Debunk Please
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-04-2015, 06:19 PM
Debunk Please
In another message board I've been in an ongoing debate of general theism vs atheism. A recent poster jumped and said logic and science point to not just a deity but the God of the Bible. Below I will copy and paste his reply to my questions for him. He claimed he had a degree in some field of science but I cannot recall his specifics. I am 'bcsoonerfan' and the response is by a poster who calls himself 'F the Bruins'

Originally posted by bcsoonerfan:
F the Bruins, in all civility moving forward, please enlighten me as to what science I'm dismissing? I'm genuinely interested. If you're talking about causality, please lay out to me what specifically about causality points to a deity but specifically the God of the Bible.



Causality is not a science, but rather a tool used in science. Causality is one of the three laws of logic. Not a theory, but a law. Causality points to the fact that all effects necessitate a cause. Nothing is self-caused. For a being to cause itself, it must predate its own existence, rendering it's necessary characteristics for causing itself to not exist. If the characteristics necessary for causing itself to exist do not exist, it is impossible to self-cause.

Ok, so no being can cause its own existence. This necessitates that all beings are either eternal or caused by another pre-existing being.

Every being in our universe is in a state of change...energy level, motion etc. all beings in change are effected upon. Our universe is a huge collection of effects. Effects necessitate a cause. All beings in a state of change had another being potentiate that change.

Now, use a row of falling dominos as an anology for cause and effect. We see the dominos as they fall. One topples the next, which topples the next. Each domino is a cause of the next domino's fall, but its own fall is the effect caused by the preceding domino. Cause and effect cannot possibly go back for an eternity. If the falling dominos went back forever, there would never be the first domino tipped. If the first domino is not tipped, there could be no secondary effects of falling dominos. Also, events cannot cross an infinite time to reach today. But we are here today. The events of the falling dominos must have had a beginning. A tipper.

This logical law points to our universe having a beginning. Some will bring up many world theories, but cause and effect still require a primary cause of all effects. Some will bring up an eternal universe, but cause and effect still requires a beginning. All effects have a beginning.

lets just throw out a hypothetical. If a universe is eternal. The laws of thermodynamics would mandate that it would be a virtually dead universe. Energy would have been so spread thin that our universe would be at about absolute zero. There would be no order left. The thing is, there is still order. The universe still has usable energy. Everything heads towards a lower energy state and disorder. After and infinite amount of time,me should have been there long ago.

All of the above is what I maintain points to a primary cause of our universe. This is only a partial picture of God. A primary cause must be uncaused and eternal. This means that it cannot be in a state of change. These are three Divine characteristics of God. But, still not a complete picture.

If the primary cause of all our universe was a lone being, consider some other characteristics one can deduce. We have knowledge. All knowledge via causality, originated from the primary cause.

It takes power to cause something to be. All power originated from the primary cause.

I could go on with this line of thought, but you get the idea.

Now, is the original cause of our universe sentient? If an eternal being just happened to have the proper mechanics to cause a universe to exist, and had an eternity to do so, our universe would have been caused an eternity ago and already dead. But it is not dead. Our universe was not created an eternity ago, by an eternal primary cause. That points to a decision made from an infinite amount of choices. In turn, decisions point to the characteristic of a sentient being.

Now, the picture is starting to look very much like the God of the Bible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 06:22 PM
RE: Debunk Please
This is my first reply to his ramblings:

F the Bruins,

You use to much presuppositions about what God is and what you believe to know of the universe. No laws of logic point to an uncreated creator. You can't get around infinite regress. You can't claim to know with any certainty that God exists outside of space and time. You can't infer to know anything outside of space and time.

You do have a firm grasp on causality and you've compartmentalized a lot of the science outside of that to see what fits your religious beliefs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 06:26 PM
RE: Debunk Please
Quote:This necessitates that all beings are either eternal or caused by another pre-existing being.


The answer is right there. He asserts that his 'god' is a "being" with no evidence beyond his silly, religious-based assertion. You cannot skip Step #1. Produce evidence that your god exists or STFU.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Minimalist's post
08-04-2015, 06:29 PM
RE: Debunk Please
(08-04-2015 06:19 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  In another message board I've been in an ongoing debate of general theism vs atheism. A recent poster jumped and said logic and science point to not just a deity but the God of the Bible. Below I will copy and paste his reply to my questions for him. He claimed he had a degree in some field of science but I cannot recall his specifics. I am 'bcsoonerfan' and the response is by a poster who calls himself 'F the Bruins'

Originally posted by bcsoonerfan:
F the Bruins, in all civility moving forward, please enlighten me as to what science I'm dismissing? I'm genuinely interested. If you're talking about causality, please lay out to me what specifically about causality points to a deity but specifically the God of the Bible.



Causality is not a science, but rather a tool used in science. Causality is one of the three laws of logic. Not a theory, but a law. Causality points to the fact that all effects necessitate a cause. Nothing is self-caused. For a being to cause itself, it must predate its own existence, rendering it's necessary characteristics for causing itself to not exist. If the characteristics necessary for causing itself to exist do not exist, it is impossible to self-cause.

Ok, so no being can cause its own existence. This necessitates that all beings are either eternal or caused by another pre-existing being.

Every being in our universe is in a state of change...energy level, motion etc. all beings in change are effected upon. Our universe is a huge collection of effects. Effects necessitate a cause. All beings in a state of change had another being potentiate that change.

Now, use a row of falling dominos as an anology for cause and effect. We see the dominos as they fall. One topples the next, which topples the next. Each domino is a cause of the next domino's fall, but its own fall is the effect caused by the preceding domino. Cause and effect cannot possibly go back for an eternity. If the falling dominos went back forever, there would never be the first domino tipped. If the first domino is not tipped, there could be no secondary effects of falling dominos. Also, events cannot cross an infinite time to reach today. But we are here today. The events of the falling dominos must have had a beginning. A tipper.

This logical law points to our universe having a beginning. Some will bring up many world theories, but cause and effect still require a primary cause of all effects. Some will bring up an eternal universe, but cause and effect still requires a beginning. All effects have a beginning.

lets just throw out a hypothetical. If a universe is eternal. The laws of thermodynamics would mandate that it would be a virtually dead universe. Energy would have been so spread thin that our universe would be at about absolute zero. There would be no order left. The thing is, there is still order. The universe still has usable energy. Everything heads towards a lower energy state and disorder. After and infinite amount of time,me should have been there long ago.

All of the above is what I maintain points to a primary cause of our universe. This is only a partial picture of God. A primary cause must be uncaused and eternal. This means that it cannot be in a state of change. These are three Divine characteristics of God. But, still not a complete picture.

If the primary cause of all our universe was a lone being, consider some other characteristics one can deduce. We have knowledge. All knowledge via causality, originated from the primary cause.

It takes power to cause something to be. All power originated from the primary cause.

I could go on with this line of thought, but you get the idea.

Now, is the original cause of our universe sentient? If an eternal being just happened to have the proper mechanics to cause a universe to exist, and had an eternity to do so, our universe would have been caused an eternity ago and already dead. But it is not dead. Our universe was not created an eternity ago, by an eternal primary cause. That points to a decision made from an infinite amount of choices. In turn, decisions point to the characteristic of a sentient being.

Now, the picture is starting to look very much like the God of the Bible.

He's wrong flat and clear. Logic has a single law; the law of identity and its corollaries. The god concept contradicts the law of identity and its corollaries as well as every fundamental principle of a rational view of metaphysics. Logic rests on the principle of the primacy of existence. The god concept affirms its antithesis, the primacy of consciousness. There is no escape for the theist from this. Whenever a theist claims that logic can't exist without a god, it is a literal reverse of the truth.

It is very difficult to present this to the theist because he has likely never heard of the issue of metaphysical primacy. There is an easy way to use the same contradiction but in a much more understandable way. Just ask him for a reliable method to distinguish between what he is calling God and something that is merely imaginary. He will not be able to do it. Watch him dodge and weave and evade.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
08-04-2015, 06:39 PM
RE: Debunk Please
Here is my reply to him basically claiming I just wasn't smart enough to follow his logic and that I hadn't identified what he was presupposing:

Bruins,

It's not verifiable, period. Logically, your ideas on causality are sound, but you can't prove that the uncaused cause is God, that is what you are presupposing. And, no you haven't really explained how it points to the God of the Bible.

You also presuppose to know things pre-Big Bang about our universe that we do not have answers too yet. You can presuppose it's God and I can presuppose that the energy of the universe as the eternal creator. Energy can neither be created or destroyed. The difference is I have evidence that the universe is real and you have none that God, especially a God who interacts with man, is real. None. Zero. Zilch. FYI, the Bible is not evidence, it is a claim.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fodder_From_The_Truth's post
08-04-2015, 06:53 PM
RE: Debunk Please
He flagrantly commits a special pleading fallacy in order to avoid infinite regress. Special pleading is a spurious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule or principle without offering evidence or proper justification of said exception. ie. God.

This is a form of Williams Lane Craig's Kalam cosmological argument. Sean Carroll a Cal Tech physicist does a excellent job mopping the floor with that charlatan Craig and his sophistry in some debates you can find on YouTube.

Let's not forget the good ole 'argument from ignorance' fallacy that theist love to commit. I have no explanation for X (causality of the cosmos) therefore MY God did it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Biolizard's post
08-04-2015, 06:57 PM
RE: Debunk Please
Excellent Biolizard. Not sure how i let 'special pleading' slip past me in my replies.

Would you be okay if I copy and pasted your reply to him and see what he has to say?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 07:09 PM
RE: Debunk Please
Alright, this should be fun. Haven't had a good debunking in a while, I was starting to get the shakes. Tongue

(08-04-2015 06:19 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  Causality is not a science, but rather a tool used in science. Causality is one of the three laws of logic. Not a theory, but a law.

Wow, the guy's gonna start off a screed about how much he knows science by dusting off the old "just a theory!" chestnut by asserting that laws are ranked above theories in science. That doesn't bode well. Rolleyes

Quote: Causality points to the fact that all effects necessitate a cause.

"Except my god, because I've defined god as not being bound by this characteristic!" Rolleyes

Quote:Nothing is self-caused. For a being to cause itself, it must predate its own existence, rendering it's necessary characteristics for causing itself to not exist. If the characteristics necessary for causing itself to exist do not exist, it is impossible to self-cause.

Factually incorrect, if we consider time travel, which the theist must do, as such a thing necessarily must be within god's power. If something goes back in time and causes itself to exist, it is self causing without necessarily predating its own existence within the context of its own chronology. Premise falsified.

Quote:Ok, so no being can cause its own existence. This necessitates that all beings are either eternal or caused by another pre-existing being.

Well, given that the premise is falsified... Drinking Beverage

Quote:Every being in our universe is in a state of change...energy level, motion etc. all beings in change are effected upon. Our universe is a huge collection of effects. Effects necessitate a cause. All beings in a state of change had another being potentiate that change.

Fallacy of composition and argument from definition: taking the assertion here as true, what's true of things within the universe do not necessarily apply to the universe itself, or what lies beyond it, and anyway you can't just define everything within the universe as an effect by fiat. That's no different than arguing that creation needs a creator, therefore god. Rolleyes

Quote:Cause and effect cannot possibly go back for an eternity.

Ha ha, when did he demonstrate that?

Quote: If the falling dominos went back forever, there would never be the first domino tipped.

What if the dominoes were in a circle, and at the terminus of that circle the last domino was zapped back in time to fall and begin the process again? No need for the god the theist is growing inevitably closer to shoehorning into the gaps left in his argument from fiat assertion there. Drinking Beverage

Quote:Also, events cannot cross an infinite time to reach today.

They can if you have an infinite amount of time.

Quote:This logical law points to our universe having a beginning. Some will bring up many world theories, but cause and effect still require a primary cause of all effects. Some will bring up an eternal universe, but cause and effect still requires a beginning. All effects have a beginning.

Again with this tired old false dichotomy: what about an eternal pair of universes that are mirrored? One goes from bang to crunch, the other from crunch to bang with a reversed flow of time? It's no less preposterous than a magic timeless space genie.

Quote:lets just throw out a hypothetical. If a universe is eternal. The laws of thermodynamics would mandate that it would be a virtually dead universe. Energy would have been so spread thin that our universe would be at about absolute zero. There would be no order left. The thing is, there is still order. The universe still has usable energy. Everything heads towards a lower energy state and disorder. After and infinite amount of time,me should have been there long ago.

Why is he assuming that an eternal universe is a closed system? And why is he making the same fallacy of composition again, where he assumes that things that are true within the universe are true for the universe as a whole?

Quote:All of the above is what I maintain points to a primary cause of our universe. This is only a partial picture of God. A primary cause must be uncaused and eternal. This means that it cannot be in a state of change. These are three Divine characteristics of God. But, still not a complete picture.

See my time traveler scenario from earlier in the thing. This claim is bullshit.

Quote:If the primary cause of all our universe was a lone being, consider some other characteristics one can deduce. We have knowledge. All knowledge via causality, originated from the primary cause.

Or, knowledge necessarily relies on observations of reality, not on some Platonic form of Knowledge that requires a creator in and of itself. Rolleyes

Quote:It takes power to cause something to be. All power originated from the primary cause.

How does he know it always takes power to cause something to be?

Quote:I could go on with this line of thought, but you get the idea.

Yes, you've used a bunch of unjustified assertions to cut a god shaped hole in your picture of the universe, and now you're going to act all shocked and pretend like those were observations that you used that just happened to lead up to the god conclusion, rather than a specific shape you cut out of the picture to reach a conclusion you already had in mind. Rolleyes

Quote:Now, is the original cause of our universe sentient? If an eternal being just happened to have the proper mechanics to cause a universe to exist, and had an eternity to do so, our universe would have been caused an eternity ago and already dead. But it is not dead. Our universe was not created an eternity ago, by an eternal primary cause. That points to a decision made from an infinite amount of choices. In turn, decisions point to the characteristic of a sentient being.

How the fuck did you get to "being"? Dodgy

More importantly, if this eternal being is really eternal then he had an eternity of time to create the universe, meaning that he never could have reached the time when he created it. Hey, it's his logic, he can't just ignore that he said it whenever it's convenient.

Quote:Now, the picture is starting to look very much like the God of the Bible.

No, it's starting to look like one deistic god, and one desperately stretching theist hoping we won't notice. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Esquilax's post
08-04-2015, 07:21 PM
RE: Debunk Please
I read lots of words and very little in the way of evidence to support any of his assertions.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
08-04-2015, 07:23 PM
RE: Debunk Please
(08-04-2015 06:57 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  Excellent Biolizard. Not sure how i let 'special pleading' slip past me in my replies.

Would you be okay if I copy and pasted your reply to him and see what he has to say?

Sure, no problem. Smile
Glad I could be of assistance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Biolizard's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: