Atheists causing problems for Muslims (as they already do for Christians) (belief, exist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's OK fella. I have been on forums for a looooong time. I can recognise when my opponent has no rebuttal to what I have written. You can pull the old ...'I'm not going to answer you because it would serve no purpose' card. I'm used to it.
I don't believe you. You are simply running away, just like you did in the coloured text post I gave you.
Yes, I suppose it is... if one is interested in pseudo-science. I am not.
Honestly? It's really that you are simply not going to read it, and you have demonstrated that all you'll do is insult me and dismiss it.
I've presented the argument repeatedly over and over in 100+ page threads and it has not been refuted. If you want to see it, do a search.
So where does the regression of your god stop. If everything must have a creator then so must your god. If you assert that your god can exist without a creator then you simply destroy your cosmological argument. At the end of the day there is no reason to assume that any 'first cause' was an intelligent supernatural being that reads our thoughts, answers prayers, and raises you from the dead, much less that it is the deity of any religion.
There is simply no need to envoke stuff like cosmological arguments. Such things only impress the easily impressed. You see everything pointing to a creator because you want it to point to a creator. There's no reason to believe it does. It's not a reasonable conclusion at all. Unless you can prove that a god both exists and interferes with the universe then the conclusion that "god did it" is completely irrational.
If you want to introduce the cosmological argument then have the intellectual integrity to accept that the rules must apply to your god too, otherwise you are simplely placing rules and regulation on your opponents and then refusing to allow your opponents to place those rules on you. You are shouting out...'These are the rules that MUST apply to the argument'... and then claiming that your god is exempt from the rules. It's simply 'special pleading'.
One of the weaknesses of the argument is that if all things need a cause to exist, then God Himself must also, by definition, need a cause to exist. But this only pushes causation back and implies that there must be an infinite number of causes, which cannot be. Also, by definition, God is uncaused.
The problem is that when making deductive arguments, esp. those based upon a priori definitions, there is nothing that would necessitate that the regression not end at nature itself. Energy itself can be defined as neither created nor destroyed only transformed eternally, which by the way is actually evidenced by the first law. If there cannot be an infinite number of causes then energy itself can be defined as eternal.
Furthermore, defining God as eternal to get out of the problem above is arbitrary and a form of special pleading. Everything needs a cause except my God. And why or how do you know this - uhmm You don't you just define god that way and insert him into the argument so that it works - WOW Brilliant!
Lastly, with regard to this issue, it implies a composition fallacy. It uses the fact that every-thing WITHIN the universe has a cause and therefore the Universe (or in my case ENERGY) itself must be caused. That is applying a fact to the parts or forms to the whole substance of those forms. That's a fallacy as well.
2) Now to the premises: Let's look at the first 3:
Things exist.
It is possible for those things to not exist.
Whatever has the possibility of non-existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
If 1 is true and it is then surely God must be some-thing. Otherwise you are just arbitrarily defining God otherwise. This is also, again, special pleading.
As such it is then possible for God not to exist according to premise 2.
As such, if God exist, it must have been caused according to premise 3.
Which brings the argument back to the problem mentioned by your link.
As to premises 4. Nothing necessitates it to be God - as noted it could well be Energy is eternal and as such un-caused.
Premise 5 only gets you to an un-caused-cause. Again, Energy fits just as well. And the fact that is does not necessitate God is clear from the introduction of your link:
This un-caused-cause is asserted to be God. Emphasis Mine!
I am surprised you used this weak CA. More could be said but I am bored with stupidity. And that was in my own words - I am sure I could find a professional demolition of this miserable tripe.
Also, deductive arguments don't necessarily correspond to reality esp. those that use special pleading and a priori definitions.
One of the weaknesses of the argument is that if all things need a cause to exist, then God Himself must also, by definition, need a cause to exist. But this only pushes causation back and implies that there must be an infinite number of causes, which cannot be. Also, by definition, God is uncaused.
The problem is that when making deductive arguments, esp. those based upon a priori definitions, there is nothing that would necessitate that the regression not end at nature itself. Energy itself can be defined as neither created nor destroyed only transformed eternally, which by the way is actually evidenced by the first law. If there cannot be an infinite number of causes then energy itself can be defined as eternal.
Furthermore, defining God as eternal to get out of the problem above is arbitrary and a form of special pleading. Everything needs a cause except my God. And why or how do you know this - uhmm You don't you just define god that way and insert him into the argument so that it works - WOW Brilliant!
Lastly, with regard to this issue, it implies a composition fallacy. It uses the fact that every-thing WITHIN the universe has a cause and therefore the Universe (or in my case ENERGY) itself must be caused. That is applying a fact to the parts or forms to the whole substance of those forms. That's a fallacy as well.
2) Now to the premises: Let's look at the first 3:
Things exist.
It is possible for those things to not exist.
Whatever has the possibility of non-existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
If 1 is true and it is then surely God must be some-thing. Otherwise you are just arbitrarily defining God otherwise. This is also, again, special pleading.
As such it is then possible for God not to exist according to premise 2.
As such, if God exist, it must have been caused according to premise 3.
Which brings the argument back to the problem mentioned by your link.
As to premises 4. Nothing necessitates it to be God - as noted it could well be Energy is eternal and as such un-caused.
Premise 5 only gets you to an un-caused-cause. Again, Energy fits just as well. And the fact that is does not necessitate God is clear from the introduction of your link:
This un-caused-cause is asserted to be God. Emphasis Mine!
I am surprised you used this weak CA. More could be said but I am bored with stupidity.
Also, deductive arguments don't necessarily correspond to reality esp. those that use special pleading and a priori definitions.
Vizio, I admire your tenacity, man, but truth be told, if I was just a casual HONEST observer, your special pleadings hold no merit at all. The whole idea, basically wrapped up this way, "well, since I/we don't know, MY personal god must have done it," is really VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY weak, my friend. Raifus and Shiloh rained all over that parade and eloquently so.
I realize it is YOUR personal faith and you are certainly entitled to it, but once you toss it out on a PUBLIC forum, expect counterarguments and expect them to be more intense when an apparent REFUSAL to "see the light" is pretty must evident.
The Christian God is evidence for the Muslim God. The Christian God can't exist without a creator, so we know that the Muslim God created the Christian God.
I find the simplest rebuttal of the KCA to be that it equivocates on the term 'cause.' In the first premise it is clear that it is a material cause while the conclusion has a non-material cause.
One of the weaknesses of the argument is that if all things need a cause to exist, then God Himself must also, by definition, need a cause to exist. But this only pushes causation back and implies that there must be an infinite number of causes, which cannot be. Also, by definition, God is uncaused.
The problem is that when making deductive arguments, esp. those based upon a priori definitions, there is nothing that would necessitate that the regression not end at nature itself. Energy itself can be defined as neither created nor destroyed only transformed eternally, which by the way is actually evidenced by the first law. If there cannot be an infinite number of causes then energy itself can be defined as eternal.
Furthermore, defining God as eternal to get out of the problem above is arbitrary and a form of special pleading. Everything needs a cause except my God. And why or how do you know this - uhmm You don't you just define god that way and insert him into the argument so that it works - WOW Brilliant!
Lastly, with regard to this issue, it implies a composition fallacy. It uses the fact that every-thing WITHIN the universe has a cause and therefore the Universe (or in my case ENERGY) itself must be caused. That is applying a fact to the parts or forms to the whole substance of those forms. That's a fallacy as well.
2) Now to the premises: Let's look at the first 3:
Things exist.
It is possible for those things to not exist.
Whatever has the possibility of non-existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
If 1 is true and it is then surely God must be some-thing. Otherwise you are just arbitrarily defining God otherwise. This is also, again, special pleading.
As such it is then possible for God not to exist according to premise 2.
As such, if God exist, it must have been caused according to premise 3.
Which brings the argument back to the problem mentioned by your link.
As to premises 4. Nothing necessitates it to be God - as noted it could well be Energy is eternal and as such un-caused.
Premise 5 only gets you to an un-caused-cause. Again, Energy fits just as well. And the fact that is does not necessitate God is clear from the introduction of your link:
This un-caused-cause is asserted to be God. Emphasis Mine!
I am surprised you used this weak CA. More could be said but I am bored with stupidity. And that was in my own words - I am sure I could find a professional demolition of this miserable tripe.
Also, deductive arguments don't necessarily correspond to reality esp. those that use special pleading and a priori definitions.
Well done. But the so-called composition fallacy presumes "separateness" and simply doesn't apply to a single entity, which reality is. The fact that we experience it and investigate it from our "inside" perspective as "separate" parts of it using our consciousness is what creates the confusion. There is no separateness.
06-24-2016, 03:54 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Well done. But the so-called composition fallacy presumes "separateness" and simply doesn't apply to a single entity, which reality is. The fact that we experience it and investigate it from our "inside" perspective as "separate" parts of it using our consciousness is what creates the confusion. There is no separateness.
Technically I agree! So are you a monist , or some subset thereof?
That is why I said 'implies' because usually they will say things like - 'everything that begins to exist' in order to get 'God' out beginning to exist. As such they then apply this observational knowledge to the 'things' within the universe to prove the premise that things begin to exist must have a cause and then apply that to the whole universe - but that is a fallacy of composition. If energy is eternal then what we see as things beginning to exist are just the transformations of this eternal energy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
