frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




It is reasonable to believe God exists

Debate Information

Hello all. I am new to this debate website. I am still trying to figure out this format, it's quite different from what I'm used to. I'm probably doing this all wrong, so please forgive me.

Anyway, I thought I would do a quick, casual "debate" to get started.

Today's topic is simple. That is it is reasonable to believe God exists.

I will present one major argument, and all detractors and naysayers are welcome.


P1. Everything which began to exist has a cause.

P2. The universe began to exist.

P3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

This is not my personal favorite argument but it is one I still like, and I believe it goes through. A quick overview of the premises.


P1. Nothing cannot bring about something. Nothing, by definition, is not anything. It is the absence of being. Nothing has no properties, nothing has no causal power. P1 is a metaphysical truth, with constant confirmation from our inference.

P2. The scientific evidence strongly suggest the universe had a beginning. The BGV theorem maintains that any universe which is expanding (our own) had a beginning in the finite past. The second law of thermodynamics would render an eternal universe impossible, given the tendency of closed systems to always increase in entropy. There are also good philosophical reasons to believe the past is finite.

P3. Since the universe is the sum totality of time space and matter, a cause of the universe must be immaterial, spaceless, and outside time. We reason this Cause is God.


Thank you all, hopefully that is not too long.


«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
33%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -  
    Since you gave no definition for God, I'll answer this...

    I think deism is as reasonable a worldview as atheism. 


    ZeusAres42
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "

  • Perhaps I should have been more specific, but I see the definition as implicit in the argument. Timeless, spaceless, immaterial Creator is a good definition in this context.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    The only logical conclusion to the reasonable and observant mind is that our Universe, our genome, demands design and therefore a Designer. Christianity is the only coherent worldview with corresponding truth that defines origin-meaning-morality-destiny and directly answers with logical consistency, empirical adequacy, experiential relevance. There is ONE God and ONE Mediator for sin, Jesus Christ.

    Speaking of Jesus Christ-Yeshua as Creator...






    RegressiveludditexlJ_dolphin_473Blastcat
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -  
    @Regressiveluddite

    Well, deism and theism while both accepting to define god as a timeless, spaceless immaterial creator, are very different... If you were to ask : Is it reasonable to believe in the God of Abraham, I'd say no... But I find that most deists hold reasonable beliefs, which I don't share but can find reasonable nonetheless...
    ZeusAres42
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "

  • The truth is most arguments from the natural theology arsenal get you to deism/monotheism. Usually not much further. In order to then make a case for the existence of the God of Abraham one needs to take the foundation further and show this Being communicated to us. To do so would employ another toolbox of arguments.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @Regressiveluddite The Cosmological argument is a pretty old argument, and it has a few major flaws, both scientific and philosophical.

    First, the assumption that something can not come from nothing is looking more and more wrong by the day. While the first law of thermodynamics prevent the creation or destruction of new energy, the vacuum of space has been shown to be filled with virtual particles which come from vacuum energy and only last for very short periods of time. It would seem, that there is no such thing as "nothing" in a physical sense in our universe.

    We have no reason to assume that the beginning of the universe happened in a finite time. Because time is relative, it is possible that the universe had an infinite past, where time moved much more slowly than it does now, or in other words if you reversed time you would approach a singularity, a point at which time moves slower and slower but never reaches zero.

    It is also possible that the universe created itself, and that space time has a shape which loops back on itself, thus making the universe it's own cause.

    There is also some evidence to suggest that our universe is not the first, and rather that a string of potentially infinite universes existed prior to this one inside the same space. The theory is that as the universe expands it reaches a point at which everything is effectively spread out to infinity, and mathematically this is the same as everything being infinitesimal, thus triggering a new big bang. This is speculative as far as physics goes, but it is still a possibility.

    Then there is the philosophical problem. If everything needs a cause, then we can infer that god must have a cause, and gods cause must have a cause, and so on turtles all the way down. This argument must deny it's own assumption in order to reach it's own conclusion. Thus we can determine that it is an inadequate proof of the existence of god.
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @Regressiveluddite ; As one who loves and adores Jesus Christ, I want to inform you, seeing that you're new to this forum, that these pages are overwhelmed by the emissaries of Satan i.e. atheists. These are evil and vulgar and nasty people who hate God so put on your armor and fight the good the fight and know your enemy. Not sure which side you're on, Light or darkness....but you've been told...buckle up and welcome aboard.






    PlaffelvohfenRegressiveludditeBlastcat

  • Thanks for offering your critique. I'm not sure some of the things you argued go through however, I think there are a few misunderstanding in the argument present. If I may point them out.

    Also, it is important to keep in mind this is not "The" cosmological argument. There are several more, should this one not go through, there's a variety of others.

    You mentioned quantum particles coming from the energy fluctuations from the vacuum.

    The reason I don't think this is a good point against the first premise is that the quantum vacuum certainly is not nothing. It is a physical structure containing energy that exerts causal power.

    When I say nothing I mean true nothing. Total absence of being. It is this nothing that cannot exert causal power and bring anything into existence.

    Your theory of time singularity is interesting. If time did extend infinitely into the past, how would there still be usable energy in the universe? Why are we not in complete heat death?

    Lastly your final point that said everything requires a cause, therefore God requires a cause. I believe is a misunderstanding of the argument.

    Remember the P1 said everything that began to exist had a cause. God did not begin to exist, by definition God is (in Latin) a se. He exists outside of and beyond any other thing, and gave existence to everything else. And does not require a cause.
    ZeusAres42

  • As someone who also loves and adores the Lord Jesus Christ, I appreciate your warning.
    RickeyD
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @Regressiveluddite

    ***** Remember the P1 said everything that began to exist had a cause. God did not begin to exist, by definition God is (in Latin) a se. He exists outside of and beyond any other thing, and gave existence to everything else. And does not require a cause.

    Welcome as a new member. It’s a good topic you introduce. This statement is fallacious as in its guilty of using the fallacy of special pleading where it sets up the rules that reasonable people must abide by but yet makes an exception  for a supernatural entity without justification.

    Reading your posts you admit you’re a Christian yet you seem to be approaching the god argument from a different angle as in if you can others to agree to some poorly defined concept of god then the god of Christianity can be introduced.




    PlaffelvohfenBlastcat
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Regressiveluddite

    The “warning you got “ as you will see is from a guy who calls all Atheists , Commies , Satanists and strangely worshippers of Allah .....Just so you know 
    ZeusAres42PlaffelvohfenBlastcat

  • Thanks for your reply. I don't think I have committed the special pleading fallacy for a variety of reasons.


    1. Any cause of time space and matter has to be outside of time. A Being outside of time cannot have a beginning.

    2. Any first cause is just that. A first cause. It cannot have a cause preceding it.

    3. Unless we terminate the causal chain with an uncaused cause, we have an infinite regress of causes, and that becomes problematic.


    In order to demonstrate I committed special pleading, it would have to be proven that I have made an abitrary acception to the rule, as opposed to correctly defining a first cause.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @Regressiveluddite


    Thanks for offering your critique. I'm not sure some of the things you argued go through however, I think there are a few misunderstanding in the argument present. If I may point them out.

    Also, it is important to keep in mind this is not "The" cosmological argument. There are several more, should this one not go through, there's a variety of others.

    You mentioned quantum particles coming from the energy fluctuations from the vacuum.

    The reason I don't think this is a good point against the first premise is that the quantum vacuum certainly is not nothing. It is a physical structure containing energy that exerts causal power.

    When I say nothing I mean true nothing. Total absence of being. It is this nothing that cannot exert causal power and bring anything into existence.

    Your theory of time singularity is interesting. If time did extend infinitely into the past, how would there still be usable energy in the universe? Why are we not in complete heat death?

    Lastly your final point that said everything requires a cause, therefore God requires a cause. I believe is a misunderstanding of the argument.

    Remember the P1 said everything that began to exist had a cause. God did not begin to exist, by definition God is (in Latin) a se. He exists outside of and beyond any other thing, and gave existence to everything else. And does not require a cause.
    Although your critique is a fair one, I think the fundamental contradiction is still a valid one.

    If we want to say that god just is, and needs no cause, then assume that at some point in the past nothing just was, then god has to be nothing.

    The thing about quantum particles is, it doesn't matter if the quantum energy is positive, negative, or 0, the same will always happen. Think about it like debt and credit. These are things which are literally created out of nothing. When you buy on credit, you accumulate debt and the issuer gets the credit. Quantum particles are the same way, when one is created a "hole" or it's equal but opposite is created with it. These fall back together and everything stays roughly the same. If you buy on credit it doesn't matter if you are rich, broke, or already have a lot of debt (except that human factors get in the way, but we will ignore these for now)

    To clarify the time singularity, time would look like this:
    Image result for y  log x

    Time would be moving to the right (x) and rate of time would be horizontal axis (y). Right now, we are on the flat part of the graph, so time seems to move at a constant rate. However, if we go backwards in time, then rate of time starts to slow down, approaching negative infinity, and real time never moves past 0. Thus there is an infinite past. So to answer your question, why have we not reached the heat death of the universe, it is because time has only sped up recently.

    Saying "god just is" is a fallacy because the premise is included in the definition. For example, if I define unicorns and dragons as "magical creatures which are always just out of sight" that doesn't mean that unicorns and dragons exist but always just out of sight. In order to truly prove that a god, gods, or other mythical beings exist you need to provide evidence. It is possible that the universe had no first cause or that nothing is the only thing that never existed (don't think about that one too hard) and at any rate, there is no need to invoke a god to explain the universe. However our knowledge will always be finite, it is a physical impossibility to ever be able to know everything, and it will always be tempting to point to some divine power to explain everything away.

    On a scale of 1-7 (1 completely sure there is no god, 7 completely sure there is a god) how would you rank yourself?
    RegressiveludditePlaffelvohfenDeeZeusAres42
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.

  • At this point this is merely a discussion on the origin of the universe. We have not gotten to the religion of Christianity yet. I was not arguing for the particular doctrines of the New Testament. Just that there is a Creator.
    ZeusAres42

  • Thanks for your clarification, however, due to my own density, I think I still need further.

    "...then assume at some point in the past, nothing just was, and God has to be nothing."

    I'm not sure I'm with you. Can you unpack that a bit more?

    Yes the virtual particles do some very strange things. And I don't think we can disagree on that. However, in order to get there virtual particles to come into being at all, there has to be a vacuum, there has to be energy, there has to be space, no less a scientist overseeing the entire operation.

    Those are something. Not nothing. So I think the first premise is still safe.

    In regards to the time discussion, again I think I need more clarification.

    If I understand your reasoning correctly, it seems you're saying that as time slows down in the past, eventually it slows down so much the universe is not using energy as fast as it is now, which means it was conserving energy that whole time?

    I'm not sure if that's what you're arguing, so I'm not going to reply to that too much just yet. But I will ask how that meshes with the BGV theorem which is the most widely accepted and evidenced model?

    In regards to dragons and God just existing of Himself, I don't think I was clear enough.

    When I say that God just is, I don't think I'm commiting special pleading for a few reasons I mentioned to Dee.

    1. The cause of time space and matter has to be outside of time.

    A being that is outside of time is not subject to temporal becoming.

    Temporal becoming affects entities in the spacetime continuum. God is outside that continuum.

    This leads to a slightly different cosmological argument which will sample briefly to illustrate my point.

    Imagine a chain of boxcars that are all in motion. No box car in and of itself can move itself.

    Each box car has to be set in motion by another box car, which is set in motion by another box car, by another box car.

    However we know these cars must be pulled by something that can move itself. Something containing in itself the principle of motion.

    That's the engine car. Now replace box cars with things that exist contingently, that is everything in our experience. Nothing we experience contains in itself the explanation for it's existence. So it must be actualized by something containing in itself the principle of existence, or a Being that is not contingent but exists necessarily. Thus this Being, being analogous to an engine car, has His existence in and of Himself. Or He has aseity as we usually say.

    I digress now but hopefully this illustrated that my "special pleading" is not arbitrary and thus not fallacious.

    On a scale of one to seven I'm a seven.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @Regressiveluddite

    ****1. Any cause of time space and matter has to be outside of time. 



    You’re making a special claim regards a god as in a god is uncaused  If you want to get into the game of deciding that there is no cause for the first cause, then it would be far simpler to simply decide that the universe itself has no cause 


    ****A Being outside of time cannot have a beginning.


    That again is special pleading you how do you prove such a being exists ? How if you prove such a being do you prove it had no beginning?




    ***2. Any first cause is just that. A first cause. It cannot have a cause preceding it.


     The assumption that causality applies to the universe may not be true, how do you prove such?


    When we talk of a singularity we talk of that as the start of space and time any mention of before that is meaningless as as someone once said is like “what is South of the South Pole 




    ****3. Unless we terminate the causal chain with an uncaused cause, we have an infinite regress of causes, and that becomes problematic.


    We don’t as explained above 



    ****In order to demonstrate I committed special pleading, it would have to be proven that I have made an abitrary acception to the rule, as opposed to correctly defining a first cause. 


    I have demonstrated special pleading on your part , what “rule “ are you referring too?



    Even at that how do you get from deism to theism ?

    PlaffelvohfenBlastcat
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Regressiveluddite

    **** Just that there is a Creator.

    Indeed but yet this is only the prelude as I intimated to you positing a particular god eventually,  this argument always proceeds along this line , tell me if I’m wrong you are a Christian yes?  
    PlaffelvohfenBlastcat
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @Regressiveluddite

    No, the first premise isn't safe, because we still don't know if nothing can exist at all. The point about vacuum energy and space is that they exist, so even that which we would normally think of as nothing is something.

    This begs the question: Can "nothing" in the philosophical sense, ever exist at all? In other words, how do we know that at any point there was "nothing"?

    And if this nothing contained god, was it really nothing?

    The time slowing explanation is just to demonstrate how there need not be a first cause, because all the energy was always here, and the rate of causality ( aka, the speed of light) is actually variable and in the distant past was much slower. There is a lot of theoretical physics here I can't claim to be knowledgeable enough on to do any kind of justice, so I'm afraid I can't get much more specific than this, except to say that it is a possibility that the past was infinite. The universe doesn't "use" energy, entropy increases and the amount of energy stays constant. But it can only increase at the rate of causality (aka speed of light) so if the rate of causality was much slower in he past, then everything happens in slow-motion. What this would mean for the expanding universe, is that as it gets smaller time moves slower (we know this happens) meaning that "the big bang" is a total misnomer, because it would have seemed to have taken milliseconds in our time, but eons in anything in that universe at the time.

    As for the train analogy, might I ask what precedes the train?

    The problem is with this analogy is that it doesn't solve the problem. Something had to have caused the train if we are to say that it is the first mover, in this case it is the combustion of fuel and the manufacture of the train to begin with. These things all needed a cause, which has to be traced back even further, and so on. This leads us to draw the conclusion that maybe there isn't a "first cause" but rather an infinite chain of causes that has no beginning, and/or loops on itself. The problem with the argument is that if everything needs a cause, then the cause of all causes needs to have a cause, even if it is outside of time, because something had to happen in order to "cause" time to exist.

    If you are absolutely certain that god exists, then is there anything, any evidence, or any proof that would make you doubt that there is a god?
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.

  • If the universe has no cause that is to say the universe came from nothing. Nothing cannot bring about something.

    It is not special pleading because the idea of something having a beginning can only apply to space time. Anything outside of spacetime cannot be subject to temporal becoming.

    Simply saying causality may not apply to the universe is abitrary. Something cannot come from nothing and this is confirmed by our inference.

    What reasons do you have to believe that the universe does not require a cause?

    What reasons do you have for believing the universe is eternal?
  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    @Dee Atheists are much worse in character and as people than the descriptors you used...just so you know.
    Blastcat


  • ***"No, the first premise isn't safe, because we still don't know if nothing can exist at all. The point about vacuum energy and space is that they exist, so even that which we would normally think of as nothing is something."

    The last part is exactly my point. The quantum vacuum is not nothing.

    In regards to your question, nothing cannot exist, nothing is the absence of existence. We don't have positive examples of nothing because nothing is the absence of something. Asking can nothing exist is asking can non existence exist.

    I don't argue that before the universe there was this thing called nothing, and God dwelled in that thing. I argue that before the universe there was something namely God.


    In regards to time and entropy, even if the time was slowed to such a degree that we were approaching complete entropy extremely slowly, we are still approaching entropy nonetheless. Given an infinite amount of time, what hasn't that happened?

    If it hasn't happened in an infinite amount of time, then it truly can't happen can it? But it can and will happen. I don't see this as solving the problem.


    The train analogy is just an illustration to show principles. i.e. Things cannot explain themselves if they don't have the explanation of themselves in themselves.

    If you posit an infinite regress, the problem arises that we never get an explanation of anything.

    The cause of A is pushed back to B. The cause of B is pushed back to C, the cause of entity quadrillion and two is pushed back to entity quadrillion and three. An explanation is never reached.

    And existence then has to traverse an infinite chain, and that becomes as problematic as trying to reach zero from negative infinity . (Another reason the universe can't be eternal)


    For your last question, I don't think anything in human experience could convince me God does not exist, because I personally hold to a variety of beliefs that would make that impossible. For example, I hold to the belief that human experience is only intelligible if God exists.

    In other words, cognitive faculties, sensory perception, reason, induction, I believe are all dependent on God. So nothing those things produce could dissuade me.

    What about you? Are you certain that God does not exist?

  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD

    ***** Atheists are much worse in character and as people than the descriptors you used...just so you know.

    What you mean to say is your opinion of Atheists is such , Christians where I live certainly do not think that way but then again it takes a certain type of American “Christian “ to truly hate if this site is anything to go on 
    PlaffelvohfenBlastcat
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Regressiveluddite

    ***** If the universe has no cause that is to say the universe came from nothing. Nothing cannot bring about something. 

    How do you go about proving that assertion? Talking about before a singularity is meaningless 

    ****It is not special pleading because the idea of something having a beginning can only apply to space time. 

    Prove it? 

    ** *Anything outside of spacetime cannot be subject to temporal becoming.

    We have no evidence of such you’re still special pleading 

    ****Simply saying causality may not apply to the universe is abitrary. Something cannot come from nothing and this is confirmed by our inference.

    I’ve asked you to prove this ? 

    ****What reasons do you have to believe that the universe does not require a cause? 

    I never said I believed that 

    ****What reasons do you have for believing the universe is eternal?

    I never said I believed that either 


    Blastcat

  • How would I go about proving that something cannot come from nothing?

    I think it is definitionally true. How do you prove that triangles have three sides? Well you could draw a triangle and count the sides, or you can look at the definition of TRI angle.

    So when I say nothing cannot bring about something, I am saying that nothing is total absence of being. Nothing cannot bring about something because total absence of being does not contain any properties, causal power, ability to produce effects, nothing is not extended in space, does not contain energy, does not affect matter, and does nothing because nothing is nothing. Since nothing is nothing it contains no ability to bring about something.


    Do you agree?

    I apologise if I misrepresented your beliefs. What do you believe about the universe?
  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    @Dee ; Atheists are liars and a dreg in any society they dwell...generally speaking.
    PlaffelvohfenBlastcat
  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    @Dee ; Atheists are deceivers and a dreg in any society they dwell...generally speaking.
    PlaffelvohfenBlastcat
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @Regressiveluddite

    If god is something, and everything must have a cause, then what caused god?

    If we have no reason to believe that abstract nothing is a thing, then isn't it a foregone conclusion that something must have happened to cause god?

    I guess I can't explain the concept of an infinite past where rate of time approaches negative infinity without just looking at the math, and explaining it that way. The problem with your assumption that given an infinite amount of time that everything should have already happened is the same as the classic problem of Achelies and the tortoise race. If the tortoise gets a head start, then the athlete closes the distance, how is it possible that he can ever pass it, given that the tortoise moves a little as the athlete catches up? The older you get, the slower time moves. So at t = 0, the rate of time is negative infinity, thus it will take an infinite amount of time for time to move at all, because there is a singularity at t=0.

    I just don't see any problem with the advent of a potentially infinite past, why isn't this possible?

    If I or anyone could demonstrate to your satisfaction that cognitive faculties, sensory perception, and reason, could all exist without a god, would you change your mind?

    Personally, on that scale above I would be a 1.5. I think that all major religions are definitely inventions of man, and this is self evident by examination of the fundamental contradictions between each and the fact that we can observe it happening in the almost monthly formation of cults. At most, only 1 set of beliefs can be true and at least 0. The fact that people can and do invent gods suggests that there is something in our psychology that demands belief in some kind of greater power, either to calm us down or just to justify our place in the world. However, this provides a bit of a conundrum, because if you examine all religions at the same time you can tell that they are not all true, but if you look at any one independently you can not determine if it is false. Speaking of quantum mechanics, this is the closest you can get to a classical intuitive understanding of how fundamental particles are both particles and waves, and it is impossible to know the velocity and position of a particle at the same time.

    However, the hard problem of deism is not so easily solved, because it is fundamentally not falsifiable. I can never know for 100% sure if there is or is not a god, gods, or other mythical beings, however If I were to see such a thing I would have no choice but to believe it. For this reason I tend to accept that it is possible that a god exists, I tend not to worry about it because it isn't pragmatic to do so. If there is a god, things are exactly how they are. If there isn't things are exactly how they are. So it doesn't matter much either way.

    Another thing that bothers me is Christian nationalism in the US, and of course Islamic terrorism. When people try to justify politics on religion, that bothers me, because the US is still fundamentally secular in accordance with the first amendment. While I respect the rights of people to practice whatever religion they choose, I don't like it when people think that their religious ideals should be imposed on everyone because some people have faith in it. There can be no freedom of religion without freedom from religion.
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Regressiveluddite

    **** How would I go about proving that something cannot come from nothing?

    I don’t know but the burden of proof lies with you as you say it cannot be 

    ***I think it is definitionally true

    Thats your subjective opinion yes 

    . ***How do you prove that triangles have three sides? Well you could draw a triangle and count the sides, or you can look at the definition of TRI angle.

    Yes 

    ***So when I say nothing cannot bring about something, I am saying that nothing is total absence of being. 

    Yes 

    ***Nothing cannot bring about something because total absence of being does not contain any properties, causal power, ability to produce effects, nothing is not extended in space, does not contain energy, does not affect matter, and does nothing because nothing is nothing. Since nothing is nothing it contains no ability to bring about something.

    Yet you’re after saying you cannot prove it right?

    ****Do you agree? 

    No as I don’t as I don’t have the knowledge to make such statements and claim them as truths 

    ****I apologise if I misrepresented your beliefs. What do you believe about the univers

    It’s all good my friend , I believe I don’t have nor will I ever have the answers to such questions but maybe future generations will

    If you don’t mind me asking why do you not use the same line or reasoning when you claim god as uncaused what justification do you have for such?
    Blastcat
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD

    *****  Atheists are deceivers and a dreg in any society they dwell...generally speaking. 

    Right thank you for the Westboro Baptist’s views 
    PlaffelvohfenBlastcat
  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    @Dee ; I simply tell you the Truth...you, the atheist, represent evil in our World as you are an enemy of my God, truth, life, dignity, hope and therefore my enemy as well...you are to be treated with caution and I have zero respect for the atheist...and I am not affiliated with WBC.
    PlaffelvohfenBlastcat
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD
    I am not affiliated with WBC.
    You're too unhinged even for them... No small feat imo...


    DeeZeusAres42
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Regressiveluddite

    God is not mentioned in this syllogism. I'm happy to accept the universe had a cause as the reasoning presented argues, but it takes a leap of logic to conclude this was God. 
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.

  • Thanks for your reply. I don't think I have committed the special pleading fallacy for a variety of reasons.


    1. Any cause of time space and matter has to be outside of time. A Being outside of time cannot have a beginning.

    2. Any first cause is just that. A first cause. It cannot have a cause preceding it.

    3. Unless we terminate the causal chain with an uncaused cause, we have an infinite regress of causes, and that becomes problematic.


    In order to demonstrate I committed special pleading, it would have to be proven that I have made an abitrary acception to the rule, as opposed to correctly defining a first cause.

    @Regressiveluddite You are correct that you didn't commit a special pleading fallacy but not for the reasons you have highlighted. But more because of what special pleading actually is. There is nothing in your OP to suggest the following:

    Description: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification.  Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.

    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Special-Pleading


    However, I do think the argument you put forward for believing in God is not a strong one. This is also one that William Lane Graig often uses and which he not so long ago got pointed out one or more errors in this argument by Physicist Sean Carroll who said: "The problem with this argument is that the premise is false!" And then, quite amusingly he went on to say "But there is an even bigger problem with the premise and that is it's not even false." I also noticed that @Happy_Killbot said a similar thing a few posts up.  You can see an excerpt from the video here:


    To respond to your assertion that it is reasonable to believe in God I would also have to agree but not for the reason you provide. I see it as reasonable to believe in either a Theistic or Deistic God just as it is reasonable to be an Atheist. Now, the reasoning behind believing or not believing in a Deity may not be very good or very strong and it's definitely not based on formal logic but it is still reasonable nonetheless.



  •  

    Welcome to DebateIland Regressiveluddite

    P3 Since the universe is the sum totality of time-space and matter, a cause of the universe must be immaterial, spaceless, and outside time. We reason this Cause is God.

    The universe is the sum total of energy, matter, and space. In a simple translation to a complex principle time is a way to create an artificial stillness

  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @ZeusAres42


    ***** You are correct that you didn't commit a special pleading fallacy but not for the reasons you have highlighted. But more because of what special pleading actually is. There is nothing in your OP to suggest the following:

    You failed to recognise that below his first 3 points he fleshed each point out in his overview  for clarity. 

    He is not correct and neither are you I’m afraid , the cosmological argument is recognised  as a pretty good example of special pleading , he has stated in p:3 ...... . Since the universe is the sum totality of time space and matter, a cause of the universe must be immaterial, spaceless, and outside time. We reason this Cause is God.

    This is a perfect example of special pleading as in he has set up the conditions and then made an exception to these conditions by introducing god as in .....We reason this cause is god .

    That you fail to see this as special pleading surprises me to say the least.


    Special pleading (or claiming that something is an overwhelming exception) is a logical fallacy asking for an exception to a rule to be applied to a specific case, without proper justification of why that case deserves an exemption. Usually this is because in order for an argument to work, a proponent needs to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency — in a lot of cases, this will be the fact that the argument contradicts past arguments or actions. Therefore, proponents introduce a "special case" or an exception to their rules. While this is acceptable in genuine special cases, it becomes a fallacy when a person doesn't adequately justify why the case is special.

    The fallacy is a conditional fallacy, because special cases do exist; in other cases, the fallacy is circular ad hoc.




    Blastcat
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD

    ****  I simply tell you the Truth...

    You don’t you’re a compulsive  

    ***you, the atheist, represent evil in our World as you are an enemy of my God,

    Do I indeed , yet you’re the hater not I ......You are an enemy of other gods so using your logic you’re evil 



    *****truth, life, dignity, hope and therefore my enemy as well...you are to be treated with caution and I have zero respect for the atheist...and I am not affiliated with WBC. 

    I would say you’re a fully paid up member of the WBC which is the reason you refuse to name your particular denomination sorry I mean  abomination , you’re ashamed to name it aren’t you?
    PlaffelvohfenBlastcat
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD

    ****  I simply tell you the Truth...

    You don’t you’re a compulsive  

    ***you, the atheist, represent evil in our World as you are an enemy of my God,

    Do I indeed , yet you’re the hater not I ......You are an enemy of other gods so using your logic you’re evil 



    *****truth, life, dignity, hope and therefore my enemy as well...you are to be treated with caution and I have zero respect for the atheist...and I am not affiliated with WBC. 

    I would say you’re a fully paid up member of the WBC which is the reason you refuse to name your particular denomination sorry I mean  abomination , you’re ashamed to name it aren’t you?
    Blastcat
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD

    ****  I simply tell you the Truth...

    You don’t you’re a compulsive  

    ***you, the atheist, represent evil in our World as you are an enemy of my God,

    Do I indeed , yet you’re the hater not I ......You are an enemy of other gods so using your logic you’re evil 



    *****truth, life, dignity, hope and therefore my enemy as well...you are to be treated with caution and I have zero respect for the atheist...and I am not affiliated with WBC. 

    I would say you’re a fully paid up member of the WBC which is the reason you refuse to name your particular denomination sorry I mean  abomination , you’re ashamed to name it aren’t you?
    Blastcat
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @SkepticalOne

    **** God is not mentioned in this syllogism.

    God is mentioned everyone is ignoring what he said in his overview ....... We reason this Cause is God.

    ****quick overview of the premises.


    P1. Nothing cannot bring about something. Nothing, by definition, is not anything. It is the absence of being. Nothing has no properties, nothing has no causal power. P1 is a metaphysical truth, with constant confirmation from our inference.

    P2. The scientific evidence strongly suggest the universe had a beginning. The BGV theorem maintains that any universe which is expanding (our own) had a beginning in the finite past. The second law of thermodynamics would render an eternal universe impossible, given the tendency of closed systems to always increase in entropy. There are also good philosophical reasons to believe the past is finite.

    P3. Since the universe is the sum totality of time space and matter, a cause of the universe must be immaterial, spaceless, and outside time. We reason this Cause is God.



    Blastcat
  • Normal_1Normal_1 54 Pts   -  
    We reason this Cause is God. Regressiveluddite

    I think you are making a giant leap from your reasons (and they are reasonable) to your conclusion, i.e. God.

    The problem I have is trying to rationalize "something has to come from something".
    If we are to accept that then we have to accept that the something that something comes from must also come from something.......and on we go forever, never actually resolving the question, "where do we come from". 

    Labeling the unknown as God is simply a lazy man's way out in filling the gap with something. Look at where it gets us. We start personifying this "unknown commodity" then making rules and myths about the commodity.

    The fact is that we simply don't know and the only way we will finally know (and we will) is by continually asking questions, not making up definitive answers.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @Dee

    The syllogism argues for a cause,  not god. How the OP explains the syllogism does change what can be logically concluded from it.
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.





  • Thank you guys very much for all your insight. Replying to each person individually at this point is a bit of a chore so I thought I'd post this general statement to clear up some objections I've seen several times throughout the thread.

    It seems there are some very underdeveloped versions of "the cosmological argument" that float around in pop culture, and I think this version (if we can call it that)  is the one that comes to mind in some of these objections I've seen.

    Just for clarity I would like to point out there are several versions of the cosmological argument, the main ones:


    1. The Kalam cosmological argument.

    2. The Leibnizian cosmological argument.

    3. The argument from motion

    4. The argument from composition

    5. The argument from contingency (another version of two).

    I bring this up because in all these versions, these phrases never once appear

    "Everything needs a cause"

    "Something always comes from something"

    The arguments state the following

    The Kalam (everything which began to exist requires a cause)

    The Leibnizian (Everything which exists has an explanation for it's existence, whether through an outside entity or within it's own necessity)

    Argument from motion (Any entity that goes from potential to actual must be actualized by an actualizer.)

    Argument from composition (any entity composed of parts must have been brought together by an entity not composed of parts)

    Argument from contingency (any entity that does not contain in itself the reason for it's existence is dependent on an entity that does.)


    None of these arguments make the claim everything comes from something. That would indeed be fallacious.

    So my point is, had I argued that, it would be quite reasonable to say "Why is not God subject to this rule?" And any attempt to exempt God from this rule would be special pleading. But that was never the rule, as everything does not require an outside cause. In this argument it was argued everything that **began** to exist needed a cause.


    Now onto the second main objection, is it a jump to go from a cause to calling this cause God? I don't think so for the following reasons.


    1. A cause of time space and matter must be not in, extended, and composed of the three. They did not exist before their cause, therefore their cause is something entirely other.

    2. The only thing we know of that are not material and spacial are abstract objects. (Numbers, laws of logic etc)

    3. The problem is an abstract object cannot bring about a cause. I can't trip over the number seven.

    The truth of the proposition "regressiveluddite can't debate" cannot cause any physical effects, no less actualize an entire universe.

    Abstracts don't have causal power.

    Therefore it follows this cause must have been something not just immaterial but something that can exercise causal power.

    An immaterial power that caused the universe is getting mighty close to what we call God.

    But one may object, the cause need not be personal. Perhaps we just don't know what the cause was.

    To that I close with this argument

    If the cause was sufficient to bring about the effect, and the cause was there for all eternity, then the effect should have been there for all eternity.

    But if the universe began, and was brought about by said cause at ***a certain point***, one must logically reason that the cause ***chose*** to bring about the effect.

    An immaterial power that has a will to choose...

    That sounds compellingy like God.
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne Gold Premium Member 1628 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @Regressiveluddite

    ****"That sounds compellingy like God."

    It sounds exactly like universe creating pixies to me. ;-)
    Plaffelvohfen
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @Regressiveluddite Even reexplaining the argument, we still run into the same problems as before.

    How do we know that the universe absolutely had a cause? What if the universe itself was always here, as I showed is possible if the universe had an infinite past where time moved slower until very recently, and an infinite future after this point?

    Suppose the universe created itself, due to the topology of time space branching off and curving back on itself?

    This is a possible scenario where, the cause of time, space, and matter is within itself. They did not exist before themselves, and in fact they have no starting point the way a circle doesn't have a starting point. Nothing needs to chose to make this happen, it just is, and it would invalidate the first assumption, ". A cause of time space and matter must be not in, extended, and composed of the three. They did not exist before their cause, therefore their cause is something entirely other."
    PlaffelvohfenDee
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • It is reasonable to believe God exists. Why? G, O, and D can all be numbers written as letters. Those numbers can then be used to form of mathematical problems and solutions. Math can be used to describe many things people see without the use of pictures or writing of words.

    Making it reasonable to believe God exists.

  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne

    He did say " quick overview of the premises "so a god was a part of the syllogism although merely called a cause in his opening remarks 
    PlaffelvohfenBlastcat
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2673 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    John_C_87 said:

     

    Welcome to DebateIland Regressiveluddite

    P3 Since the universe is the sum totality of time-space and matter, a cause of the universe must be immaterial, spaceless, and outside time. We reason this Cause is God.

    The universe is the sum total of energy, matter, and space. In a simple translation to a complex principle time is a way to create an artificial stillness


    I had to read this twice as I first thought you said "welcome to the Universe" lmao @John_C_87



  • Dee said:
    @SkepticalOne

    He did say " quick overview of the premises "so a god was a part of the syllogism although merely called a cause in his opening remarks 
    Yes, I understand, but the syllogism can only argue for what it concludes, and that was not a god, but a "cause". That cause could be universe creating pixies, natural processes we don't understand, god, etc. My point is that is takes a leap of logic to get from 'cause' to any of these specific things.
    ZeusAres42
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Regressiveluddite

    ***** And any attempt to exempt God from this rule would be special pleading. 

    Yes 

    ****But that was never the rule, as everything does not require an outside cause. 

    Again you’re attempting to introduce a god through the back door 

    ****In this argument it was argued everything that **began** to exist needed a cause.

    Yes , but how do you demonstrate this? 


    ****Now onto the second main objection, is it a jump to go from a cause to calling this cause God?

    Yes it is , this is text book special pleading you set up the parameters then exempt your god from it , you label your god “a cause” which traps the unwary into in fairness a deft piece of verbal deception 

    ****= I don't think so for the following reasons.


    1. A cause of time space and matter must be not in, extended, and composed of the three. They did not exist before their cause, therefore their cause is something entirely other.

    Again how do you know this? 

    2. The only thing we know of that are not material and spacial are abstract objects. (Numbers, laws of logic etc)

    Yet you claim to know more than that 

    ****3. The problem is an abstract object cannot bring about a cause. I can't trip over the number seven.

    I don’t know where you going with this 

    *****The truth of the proposition "regressiveluddite can't debate" cannot cause any physical effects, no less actualize an entire universe.

    Abstracts don't have causal power.

    Therefore it follows this cause must have been something not just immaterial but something that can exercise causal power.

    Sorry that makes no sense to me 

    ****An immaterial power that caused the universe is getting mighty close to what we call God. 

    It’s now a power / cause / god 

    *****But one may object, the cause need not be personal. Perhaps we just don't know what the cause was. 

    I prefer to say I don’t know , it’s remarkable in science we look for answers yet believers claim to have them all as in anything unexplainable well Godidit 

    ****To that I close with this argument

    If the cause was sufficient to bring about the effect, and the cause was there for all eternity, then the effect should have been there for all eternity. 

    But if the universe began, and was brought about by said cause at ***a certain point***, one must logically reason that the cause ***chose*** to bring about the effect.

    An immaterial power that has a will to choose...

    That sounds compellingy like God 

    You seem like a decent guy and a good debater but I’m afraid your whole argument fails 

    Your opening word in this statement is if which is why the whole argument fails as it’s based on speculation nothing else and is textbook special pleading 

       
    Blastcat
  • @ZeusAres42 ;

    I did, pulls out MIB neutralizer, puts sunglasses on, can you look right here for me pleaseB) .


    ZeusAres42
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch