Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-12-2015, 09:17 AM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(20-12-2015 06:13 AM)Pachomius Wrote:  Lastly, it is about about heavy stuff, Atheism and Theism, so it is about existence or non-existence of an entity with the name God.

I notice time and again that when atheists see the word God, they already start from their attitude that God is a flying spaghetti monster, and that is not the way to contribute to a thread with the title,

May God have mercy on your sorry soul. in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2015, 09:41 AM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(20-12-2015 06:13 AM)Pachomius Wrote:  In re "Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists."

========================


Thanks a lot for your replies.

I guess we have to re-start from the beginning.

You see, you keep up bringing up old things from your reading, but I like us all to start with a fresh mind and ground ourselves on critical thinking.

The hardest thing with starting a thread is how to obtain connection with posters; because the way I see it, there are words in a title which a poster will as from a cue react to, not to the understanding of the whole thread, and even not relevant to the thread at all, it is like a poster is a search engine, say like Google.

Take this experiment, enter into Google the word, justice, and see what the first hit of Google is going to be, in fact it is the following:

Quote:https://www.google.com/search?q=justice&...8&oe=utf-8


About 683,000,000 results (0.55 seconds)
Search Results

Justice: Tween Clothing & Fashion For Girls
http://www.shopjustice.com/

Justice is your one-stop-shop for the cutest & most on-trend styles in tween girls' clothing. Shop Justice for the best tween fashions in a variety of sizes.
Store Locator
Find a Justice girls' clothing store near you. ... more with our ...

New Arrivals
Shop girls' new arrivals to find all the newest styles & fashion for ...
Clothes
Discover the hottest new girls' clothes in our New Arrivals ...

Tops
Home • clothes • tops. Order by 12/21 for Christmas delivery ...
Girls Clothes Sale
Shop fashionable girls clothes sale at Justice. Our selection of the ...

Backpacks & Lunch Totes
backpacks & lunch totes. Medallion Backpack ... Dye ...
More results from shopjustice.com »


I chose the place to put the present thread in, namely,
The Thinking Atheist Forum › The Heavy Stuff › Atheism and Theism

So, as this is the website with the name, The Thinking Atheist, I assume that atheists here will do thinking, and first and foremost, doing thinking that can be described as critical thinking.

Then it is about The Heavy Stuff, so we have to do real heavy thinking, not just writing on the first thing that comes to your mind like Google, which is neither thinking, much less heavy.

Lastly, it is about about heavy stuff, Atheism and Theism, so it is about existence or non-existence of an entity with the name God.

I notice time and again that when atheists see the word God, they already start from their attitude that God is a flying spaghetti monster, and that is not the way to contribute to a thread with the title,

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists."

The title has to do with existence or non-existence, but the focus is on existence, and directly not on God, but on something, anything at all, that exists.

I am inviting everyone to work together, you and I, to agree on how to prove that something, anything at all, exists.

So, don't bring in God and much less with your attitude that God is a flying spaghetti monster: because that is no way to be into thinking, thinking as in The Thinking Atheist, and it is nothing of any heavy stuff, but speaking from as from a cue like Google.

Anyway, may I invite us all starting with yours truly to locate what is the important word in the title of the present thread, namely:

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists."

The important word is 'exists', then the word something, and the author of the thread is inviting everyone, us all whether atheists (and I presume predominantly the members here are atheists) or not, and yours truly is non-atheist, to work with thinking, that is heavy stuff, not anything like writing as from a cue on the flying spaghetti monster.

Perhaps I should have started the present thread with trying to invite us all to work together seriously, grounding ourselves on critical thinking, on what is existence as opposite to non-existence, instead of bringing up the idea that the default status of things in the world is existence.

What about this suggestion, suppose one of you an atheist propose the thread, namely:

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."

Forgive me, let us take a diversion and think about this title for a thread from you or from me, namely:

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."

That is an experiment, to find out what is our each one's instinct right away to the proposal on starting a thread with the following title,

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."

Forgive me, what I have in mind is that we start from our own personal thinking, instead of bringing in what you read and retained in rote memory in your heart and mind, the attitude like God is a flying spaghetti monster.

Yes, you will react that for you atheists the idea of God is so irrational that you have to resort to ridiculous analogies to what? to avoid thinking seriously, with some fresh examination on critical thinking, what exactly is so absurd and ridiculous about the concept of God; but first, may I, and forgive me, request that you have to ask yourselves, what is my [your] concept of God, or more correctly what is the concept of God that is propounded by serious thinkers who do not take refuge in ridiculous analogies, but sincerely and with heavy examination, investigate the concept of God as propounded by theists, like perhaps, in His role in the universe, or even more broadly, in the realm of existence, existence as opposite non-existence.

You will challenge me, that there is no role for God in anything at all, but that is already a presumption, specifically a gratuitous allegation; it will not be a gratuitous allegation if you have examined the idea of role in existence, then present your conclusion, on what is a role, what is God, and why from your critical thinking God cannot be at least in term of concepts, having any role in existence.

So, let us all take a diversion, to take up seriously the feasibility of a thread with the title, namely:

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."


I await with excitement your reactions to that proposal above, and forgive me, I will concentrate on your reactions to that proposal above.

And I promise you, I will follow your lead to contribute to the development of the thread,

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."

You seem to think that your question is somehow original, and that we are jumping to conclusions about god.
You have no idea how many have already come here before you using the same bullshit tactics to eventually, after many pages, get around to what you are up to.
Your arguments are stale and boring.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2015, 09:56 AM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(20-12-2015 06:13 AM)‘Pachomius Wrote:  ...but I like us all to start with a fresh mind and ground ourselves on critical thinking.

I hate to point out the obvious but critical thinking, by any definition, would exclude the non-fasifiable and the non-detectable...including magical beings.

(20-12-2015 06:13 AM)‘Pachomius Wrote:  I am inviting everyone to work together, you and I, to agree on how to prove that something, anything at all, exists.

Is it detectable?
Is it observable?
Is it measurable?
Is it non-falsifiable?

Whatever “it” is has to meet one or more of the requirements above or else there is nothing we can concretely say about it that is not conjecture.

Is there a teapot orbiting the Sun?
We know teapots exist, we know the Sun exists. Is there any evidence either way that it exists or doesn’t exist?

So far it has not been detected, observed or measured. Would you hold the position that there is a possibility that such a teapot exists?

“Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true.” ~ Carl Sagan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

(20-12-2015 06:13 AM)‘Pachomius Wrote:  So, don’t bring in God and much less with your attitude that God is a flying spaghetti monster:

I’ll bring in whatever I want. Drinking Beverage

(20-12-2015 06:13 AM)‘Pachomius Wrote:  Yes, you will react that for you atheists the idea of God is so irrational that you have to resort to ridiculous analogies to what? to avoid thinking seriously,...

Quite the opposite. Because I have applied critical, serious thinking to the matter I have concluded that the God idea is irrational. That you think otherwise should be a red flag to your own critical thinking.

(20-12-2015 06:13 AM)‘Pachomius Wrote:  “Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."

This is a tired attempt at shifting the burden of proof.

"Some people speak as if we were not justified in rejecting a theological doctrine unless we can prove it false. But the burden of proof does not lie upon the rejecter.... If you were told that in a certain planet revolving around Sirius there is a race of donkeys who speak the English language and spend their time in discussing eugenics, you could not disprove the statement, but would it, on that account, have any claim to be believed? Some minds would be prepared to accept it, if it were reiterated often enough, through the potent force of suggestion.” ~ J. B. Bury, History of Freedom of Thought.


The quote above is specifically calling out theological doctrine but I think it could be applied to teapots, talking donkeys, Garage Dragons, Leprechauns, Faries or anything else an emotionally stunted, frightened animal with an overactive imagination and delusions of grandeur can conceive.

See my 2nd sig line.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
20-12-2015, 10:02 AM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(17-12-2015 02:14 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  I have some ideas on how humans prove to themselves that something exists in reality outside their mind.

For example -- and I am not being funny, to prove the existence of the nose in our face, you and I each touch our respective nose, and then we touch each other's nose, and we thus are certain that you and I have a nose in our face.

What do you say?

Please, if you see something you feel not acceptable in my posts, please tell me in details what it is, and I will try to write it again so that you will not anymore complain.

Simple, scientific method. Observe, collect data, plug data into established and proven formula, with control groups, take your observed outcome and hand it over to those independent peers within your same field, if they come up with the same conclusions repeatedly, then you are onto something, if not, start over work out the kinks and try again.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2015, 10:16 AM (This post was last modified: 20-12-2015 10:22 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(20-12-2015 06:13 AM)Pachomius Wrote:  In re "Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists."

========================


Thanks a lot for your replies.

I guess we have to re-start from the beginning.

You see, you keep up bringing up old things from your reading, but I like us all to start with a fresh mind and ground ourselves on critical thinking.

The hardest thing with starting a thread is how to obtain connection with posters; because the way I see it, there are words in a title which a poster will as from a cue react to, not to the understanding of the whole thread, and even not relevant to the thread at all, it is like a poster is a search engine, say like Google.

Take this experiment, enter into Google the word, justice, and see what the first hit of Google is going to be, in fact it is the following:

Quote:https://www.google.com/search?q=justice&...8&oe=utf-8


About 683,000,000 results (0.55 seconds)
Search Results

Justice: Tween Clothing & Fashion For Girls
http://www.shopjustice.com/

Justice is your one-stop-shop for the cutest & most on-trend styles in tween girls' clothing. Shop Justice for the best tween fashions in a variety of sizes.
Store Locator
Find a Justice girls' clothing store near you. ... more with our ...

New Arrivals
Shop girls' new arrivals to find all the newest styles & fashion for ...
Clothes
Discover the hottest new girls' clothes in our New Arrivals ...

Tops
Home • clothes • tops. Order by 12/21 for Christmas delivery ...
Girls Clothes Sale
Shop fashionable girls clothes sale at Justice. Our selection of the ...

Backpacks & Lunch Totes
backpacks & lunch totes. Medallion Backpack ... Dye ...
More results from shopjustice.com »


I chose the place to put the present thread in, namely,
The Thinking Atheist Forum › The Heavy Stuff › Atheism and Theism

So, as this is the website with the name, The Thinking Atheist, I assume that atheists here will do thinking, and first and foremost, doing thinking that can be described as critical thinking.

Then it is about The Heavy Stuff, so we have to do real heavy thinking, not just writing on the first thing that comes to your mind like Google, which is neither thinking, much less heavy.

Lastly, it is about about heavy stuff, Atheism and Theism, so it is about existence or non-existence of an entity with the name God.

I notice time and again that when atheists see the word God, they already start from their attitude that God is a flying spaghetti monster, and that is not the way to contribute to a thread with the title,

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists."

The title has to do with existence or non-existence, but the focus is on existence, and directly not on God, but on something, anything at all, that exists.

I am inviting everyone to work together, you and I, to agree on how to prove that something, anything at all, exists.

So, don't bring in God and much less with your attitude that God is a flying spaghetti monster: because that is no way to be into thinking, thinking as in The Thinking Atheist, and it is nothing of any heavy stuff, but speaking from as from a cue like Google.

Anyway, may I invite us all starting with yours truly to locate what is the important word in the title of the present thread, namely:

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists."

The important word is 'exists', then the word something, and the author of the thread is inviting everyone, us all whether atheists (and I presume predominantly the members here are atheists) or not, and yours truly is non-atheist, to work with thinking, that is heavy stuff, not anything like writing as from a cue on the flying spaghetti monster.

Perhaps I should have started the present thread with trying to invite us all to work together seriously, grounding ourselves on critical thinking, on what is existence as opposite to non-existence, instead of bringing up the idea that the default status of things in the world is existence.

What about this suggestion, suppose one of you an atheist propose the thread, namely:

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."

Forgive me, let us take a diversion and think about this title for a thread from you or from me, namely:

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."

That is an experiment, to find out what is our each one's instinct right away to the proposal on starting a thread with the following title,

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."

Forgive me, what I have in mind is that we start from our own personal thinking, instead of bringing in what you read and retained in rote memory in your heart and mind, the attitude like God is a flying spaghetti monster.

Yes, you will react that for you atheists the idea of God is so irrational that you have to resort to ridiculous analogies to what? to avoid thinking seriously, with some fresh examination on critical thinking, what exactly is so absurd and ridiculous about the concept of God; but first, may I, and forgive me, request that you have to ask yourselves, what is my [your] concept of God, or more correctly what is the concept of God that is propounded by serious thinkers who do not take refuge in ridiculous analogies, but sincerely and with heavy examination, investigate the concept of God as propounded by theists, like perhaps, in His role in the universe, or even more broadly, in the realm of existence, existence as opposite non-existence.

You will challenge me, that there is no role for God in anything at all, but that is already a presumption, specifically a gratuitous allegation; it will not be a gratuitous allegation if you have examined the idea of role in existence, then present your conclusion, on what is a role, what is God, and why from your critical thinking God cannot be at least in term of concepts, having any role in existence.

So, let us all take a diversion, to take up seriously the feasibility of a thread with the title, namely:

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."


I await with excitement your reactions to that proposal above, and forgive me, I will concentrate on your reactions to that proposal above.

And I promise you, I will follow your lead to contribute to the development of the thread,

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."

Consider

You are correct in that you stumbled into theTHINKINGatheist. Sadly, we do not get many theists in here that can apply critical thought, intelligence, and valid epistemological methods for ascertaining the facts of the real world we live in. The few that do, have stayed. Of course we do have a couple ineducable tyro theists that cling to us like a rabid dog unable to stop barking at the grizzly bear. Mostly we get the driveby one post trolls who scream about damnation, then never return.

Erudite theists are rare, and all are unable to critically analyze information because they view the real world through god goggles, dreaming and bloviating about transcendental beings and magical dimensions where angels and fairies frolic about while feeding unicorns and chasing bigfoot through the lucky charms forrest.

You seem to dangle philosophical word games which have no answer. Here let me try the game:

You seek knowledge of the creator of life. Actually you have to trace it back to Uranus...you see, Uranus is hollow, and full of little purple men who ride unicorns. These purple men worship the Life and Universe creator known as Norgg who sits upon the golden throne in the middle of Uranus. These purple beings feed unicorns magic beans, so that the unicorns fart fairy dust. This fairy dust is collected and boiled in the great sky cauldron...then bottled inside invisible bottle rockets that are catapulted through space to earth...and these bottles shatter upon entering the earth's atmosphere and upon a human's birth, form its soul. Now you see, you are seeking the truth...and all this time it was in URANUS.

So dear friend, let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist. Disprove Norrg...if you can't that proves his existence. Surely you see the fallacy of such infantile attempts to prove a god.

One would presume that in order to prove or disprove something, one must have evidence in support or against such a thing. There is ZERO evidence for a god, outside philosophical musings of man, who has over time, created all gods, usually in our own image. Now we can sit around the campfire sipping adult beverages while making up "wouldn't it be cool if there was a magical super genie in the sky who created everything" stories, but in the end, it is just the slapping together of lips in the physical expression of neurological flatulence.

All stories of gods can be traced back to their creation, and assimilation. So when we pick one to try to prove, or disprove, we must look at empirical evidence to support or debunk said god. If for example, your delusion of choice is the anthropocentric god of abrahamic myth that the xtians, jewish, and muslims worship in one form or another, then you must study archaeological, historical, and empirical evidence available. To no surprise, all of that discredits the whimsical story of the abrahamic god. It is a cool story, but it could use some more dragons, and less zombies and talking snakes.

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."

Word games. One cannot disprove something doesn't exist simply by asserting that no evidence exists to disprove it. That isn't the way it works, as demonstrated by the story of Norgg I created.

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists."

This is done by contemplation of evidence that supports it. For example, evolution is true. This statement is a fact as evolution can be predicted, observed, and it is falsifiable. See how that works?

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
20-12-2015, 10:18 AM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
I always take the time when topics like this get started to point out that there is not simply one religion that tries to debunk science then when they cant get away with that, they try to co opt science as if they are the gatekeepers who invented science. Science is not a religion, it is not there to prop up any religion or god claim. In my 14 years of online debates I have debated Christians and Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists and even once a Rastafarian.

Certainly there are believers of all religions who accept science, but even with that I am no fan of splitting the baby. Religion and science are not compatible or "separate but equal". I can live with religious people who don't try to interject their books or god into a lab. But no, even with that they are NOT equal. Religion is simply a human invented construct which is nothing more than a personal bias, a placebo, a gap answer. It isn't a tool like scientific method is.

I highly recommend on top of "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, which explains why god claims happen. But also lesser known author and scientist equally important is Victor Stenger, and two of his books "God the failed hypothesis" and "The New Atheism"....... Especially the New Atheism, he even goes after Sam Harris basically saying "No Sam, even you are wrong".

I am with Stenger, we've had centuries of modern science, especially in the last 100 years and it has been consistent over and over that what once was believed to be super natural ends up being explained by natural science. And we also have Hawking saying "A god is not required"....


So it makes much more sense to me to chalk the existence of god claims on human's vivid imaginations and flawed perceptions. But make no mistake about it, it isn't just one religion running scared of Toto pulling back the curtain, they all do it to some degree. Humans don't like their social norms upset.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2015, 10:22 AM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(20-12-2015 09:56 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Is there a teapot orbiting the Sun?

Millions if not billions of them brother. Big Grin

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
20-12-2015, 10:41 AM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
OK, here's the Coles Notes version. A quick Google search for Pachomius' odd phrase "existence is the default status of things" brings to you the wonder of all the other boards that Pachomius has argued this on. He has spent a truly mind-boggling amount of effort repeating himself ad nauseum and an equal amount ignoring all the other people who have told him to go screw himself.

Pachomius' problem is that he is miring the discussion in jargon such as "default status" that serves only to confuse. Stripped of the word salad, his argument reads as follows:

(1) I exist
(2) I have not always existed. I was born and will die.
(3) My existence was caused by something that existed before me. My parents fucked.
(4) Extend this argument to my parents, their parents, everybody and everything in the Universe and the Universe as a whole.
(5) Existence does not come from non-existence. Something does not come from nothing.
(6) Thus, something must have always existed. If it had not, non-existence would have led to yet more non-existence and we would not exist. This is clearly not the case as it contradicts point 1.
(7) Lacking a meaningful placeholder, we will call this eternally existant entity God.

Pachomius, kindly read that over carefully and correct any misrepresentations that I may have made. It is not my intent to create strawmen. For future use, feel free to shamelessly copy-N-paste it. It will save your next audience six pages of trying to figure out what you are carrying on about. In debate, clarity and simplicity are vital.

Depending on how you read this, it is either a poor representation of Thomas Aquinas' Argument from Contingency or Argument from First Cause. Regardless, it inevitably boils down to Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, from which Aquinas borrowed so heavily. You should look these up Pachomius, they will help you improve this argument and their refutations may show you why you should abandon this approach.

I won't take issue with points 1 through 4, though some of the existentialists in the crowd may wish to play with them.

Points 5 and 6 are not shown for the context in which they are being used. They work well enough for everyday life, but applying them to the conditions prior to the existence of the universe is an error. Space, time and causality are features of our universe so prior to our universe they may well not have operated. The rules may have been utterly different and something may well have come from nothing on a regular basis.

Point 7 is a non-sequitur that as easily demonstrates the existence of Odin, Pele, Vishnu or some inanimate, unthinking and uncaring natural process.

Next time Pachomius, kindly read the "Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies" thread. Your argument was dealt with in the OP.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like Paleophyte's post
20-12-2015, 10:53 AM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(20-12-2015 10:41 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  OK, here's the Coles Notes version. A quick Google search for Pachomius' odd phrase "existence is the default status of things" brings to you the wonder of all the other boards that Pachomius has argued this on. He has spent a truly mind-boggling amount of effort repeating himself ad nauseum and an equal amount ignoring all the other people who have told him to go screw himself.

Pachomius' problem is that he is miring the discussion in jargon such as "default status" that serves only to confuse. Stripped of the word salad, his argument reads as follows:

(1) I exist
(2) I have not always existed. I was born and will die.
(3) My existence was caused by something that existed before me. My parents fucked.
(4) Extend this argument to my parents, their parents, everybody and everything in the Universe and the Universe as a whole.
(5) Existence does not come from non-existence. Something does not come from nothing.
(6) Thus, something must have always existed. If it had not, non-existence would have led to yet more non-existence and we would not exist. This is clearly not the case as it contradicts point 1.
(7) Lacking a meaningful placeholder, we will call this eternally existant entity God.

Pachomius, kindly read that over carefully and correct any misrepresentations that I may have made. It is not my intent to create strawmen. For future use, feel free to shamelessly copy-N-paste it. It will save your next audience six pages of trying to figure out what you are carrying on about. In debate, clarity and simplicity are vital.

Depending on how you read this, it is either a poor representation of Thomas Aquinas' Argument from Contingency or Argument from First Cause. Regardless, it inevitably boils down to Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, from which Aquinas borrowed so heavily. You should look these up Pachomius, they will help you improve this argument and their refutations may show you why you should abandon this approach.

I won't take issue with points 1 through 4, though some of the existentialists in the crowd may wish to play with them.

Points 5 and 6 are not shown for the context in which they are being used. They work well enough for everyday life, but applying them to the conditions prior to the existence of the universe is an error. Space, time and causality are features of our universe so prior to our universe they may well not have operated. The rules may have been utterly different and something may well have come from nothing on a regular basis.

Point 7 is a non-sequitur that as easily demonstrates the existence of Odin, Pele, Vishnu or some inanimate, unthinking and uncaring natural process.

Next time Pachomius, kindly read the "Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies" thread. Your argument was dealt with in the OP.

Bamm! that just happened. lol.

Nicely done.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2015, 11:00 AM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(20-12-2015 10:41 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  (1) I exist
(2) I have not always existed. I was born and will die.
(3) My existence was caused by something that existed before me. My parents fucked.
(4) Extend this argument to my parents, their parents, everybody and everything in the Universe and the Universe as a whole.
(5) Existence does not come from non-existence. Something does not come from nothing.
(6) Thus, something must have always existed. If it had not, non-existence would have led to yet more non-existence and we would not exist. This is clearly not the case as it contradicts point 1.

Point 1 is not only unsubstantiated it is likely unsubstantiable. Drinking Beverage

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: