paper I’ve read so far; nothing else.

This is a word that you’ve been using rather strangely.  You seem to define it as “coming from nothing”, which isn’t the definition.  The definitions are thus:

(1) Happening or arising without apparent external cause; self-generated.
(2) Arising from a natural inclination or impulse and not from external incitement or constraint.
(3) Unconstrained and unstudied in manner or behavior.

None of these mean “coming from nothing”.  Something happening spontaneously as in (self-generated, natural inclination or impulse, or unconstrained and unstudied in manner and behavior).  There’s no reason to define spontaneous as “coming from nothing”.
This is why none of the big dawgs of atheism bring that example up in their literature or live debates.

My physicist friend is yet to reply at that thread I started up, so I apologize for the wait.  I’m already sure he’ll agree with me, though; except with more of a response.


I’m glad you admit it includes the electron de-excitation argument, but I think you understate the implications.  You typed that “any argument based on observations proves [nothing]”.  If it proves nothing, then it doesn’t even prove that your argument is reasonable.  Nothing is nothing.  You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

The first sentence is true to an extent - I.e. if we’re attempting to evaluate the first cause  (like it’s characteristics) according to scientific laws.  This isn’t what I’m doing, though.  I’m noting the first event (an effect) coming into existence from either something or nothing and questioning it.  The first event is to be judged according to scientific laws like cause and effect.  


I digress with the “quite well”, of course.  All I see is one proof, thus far, that’s falling apart quickly.


Your last response has nothing to do with mine.  I realize what you are attempting to show.  I’m pointing out that, if you say it is possible to understand things we can’t see or test, then you’re taking in the Flat Earth defense.  They’ve typed the same thing in reply to me before.


Check this out:

“You can’t prove that the Earth is old by counterexample, because there is only one planet in question.  If there were many Earth’s, you could disprove the statement “All Earths are young” by finding a single one, but you can’t do it the way old earth scientists do.”

I’m not twisting your words to make you say something you aren’t (to the other posters here), but am engaging in some fun parody to make a point.  Blake, if you take in your quote as true, then it is to be applied to old earth scientists also.


That sounds like something straight out of a textbook, but applied to the wrong subject (it might fit in math, but not here).  There doesn’t have to exist a lot of earths in order to determine whether or not this earth is young… I don’t know where that came from.  The fact is that there is just one Earth (this Earth) and we can use scientific dating methods to determine the date.  That is what scientists do, btw.

Hovind disagrees, though.  He says, “I’ll grant you all of the evidence for an old earth, while all I have to do is provide one example of a young earth”.  This is exactly what you typed.  You typed, “all you need is one case where P is not true (called a counterexample) to disprove P”.  Sorry, but a counterexample won’t help you out, just as it won’t help Hovind out.  It’s not to be used in this subject, because we’re speaking of the ability to have a tenable, true belief.  Why should I regard Hovind’s belief, and yours, as anywhere close to true when you think yours is more reasonable just because you offer up one single evidence in opposition to several which?

My atheist friend hasn’t replied yet, but a well-learned apologetist (theologian and philosopher, in particular) has (Tarmac).  I told him that I can deal with the proof, but asked him to give more of a philosophical response and overall-dealing of the proof.  He typed in response to proofs in opposition to the ontological principle “out of nothing, nothing comes“,

“No, it does not. And anyone who suggests that it does, does not really understand the topic at hand, or the philosophical position they are suggesting. John Polkinghorne's Quantum Theory - a very short Introduction OUP (May 2002) is a good place to start.

As philosopher of science Bernulf Kanitscheider complains, it is "in head–on collision with the most successful ontological commitment that was a guiding line of research since Epicurus and Lucretius," namely, that out of nothing nothing comes, which Kanitscheider calls "a metaphysical hypothesis which has proved so fruitful in every corner of science that we are surely well–advised to try as hard as we can to eschew processes of absolute origin." (Bernulf Kanitscheider, Does Physical Cosmology Transcend the Limits of Naturalistic Reasoning? in Studies on Mario Bung’s Treatise, ed. P. Weingartner and G. J. W. Doen (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1990), p. 344)

The notion of spontaneous generation of "something" from "nothing" is odd, awkward and simply untenable [in the absolute sense with no agent]. Despite many atheists thorough conviction that this is in fact the case, it lacks evidential and philosophical support. Nothing and Non-Existence: The Transcendence of Science by W. Turner is a good, though complex, book on this topic.

It appears atheists basically refuse to accept the natural conclusion that their is an ontologically independent entity which is eternal, powerful and knowledgeable enough to create ex nihilo. God [the being currently being described] is the best and most plausible explanation for the origin, contingency and design of both the laws of physics and the universe.

Other explanations that appeal to the creation of "something" from "nothing" merely beg the question and refuse the best answer.”


GOD’S CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE

Lanair, I replied to that question with:

“(1) I'm saying it came into existence from nothing, but by something (God).

(2) I can take the position that God's creation of everything is parallel to how our thoughts take place (in a loose sense). I can create "images" in my mind just by thinking of them. Why, then, can't an omnipotent, all-powerful, God create the universes just by thinking about how He wants it?”


In regards to the first question, it can’t spontaneously (whatever you mean by that) come into existence because it doesn’t beat the theistic position when it comes to

1. Explanatory scope
2. Explanatory power
3. Plausibility
4. Less ad hoc
5. Accord with accepted beliefs
6. Comparative superiority"

To the second question: it’s not far-fetched at all when realizing we’re talking about an omnipotent God.  If we can produce images, then all he’d have to do is make those images reality; hence His omnipotence.


Erm… science doesn’t deal with anything before the first event.  That’s more of a philosophical discussion; metaphysics.  As far as when the first event came about, the God hypothesis isn’t lacking a scientific explanation at all.  We’re discussing one evidence now with more to come, so the science is definitely there.  

Most of the greatest minds in science were believers in some type of God - Isaac Newton, Louis Agassiz (greatest natural scientist of his day), Richard Feynman, Blaise Pascal, Galileo, Kepler, … The list would be terribly long.  I’m not appealing to authority, but am pointing out that these very scientifically trustworthy individuals saw no contradictions between God and science or that either of them lacked any type of explanation.  There are also plenty of atheistic and agnostic scientists who would disagree with that statement from yourself.  God is getting much more attention from science and other fields than in the past 150 years.  

As far as picking the best explanation goes, theism not only passes the 6-part test, but surpasses those in opposition to it also.


1.  I noted the difference between something coming from nothing and something coming from nothing by an omnipotent something else.  You type in response, “The difference is not as big as you would like to think”.  Well, at least you recognize there is a difference between the two.  Why are they grouped together when you admit they are different?

2.  If this “something” was internal (as we’re discussing now), then this fails also.


I haven’t assumed this, though.


BRANE THEORY



How can it be anywhere near being proven when it is based off of unproven ideas - I.e. it’s merely an unproven idea based off of an unproven idea.  

So far, I’m yet to see it being closer to being proven than the God hypothesis.  The problem with the Brane Theory is that it has no supporting evidence (even it’s proponents admit this, as I’ve shown), while the God hypothesis has plenty of supporting evidence.  Probably the greatest atheistic philosopher of the last hundred years or so, J.L. Mackie, believed theism has supporting evidence… he just discounts it on an epistemological basis.  So, at the very least, theism does have evidence pointing towards it, while the Brane theory has only unproven ideas (zip).


As I showed above, the universe arising spontaneously and "from nothing" are two different things (see here).  I have already explained that to my friends through PM's before they made the thread at Planet Wisdom.  I'm sure they knew of it already, because they've debated the issue before.