Muslim claims to have "destroyed" atheism with logical proof of gods existence.
218 replies, posted
[QUOTE=matsta;36030769]Well, look. Taking that apart, I think I already explained what are my intentions: to show that the question "and what caused God?" is not a valid objection to the Cosmological Argument, because it isn't.
Recently, a lot of people had been using this question as an 'easy exit' instead of actually arguing with supporters of this argument. And when you're told that that question ignores the very conclusion of the argument you use the straw-man fallacy and ridicule them (in an even worst way than I supposedly ridiculed you). And then you call [I]them[/I] arrogant?
If I want something is that both sides of the argument (not just the religious) start actually debating instead of just mocking their opponents. I don't know how that, to your eyes, is trying to show that I'm 'smarter than everyone else'. (and BTW, I'm not.)[/QUOTE]
You still haven't explained why "and what caused God?" is not a valid objection. And that's your problem, you fail to communicate massively. You claim terms like entity are enough to specify the argument we're all too dumb to "properly" refute, but the thing is that you can't just stand here and say "Oh well, you just don't understand it. Hurr". When you think I don't understand what you're saying, explain it more and better. Don't claim I lost a debate because your way of talking is incredibly hard to decipher. I still don't know what you're saying when you say it ignores the conclusion. This is the conclusion. [B]3. Therefore, there had to be a necessary (not caused) being.
[/B] The question doesn't ignore that, it challenges that by reminding you that point 1 declared the conclusion impossible. And of course an objection is gonna disagree with the conclusion, otherwise it wouldn't be an objection.
Oh and also, you say you want both sides of the argument (as if you're somewhere in the middle) to "start debating". This is what I mean when I say you think you're smarter. You don't define what "actually debating" is. Maybe you're wrong when you say the question isn't a valid objection, and then what? Both sides were actually debating all along? But you don't consider that, you think everyone else is just doing it wrong.
[editline]20th May 2012[/editline]
And by the way, that's what I meant in the previous post too, in every thread you post in MD, people don't understand what you're saying, or at least you claim that.
[QUOTE=Numidium;36030947]When you think I don't understand what you're saying, explain it more and better. Don't claim I lost a debate because your way of talking is incredibly hard to decipher. I still don't know what you're saying when you say it ignores the conclusion. This is the conclusion. [B]3. Therefore, there had to be a necessary (not caused) being.
[/B] The question doesn't ignore that, it challenges that by reminding you that point 1 declared the conclusion impossible. And of course an objection is gonna disagree with the conclusion, otherwise it wouldn't be an objection.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=I]1. Every [B]FINITE AND CONTINGENT[/B] being has a cause.
2. An infinite chain of causes and effects cannot occur.
3. Therefore, there had to be a necessary (not caused) being.[/QUOTE]
Wow, are you just ignoring my previous posts or what? Proposition 3 doesn't claim that the object that isn't caused is finite and it claims it is [B]not[/B] contingent. (Contingent things are not necessary by definition.)
And I already defined those terms in the previous posts. I don't know how you can still sustain that (3) contradicts (1).
[editline]20th May 2012[/editline]
Ok, I'm sorry if it was not clear enough, I think I need to explain things a bit.
The terms 'contingent' and 'necessary' are actually very intuitive when applied to propositions. When applied this way 'necessary' mean that the proposition can't be false, because it's falsehood would imply a contradiction. For example, the proposition "all straight lines are straight" is necessary, because saying that there is a straight line what is not straight would imply contradicting oneself. On the other side, propositions such as "all swans are white" or "all objects that have a mass are affected by gravity" are contingent, because its falsehood would not imply a contradiction. (There is nothing in the subject "swans" or "massive objects" than implies what is predicated to them.)
Similarly, the ones that sustain that these terms can be applied to the existence of objects think they can be applied this way:
A contingent object is an object whose existence is contingent. That means that it might exist but it can, as well, not exist. For example, my laptop exists but it can as well not exist. Proposition one implies that every object that is contingent needs to have a cause to exist. (For example, my laptop needs to be fabricated to 'exist' as such.)
