The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-02-2017, 03:49 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 03:35 PM)Ace Wrote:  further more there is the issue of whether or not what we see is reality or we're inside a virtual simulation or a brain in a vat plugged into the matrix and no scientific experimentation, observation, logical deduction can distinguish between these possibilities

And how would it make any difference anyways?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 03:50 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 11:57 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 11:52 AM)Ace Wrote:  listen reason and logic won't help you prove anything exists unless you have hard evidence to back it up and arguments don't qualify as evidence

So if I wrote a mathematical proof showing that 0.99... repeating on forever is equal to 1, would you not believe me until I showed it with physical evidence? Your standard seems to be empiricism. But empiricism is subservient to a priori deductive arguments.

That may well be, but your arguments are not logically valid. You keep trying to sneak in a 'being' where none is warranted.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 03:53 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 11:57 AM)Naielis Wrote:  But empiricism is subservient to a priori deductive arguments.

If deductive arguments were a priori we wouldn't need deduction.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
06-02-2017, 03:53 PM (This post was last modified: 06-02-2017 04:02 PM by Chas.)
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 12:32 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 12:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Logic never said anything about Relativity or Uncertainty.
It is insufficient to describe Reality.

So you think we need something beyond logic?

Yes - EVIDENCE.

Quote:There exists no such thing.

Yes there is - EVIDENCE.

Quote:Are you suggesting science is illogical?

No - but it relies on EVIDENCE.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
06-02-2017, 04:00 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 03:49 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 03:35 PM)Ace Wrote:  further more there is the issue of whether or not what we see is reality or we're inside a virtual simulation or a brain in a vat plugged into the matrix and no scientific experimentation, observation, logical deduction can distinguish between these possibilities

And how would it make any difference anyways?

It wouldn't but it renders the correspondence to reality definition wrong and inapplicable
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ace's post
06-02-2017, 04:01 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 03:35 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 03:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your explanations were adequate, but the argument fails.
It fails at step 6 by assuming a being without justifying it.

In your second 'argument' you fail because 5 does not follow from 4.

The arguments are not logically sound.

I don't know what you mean when you say without justifying it. The preceding premises justify it.

You keep missing the point. You have done nothing to justify a 'being'.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
06-02-2017, 04:02 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 04:00 PM)Ace Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 03:49 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  And how would it make any difference anyways?

It wouldn't but it renders the correspondence to reality definition wrong and inapplicable

Ah, that it does.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 04:23 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 01:09 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 12:42 PM)Ace Wrote:  P1. jumbo is an elephant
P2. all elephants are pink
conclusion: jumbo is pink

this is a valid deduction except for one little problem.... until you can prove elephants in the real world are in fact pink the argument is wrong by default

I don't disagree. But how does this relate? What is the unjustified empiricist claim I make?

P1. The universe exists
P2. the universe requires a “necessary being” to cause it to exist
conclusion: a “necessary being" exists

“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
[+] 4 users Like Full Circle's post
06-02-2017, 04:38 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 04:23 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 01:09 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I don't disagree. But how does this relate? What is the unjustified empiricist claim I make?

P1. The universe exists
P2. the universe requires a “necessary being” to cause it to exist
conclusion: a “being that exists" exists

so if god can be defined to exist necessarily then god can also be defined to necessarily NOT exist
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 05:11 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 04:38 PM)Ace Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 04:23 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  P1. The universe exists
P2. the universe requires a “necessary being” to cause it to exist
conclusion: a “being that exists" exists

so if god can be defined to exist necessarily then god can also be defined to necessarily NOT exist

The old "I'm gonna Russell Set your ass" move. Smile

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: