Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.11 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-09-2016, 07:42 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
At work.

So what if you don't like the answer 'Big bang'.

That you are again misconstruing the concept shows you have no real idea about it anyway.

That you've already admitted to preferring 'Feel good fantasy' why should you expect answers/replies at all?

I would copy/paste but am unable to on phone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2016, 07:57 AM (This post was last modified: 07-09-2016 08:00 AM by Deesse23.)
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(07-09-2016 07:23 AM)xear Wrote:  
Quote:And now you even admit to be irrational. To me the sum of your arguments seem to be "its irrational, and i know its irrational, but it feels good to me (and i proclaim your beliefs to be irrational as well)", which seems to be a recurring theme to you. But you need to acknowledge that relaity doesnt care if it feels goos to you. It just is!

Thanks for your considered reply. I think you accurately portrayed my view there. By the way "feeling good," I regard as just a side benefit, not part of the argument [indeed reality doesn't care about it].

So I admit to being irrational. I would even say all of my best times in life were irrational. That may go a long ways to explaining why more men are atheists than women.

You on the other hand seem to be quite rational. As a rational person can you please explain this:

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. A causal loop cannot exist.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

Why don't you need a rational "first cause?" and no, "the big bang," is not it because "what was there to "bang?" ... that's just more infinite regression.




.

Your first mistake: You are trying to discuss scientific claims by having a philosophical discussion. Wrong category (again). You cant find out the fundamental basics of reality by just sitting there, thinking hard and making philosophical agruments. If you want to have philosophical debates, you need scientific facts to discuss in the first place. How do you get those? What methodology are you going to use?

If you bothered to google the "first cause" argument, you easily could have found out the rebuttals. If you want to step down to William Lane Craig level, be welcome, it wont help your cause either.

- your argument is a fallacy of "special pleading". Rule #1 Everything has cause. Rule #2 my favourite pet doesnt have to confirm with #1. It doesnt get you anywhere regarding biocentrism. I really dont see your point.

- If you had read into the big bang theory, you would know, that all calculations that trace back to the big bang point towards a breakdown of spacetime. At this point our knowledge stops. But without space and time, please look up how much sense your argument still makes. Cause and effect and even being has no meaning anymore. Its like asking for the smell of red. It.just.makes.no.sense.
Thats why most probably we need to further our basic understanding and improve our language to be able to even grasp the necessary concepts for this situation.
Of yourse, we just could go and say "hell, this feels good (enough) to us, lets fill the gap in our knowledge with *insert your favourite random conjecture here*", rather than looking for what is true.

No one ever claimed the big bang was/is a first cause. The big bang doesnt try to explain the origin of the universe, like evolution doenst try to explain abiogenesis. You are trying to attack the wrong claim.

You are constantly mixing up categories, attacking straw men, etc. I really recommend to get yourself informed better on the stuff you want to criticize.

By the way: why bring this silly argument up in the first place? It is usually an argument presented by theists. Are you a theist? Otherwise i dont understand what this should have to do with your philosophy of biocentrism.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2016, 07:59 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(07-09-2016 06:29 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Now, how about you sit there and tell me why you don't think it's even possible that Santa Claus is real, and why you won't even consider it. I think your heart is hardened against the Truth of Holy Nicholas (Santa Niklaus). Do you not want presents? Do you want your childrens' stockings stuffed with coal, and hearing them cry through the holidays? Can you afford to take the chance?

Bowing

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
07-09-2016, 08:00 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(07-09-2016 07:23 AM)xear Wrote:  
Quote:And now you even admit to be irrational. To me the sum of your arguments seem to be "its irrational, and i know its irrational, but it feels good to me (and i proclaim your beliefs to be irrational as well)", which seems to be a recurring theme to you. But you need to acknowledge that relaity doesnt care if it feels goos to you. It just is!

Thanks for your considered reply. I think you accurately portrayed my view there. By the way "feeling good," I regard as just a side benefit, not part of the argument [indeed reality doesn't care about it].

So I admit to being irrational. I would even say all of my best times in life were irrational. That may go a long ways to explaining why more men are atheists than women.

You on the other hand seem to be quite rational. As a rational person can you please explain this:

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. A causal loop cannot exist.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

Why don't you need a rational "first cause?" and no, "the big bang," is not it because "what was there to "bang?" ... that's just more infinite regression.