A necessary object is an object that cannot not exist. Of course supporters of the cosmological argument sustain that we have never encountered this kind of object on our lives. But the concept of a necessary object is that its essence (in what the object consists or, if you want to see it like that, its ‘definition’) includes its existence (that the object exists). Thus the non-existence of said object would imply a contradiction.
The cosmological argument doesn't actually argue the existence of from, let's say its 'definition', because men supposedly can't understand God, and therefore can't define him. It argues that there must exist some object/entity whose essence includes that said entity exists. But, of course, we don't know that essence.
It argues that based on the principle of sufficient reason. As contingent objects do not contain in the essence the reason for their existence, we can't explain their existence by simply saying that they exist. We could try to explain the existence of said a contingent object A by saying that A was caused by B. But if B is contingent then we need to explain the existence of B by saying that it was caused by C and so on. For the principle of sufficient reason to be true there needs to be an object whose essence contains the reason for his existence (a necessary object) for an explanation of the existence of A to be complete.
So the claims made by the cosmological argument are right by definition, what's the point then?
Oh and your terms are [B][I][U]obviously[/U][/I][/B] [B]not intuitive[/B] when you can't get your point across.
But is the question "where did god come from" not pointing out that Proposition 1 is false? Or at least that necessary things don't exist?
I mean if that's not a valid objection, how are you gonna disprove the argument? All you're doing is claiming that Proposition 1 is false. The "where did god come from?" question is claiming that the conclusion is false. Where's the difference?
[QUOTE=Numidium;36032008]But is the question "where did god come from" not pointing out that Proposition 1 is false? Or at least that necessary things don't exist?
I mean if that's not a valid objection, how are you gonna disprove the argument? All you're doing is claiming that Proposition 1 is false. The "where did god come from?" question is claiming that the conclusion is false. Where's the difference?[/QUOTE]
A valid objection to the cosmological argument is the one that says that necessary objects do not exist. If you ask "where did God come from?" without [B]first proving[/B] that necessary objects don't exist, then you would be [I]ignoring[/I] the chain of reasoning, not refuting it.
[editline]20th May 2012[/editline]
The error arises when you replace (P1) with "everything has a cause", and that is using the straw-man fallacy, because (P1) doesn't say that.
Alright. I get it now.
I don't see how god is a necessary being whatsoever. It's not necessarily the case that all effects have causes, so there's no need whatsoever of a necessary being creating them. The first premise of the contingency argument is just plain false.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36032982]I don't see how god is a necessary being whatsoever. It's not necessarily the case that all effects have causes, so there's no need whatsoever of a necessary being creating them. The first premise of the contingency argument is just plain false.[/QUOTE]
That's right, the first claim is not necessarily true, but it can be sustained in the same way we sustain that "every massive object is affected my gravity": give me a massive object that isn't and you will prove me wrong. Similarly, if you give me a 'contingent' being that doesn't have a cause, then you will prove me wrong.
[editline]20th May 2012[/editline]
BTW, do you sustain that the terms 'contingent' and 'necessary' can be applied to entities?
If you're claiming something is 'necessary', it's much much stronger than saying 'true in all actual cases'. If something is necessarily, it's inconceivable that it's not the case in any possible world. A counterexample would disprove it, but it's not required. If it's conceivably not the case, it's not necessary. Just because every massive object in this world has gravitational pull, it doesn't mean it's necessarily the case that all massive objects do.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36034637]If you're claiming something is 'necessary', it's much much stronger than saying 'true in all actual cases'. If something is necessarily, it's inconceivable that it's not the case in any possible world. A counterexample would disprove it, but it's not required. If it's conceivably not the case, it's not necessary. Just because every massive object in this world has gravitational pull, it doesn't mean it's necessarily the case that all massive objects do.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=I]That's right, the first claim [I]is not necessarily true[/I], but it can be sustained...[/QUOTE]
Never said that (1) can be takes as necessarily true.
PD: But, of course, if you sustain (1) to be something not true [I]a priori[/I] you would be denying the cosmological argument its 'deductive' certainty.
[QUOTE=matsta;36035134]Never said that (1) can be takes as necessarily true.
PD: But, of course, if you sustain (1) to be something not true [I]a priori[/I] you would be denying the cosmological argument its 'deductive' certainty.[/QUOTE]
It's a really unconvincing argument, then. Anybody who doesn't already believe in the existence of god would be much happier accepting that our observations based on cause and effect simply don't start with god. If god isn't necessary then I don't see how it can exist. If there is a possible world where god doesn't exist, then I don't see why we should accept its existence in the actual world.
Woah woah woah woah, hold up. Can someone explain to me IN LAYMAN'S TERMS what the fuck you are arguing? If you're gonna go and use excessively verbose language to seem like you know something, you're just hurting your own argument.
If someone doesn't understand your argument, it doesn't mean you won the argument, it means you're not getting your point across.
And I don't understand your point, matsta.
Only plants can create plants.
Only animals can create animals.
Religion is contradictory.
And what's more contradictory on this planet then humans.
And that's my argument on why god doesn't exist,and is just some fairy-tale made up by humans.
On the other hand,he said something about "If an explosion isn't controlled,the result will be random and chaos"
How can something be random,when it creates chaos.Random doesn't always result in chaos.
this guy is a complete fucking idiot and should have bud dweyered it at the end.
[editline]22nd May 2012[/editline]
also he completely fails to remember what the fuck condensation is.
and that basically all chaos condenses into order.
he seems to also be missing the fact that it took billions upon billions of years for life to even form on earth. i dunno if he can grasp cosmically how fucking long that is but considering the chaos he's so fond of talking about but introducing my little condensation epiphany and countless eons of time, something will fucking happen.
[editline]22nd May 2012[/editline]
all matter is energy condensed.
Do we even have a word for an action that isn't caused? It seems the word "effect" necessitates a cause. I would say a random act would necessarily be uncaused, but an uncaused event isn't necessarily random.
Is there any existing argument that shows that everything doesn't have a cause?
[QUOTE=sgman91;36062321]Do we even have a word for an action that isn't caused? It seems the word "effect" necessitates a cause. I would say a random act would necessarily be uncaused, but an uncaused event isn't necessarily random.
Is there any existing argument that shows that everything doesn't have a cause?[/QUOTE]
You could probably argue that nothing is truly random anyway.
Even a coin toss or a dice roll isn't random. Just because you don't know the outcome ahead of time doesn't mean it wasn't affected by forces like gravity, the force of the throw, the angle it hits the table, wind resistance, etc. E.g. if you flip a coin in space, it's not going to be the same as on Earth.
I'm thinking more quantum mechanics, but even they follow strict probabilities. The problem is that it could still be argued that the laws of quantum mechanics are the cause of the actual action. The real question is how did the laws themselves arise.
I saw a thing Stephen Hawking worked on, and according to him, causality only applies inside of the universe. If there is no universe, then how can you expect anything to act even remotely similar to when there is one? Also, time probably wouldn't exist without a universe, so saying the big bang needs a cause is kind of a weird statement if you think about it.
[QUOTE=SamPerson123;36063308]I saw a thing Stephen Hawking worked on, and according to him, causality only applies inside of the universe. If there is no universe, then how can you expect anything to act even remotely similar to when there is one? Also, time probably wouldn't exist without a universe, so saying the big bang needs a cause is kind of a weird statement if you think about it.[/QUOTE]
Time wouldn't exist if the universe didn't since it's essentially bound into space and changes and adapts depending on where you are in space (the conditions of the local space can alter how time runs compared to time outside that area, iirc)
Well shit, guess I'll have to go pray to allah then.
Because that's totally how it works.
Given infinite time, I think a random event of our existence is pretty plausible- it's not like this 'one in X' chance has only had a few thousand years to land on the lucky number.
[QUOTE=SamPerson123;36063308]I saw a thing Stephen Hawking worked on, and according to him, causality only applies inside of the universe. If there is no universe, then how can you expect anything to act even remotely similar to when there is one? Also, time probably wouldn't exist without a universe, so saying the big bang needs a cause is kind of a weird statement if you think about it.[/QUOTE]
Do we know of anything outside of the universe? Without having seen anything outside of the universe his claim has the same validity of claiming God. For all we know time is bound to whatever is outside of the universe as well.
[editline]23rd May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Badunkadunk;36066057]Given infinite time, I think a random event of our existence is pretty plausible- it's not like this 'one in X' chance has only had a few thousand years to land on the lucky number.[/QUOTE]
Problem is that we don't have infinite time.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36066243]Do we know of anything outside of the universe? Without having seen anything outside of the universe his claim has the same validity of claiming God. For all we know time is bound to whatever is outside of the universe as well.
[editline]23rd May 2012[/editline]
Problem is that we don't have infinite time.[/QUOTE]
We don't know what happened before the big bang, it;s entirely possible our understanding of time did not apply then.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36066243]Do we know of anything outside of the universe? Without having seen anything outside of the universe his claim has the same validity of claiming God. For all we know time is bound to whatever is outside of the universe as well.[/QUOTE]
Don't claim things if you don't understand what you are talking about. Nothing in science is a random guess. No hypothesis or theory is just a "hey maybe this works". Everything is based on pre determined experiments and mathematical proofs. Our current theory of how the universe originated is literally infinitely more probable scientifically speaking than a creationism claim. Belief and knowledge are two different things, do not make the mistake of confusing the two. Science does not rely on blind faith.
There is no such thing as "outside the universe". The universe doesn't have an edge and 3 dimensional space does not exist outside of it. The universe encompasses existence and our perception of reality is based upon our ability to observe this universe. If you want to understand the theories behind how the universe came to be than study up on Baryogenesis and Quantum Fluctuation.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;36066435]We don't know what happened before the big bang, it;s entirely possible our understanding of time did not apply then.[/QUOTE]
There is no such thing as before the big bang. Space did not exist before the big bang, and what we view as existence did not start yet (even saying yet in this case is contradictory to how time works). The big bang is a beginning without an actual point of expansion or beginning.
[QUOTE=Lilyo;36066568]Don't claim things if you don't understand what you are talking about. Nothing in science is a random guess. No hypothesis or theory is just a "hey maybe this works". Everything is based on pre determined experiments and mathematical proofs. Our current theory of how the universe originated is literally infinitely more probable scientifically speaking than a creationism claim. Belief and knowledge are two different things, do not make the mistake of confusing the two. Science does not rely on blind faith. There is no such thing as "outside the universe". The universe doesn't have an edge and 3 dimensional space does not exist outside of it. The universe encompasses existence and our perception of reality is based upon our ability to observe this universe. If you want to understand the theories behind how the universe came to be than study up on Baryogenesis and Quantum Fluctuation. [/QUOTE]
Did you even see what I was responding to? He claimed causation only applies within the universe. If something existed that wasn't within the universe than it must have been "outside" of the universe. For example, quantum mechanics must exist independently of the universe if they caused the origination of it.
Also, science is based on observable phenomena, but has no way to verify what what we observe is actually accurate. For example, scientists far into the future will, through good science, conclude that our solar system is the only thing in the universe.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36062321]Do we even have a word for an action that isn't caused? It seems the word "effect" necessitates a cause. I would say a random act would necessarily be uncaused, but an uncaused event isn't necessarily random.
Is there any existing argument that shows that everything doesn't have a cause?[/QUOTE]
There doesn't have to be an argument to show the necessity of causes. It's just not something you can logically deduce from any number of observations.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36068068]There doesn't have to be an argument to show the necessity of causes. It's just not something you can logically deduce from any number of observations.[/QUOTE]
If no known thing is uncaused wouldn't it be logical to assume all things are caused unless that thing is fundamentally different?
I'm just trying to wrap my head around the fact that every observable phenomena is caused, yet there must have been some uncaused event because an infinite chain of caused events doesn't work. I feel like most scientists don't really have a problem with this... but I don't know why. It seems like a fundamental problem.
I'm not making an argument for God, just trying to understand.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36067048]Did you even see what I was responding to? He claimed causation only applies within the universe. If something existed that wasn't within the universe than it must have been "outside" of the universe. For example, quantum mechanics must exist independently of the universe if they caused the origination of it.[/QUOTE]
I don't think people fully understand how scientific laws work. Laws don't exist in the sense that they directly dictate the outcome of something. Laws are explanations of an outcome based on observational analysis and they state that something will happen because it has been previously observed. It doesn't explain why it will happen, just that it will. Laws exist because of direct observation, they are not "separate from the universe". Martin Rees for example, lists 6 fundamental constants that are believed to be the same in the entire universe. If one of these constants were slightly different, say, the attraction between the components of a nucleus, from 0.007 to something like 0.006, the universe would be nothing like our own and inhospitable to life (what we call life). If any of these constants were different the universe wouldn't be able to sustain itself, so most physicist argue that these constants were never free to vary in the first place and are all dependent upon each other. Others argue that there are multiple universes that range with different sets of constants, but regardless of the scenario, this means that the laws of physics exist because our universe exists and they are not separate from each other. Our universe exists in the form that it does because of certain constants that without the universe wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be here to ponder the question.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36067048]Also, science is based on observable phenomena, but has no way to verify what what we observe is actually accurate. For example, scientists far into the future will, through good science, conclude that our solar system is the only thing in the universe.[/QUOTE]
Yes, which is why reality is relative to the amount of information we posses at a certain time. Not accepting the validity of current scientific research based upon assumptions that they will change one day is absurd, and substituting in your own version of reality based on personal beliefs and dogmas is even worse. The thing that differs science from religion the most is the emphasis on truth. Religion is an open admittance to ignorance and embracement of lack of knowledge while science is an ever changing phenomenon. Science can not prove anything, but it can assert reliability to the nature of our perceptive reality, which is the only reality that exists for us.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36069200]If no known thing is uncaused wouldn't it be logical to assume all things are caused unless that thing is fundamentally different?
I'm just trying to wrap my head around the fact that every observable phenomena is caused, yet there must have been some uncaused event because an infinite chain of caused events doesn't work. I feel like most scientists don't really have a problem with this... but I don't know why. It seems like a fundamental problem.
I'm not making an argument for God, just trying to understand.[/QUOTE]
Quantum Physics states that not everything has a cause. Matter can pop in and out of existence randomly at any point as described by the virtual particle theory or quantum fluctuation, a side effect of the Uncertainty Principle. It makes sense that there must be uncaused events otherwise every event/cause would rest upon an infinite regress of preceding causes or there would exist closed causal loops.
Maybe it's intuitive to assume everything is caused, but it's definitely not logical.
Personally I think it's much more unintuitive that there's some sort of deity starting it all, than randomness or an infinite regress. There's definitely no deductive logical argument out of the cosmological argument, though.
[QUOTE=Lilyo;36069234]I don't think people fully understand how scientific laws work. Laws don't exist in the sense that they directly dictate the outcome of something. Laws are explanations of an outcome based on observational analysis and they state that something will happen because it has been previously observed. It doesn't explain why it will happen, just that it will. Laws exist because of direct observation, they are not "separate from the universe". Martin Rees for example, lists 6 fundamental constants that are believed to be the same in the entire universe. If one of these constants were slightly different, say, the attraction between the components of a nucleus, from 0.007 to something like 0.006, the universe would be nothing like our own and inhospitable to life (what we call life). If any of these constants were different the universe wouldn't be able to sustain itself, so most physicist argue that these constants were never free to vary in the first place and are all dependent upon each other. Others argue that there are multiple universes that range with different sets of constants, but regardless of the scenario, this means that the laws of physics exist because our universe exists and they are not separate from each other. Our universe exists in the form that it does because of certain constants that without the universe wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be here to ponder the question.[/QUOTE]
I understand just fine. I've taken quite a bit of physics including thermodynamics, electromagnetic fields, etc. which all go down to the most base level of human understanding on the subjects. There are tons of "tricks" that force our mathematics to agree with reality because the math on it's own just doesn't cut it. A simple example is the limit. In order to agree with reality we must use a non realistic value (infinity) and essentially assume the result.
On being separate from the universe: quantum mechanics, as observed in our universe, are used to explain the big bang. This is radically different from any other "Laws" that we use. Gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, and electromagnetic forces all started at the big bang and work within it, but quantum mechanics is used both within and beyond our universe.
[QUOTE=Lilyo;36069234]Yes, which is why reality is relative to the amount of information we posses at a certain time. Not accepting the validity of current scientific research based upon assumptions that they will change one day is absurd, and substituting in your own version of reality based on personal beliefs and dogmas is even worse. The thing that differs science from religion the most is the emphasis on truth. Religion is an open admittance to ignorance and embracement of lack of knowledge while science is an ever changing phenomenon. Science can not prove anything, but it can assert reliability to the nature of our perceptive reality, which is the only reality that exists for us.[/QUOTE]
Almost all knew scientific ideas are found because people didn't accept the current hypothesis. To assume that they won't change is much more radical than assuming they will. Many of the most genius people throughout history have been religious and there are still a large number of scientists who describe themselves as religious. I think it's pretty arrogant to call people who are much more knowledgeable than you ignorant and people who embrace not having knowledge.
[editline]23rd May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lilyo;36069234]Quantum Physics states that not everything has a cause. Matter can pop in and out of existence randomly at any point as described by the virtual particle theory or quantum fluctuation, a side effect of the Uncertainty Principle. It makes sense that there must be uncaused events otherwise every event/cause would rest upon an infinite regress of preceding causes or there would exist closed causal loops.[/QUOTE]
Virtual particles are defined as not being observable. We have not proven the existence of these particles. They are used to describe certain phenomena in a similar way EMF can be described by an electric field. We can measure the effects, but the "fluctuations" and "particles" are purely theoretical.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36069536]I understand just fine. I've taken quite a bit of physics including thermodynamics, electromagnetic fields, etc. which all go down to the most base level of human understanding on the subjects. There are tons of "tricks" that force our mathematics to agree with reality because the math on it's own just doesn't cut it. A simple example is the limit. In order to agree with reality we must use a non realistic value (infinity) and essentially assume the result.
On being separate from the universe: quantum mechanics, as observed in our universe, are used to explain the big bang. This is radically different from any other "Laws" that we use. Gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, and electromagnetic forces all started at the big bang and work within it, but quantum mechanics is used both within and beyond our universe.[/QUOTE]
Explain "beyond the universe" because you're claiming to possess knowledge of something that is very debatable. I've never heard of anyone stating quantum mechanism existed "before the big bang".
[QUOTE=sgman91;36069536]Almost all knew scientific ideas are found because people didn't accept the current hypothesis. To assume that they won't change is much more radical than assuming they will. [/QUOTE]
Where did I state that they won't change? I said its absurd not to accept current research because of assumptions that they will one day change... And no, not all scientific ideas are found because people don't accept current hypothesis of the time period, they are found because new found evidence and experiments pointed the scientists to believing that there's more to it than the current theories state.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36069536]Many of the most genius people throughout history have been religious and there are still a large number of scientists who describe themselves as religious. I think it's pretty arrogant to call people who are much more knowledgeable than you ignorant and people who embrace not having knowledge.[/QUOTE]I never said that, I said the actual religious belief is based off of claim of knowledge in an area where you lack knowledge and therefor an admittance to ignorance. To simply state god exists and he created universe is ignorant. It implies that that is your satisfactory level of knowledge you are willing to accept or at least believe in.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36069536]Virtual particles are defined as not being observable. We have not proven the existence of these particles. They are used to describe certain phenomena in a similar way EMF can be described by an electric field. We can measure the effects, but the "fluctuations" and "particles" are purely theoretical.[/QUOTE]
Well that's not really what virtual particles are about. The whole point of them is to keep track of approximations. There are tons of observable physical phenomenon that is attributed to virtual particles. They are not directly observable but they leave observable effects. I'm not sure what you're arguing for here, virtual particles are not theoretical, they are a tool that comes up when measuring observables when using perturbation theory. They are currently necessary to quantum mechanics and we have to assume they exist.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.