Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
READ CAREFULLY: The claim is that the "Universe" had a "BEGINNING". That is the claim.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Show us how the objective evidence (the universe) SUPPORTS your claim. As an fyi, for objective evidence to support a conclusion, it must point to what you claim it points to.
You don't even understand what I am saying so how in the world do you think that I am protecting my conclusions. I even said that my conclusions were subjective.
The first cause argument (if you believe it is solid) only gives you a first cause. It doesn't give you a Christian God. There seems to be an underlying assumption that IF there is a first cause, it must be the Christian God. That assumption has no empirical evidence, which is what the atheists in this thread are trying to point out.
Setting it out logically, the Christians appear to be arguing that:
1 - The universe exists
2 - Anything that begins to exist needs a cause outside itself
3 - (1+2) Therefore there is a cause outside the universe
4 - If there is a cause outside the universe, it is the Christian God
5 - (3+4) Therefore the Christian God.
Since (1) is objective, it follows in their argument that (5) is objective, so long as the argument is sound. Of course, it isn't, because (4) has no justifier.
I think the request for empirical objective evidence presumes too greater scope for the application of empiricism, but that's a topic for another thread.
The first cause argument (if you believe it is solid) only gives you a first cause. It doesn't give you a Christian God. There seems to be an underlying assumption that IF there is a first cause, it must be the Christian God. That assumption has no empirical evidence, which is what the atheists in this thread are trying to point out.
Setting it out logically, the Christians appear to be arguing that:
1 - The universe exists
2 - Anything that begins to exist needs a cause outside itself
3 - (1+2) Therefore there is a cause outside the universe
4 - If there is a cause outside the universe, it is the Christian God
5 - (3+4) Therefore the Christian God.
Since (1) is objective, it follows in their argument that (5) is objective, so long as the argument is sound. Of course, it isn't, because (4) has no justifier.
I think the request for empirical objective evidence presumes too greater scope for the application of empiricism, but that's a topic for another thread.
And your conclusion would be wrong, based on lack of objective evidence to support your claim of "Christian God" did it.Look, I can understand the conclusion is subjective please please understand that. I know the conclusion is subjective. I know it. The evidence I am using, that the universe had a beginning is the objective evidence. The claim that the Christian says that the Creation narrative makes the claim that the universe had a beginning. That is subjective. I am making the subjective claim: that the Christian God created the universe so it had a beginning. I am making a subjective conclusion: God created the universe. Can I get any clearer?
Look here is another example. I am personal experiences from God. So God exists. That is a subjective claim based on subjective evidence. Do you see that?
IF you can back up that claim. Can you back up that claim?
This is where you get into trouble at least logically.
If your premise is that "only" God can make the universe then if the universe exists, God exists then that would be a logical argument. The form here is
If P, then Q
P
Therefore Q
This is valid form.
The key here is the term "only". A statement that used "if" in the premise, would allow other possibilities to be considered and that is what makes the argument not a logical one.
Maybe Bob created the universe. I mean, the universe exists, Bob exists, what more do you need?
My objective evidence is the existence of rainbows.
Just for fun, we could have Christian Forums Mad Libs if you want. We could objectively prove the existence of thousands of make believe entities.
1. ____(noun)_____ makes ____(noun)_____
2. ___(second noun from 1.) exists.
3. Therefore, ___(first noun from 1.)____ exists.
We could go with Leprechauns and rainbows . . . Bigfoot and chocolate . . . Santa Claus and reindeer . . . take your pick. Just find something that you can show to exist, link it to the thing you want to exist, and then point again to the thing that does exist. Presto chango, that make believe entity suddenly becomes real.
I love mad libs....
1. _Squirrels__ make ___Nuts____
2. Nuts exists.
3. Therefore, __Squirrels__ exist.
Squirrels don't make nuts...
Posted by Dizredux
This is where you get into trouble at least logically.
If your premise is that "only" God can make the universe then if the universe exists, God exists then that would be a logical argument. The form here is
If P, then Q
P
Therefore Q
This is valid form.
O.K.
The key here is the term "only". A statement that used "if" in the premise, would allow other possibilities to be considered and that is what makes the argument not a logical one.
I didn't explain it well I suspect.huh? First you say it is valid then you say it is invalid.
That is a invalid logical form.If a God can create a universe, yes, then the existence of the universe points to God.
Maybe Bob created the universe. I mean, the universe exists, Bob exists, what more do you need?
The existence of the universe points to a Creator, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God who sent us His Son so that we may know He exists and He keeps His promises.
The existence of the universe points to a Creator,
I didn't explain it well I suspect.
Your argument was That is a invalid logical form.
If God then universe
Universe
Therefore God
This is not a valid argument as there are other possible explanation for the existance of the universe. Basically you cannot reverse the implication of a premise and have it be valid.
Much of this thread is reaction to posters who keep trying to use this form of argument. It may sound logical but it is not at least according to the rules of formal logic. Let me give an example
All cats have tails
There exists an animal with a tail
Therefore the animal is a cat.
This is invalid because there is a possibility of other animals with tails.
If you use the term "only God" your premise rules out any other other possibility. Let me give an example on this:
Only cats have tails
There exists an animal with a tail.
Therefore the animal is a cat.
This has an incorrect premise but it is a valid argument, the one you used is not.
It is sometimes hard explaining logic to someone who has not had some kind of formal training in it. The fault lies with me for not being able to explain it well enough.
The reason that I am addressing this is that using an invalid argument only hurts what you are trying to show.
Hope this helps you understand a little.
Dizredux
Look, I can understand the conclusion is subjective please please understand that. I know the conclusion is subjective. I know it. The evidence I am using, that the universe had a beginning is the objective evidence. The claim that the Christian says that the Creation narrative makes the claim that the universe had a beginning. That is subjective. I am making the subjective claim: that the Christian God created the universe so it had a beginning. I am making a subjective conclusion: God created the universe. Can I get any clearer?
Look here is another example. I have personal experiences from God. So God exists. That is a subjective claim based on subjective evidence. Do you see that?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?