I hesitate to step into this quagmire of a thread, but... As with any philosophical argument, I am only compelled to accept your conclusion if I accept your premises. And I do not. All three premises are, in my opinion, questionable. They are carefully chosen to guarantee your desired conclusion ("...and this we call God", as St. Thomas Aquinas said), but that conclusion is at least as absurd as the negation of any of your three premises. So I can use a weak form of reductio absurdum to claim that, since your conclusion is clearly wrong, at least one of your premises must be wrong. And, as I said, I'm not convinced of the truth of any of the three. So, back to square one. You haven't proven anything, except to someone who accepts your premises. That's why I don't need a rational first cause.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
07-09-2016, 08:08 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(07-09-2016 07:23 AM)xear Wrote:  So I admit to being irrational.

Then why continue the discussion?

(07-09-2016 07:23 AM)xear Wrote:  I would even say all of my best times in life were irrational. That may go a long ways to explaining why more men are atheists than women.

Dafuq? Shocking

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2016, 08:13 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
These WLC-style agruments all prey on humans "common sense" and intuition and try to apply this to an area that already has been proven to be completely non-intuitive (like quantum mechanics or relativity).

Just imagine going back to a time when nobody has thought about quantum mechanics yet and put up your argument again:

1) everything that exists is either here or there
2) there is only a probability of either 1 or 0 for the existence of anything at any spot in space
3) therefore quantum mechanics is wrong

1) everything has a speed
2) everything can be made "faster" by pushing
3) therefore light has no finite speed

1) every clock (i have seen so far) has the same speed
2) relativity claims clocks can have different speeds
3) therefore relativity is wrong

1) i percieve space
2) i perceive time as being fundamentally differnt from space
3) therefore relativity is bogus

We could go on endlessly like that

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Deesse23's post
07-09-2016, 08:13 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(07-09-2016 07:23 AM)xear Wrote:  1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.

I'll accept that because it is a meaningless tautology; anything that is contingent by definition requires something to cause it. Now you would just have to prove that any specific thing you define as contingent actually is contingent.

Quote: 2. A causal loop cannot exist.

How do you know that? It certainly sounds reasonable but it refers to something that is outside our normal experiences. The universe sometimes seems counter-intuitive (see relativity and quantum mechanics for examples) so I don't know that I can trust my intuition in areas where I have no experience. If time is a dimension and can fold back on itself somehow then a causal loop might be possible. Note that I do not claim that to be the case; I just know that I do not know and can't make the claim you are making here.

Quote: 3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.

See #2

Quote: 4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

Given that you have 1 tautology and 2 unsupported claims your conclusion does not follow. Even if I granted that there was a first cause (no need to capitalize it) for the universe as we know it there is nothing I could say about the nature of that cause. It is an unknown. Any attributes you apply to it are pure speculation.

Quote:Why don't you need a rational "first cause?" and no, "the big bang," is not it because "what was there to "bang?" ... that's just more infinite regression.

The big bang is not suggested as a first cause, it is only the furthest back we can extrapolate based on the physics that we currently understand. Calling it a first cause is a strawman characterization.

Why is it that believers can't accept "we do not know"? When I get to a point where there is something I can't explain I say "I can't explain it". When believers get to that point they say "I can't explain it so X is the explanation" where X is god or your extra-dimensional life force, or whatever.

Sometimes "I don't know" is the best answer. It is honest and opens you up to searching for more evidence.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
07-09-2016, 08:17 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(07-09-2016 08:00 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I hesitate to step into this quagmire of a thread,

Is there any other kind?
Cool

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2016, 08:19 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(07-09-2016 08:17 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(07-09-2016 08:00 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I hesitate to step into this quagmire of a thread,

Is there any other kind?
Cool

Its good excercise for your feet, much like jogging Big Grin

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2016, 08:29 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(07-09-2016 08:13 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(07-09-2016 07:23 AM)xear Wrote:  1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.

I'll accept that because it is a meaningless tautology; anything that is contingent by definition requires something to cause it. Now you would just have to prove that any specific thing you define as contingent actually is contingent.

This depends on the definition of "contingent". It can be taken to refer to something that "must have a cause", in which case the statement is tautologous, as you say. But I've more commonly seen it defined simply as the opposite of "necessary" -- a necessary being must exist; a contingent being is one that may or may not exist (a contingent event is one that may or may not happen). So it basically just refers to something that exists, but could conceivably not have existed. To me, at least, that doesn't necessarily imply causation. It's not logically impossible for a contingent being to arise with no cause, as for example, particles are said to do at the quantum level. This makes it a lot like statements #2 and #3 -- plausible on an intuitive level, but ultimately unsupported.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: