Questions for Atheist in America

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

Logical proofs for God are interesting if not entirely convincing. The cosmological argument is especially powerful (though not necessarily bulletproof). This is how I normally put it:

That which is in motion must have been put in motion by an external force.
The universe is in motion.
Therefore, the universe was put in motion by an external force.
That force, we call God.

Either the first premise is false, or the argument stands. The first premise SEEMS true, but it can be gotten around (infinite regress, causal loop, something else entirely which we’ve never even heard of yet, etc.) In my opinion, an infinite regress is tougher to believe in than an uncontingent God.

302

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Logical proofs for God are interesting if not entirely convincing. The cosmological argument is especially powerful (though not necessarily bulletproof). This is how I normally put it:

That which is in motion must have been put in motion by an external force.
The universe is in motion.
Therefore, the universe was put in motion by an external force.
That force, we call God.

Either the first premise is false, or the argument stands. The first premise SEEMS true, but it can be gotten around (infinite regress, causal loop, something else entirely which we’ve never even heard of yet, etc.) In my opinion, an infinite regress is tougher to believe in than an uncontingent God.[/quote]

You have several premises in there, for example that the “law of causation”, if it indeed exists, must also apply “outside” or “before” the known universe.

That is quite an assumption if spacetime without which causatioin as we understand it is nonexistent, came into existence with the universe.

If there was no “before” in the way we understand it, to claim that something was “caused” is meaningless.

303

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Logical proofs for God are interesting if not entirely convincing. The cosmological argument is especially powerful (though not necessarily bulletproof). This is how I normally put it:

That which is in motion must have been put in motion by an external force.
The universe is in motion.
Therefore, the universe was put in motion by an external force.
That force, we call God.

Either the first premise is false, or the argument stands. The first premise SEEMS true, but it can be gotten around (infinite regress, causal loop, something else entirely which we’ve never even heard of yet, etc.) In my opinion, an infinite regress is tougher to believe in than an uncontingent God.[/quote]

You have several premises in there, for example that the “law of causation”, if it indeed exists, must also apply “outside” or “before” the known universe.

That is quite an assumption if spacetime without which causatioin as we understand it is nonexistent, came into existence with the universe.

If there was no “before” in the way we understand it, to claim that something was “caused” is meaningless.

[/quote]

Very true. We can’t know if the laws that we understand to be sacrosanct in the natural world apply at the moment of creation.

304

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Logical proofs for God are interesting if not entirely convincing. The cosmological argument is especially powerful (though not necessarily bulletproof). This is how I normally put it:

That which is in motion must have been put in motion by an external force.
The universe is in motion.
Therefore, the universe was put in motion by an external force.
That force, we call God.

Either the first premise is false, or the argument stands. The first premise SEEMS true, but it can be gotten around (infinite regress, causal loop, something else entirely which we’ve never even heard of yet, etc.) In my opinion, an infinite regress is tougher to believe in than an uncontingent God.[/quote]

You have several premises in there, for example that the “law of causation”, if it indeed exists, must also apply “outside” or “before” the known universe.

That is quite an assumption if spacetime without which causatioin as we understand it is nonexistent, came into existence with the universe.

If there was no “before” in the way we understand it, to claim that something was “caused” is meaningless.

[/quote]Assumption is another way of saying “faith” without using that terrible word. Could you please tell me what, in your reality, is NOT built on assumption in some form?

305

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Logical proofs for God are interesting if not entirely convincing. The cosmological argument is especially powerful (though not necessarily bulletproof). This is how I normally put it:

That which is in motion must have been put in motion by an external force.
The universe is in motion.
Therefore, the universe was put in motion by an external force.
That force, we call God.

Either the first premise is false, or the argument stands. The first premise SEEMS true, but it can be gotten around (infinite regress, causal loop, something else entirely which we’ve never even heard of yet, etc.) In my opinion, an infinite regress is tougher to believe in than an uncontingent God.[/quote]

You have several premises in there, for example that the “law of causation”, if it indeed exists, must also apply “outside” or “before” the known universe.

That is quite an assumption if spacetime without which causatioin as we understand it is nonexistent, came into existence with the universe.

If there was no “before” in the way we understand it, to claim that something was “caused” is meaningless.

[/quote]Assumption is another way of saying “faith” without using that terrible word. Could you please tell me what, in your reality, is NOT built on assumption in some form?
[/quote]

Practically nothing, except for those things that I take for granted and therefore do not question.

I would however seriously question myself if I conttradicted myself in one and the same sentence and repeteadly failed to notice.

306

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Logical proofs for God are interesting if not entirely convincing. The cosmological argument is especially powerful (though not necessarily bulletproof). This is how I normally put it:

That which is in motion must have been put in motion by an external force.
The universe is in motion.
Therefore, the universe was put in motion by an external force.
That force, we call God.

Either the first premise is false, or the argument stands. The first premise SEEMS true, but it can be gotten around (infinite regress, causal loop, something else entirely which we’ve never even heard of yet, etc.) In my opinion, an infinite regress is tougher to believe in than an uncontingent God.[/quote]

You have several premises in there, for example that the “law of causation”, if it indeed exists, must also apply “outside” or “before” the known universe.

That is quite an assumption if spacetime without which causatioin as we understand it is nonexistent, came into existence with the universe.

If there was no “before” in the way we understand it, to claim that something was “caused” is meaningless.

[/quote]Assumption is another way of saying “faith” without using that terrible word. Could you please tell me what, in your reality, is NOT built on assumption in some form?
[/quote]

Assumptions are not the problem.

Making absolute declarations based on those assumptions, while refusing to admit you could be wrong, is the problem.

307

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]garcia1970 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

By definition, God, or when arguing in this vain I prefer ‘Uncaused-Cause’ is necessarily true because the premises make it so. By definition and uncaused-cause cannot be caused, or it’s not uncaused. If God is this Uncaused-cause, he cannot be caused because it would be impossible for him to be otherwise.
[/quote]

Oooookkkkay, so I simply postulate that the universe is uncaused and viola, case closed.

Becaaauuuussse, if you say that everything needs a cause and then simply invent an uncaused cause, who has no cause, because that is how you defined him, I can do that too.

You can choose between the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and the universe itself.

Circular reasoning is circular.

[/quote]
3
That is freaking hilarious! We at least agree on something!![/quote]

That you don’t know shit about cosmology? Yep, I agree…Two peas in a pod.[/quote]

Oh please, your argument is rubbish.

[/quote]

(Yawn) Wake me when you have an actual counter argument that isn’t dumb and actually addresses the argument.
Your ad hominem is rubbish.[/quote]

What counter argument?

You claim that everything must have a cause and then immediately postulate an uncaused cause.

That is prima facie absurd and not an argument.

Also, that was not an ad hominem.

U R a poophead therefore what you said is wrong would be an ad hominem.

Your argument is rubbish was a statement of fact.[/quote]

It necessitates it, you are to thick to understand apparently, like I said prove it wrong, genius. ‘Rubbish’ is not a counter argument. Here’s a link, complete with actual counter arguments, prove it wrong or STFU…

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

It’s one page, should not be that hard.[/quote]

I cannot prove something wrong that you just pull out of your ass.

It is beyond the human experience and therefore unfalsifiable.

Incidentally, you can find my objection under point 4.[/quote]

I pulled it out of my ass? You give me far more credit than I deserve. Fair enough you admitted you can’t beat it, so what is your point?
Just so we’re clear, arguments you cannot refute and don’t believe are ‘rubbish’ or in American ‘garbage’ because you say so? You sound like a nobel laureate. [/quote]

No, arguments that are not falsifiable by design are rubbish.

Especially if they contradict themselves.

[/quote]

Oh? Where is the contradiction?[/quote]

You claim that everything has a cause and that it all started with a god.

What caused him/it/whatever?

[/quote]

The Uncaused-cause cannot have a cause or it’s not uncaused. By definition, the question is irrelevant.

308

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]garcia1970 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

By definition, God, or when arguing in this vain I prefer ‘Uncaused-Cause’ is necessarily true because the premises make it so. By definition and uncaused-cause cannot be caused, or it’s not uncaused. If God is this Uncaused-cause, he cannot be caused because it would be impossible for him to be otherwise.
[/quote]

Oooookkkkay, so I simply postulate that the universe is uncaused and viola, case closed.

