ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 19th May 2019, 02:27 PM   #1
winter salt
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 252
What is this argument for the existence of God called?

I responded to this you tube comment in another language pointing out to some of the logical fallacies in it, but I'm not sure if this is the famous kalam's cosmological argument of muslims or William Craig's argument..or some other famous argument.

And I'll appreciate your responses to it..

" 1. Everything that exists is either contingent (i.e., requiring an external cause for its
existence) or necessary (i.e., not requiring an external cause for its existence, since
its essence by itself entails its existence).
2. A set of contingent beings is itself contingent (since, if all of a thing’s parts are
contingent, then the whole is contingent).
3. Therefore, a necessary being exists (since the set of all existing things cannot ALL
be contingent, for in that case the set itself would still require an external cause;
i.e., a cause that is not contingent; i.e., a cause that is necessary). And this is God.
Main Proof
1. Something exists.
2. That thing is either (a) necessary or (b) possible; i.e., contingent.
3. If (a), then a necessary being (i.e., a “necessarily existent”) exists.
4. If (b), then a necessary being exists.
5. Therefore, a necessary being exists.
"

(He was actually jumping to Allah from here..)

Last edited by winter salt; 19th May 2019 at 02:33 PM.
winter salt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2019, 02:33 PM   #2
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,032
Looks like Kalam
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2019, 02:37 PM   #3
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,250
Wrong....


Sorry couldn't help myself.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2019, 02:39 PM   #4
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,174
Pretty sure I have heard Craig lay out this crap.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2019, 06:46 PM   #5
Apathia
Philosopher
 
Apathia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 5,161
Who says it all can't be contingent?
__________________
"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Justice William O. Douglas

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown
Apathia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2019, 08:09 PM   #6
Venom
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,487
*[William Lane Craig voice]*:

Typically, naturalists have said that the universe is just eternal and uncaused. But there are good philosophical and scientific reasons to doubt that this is the case. The idea that there is an infinite number of past events runs into absurdity. For example, what is infinity....minus inifinity? Well that's self-contradictory. I think this demonstrates that infinity is just a concept in the mind rather than something that exists in reality.
Fairly recent observations in astronomy have strongly suggested that the universe is not eternal, as once thought, but had a beginning. Now objections to this fairly new idea have been raised by some scientists. But the vast, vast majority of the scientific community accepts that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning.
Anthony Kenny of Oxford University states "A proponent of the Big Bang theory must believe that the universe came from nothing."
But in that case, WHY does the universe exist? There must have been a CAUSE that brought the universe into existence.

The argument can be summarized in this manner:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. The universe has a cause

If the first two premises are true, the third inescapably follows! And what of the cause? It must be an uncaused, eternal, and immaterial entity.

[/William Lane Craig voice]
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2019, 08:37 PM   #7
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,108
The argument is generally referred to as the argument from first cause.

ETA: At least, that's what I heard in Philosophy 101.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 19th May 2019 at 08:38 PM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2019, 08:43 PM   #8
winter salt
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 252
https://youtu.be/yeGCIxyAKuU
winter salt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2019, 10:46 PM   #9
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,879
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
*[William Lane Craig voice]*:

Typically, naturalists have said that the universe is just eternal and uncaused. But there are good philosophical and scientific reasons to doubt that this is the case. The idea that there is an infinite number of past events runs into absurdity. For example, what is infinity....minus inifinity? Well that's self-contradictory. I think this demonstrates that infinity is just a concept in the mind rather than something that exists in reality.
Fairly recent observations in astronomy have strongly suggested that the universe is not eternal, as once thought, but had a beginning. Now objections to this fairly new idea have been raised by some scientists. But the vast, vast majority of the scientific community accepts that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning.
Anthony Kenny of Oxford University states "A proponent of the Big Bang theory must believe that the universe came from nothing."
But in that case, WHY does the universe exist? There must have been a CAUSE that brought the universe into existence.

The argument can be summarized in this manner:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. The universe has a cause

If the first two premises are true, the third inescapably follows! And what of the cause? It must be an uncaused, eternal, and immaterial entity.

[/William Lane Craig voice]

I've highlighted his mistake.
__________________
#THEYAREUS
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2019, 11:44 PM   #10
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,051
I would say it's a variant of Aquinas' third way.
Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. (Summa Theologiae, I, q.2, a.3)
Kant discredited this as an antinomy of pure reason. That is, reason seeks to apply empirical concepts to ideal entities. For example: we see that everything in the world has a cause (this is empirical knowledge). Consequently, we apply this empirical law to an object that escapes our empirical knowledge: the totality of things (universe) and we conclude that the totality of things has an uncaused cause: God.

The antinomies resolve themselves when we understand that some natural laws are regulative and that empirical laws only apply to empirical entities.

You have to be very stubborn to use Aquinas' methods in the 21st century.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2019, 01:28 AM   #11
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,374
Aquinas didn't really come up with it. It's almost word for word the "nothing comes out of nothing" argument of Parmenides. IIRC we don't actually have the original text from Parmenides, so Aquinas got it from Aristotle, who quotes it in "Physics".

But really that's what Aquinas does. Unlike modern BS-ers who just pull banana arguments out of the ass, Aquinas was well versed in philosophy (the science of the time), and he cites his sources.

HOWEVER, and this is the important part, Aquinas and his modern proponents subverted the original idea it had for the Greeks and Romans. You can see what it originally meant in Lucretius's De Rerum Natura, Book I. It's spelled out that, "nothing's brought forth by any supernatural power out of nothing." So basically what it meant was that the universe has always existed, and it was NOT created by some God or other supernatural power.

So Aquinas and such turn it on its head when they use it an argument FOR creation by a god.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2019, 07:17 AM   #12
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by Apathia View Post
Who says it all can't be contingent?
The way contingent is defined in the OP, every single thing we have ever observed is contingent.


Planets, stars, galaxies, & all celestial things.


Shoes, ships, & sealing-wax, cabbages and kings.


So . . . whence the concept of “necessary” existence?
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 21st May 2019 at 07:18 AM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2019, 07:39 AM   #13
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
 
The Greater Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posts: 3,865
Even if true, what caused a god?
__________________
- "Who is the greater fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the fool?" [Various; Uknown]
- "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']
The Greater Fool is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2019, 07:57 AM   #14
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,110
Originally Posted by The Greater Fool View Post
Even if true, what caused a god?
Special pleading caused one. That's the basis of the argument; if everything has a cause and nothing is possible which doesn't have a cause, then let's make up something that the entire argument doesn't apply to and call it "God." The existence of God is therefore proven by an argument which, by definition, does not apply to the existence of God. It's not so much circular reasoning as Moebius reasoning.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2019, 08:02 AM   #15
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,793
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
The way contingent is defined in the OP, every single thing we have ever observed is contingent.


Planets, stars, galaxies, & all celestial things.


Shoes, ships, & sealing-wax, cabbages and kings.


So . . . whence the concept of “necessary” existence?
The "necessary" part seems to be an effort to dodge the obvious trap of the, "The universe exists, so something (i.e. God) must have created it." argument, which is, "God exists, so what created God?". Of course, once you go there, it's turtles all the way down.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2019, 11:05 AM   #16
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Quote:
1. Everything that exists is either contingent (i.e., requiring an external cause for its existence) or necessary (i.e., not requiring an external cause for its existence, since its essence by itself entails its existence).
Fallacy of construction, assertion of a principle
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2019, 02:59 PM   #17
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
The "necessary" part seems to be an effort to dodge the obvious trap of the, "The universe exists, so something (i.e. God) must have created it." argument, which is, "God exists, so what created God?".
One of the things I find endlessly frustrating with these sorts of deductive arguments is that they are too often just clever attempts to disguise the conclusion somewhere in the premises. In this case, the arguer would have us believe that at least one thing exists (in a recognizable sense of the term) without “requiring an external cause for its existence,” and (even more bogglingly) that we can readily intuit what sort of thing it must be.

The first obvious problem here is that we can point to literally any (reasonably discrete) thing anywhere in the cosmos and show how it came about as a result of the operation of natural laws upon matter/energy over time. In other words, said thing was caused by antecedent events.

Roll the tape all the way back to t=0 and we finally have a candidate for something that does not require an external cause for its existence, but the closer we get to t=0 the more our everyday concepts of causality, externality, and even existence itself unravel like a cast-off sweater. How are we supposed to generate a list of candidate entities which might be generating pocket universes running on natural laws which resemble some variant of an (as yet undetermined) unified field theory? No idea, but I'd be shocked to discover that the candidate entity which turns out to be the correct one just happens to be conscious mind who really cares what I do with my foreskin.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 21st May 2019 at 03:00 PM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2019, 05:05 PM   #18
Apathia
Philosopher
 
Apathia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 5,161
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
The "necessary" part seems to be an effort to dodge the obvious trap of the, "The universe exists, so something (i.e. God) must have created it." argument, which is, "God exists, so what created God?". Of course, once you go there, it's turtles all the way down.
It's the dubious notion that there is something isn't the natural or given state but must be accounted for and justified.

It's turtles all the way round.
__________________
"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Justice William O. Douglas

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown
Apathia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2019, 05:11 PM   #19
Apathia
Philosopher
 
Apathia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 5,161
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
One of the things I find endlessly frustrating with these sorts of deductive arguments is that they are too often just clever attempts to disguise the conclusion somewhere in the premises. In this case, the arguer would have us believe that at least one thing exists (in a recognizable sense of the term) without “requiring an external cause for its existence,” and (even more bogglingly) that we can readily intuit what sort of thing it must be.

The first obvious problem here is that we can point to literally any (reasonably discrete) thing anywhere in the cosmos and show how it came about as a result of the operation of natural laws upon matter/energy over time. In other words, said thing was caused by antecedent events.

Roll the tape all the way back to t=0 and we finally have a candidate for something that does not require an external cause for its existence, but the closer we get to t=0 the more our everyday concepts of causality, externality, and even existence itself unravel like a cast-off sweater. How are we supposed to generate a list of candidate entities which might be generating pocket universes running on natural laws which resemble some variant of an (as yet undetermined) unified field theory? No idea, but I'd be shocked to discover that the candidate entity which turns out to be the correct one just happens to be conscious mind who really cares what I do with my foreskin.
Behind it all is our very anthropmoric bias that things come to be because someone makes them by invention, birth, or accident. It's we who bring causality to the table.
__________________
"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Justice William O. Douglas

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown
Apathia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2019, 06:59 PM   #20
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,879
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
The "necessary" part seems to be an effort to dodge the obvious trap of the, "The universe exists, so something (i.e. God) must have created it." argument, which is, "God exists, so what created God?".
Of course, the theist will argue "...but what if God always existed?"

Well, as Carl Sagan would say, if we accept that the beginning of the universe is unknowable, and we are going to argue that God must have created it, and we are going answer the next logical question, "what created God", by saying God always existed, then why not save a step, and simply say that the Universe always existed?
__________________
#THEYAREUS
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2019, 07:13 PM   #21
winter salt
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Special pleading caused one. That's the basis of the argument; if everything has a cause and nothing is possible which doesn't have a cause, then let's make up something that the entire argument doesn't apply to and call it "God." The existence of God is therefore proven by an argument which, by definition, does not apply to the existence of God. It's not so much circular reasoning as Moebius reasoning.

Dave
Yeap. That was the gist of my response too. Special pleading. He tried to play some word games to get out of this to no avail.
I've been tired of educating him on logical fallacies etc and have been trying to forward him to this post.
If he wants to test his arguments this is a good place to do it.
We'll see.
winter salt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2019, 03:55 AM   #22
Emre_1974tr
Muse
 
Emre_1974tr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 733
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...ical-argument/

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...e-of-the-past/
Emre_1974tr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2019, 04:19 AM   #23
Emre_1974tr
Muse
 
Emre_1974tr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 733
Real name is "hudus evidence"
Emre_1974tr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2019, 04:35 AM   #24
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,110
Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
These articles seem to focus primarily on the justification of the second premise of the Kalam argument, viewing this as the main part of the argument that requires support. However, I would take issue with the first:

Quote:
The first premise of the argument is the claim that everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
... which is simply asserted without justification. Yet we know of instances where entities come into existence without cause, namely radioactive decay; this is a stochastic process, implying that a specific decay event has no specific cause. I would argue that the first premise of the Kalam argument is therefore false, invalidating the entire argument.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2019, 05:25 AM   #25
Emre_1974tr
Muse
 
Emre_1974tr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 733
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post



... which is simply asserted without justification. Yet we know of instances where entities come into existence without cause, namely radioactive decay; this is a stochastic process, implying that a specific decay event has no specific cause. I would argue that the first premise of the Kalam argument is therefore false, invalidating the entire argument.

Dave
No;

It's mean created out of nothing


It's not that something turns into something else.
Emre_1974tr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2019, 05:39 AM   #26
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,374
Have you heard of the Casimir effect or Hawking radiation and a few other such quantum phenomena? Particles are created out of the void all the time. Insane amounts of them.

If the new negative mass hypothesis for dark matter is correct, you can also add that to stuff which is created from the void all the time. Continuously, in fact.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2019, 05:45 AM   #27
Emre_1974tr
Muse
 
Emre_1974tr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 733
"Nothing" is not "void".

"Nothing" is not "space" or "vacuum".
Emre_1974tr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2019, 05:49 AM   #28
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,110
Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
No;

It's mean created out of nothing


It's not that something turns into something else.
I reject that as your personal interpretation rather than that of the originator of the argument; I also reject it as irrelevant. We cannot make any conclusions as to the means by which entities are created out of nothing, because we have no experience of entities being created out of nothing. The phrasing also suggests, by its use of a transitive possessive verb, the existence of an agent performing the act of creation; this begs the question by embodying the implication of a creator in the first premise of an argument intended to address the existence of a creator.

The argument does not, then, and may not, say "is created;" it says "begins to exist." At the instant of radioactive decay, particles that did not previously exist come into existence; they therefore begin to exist. Consider the event of decay, which is the cause of those particles coming into existence. What is its cause? It has none. Therefore, we have an uncaused cause. The conclusion that God is the only conceivable uncaused cause is therefore rejected as contradicting known evidence.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2019, 05:51 AM   #29
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,110
Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
"Nothing" is not "void".

"Nothing" is not "space" or "vacuum".
Then you have redefined words to have different meanings than those used in the arguments you're addressing. I hereby define God as a shade of orange that is also blue, and conclude that God does not exist; that's as valid an argument as any you're now offering.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2019, 05:56 AM   #30
Emre_1974tr
Muse
 
Emre_1974tr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 733
No Dave,

You are 100% wrong.
Emre_1974tr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2019, 06:06 AM   #31
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,110
Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
No Dave,

You are 100% wrong.
Bare assertion fallacy. You are not the teacher here.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2019, 07:22 AM   #32
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,374
Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
"Nothing" is not "void".

"Nothing" is not "space" or "vacuum".
I can even work with that, actually. Then the space is the necessary thing there, that is not contingent on anything. To even be talking about a universe you NEED some space. Well, space-time, actually.

In fact, not only it doesn't need your silly god to exist, but the other way around. Before you can even talk about a god existing anywhere -- or even everywhere -- or it being BEFORE a big bang, or whatever silly notion you're peddling, you have to have space-time for that to be a thing. Unless you have space and TIME, you can't talk about that happening before anything else.

So there we go: actually your nonsense "god" is contingent on space-time, not the other way around.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2019, 07:35 AM   #33
Emre_1974tr
Muse
 
Emre_1974tr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 733
No,

No time

No land,

No void
Emre_1974tr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2019, 07:37 AM   #34
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,374
No. The moment you postulate that God had to exist BEFORE the universe, or before anything else really, you need a time axis. Otherwise you don't have any "before". So your argument is contingent on time already existing.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2019, 07:42 AM   #35
Emre_1974tr
Muse
 
Emre_1974tr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 733
An entity in time cannot be sworn.

Because the road from the endless past never ends.

God is timeless, and without space/land.

He does not travel in time or space.

But there is the beginning of the universe and time.
Emre_1974tr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2019, 10:49 AM   #36
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,374
You realize, i hope, that you just subverted THAT whole argument, right? Because if space-time goes infinitely back, then it doesn't need a creator. There is no moment when it went from uncreated to created. "Because the road from the endless past never ends."

And if space-time goes infinitely back, there goes needing a creator matter too, because, again, that space-time is already producing matter all the time without needing any divine intervention.

Now you may still fall back on some OTHER retarded argument, but the one retarded argument that needs a BEGINNING goes right out the window if there is no beginning.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2019, 12:10 PM   #37
Emre_1974tr
Muse
 
Emre_1974tr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 733
I said the opposite.

Read again.
Emre_1974tr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2019, 11:23 PM   #38
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,051
A randomly process has also a cause. Probability is not an argument against Thomas Aquinas' third way.
From what I know the Casimir effect is produced by an electromagnetic field. It doesn't produces itself. This is to say it is not necessary. It is not an argument against Thomas Aquina's third way.

The third way is not arguable with facts. Its failure is conceptual.

If the argument is correct, it is absurd to demand God's cause. God is necessarily the entity without a cause.

But the argument is wrong.

Once again: the argument is wrong because two different levels of languages are mixed up. A rule of empirical science with a logical "law". "Everything has a cause" is an inferential rule, not a statement of fact. Experience always occurs in a finite field. Extrapolating this to the abstract concept of infinity is a conceptual error.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 03:15 AM   #39
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,374
The virtual particle creation is NOT caused by an electromagnetic field or anything, really. It just happens. Randomly. It will produce an attraction effect if you put two surfaces very very close to each other, but that is BECAUSE of the particle creation, not the cause of it.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 05:19 PM   #40
Seismosaurus
Philosopher
 
Seismosaurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,822
Originally Posted by winter salt View Post
" [b]1. Everything that exists is either contingent (i.e., requiring an external cause for its
existence) or necessary (i.e., not requiring an external cause for its existence, since
its essence by itself entails its existence).
2. A set of contingent beings is itself contingent (since, if all of a thing’s parts are
contingent, then the whole is contingent).
3. Therefore, a necessary being exists (since the set of all existing things cannot ALL
be contingent, for in that case the set itself would still require an external cause;
i.e., a cause that is not contingent; i.e., a cause that is necessary). And this is God.
The argument jumps from "everything that exists" in step one to "beings" in steps 2 and 3. Do you mean "beings" as in living things, or as in something that exists? If the latter then fair enough, if the former then the argument is flawed.

More than that, the idea that the cause is god seems entirely unsupported. If we assume for the sake of argument that everything in the universe has a cause (and I don't see how you could prove that), then is there any reason that the ultimate first cause can't be the universe itself? The universe is the necessary 'being', from which all contingent 'beings' stem. What need of god?
__________________
Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal
She carries beauty in her soul
Seismosaurus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:38 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.