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.
Who did I quote?
It's not a game to me.At a certain point, we're just playing word games.
Well, even atheïsts (in the field) agree the universe had a start, for numerous reasons (i choose not to mention here, not only because i'm too lazy to look it up...)If having a cause is baked into the definition of "effect", then I'm going to have to ask you to demonstrate that the universe is an effect.
I'm very sorry that words do not always mean what you want them to mean.You don't just get to smuggle your premises into the definitions of the words you're using like that.
Well, i'm not gonna.I think I'd like to see you demonstrate that point.
...has to exist, or at least had to have existed.Well why don't you show me where my logic breaks down? Here's the traditional structure of the Kalam Cosmological Argument:
- Everything that begins to exist has a cause;
- The universe began to exist;
Therefore:- The universe has a cause.
- If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful; Therefore:
- An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful...
We've been through this already, haven't we?That bit in premise 1? It sets up a dichotomy beween two sets - "things that begin to exist" and "things that do not begin to exist".
No, the Thing that does not begin to exist, doesn't just set out conditions, that Thing creates by It's Will.And it sets out a condition for the former set.
Why? How?However, your claim is that the latter set contains just one object - god. If that's the case, then a simple logical reformulation can take place:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause -> (Because we set this up as a true dichotomy, we can replace the term with its inverse)
1. Everything except things that do not begin to exist has a cause -> (Because there is only one thing that did not begin to exist, we can generalize)
1. Everything except god has a cause
At which point your argument becomes circular and thus a meaningless tautology.
I'm not sure where you see the circle in this reasoning.If there is a problem with my reasoning, please explain the problem, don't just hand-wave it away.
No, i think you have misunderstood that.Yes, actually, this is heavily implied by quantum physics.
Ah, so the sentence "How we argue for what is greater without really realizing it?" only applies to you and Archaeopteryx. Although since he was actually asking a question rather than giving a positive statement, your phrase really only applies to you.
Yes, and you apparently have no idea what a "set" means in logic and mathematics. Let me explain: when I speak of a "set" of "objects", I am referring to set theory. This is a subject that requires a little doing to understand, and I'm a little tipsy, so I'll let you peruse the wikipedia article, but it does not matter if there is only one object in the set (or even no objects - the "empty set" is a very useful mathematical tool), it is still proper to refer to it as a "set". So this:We've been through this already, haven't we?
The Original Cause is singular.
I think you call it 'a singularity'.
Why? How?
The Original Cause CAN NOT have a cause by definition.
I'm not sure where you see the circle in this reasoning.
Yes, and you apparently have no idea what a "set" means in logic and mathematics. Let me explain: when I speak of a "set" of "objects", I am referring to set theory. This is a subject that requires a little doing to understand, and I'm a little tipsy, so I'll let you peruse the wikipedia article, but it does not matter if there is only one object in the set (or even no objects - the "empty set" is a very useful mathematical tool), it is still proper to refer to it as a "set". So this:
Is a completely meaningless objection.
See, this is what I mean by "playing word games". You can define things until you're blue in the face. I can define "Flibbertygibbets" to mean "An entity that demonstrates the nonexistence of god". But at some point, we have to show some connection between our logical constructs and reality. So let's look at what you've defined:
- Effects, by definition, have causes
- An original cause which cannot have a cause
I don't think that second definition applies to anything that actually exists or ever existed. I don't think the first definition meshes well with reality, given things like Hawking radiation.
Premise one: everything except god has a cause.
[...]
Conclusion: god exists
In the first premise you've already stated that god exists.
Thanks for explaining.Yes, and you apparently have no idea what a "set" means in logic and mathematics. Let me explain: when I speak of a "set" of "objects", I am referring to set theory. This is a subject that requires a little doing to understand, and I'm a little tipsy, so I'll let you peruse the wikipedia article, but it does not matter if there is only one object in the set (or even no objects - the "empty set" is a very useful mathematical tool), it is still proper to refer to it as a "set". So this:
--- ramblings of Hyronymus ---
Is a completely meaningless objection.
Well, i have tried.See, this is what I mean by "playing word games". You can define things until you're blue in the face. I can define "Flibbertygibbets" to mean "An entity that demonstrates the nonexistence of god". But at some point, we have to show some connection between our logical constructs and reality. So let's look at what you've defined:
- Effects, by definition, have causes
- An original cause which cannot have a cause
I don't think that second definition applies to anything that actually exists or ever existed. I don't think the first definition meshes well with reality, given things like Hawking radiation.
No, you did.Premise one: everything except god has a cause.
[...]
Conclusion: god exists
In the first premise you've already stated that god exists.
If the universe begins to exist, does this require a cause?
Yes or no?
Well, i have tried.
But you don't seemto understand the meaning of 'original'.
We could call it "first" if that helps.
Nothing precedes the first, or it wouldn't be the first.
There, that should do it.
No, you did.
I didn't use that as a premise.
Than you're not capable of logical thought.I don't know.
We dont know.All of this can be excised with your answer to a simple question.
If the universe begins to exist, does this require a cause?
Yes or no?
This apparently is very complicated stuff for some people.All of this can be excised with your answer to a simple question.
If the universe begins to exist, does this require a cause?
Yes or no?
Not so.This apparently is very complicated stuff for some people.
Ironically people who say their opinions are based on science and logic seem to have a very hard time with this question.
Impossible to know (yet).Easy to avoid...
Is it excised now?
Well... No, sorry..Impossible to know (yet).
Therefore easy to answer.
"Excised" comment applies to post #406.I meant evade... (i think)
But i spoke too soon, because i didn't understand your last sentence:
Yes, for sure.Allright, but isn't an effect without a cause contradictory, a logical fallacy?
Great.
Now I can turn my attention to those who think there are good arguments against the existence of God and talk with them.
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?