Post on Secular Café. I had put down a new version cosmological argument, that will become clear in a moment. The first three page were proceeding fine. They were good natured and tried politely to answer. I was nice to them and it was good. I answered all their arguments they began to become a bit annoyed then heated. Then...
Originally Posted by R. Soul View Post
: "Your argument is watertight. But that's because it's circular.",
It's going to turn out that the atheists in this thread are just assuming atheism has to be true, give that presumption, then argue from that as though it is proof
Me: show me, how?
All contingencies have causes.
All natural things a contingent.
The universe is natural, therefore it is contingent.
Because it is contingent, it must have a cause, since all contingencies have causes. Therefore, the universe is caused.
that's not circular. It's totally linear.
1. All contingencies have causes.
2.All natural things are contingent.
no 2 is derived from no 1. because all contingent things have causes they are contingent. contingent means to have a cause. that is not circulars, it is not stated that natural things all have causes but it doesn't have to be stated. It's common knowledge.
3.The universe is natural, therefore it is contingent.
that's your basic modus ponens. 1 and 2 establish that universe is natural, it is cotangent. why? because it's made of causes.
modus ponens: if p then q, p therefore q;
if caused then contingent
U = cause therefore U = contingent.
Circular reasoning assumes the conclusion in the premise. The example atheists love to illustrate this is "the Bible is the word of God, I know because the Bible says so." That is truly circular. My argument does not do that. It proceeds rationally from premise to conclusion. He's confusing the idea of believing the argument, thus confusing argument with science, as though it's an open ended experiment. His argument is circular because he is assuming atheism is true and then arguing that as a proof of his position. Quote:R. Soul
Of course, a water filled balloon is water tight, but that doesnt mean it's imune to being poppedlike a pustule on the forehead of creationist thinking.
Metacrock argument from analogy
All you have to offer is a blackbox where any rule you apply fits nicely inside the blackbox. The most glaring issue is of course the special plea that the universe is natural but god is not. Nothing like invoking magic to make your black box work.
I think what he's really trying to say but doesn't kno0w how is that he doesn't trust logic and trusts empirical evidence. But the only bias he has in arguing it is that it rests upon the assumption that atheism I privileged and belief in God is somehow to be abhorred. Metacrock you are merely gainsaying the evidence. atheist logic is so convoluted and your brain washing ad stripped your ability to understand linear thinking: the concept of God is that of necessary being. that's the idea in which we believe.. you can't deny the right to defend a belief mere.ly because you don't hold it.
What you are really protesting is the fact that I don't privilege atheist assumptions. I already established why it's not logical to posit a caused ultimate origin (it wou8ld not be ultimate). you are merely whining because your belief system doesn't engender the privilege you need kit to have.
This allows us to postulate an infinity of made-up stuff that caused the universe. Elves, tambourines and elephants, you name it. It's only because people anthropomorphise that traditional gods are human-like, therefor we have bearded gramps in the sky telling us not to wank or mix fibres. Oh, and sidekick Jesus, because having kids is what humans do. And his sidekick the holy spirit because invoking magic never goes out of style.
Metacrock To the contrary. I already alluded to the fact that ICR is illogical and impossible. so no infinite string of causes will do. It has to be a final cause.
as for anthropomorphizing I said nothing of the kind. In a philosophical argument one is arguing for a place holder. We are a long way from filling it out.
It's hillarious how religious fools have been forced to avoid talking about specific dogmas related to their specific religion and are now wielding a vague pseudo-intellectual cosmology in order to try and compete with real science. All of it misses the point of course, and the fallacy is asserting that anything must have a temporal cause. Once you start grokking the idea that causality is bound by time, and that time becomes meaningless as you approach the singularity of the big bang, then outmoded thinking about cause and effect throws the idea of a sky gramps on its head.
There you can clearly see the privileging of atheism; he writes off logic as "dogma" and assumes atheism is some kind of automatic deterrent to keep God away. I assume "real science" means atheist opinion.
Metacrock That really speaks to our logical abilities when you have to resort to name calling. that speaks so highly of your argument. I can/t discuss the "specific dogmas" because you wouldn't understand them and to the basic fact that God is obvious. you are so afraid of that reality you can't reason about it.
This is intolerable for people who lack the imagination or humility to trancend the 3d world we live in in. The irony is devastating, since they rely on the attributes of the physical world to create their god gap.
R. Soul Only the young, ignorant or irrational are taken in by this prevarication.
Metacrock Translation: I am going stamp my little foot because you are better read than I am and Christians are supposed to be stupid; sorry I am not stupid enough for you to beat. Get used to it. If your view are really worthy anything you should be able to beat my argument without name calling, or bluster. stand or fall by the logic.
[this was followed by a post of vin diagram some thing about Santa and the one like this:]
Originally Posted by R. Soul View Post Because, in metacrock's case, logic is contingent
R. Soul Fuck know what it's contingent on or with, but hey, that's his chosen word.
Metacrock thanks for your surrender. also thanks for giving me material for Atheist watch.
glad you know you lost
Another post, same thread different oppenant
Originally Posted by Copernicus
Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
Nonsense. It's easy to assume that there never was any such being. Your "necessary cause" could just be a (Wikipedia)Higgs Field through with particles travel, causing local perturbations that cause the conditions of a "Big Bang" to develop. The rest is history. No need to invent a superpowerful, super-intelligent being that feels a need to create other beings to worship itself.-Unles Higgs field is eternal and unaused and not a product of nature then logic rules it out
Metacrock I'm sorry you don't know the terminology do you?, you are trying to disprove my argument and you don't know the basic parlance that all philosophers use. necessary doesn't mean you can't portend there's no God. it means first that God is not contingent upon anything else, secondly that if God is real then it's impossible that he could not be. In other words God is either on or off never maybe. one way to say that is God cannot cease or fail to be.
He apparently thinks necessary means the world can't be imagined without it but all it really means is not contingent. He also doesn't understand the concept of Go Quo
No, I understand your terminology perfectly well, and I am not "pretending" that there is no God. That is the question we are debating. The problem is that you missed my point. A huge gaping hole in your argument is that 1-6 makes no mention of "God", so you have no basis for just slipping him into your conclusion with a wave of your hand.
I said in the original presentation that God is the necessary eternal aspect ofr being. figure it out.
Metacrock I said up front I don't seek to prove God but to show belief in God is rationally warranted. The point here the argument stops shows that eternal necessity hsd to be the ultimate origin. That's the basic definition of God. maybe I do need to tweek it but that's a minor repair.
The term "God" carries a great deal of baggage beyond just being a "necessary cause", and that extra baggage is what concerns people when they worship him and pray to him. A First Cause can be a completely natural phenomenon such as a glitch in (Wikipedia)quantum foam. You don't pray to quantum foam, do you?
Metacrock not just cause but a necessary aspect of being. that phrase aspect tells you it's not just a big man in the sky
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
[I resume answering the point that no justification for speaking of God or calling God necessary] of course there is; God cannot fail or cease to be. that is part of being eternal.
By merely asserting that the "necessary cause" is eternal and then labeling it "God", you are begging the question. Those are in the conclusions you need to reach. They are not in your premises
Metacrock (1) did more than just assert it. I argued that ICR is impossible and ultimate origin can;t have a cause or it's not ultimate. now you must deal with that. that proves it must be eternal since uncaused.
(2) your argument really again boils down to anger because I'm not willing to grant you the privilege you give atheist assumptions.
Quote:Copernicus Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
The reality is that deities are always imagined to be humanlike on some level, not just abstract "causes". People pray to them and expect their gods to want them to pray. God doesn't just create universes. He performs miracles, i.e. interacts with the universe in local time. He communicates with people--at least, you claim he has communicated with you. He responds to worship, sometimes answering prayers. Sometimes not. Depends on his mood.
Metacrock I am arguing that God is real. quoting your position on that is not an argument. using your position to prove your position is circular reasoning,
I did not "quote my position" and use it as a premise, which is what you have been doing.<br>
Metacrock Bull shit! every move I've made has been explained according to logic. you are merely privileging atheist assumptions. you did just quote your position the little sermon on how gods are made up that doesn't have anything to do with the argument.
Your word "God" does not appear anywhere in the premises of your argument. It only appears in the conclusion.
Metacrock that's a mere technicality.
herefore, you have inserted some hidden steps in your reasoning to arrive at your conclusion. What I am doing here is disagreeing with your characterization of what the word "God" usually refers to. A god is a powerful spiritual being that people worship. You are using the name "God" in order to drag in a lot of extra baggage that simply doesn't belong there.
Metacrock saying that doesn't change the logic. if I put the word God in does it suddenly become true? there are two hidden steps
(1) all things we observe in nature are caused without exception. argue QM theory I have a dandy answer.
(2) God is the term we use to designate eternal necessary being
both are common knowledge
no philosopher begins an argument by saying :I am using logic because it is logical." the obvious can be assumed.