The Genetic Fallacy

[variant]

You don't have to observe the universe coming into existence to conclude that nothing can come from nothing without a cause... this is like saying that in some other world , maybe the law of identity doesn't apply.

You're already agreeing to situations that are outside our normal experience when you posit external things to the universe. So you would be trying to enforce rules for the universe and also positing things that don't obey them.

Special pleading again.

Why does it matter if the something implied by the beginning of the universe and isn't properly understood by us is either internal or external to the universe?

If we take these points into account, the only thing cosmological argument leads to is that there is something about the beginning of the universe we don't properly understand.

Which of course is very noncontroversial.

 

[Chany]

You know...

This all might be a lot easier if you actually made the arguments you're defending instead of just stating what the premises aren't. Once you actually state the premises upon which your argument is founded, I'm certain any number of posters will be more than happy to explain which premises are faulty and why.

I second this. We're arguing about arguments without really knowing the arguments we are arguing over.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

You're already agreeing to situations that are outside our normal experience when you posit external things to the universe. So you would be trying to enforce rules for the universe and also positing things that don't obey them.

Special pleading again.

Why does it matter if the something implied by the beginning of the universe and isn't properly understood by us is either internal or external to the universe?

If we take these points into account, the only thing cosmological argument leads to is that there is something about the beginning of the universe we don't properly understand.

Which of course is very noncontroversial.

You are confusing the laws of logic with the laws of physics. I do not posit a God who violates the laws of logic. Assuming the laws of physics are universal in the way that the laws of logic are is assuming naturalism.

Btw, I've begun to somewhat lose interest in this thread, and it's been derailed quite a bit, so I'm not going to really respond to someone unless I see a clear misconception or something that can be cleared up.

 

[variant]

You are confusing the laws of logic with the laws of physics. I do not posit a God who violates the laws of logic. Assuming the laws of physics are universal in the way that the laws of logic are is assuming naturalism.

I am not:

The "laws of logic" are derived from our experience with the universe, and in this case are defining physical things like time and causation, they are indeed malleable in our discussion as the end point of your argument is that at least one thing doesn't follow them like everything else in the universe (that for some reason absolutely must act in the way you already assume it will).

The problem comes from enforcing rules like causation on basically everything (using our experience as a guide) and then turning around and saying that this leads us to believe that there is at least one thing that doesn't follow such a rule.

What the actual end point here is that there is at-least one thing outside our general experience, and thus it really can be anything.

Btw, I've begun to somewhat lose interest in this thread, and it's been derailed quite a bit, so I'm not going to really respond to someone unless I see a clear misconception or something that can be cleared up.

Suit yourself, it's interesting to see someone lose interest in their own thread derail.

 

[KCfromNC]

Suit yourself, it's interesting to see someone lose interest in their own thread derail.

Also interesting that the more concrete the critiques of various apologetics gets, the less interest there is in continuing the discussion. One could imagine any number of reasons why that might be.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Also interesting that the more concrete the critiques of various apologetics gets, the less interest there is in continuing the discussion. One could imagine any number of reasons why that might be.

Oh just say it...

He's chickening out.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Oh just say it...

He's chickening out.

No, it's just that this thread has gone a bit too far off topic; in both the beginning and the end of this thread, there have been posts that I'm not well-versed in refuting (it's not that I haven't heard them before, or that there is just no answer, it's that I can't refute them eloquently enough.) There's also that I haven't that much experience on a de facto atheist forum like this one.

 

[variant]

There's also that I haven't that much experience on a de facto atheist forum like this one.

The arguments don't change based upon the audience.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

It's more being shorthanded than anything else. I guess it just wore me out after a while.

 

[variant]

It's more being shorthanded than anything else. I guess it just wore me out after a while.

Granted I also think it's difficult to argue the pro side of the cosmological argument, but that's why I don't do it.