God the middleman

[gaara4158]

It is Aristotle's definition of an effect and so far it has never been proven to be wrong. Some Quantum events appear to be effects but it has not been proven yet, it may be just that we have not discovered the cause or they may be caused by the observer.

Aristotle defines a system of classifying four different types of causes, not a system of distinguishing effects from non-effects. As I said before, you can infer causality within the universe all you want, but to apply it to the universe as a whole is to commit the fallacy of composition. We are looping now, so I’ll give you a chance to respond to this differently than last time, and if not this exchange will have run its course.

 

[Paulomycin]

You've been debating atheists for years and not a single one of them has ever presented this distinction to you?

lol. Mmmmaybe!

Feel free to explain it for him.

 

[Paulomycin]

Aristotle defines a system of classifying four different types of causes, not a system of distinguishing effects from non-effects. As I said before, you can infer causality within the universe all you want, but to apply it to the universe as a whole is to commit the fallacy of composition.

Point of order: The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. A trivial example might be: "This tire is made of rubber, therefore the vehicle of which it is a part is also made of rubber."

Who's actually doing that? You can't accuse someone of the fallacy of composition just for asking where the singularity came from. And there is no special case where causality doesn't apply. Law of causality is a logical inference, so it's not tied down to any exclusively materialistic rules.

 

[Paulomycin]

@Ed1wolf

Per logicallyfallacious.com. . .

Exception: If the whole is very close to the similarity of the parts, then more assumptions can be made from the parts to the whole. For example, if we open a small bag of potato chips and discover that the first one is delicious, it is not fallacious to conclude that the whole snack (all the chips, minus the bag) will be just as delicious, but we cannot say the same for one of those giant family size bags because most of us would be hurling after about 10 minutes of our chip-eating frenzy.

Everything within the universe is contingent to a prior cause.
Therefore, the universe is contingent to a prior cause.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I do not know what you include in the forces of nature but feel free to attempt to find evidence that they have always existed,

We don't know what was "before" the Big Bang or even if there was a "before".

Do you know what was before the Big Bang?

I would suggest that it is hard to have the forces of nature exist before there was any nature.

Nobody suggested that the forces of nature existed before nature. Get with the program, please.

So we are back to the original question. How was something made from nothing?

And we are back to the original answer. It happens all the time. See Something from Nothing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light - Scientific American.

 

[Paulomycin]

And we are back to the original answer. It happens all the time. See Something from Nothing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light - Scientific American.

@Nihilist Virus Check ^ this out. The "something from nothing" fraud wasn't limited to Lawrence Krauss after all.

 

[Paulomycin]

Nobody suggested that the forces of nature existed before nature. Get with the program, please.

Oh good. So then rationally-speaking, whatever came before nature was literally super-nature. Thanks.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Oh good. So then rationally-speaking, whatever came before nature was literally super-nature. Thanks.

Nope. Nature, nautural law, and natural forces could have always existed.

 

[Paulomycin]

Nope. Nature, nautural law, and natural forces could have always existed.

Awesome. Then you're officially "suggesting" now. . .

Nobody suggested that the forces of nature existed before nature. Get with the program, please.

. . .what you weren't before. As @disciple Clint stated, I would suggest that it is hard to have the forces of nature exist before there was any nature.

Triggering an infinite regress is bad, m'kay? So we can safely rule it out. That is, unless you want to force every-single-question about the universe to remain suspended in ambiguity. <-- Which isn't progress either.

 

[BigDaddy4]

The goalposts are and always have been that I want you to dispute something in the OP. If Christians think or believe that the OP is true, without actually outright stating it, then that is a distinction without a difference.

Which is what I have done since I first engaged you. I disputed that "Christians" in your baseless assertion of "Christians say..." You still can't provide evidence that Christians say what you are attributing them to be saying. Therefore, your premise is invalid.

Examine the OP again. I only said that the universe exists without reason or cause in the atheist worldview. The Christian worldview does not touch on the reason for why the universe exists. The Christian worldview I prevented states that God exists for no reason and with no cause. It's been agreed by a Christian on here God exists with no cause, but he said that God does exist for a reason. I couldn't make heads or tails of his "reason", though.

I could care less about the atheist worldview on why the universe exists. As a Christian, I care about the Christian worldview, which you misrepresented in your OP. Your lack of understanding or agreement to the "reason" that has been presented to you does not mean it doesn't exist.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Which is what I have done since I first engaged you. I disputed that "Christians" in your baseless assertion of "Christians say..." You still can't provide evidence that Christians say what you are attributing them to be saying. Therefore, your premise is invalid.

So how about we clarify: Christians say [in their hearts]... or Christians say [in their minds]...

I could care less about the atheist worldview on why the universe exists. As a Christian, I care about the Christian worldview, which you misrepresented in your OP. Your lack of understanding or agreement to the "reason" that has been presented to you does not mean it doesn't exist.

Well then explain it to me. Do you have your own reason why God exists or do you agree with another person on this thread?

 

[BigDaddy4]

So how about we clarify: Christians say [in their hearts]... or Christians say [in their minds]...

That clarifies nothing. I don't pretend to speak for other Christians. It would be better if you had started with "Some Christians I was talking to said this.." since that appears to be your "source", or something that does not imply all Christians have stated what's in the OP.

Well then explain it to me. Do you have your own reason why God exists or do you agree with another person on this thread?

God is omnipotent and without limitations, especially ones imposed by humans. In his own words "I AM". He created the universe for his glory and he owes us no explanation for why.
I agree with @Paulomycin in this post.
God the middleman

 

[Moral Orel]

God is omnipotent and without limitations, especially ones imposed by humans. In his own words "I AM".

It sounds like you're saying God doesn't need a reason to exist, He just does. Is that correct?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

That clarifies nothing. I don't pretend to speak for other Christians. It would be better if you had started with "Some Christians I was talking to said this.." since that appears to be your "source", or something that does not imply all Christians have stated what's in the OP.

Ok, but then you say...

God is omnipotent and without limitations, especially ones imposed by humans. In his own words "I AM". He created the universe for his glory and he owes us no explanation for why.
I agree with @Paulomycin in this post.
God the middleman

Not only do you give no reason, you say there doesn't need to be a reason. I take that to mean there is no reason.

 

[Paulomycin]

Not only do you give no reason, you say there doesn't need to be a reason. I take that to mean there is no reason.

That, or, you were deliberately ignoring the reason I gave.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I would suggest that it is hard to have the forces of nature exist before there was any nature.

I didn't say the forces of nature existed before nature. I say there could have been a natural reality that existed forever.

 

[Paulomycin]

Why do I have to continually remind atheists that Big Bang falsified Steady State? There is no eternal model of naturalism. That ship has sailed.

I didn't say the forces of nature existed before nature. I say there could have been a natural reality that existed forever.

So you deny the Big Bang, or the forces of nature (of a natural reality) existed before nature.

Please don't try to weasel out of it.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Why do I have to continually remind atheists that Big Bang falsified Steady State? There is no eternal model of naturalism.

Do you have any evidence that there is no eternal model of naturalism?

You can't just make things up and say they are true. That is not how science works.

 

[Paulomycin]

Do you have any evidence that there is no eternal model of naturalism?

How precious. Merle's demanding that I prove a negative.

- It's your positive claim.

*sputtering* "I--I never said any such thing!"

- If you didn't make a positive claim, then there's no point in defending it as-if you did.

You can't just make things up and say they are true. That is not how science works.

Steady State was in-fact the eternal universe model. There are no "do-overs" in science. I'm afraid you're being terribly regressive.

 

[Ed1wolf]

You apparently don't understand the difference between

(A) Not believing in God

and

(B) Believing God doesn't exist

This has caused you to misrepresent atheism.

Ok, I'll bite, what is the difference?