Becaaauuuussse, if you say that everything needs a cause and then simply invent an uncaused cause, who has no cause, because that is how you defined him, I can do that too.

You can choose between the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and the universe itself.

Circular reasoning is circular.

[/quote]
3
That is freaking hilarious! We at least agree on something!![/quote]

That you don’t know shit about cosmology? Yep, I agree…Two peas in a pod.[/quote]

Oh please, your argument is rubbish.

[/quote]

(Yawn) Wake me when you have an actual counter argument that isn’t dumb and actually addresses the argument.
Your ad hominem is rubbish.[/quote]

What counter argument?

You claim that everything must have a cause and then immediately postulate an uncaused cause.

That is prima facie absurd and not an argument.

Also, that was not an ad hominem.

U R a poophead therefore what you said is wrong would be an ad hominem.

Your argument is rubbish was a statement of fact.[/quote]

It necessitates it, you are to thick to understand apparently, like I said prove it wrong, genius. ‘Rubbish’ is not a counter argument. Here’s a link, complete with actual counter arguments, prove it wrong or STFU…

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

It’s one page, should not be that hard.[/quote]

I cannot prove something wrong that you just pull out of your ass.

It is beyond the human experience and therefore unfalsifiable.

Incidentally, you can find my objection under point 4.[/quote]

I pulled it out of my ass? You give me far more credit than I deserve. Fair enough you admitted you can’t beat it, so what is your point?
Just so we’re clear, arguments you cannot refute and don’t believe are ‘rubbish’ or in American ‘garbage’ because you say so? You sound like a nobel laureate. [/quote]

No, arguments that are not falsifiable by design are rubbish.

Especially if they contradict themselves.

[/quote]

Oh? Where is the contradiction?[/quote]

You claim that everything has a cause and that it all started with a god.

What caused him/it/whatever?

[/quote]

He believes god is an uncaused cause.

Which of course contradicts the “Law” that everything has a cause.[/quote]

No, a ‘law’ resulting from cosmology means that one thing does not have a cause, this must be the case. It violates nothing, you just don’t understand it. It’s very, very basic. The conclusion is defined by the premises directly. This must be the case and there is no wiggle room.

309

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Logical proofs for God are interesting if not entirely convincing. The cosmological argument is especially powerful (though not necessarily bulletproof). This is how I normally put it:

That which is in motion must have been put in motion by an external force.
The universe is in motion.
Therefore, the universe was put in motion by an external force.
That force, we call God.

Either the first premise is false, or the argument stands. The first premise SEEMS true, but it can be gotten around (infinite regress, causal loop, something else entirely which we’ve never even heard of yet, etc.) In my opinion, an infinite regress is tougher to believe in than an uncontingent God.[/quote]

You have several premises in there, for example that the “law of causation”, if it indeed exists, must also apply “outside” or “before” the known universe.

That is quite an assumption if spacetime without which causatioin as we understand it is nonexistent, came into existence with the universe.

If there was no “before” in the way we understand it, to claim that something was “caused” is meaningless.

[/quote]

Space-time doesn’t matter. It to was caused. Causation is not localized only to this universe or physical objects. It’s very much in play in metaphysics as well, where there is no space and there is no time.

310

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Logical proofs for God are interesting if not entirely convincing. The cosmological argument is especially powerful (though not necessarily bulletproof). This is how I normally put it:

That which is in motion must have been put in motion by an external force.
The universe is in motion.
Therefore, the universe was put in motion by an external force.
That force, we call God.

Either the first premise is false, or the argument stands. The first premise SEEMS true, but it can be gotten around (infinite regress, causal loop, something else entirely which we’ve never even heard of yet, etc.) In my opinion, an infinite regress is tougher to believe in than an uncontingent God.[/quote]

You have several premises in there, for example that the “law of causation”, if it indeed exists, must also apply “outside” or “before” the known universe.

That is quite an assumption if spacetime without which causatioin as we understand it is nonexistent, came into existence with the universe.

If there was no “before” in the way we understand it, to claim that something was “caused” is meaningless.

[/quote]Assumption is another way of saying “faith” without using that terrible word. Could you please tell me what, in your reality, is NOT built on assumption in some form?
[/quote]

Assumptions are not the problem.

Making absolute declarations based on those assumptions, while refusing to admit you could be wrong, is the problem.[/quote]

That shit is contingent is not an assumption, it’s a fact. It’s an assumption to say that something is not, with out even the slightest shred of evidence, is to make an assumption. So you your conclusion that cosmology is false is actually based on unverified, hopeful assumptions.

311

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Logical proofs for God are interesting if not entirely convincing. The cosmological argument is especially powerful (though not necessarily bulletproof). This is how I normally put it:

That which is in motion must have been put in motion by an external force.
The universe is in motion.
Therefore, the universe was put in motion by an external force.
That force, we call God.

Either the first premise is false, or the argument stands. The first premise SEEMS true, but it can be gotten around (infinite regress, causal loop, something else entirely which we’ve never even heard of yet, etc.) In my opinion, an infinite regress is tougher to believe in than an uncontingent God.[/quote]

You have several premises in there, for example that the “law of causation”, if it indeed exists, must also apply “outside” or “before” the known universe.

That is quite an assumption if spacetime without which causatioin as we understand it is nonexistent, came into existence with the universe.

If there was no “before” in the way we understand it, to claim that something was “caused” is meaningless.

[/quote]Assumption is another way of saying “faith” without using that terrible word. Could you please tell me what, in your reality, is NOT built on assumption in some form?
[/quote]

Assumptions are not the problem.

Making absolute declarations based on those assumptions, while refusing to admit you could be wrong, is the problem.[/quote]

That shit is contingent is not an assumption, it’s a fact. It’s an assumption to say that something is not, with out even the slightest shred of evidence, is to make an assumption. So you your conclusion that cosmology is false is actually based on unverified, hopeful assumptions.[/quote]

Why do you keep insisting that your beliefs are facts, while denying the underlying assumptions in those beliefs? I like you Pat, but honestly you seem as stubborn in supporting your own beliefs as Tiribulus is in supporting his. I never hear you admit that you could very well be wrong.

We do not KNOW that everything is contingent, except one uncaused cause. We can ASSUME this is the case, but it is impossible to KNOW it.

You arrived at that belief by using deductive logic, but you have yet to acknowledge that deductive logic is based on the assumptions of Identity, Excluded Middle, and Non-contradiction. We don’t know these assumptions always hold, and as I’ve said several times now, philosophers have in fact argued that they may NOT always hold.

312

The great existential questions are bewilderingly enigmatic. We have created dogmatic physical principles which are in the end mere theories at which we grasp in the dark. We cannot fathom the universe’s beginning just as we cannot fathom a beginningless universe. Matter cannot be created (or so we think), and yet it exists. It seems that an entity above natural law (but does natural law truly exist?

Did it, in the beginning?) must have been responsible for creation: God. But who created God? And if we can accept that God needed no creating, then we surely could also accept the possibility that matter itself needed no creating. In which case matter is God, loosely defined of course.

And yet, if we can accept that matter needed no creating, then we can accept–indeed, we MUST believe–that natural law as we know it can be broken. And the breaking of natural law as we know it is called a miracle. So atheists believe in miracles?

Perhaps the answers lie beyond the limits of human reason. Though we will never know, it is in our nature that we should wonder.

313

[quote]smh23 wrote:
The great existential questions are bewilderingly enigmatic. We have created dogmatic physical principles which are in the end mere theories at which we grasp in the dark. We cannot fathom the universe’s beginning just as we cannot fathom a beginningless universe. Matter cannot be created (or so we think), and yet it exists. It seems that an entity above natural law (but does natural law truly exist? Did it, in the beginning?) must have been responsible for creation: God. But who created God? And if we can accept that God needed no creating, then we surely could also accept the possibility that matter itself needed no creating. In which case matter is God, loosely defined of course. And yet, if we can accept that matter needed no creating, then we can accept–indeed, we MUST believe–that natural law as we know it can be broken. And the breaking of natural law as we know it is called a miracle. So atheists believe in miracles?

Perhaps the answers lie beyond the limits of human reason. Though we will never know, it is in our nature that we should wonder.[/quote]

Well put.

314

[quote]smh23 wrote:
The great existential questions are bewilderingly enigmatic. We have created dogmatic physical principles which are in the end mere theories at which we grasp in the dark. We cannot fathom the universe’s beginning just as we cannot fathom a beginningless universe. Matter cannot be created (or so we think), and yet it exists. It seems that an entity above natural law (but does natural law truly exist? Did it, in the beginning?) must have been responsible for creation: God. But who created God? And if we can accept that God needed no creating, then we surely could also accept the possibility that matter itself needed no creating. In which case matter is God, loosely defined of course. And yet, if we can accept that matter needed no creating, then we can accept–indeed, we MUST believe–that natural law as we know it can be broken. And the breaking of natural law as we know it is called a miracle. So atheists believe in miracles?

Perhaps the answers lie beyond the limits of human reason. Though we will never know, it is in our nature that we should wonder.[/quote]

Exactly. It’s the dogmatism, despite every one of us being infants in our understanding of these most elusive questions, that drives me nuts. What is so hard about admitting that we don’t have all the answers? Are people so insecure that they would rather con themselves into certitude, rather than admitting that we simply don’t know?

315

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Logical proofs for God are interesting if not entirely convincing. The cosmological argument is especially powerful (though not necessarily bulletproof). This is how I normally put it:

That which is in motion must have been put in motion by an external force.
The universe is in motion.
Therefore, the universe was put in motion by an external force.
That force, we call God.

Either the first premise is false, or the argument stands. The first premise SEEMS true, but it can be gotten around (infinite regress, causal loop, something else entirely which we’ve never even heard of yet, etc.) In my opinion, an infinite regress is tougher to believe in than an uncontingent God.[/quote]

You have several premises in there, for example that the “law of causation”, if it indeed exists, must also apply “outside” or “before” the known universe.

That is quite an assumption if spacetime without which causatioin as we understand it is nonexistent, came into existence with the universe.

If there was no “before” in the way we understand it, to claim that something was “caused” is meaningless.

[/quote]Assumption is another way of saying “faith” without using that terrible word. Could you please tell me what, in your reality, is NOT built on assumption in some form?
[/quote]

Assumptions are not the problem.

Making absolute declarations based on those assumptions, while refusing to admit you could be wrong, is the problem.[/quote]

That shit is contingent is not an assumption, it’s a fact. It’s an assumption to say that something is not, with out even the slightest shred of evidence, is to make an assumption. So you your conclusion that cosmology is false is actually based on unverified, hopeful assumptions.[/quote]

Why do you keep insisting that your beliefs are facts, while denying the underlying assumptions in those beliefs?
[/quote]
WHAT ASSUMPTIONS?

I am supporting an argument. If it’s wrong I need proof, which you or anybody has been able to provide a even the slightest bit of probability that it could be wrong, period. It is deductively and necessarily true until proven wrong. The only other choice is ‘something from nothing’ or randomness which is logically impossible.
I am not going to concede a non-point for the mere appearance of being affable, that would be stupid. It has nothing to do with like or dislike, friendly or not, it’s simply right or wrong, there is no gray area here.

Existence it self is contingent save for that which it is contingent upon, you don’t have to know everything about everything for this fact to be a fact. That is the beauty of deduction. It’s like my favorite example for deductive logic, math. Let’s see if I can not fuck up the equation: 3*4i=12i ← You do not have to know what ‘i’ is for this equation to be absolutely, unequivocally, beyond the shadow of any doubt, true. It’s true under any circumstance, realm, dimension, alternate universe, etc. No assumptions there, at all.
You cannot really say the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises, therefore you have no choice but attack the premises as not true, something you have not even come close to doing.

[quote]
You arrived at that belief by using deductive logic, but you have yet to acknowledge that deductive logic is based on the assumptions of Identity, Excluded Middle, and Non-contradiction. We don’t know these assumptions always hold, and as I’ve said several times now, philosophers have in fact argued that they may NOT always hold.[/quote]
I arrived at a conclusion based on the premises, not a belief based on assumptions. That’s what science does.
It doesn’t matter what philosophers argue, it’s what they can prove. Arguing is a just a learning process.
If the above ‘laws’ are in question than they are theories not laws.
Assumptions and beliefs are the stuff of inductive logic, not deductive logic. This is not an inductive argument, it is a deductive argument. Admonishing me as being stubborn is not going to change the fact the nobody has ever, ever, ever proven it wrong. Prove it wrong and I will concede, but you do in fact have to prove it, not just present potential counter arguments.
None of what you described is assumed.
I give you this you have tried every angle I have and haven’t seen, first it was thermodynamics, then it was attacking the conclusion as if it were a premise, now you accuse the argument on being based on assumptions. You cannot prove causation is an assumption much less, that it’s not actually true.

316

[quote]smh23 wrote:
The great existential questions are bewilderingly enigmatic. We have created dogmatic physical principles which are in the end mere theories at which we grasp in the dark. We cannot fathom the universe’s beginning just as we cannot fathom a beginningless universe. Matter cannot be created (or so we think), and yet it exists. It seems that an entity above natural law (but does natural law truly exist?

Did it, in the beginning?) must have been responsible for creation: God. But who created God? And if we can accept that God needed no creating, then we surely could also accept the possibility that matter itself needed no creating. In which case matter is God, loosely defined of course.

And yet, if we can accept that matter needed no creating, then we can accept–indeed, we MUST believe–that natural law as we know it can be broken. And the breaking of natural law as we know it is called a miracle. So atheists believe in miracles?

Perhaps the answers lie beyond the limits of human reason. Though we will never know, it is in our nature that we should wonder.[/quote]

This has been discussed unfortunately you weren’t there for it. I will give the brief synopsis:

The conclusion is called an Uncaused-cause, or Necessary being in the argument from contingency. This follows from the premises that existence or anything that exists is the result of something else that exists. Further this cannot exist in an infinite regress (because it begs the question. The ‘regress’ is the part that cannot be infinite.) Therefore, something must exist that is not bound by these same properties, I.E. it cannot be contingent or caused. So it must be an uncaused-cause or a Necessary being, to ‘start’ this chain of events. Further, it can only be one, not many things. As you regress you regress to 1 not many otherwise the regression is incomplete.
So by definition, by the conclusion as drawn from the premises, the Uncaused-cause cannot have a cause or be brought about, because by definition alone, it would not be an uncased-cause.

Now how do we, or I determine this is God? Well that part is inferred, not deduced. At this point I already have a notion of who God is. God shares many of the same properties as the Uncaused-cause. It creates, is eternal and sits outside the causal chain, all things we believe God to be. Therefore, I infer that this Uncaused-cause is God.
Now using ontology we can infer perhaps more properties of Uncaused-cause being God as well. But the God part, you have to start with a notion of who God is or what he must be like.

So, by deduction, the cosmological form can only determine that an Uncaused-cause exists. By inference, we can say the Uncaused-cause is God.

What you cannot say is that the conclusion of cosmology must share the same properties as the premises. I.E. that something else can exist uncaused. It’s actually logically impossible to deduce that, and there is no evidence, none what-so-ever, to infer such a thing.

The deeper you look into the argument, the stronger it gets.

317

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]garcia1970 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

By definition, God, or when arguing in this vain I prefer ‘Uncaused-Cause’ is necessarily true because the premises make it so. By definition and uncaused-cause cannot be caused, or it’s not uncaused. If God is this Uncaused-cause, he cannot be caused because it would be impossible for him to be otherwise.
[/quote]

Oooookkkkay, so I simply postulate that the universe is uncaused and viola, case closed.

Becaaauuuussse, if you say that everything needs a cause and then simply invent an uncaused cause, who has no cause, because that is how you defined him, I can do that too.

You can choose between the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and the universe itself.

Circular reasoning is circular.

[/quote]
3
That is freaking hilarious! We at least agree on something!![/quote]

That you don’t know shit about cosmology? Yep, I agree…Two peas in a pod.[/quote]

Oh please, your argument is rubbish.

[/quote]

(Yawn) Wake me when you have an actual counter argument that isn’t dumb and actually addresses the argument.
Your ad hominem is rubbish.[/quote]

What counter argument?

You claim that everything must have a cause and then immediately postulate an uncaused cause.

That is prima facie absurd and not an argument.

Also, that was not an ad hominem.

U R a poophead therefore what you said is wrong would be an ad hominem.

Your argument is rubbish was a statement of fact.[/quote]

It necessitates it, you are to thick to understand apparently, like I said prove it wrong, genius. ‘Rubbish’ is not a counter argument. Here’s a link, complete with actual counter arguments, prove it wrong or STFU…

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

It’s one page, should not be that hard.[/quote]

I cannot prove something wrong that you just pull out of your ass.

It is beyond the human experience and therefore unfalsifiable.

Incidentally, you can find my objection under point 4.[/quote]

I pulled it out of my ass? You give me far more credit than I deserve. Fair enough you admitted you can’t beat it, so what is your point?
Just so we’re clear, arguments you cannot refute and don’t believe are ‘rubbish’ or in American ‘garbage’ because you say so? You sound like a nobel laureate. [/quote]

No, arguments that are not falsifiable by design are rubbish.

Especially if they contradict themselves.

[/quote]

Oh? Where is the contradiction?[/quote]

You claim that everything has a cause and that it all started with a god.

What caused him/it/whatever?

[/quote]

The Uncaused-cause cannot have a cause or it’s not uncaused. By definition, the question is irrelevant.[/quote]

But how does your uncaused cause fit into a universe where everything supposedly must have a cause?

318

I think we should rename this thread to “Questions for Pat in America”.

319

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]garcia1970 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

By definition, God, or when arguing in this vain I prefer ‘Uncaused-Cause’ is necessarily true because the premises make it so. By definition and uncaused-cause cannot be caused, or it’s not uncaused. If God is this Uncaused-cause, he cannot be caused because it would be impossible for him to be otherwise.
[/quote]

Oooookkkkay, so I simply postulate that the universe is uncaused and viola, case closed.

Becaaauuuussse, if you say that everything needs a cause and then simply invent an uncaused cause, who has no cause, because that is how you defined him, I can do that too.

You can choose between the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and the universe itself.

Circular reasoning is circular.

[/quote]
3
That is freaking hilarious! We at least agree on something!![/quote]

That you don’t know shit about cosmology? Yep, I agree…Two peas in a pod.[/quote]

Oh please, your argument is rubbish.

[/quote]

(Yawn) Wake me when you have an actual counter argument that isn’t dumb and actually addresses the argument.
Your ad hominem is rubbish.[/quote]

What counter argument?

You claim that everything must have a cause and then immediately postulate an uncaused cause.

That is prima facie absurd and not an argument.

Also, that was not an ad hominem.

U R a poophead therefore what you said is wrong would be an ad hominem.

Your argument is rubbish was a statement of fact.[/quote]

It necessitates it, you are to thick to understand apparently, like I said prove it wrong, genius. ‘Rubbish’ is not a counter argument. Here’s a link, complete with actual counter arguments, prove it wrong or STFU…

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

It’s one page, should not be that hard.[/quote]

I cannot prove something wrong that you just pull out of your ass.

It is beyond the human experience and therefore unfalsifiable.

Incidentally, you can find my objection under point 4.[/quote]

I pulled it out of my ass? You give me far more credit than I deserve. Fair enough you admitted you can’t beat it, so what is your point?
Just so we’re clear, arguments you cannot refute and don’t believe are ‘rubbish’ or in American ‘garbage’ because you say so? You sound like a nobel laureate. [/quote]

No, arguments that are not falsifiable by design are rubbish.

Especially if they contradict themselves.

[/quote]

Oh? Where is the contradiction?[/quote]

You claim that everything has a cause and that it all started with a god.

What caused him/it/whatever?

[/quote]

The Uncaused-cause cannot have a cause or it’s not uncaused. By definition, the question is irrelevant.[/quote]

But how does your uncaused cause fit into a universe where everything supposedly must have a cause?[/quote]

It sits outside the causal chain, it must by necessity do so.

320

[quote]davidcox1 wrote:
I think we should rename this thread to “Questions for Pat in America”.[/quote]

Don’t do that, I could not possibly keep up.