What is wrong with this argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-05-2014, 06:22 AM
What is wrong with this argument
So I was browsing the interwebz as I usually do and was looking at Yahoo Answers about the question "Why do people believe in a God?" and I saw this argument. Can you spot the dumb parts of this argument?

Quote:There is reason to believe in a creator. Ill start with the primary argument of a Christian. Something cant come from nothing. And I dont mean the kind of nothing that involves matter and antimatter canceling each other out. I mean true nothing. Before anything existed, there was no THING that could have cause the big bang or whatever caused it. The laws of physics tell us that an object at rest will stay at rest unless energy affects it. So far, to create the universe that we live in, we need two things: the creation of matter and energy to make the matter go BANG! literally. Clearly, since there was no matter before matter was created, the answer cannot be anything physical. We need something that exists outside of the universe and has the power to create anything at will and form what has been formed. We need a supernatural being.
Notice that I haven't said anything about the God of Christianity yet, I just provided a little bit of the vast pool of evidence that we have to know that there is an omnipotent being.

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2014, 06:28 AM
RE: What is wrong with this argument
I am no debate expert, but I think this falls in the "god of gaps" bucket. Looks like the argument is assigning a surpreem being to the unknown.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2014, 06:34 AM
RE: What is wrong with this argument
(01-05-2014 06:22 AM)JDog554 Wrote:  So I was browsing the interwebz as I usually do and was looking at Yahoo Answers about the question "Why do people believe in a God?" and I saw this argument. Can you spot the dumb parts of this argument?

Quote:There is reason to believe in a creator. Ill start with the primary argument of a Christian. Something cant come from nothing. And I dont mean the kind of nothing that involves matter and antimatter canceling each other out. I mean true nothing. Before anything existed, there was no THING that could have cause the big bang or whatever caused it. The laws of physics tell us that an object at rest will stay at rest unless energy affects it. So far, to create the universe that we live in, we need two things: the creation of matter and energy to make the matter go BANG! literally. Clearly, since there was no matter before matter was created, the answer cannot be anything physical. We need something that exists outside of the universe and has the power to create anything at will and form what has been formed. We need a supernatural being.
Notice that I haven't said anything about the God of Christianity yet, I just provided a little bit of the vast pool of evidence that we have to know that there is an omnipotent being.

The writers conclusion is reliant on the assumption of something already existing outside of the universe from its base.

It is stipulated that the omnipotent thing is necessary to create the matter as there was nothing (as in a literal absolute lack of anything) to form it otherwise.
However, we must ask: Seeing as it was specifically stipulated that there was no resources, and that matter can't just appear out of such an absolute nothing, what was the newly created matter made from?

And indeed what was this omnipotent creator made of/Where did it come from? Surely the gap in absolutely empty 'space' prior to the universe also had nothing, but by virtue of the prior arguments reasoning, the creator must have itself had a creator as, within the argument's logic, it exists within the void. It's existence necessitates another cause for itself within the void. Which itself requires a cause.

It is Creators All The Way Down.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
01-05-2014, 06:40 AM
RE: What is wrong with this argument
(01-05-2014 06:34 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 06:22 AM)JDog554 Wrote:  So I was browsing the interwebz as I usually do and was looking at Yahoo Answers about the question "Why do people believe in a God?" and I saw this argument. Can you spot the dumb parts of this argument?

The writers conclusion is reliant on the assumption of something already existing outside of the universe from its base.

It is stipulated that the omnipotent thing is necessary to create the matter as there was nothing (as in a literal absolute lack of anything) to form it otherwise.
However, we must ask: Seeing as it was specifically stipulated that there was no resources, and that matter can't just appear out of such an absolute nothing, what was the newly created matter made from?

And indeed what was this omnipotent creator made of/Where did it come from? Surely the gap in absolutely empty 'space' prior to the universe also had nothing, but by virtue of the prior arguments reasoning, the creator must have itself had a creator as, within the argument's logic, it exists within the void. It's existence necessitates another cause for itself within the void. Which itself requires a cause.

It is Creators All The Way Down.

I like how he tried to apply the laws of physics to nothing before physics were created and yeah I thought that too. How was God created if something cannot be created from nothing via his standards.

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2014, 06:48 AM
RE: What is wrong with this argument
(01-05-2014 06:40 AM)JDog554 Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 06:34 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  The writers conclusion is reliant on the assumption of something already existing outside of the universe from its base.

It is stipulated that the omnipotent thing is necessary to create the matter as there was nothing (as in a literal absolute lack of anything) to form it otherwise.
However, we must ask: Seeing as it was specifically stipulated that there was no resources, and that matter can't just appear out of such an absolute nothing, what was the newly created matter made from?

And indeed what was this omnipotent creator made of/Where did it come from? Surely the gap in absolutely empty 'space' prior to the universe also had nothing, but by virtue of the prior arguments reasoning, the creator must have itself had a creator as, within the argument's logic, it exists within the void. It's existence necessitates another cause for itself within the void. Which itself requires a cause.

It is Creators All The Way Down.

I like how he tried to apply the laws of physics to nothing before physics were created and yeah I thought that too. How was God created if something cannot be created from nothing via his standards.

Well, the writer can say it made itself (or something similarly contradictory and asinine) thanks to the invention of what we like to call 'Special Pleading' AKA 'Give me special exemptions from my own logic because magic!'.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
01-05-2014, 06:52 AM
RE: What is wrong with this argument
(01-05-2014 06:48 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 06:40 AM)JDog554 Wrote:  I like how he tried to apply the laws of physics to nothing before physics were created and yeah I thought that too. How was God created if something cannot be created from nothing via his standards.

Well, the writer can say it made itself (or something similarly contradictory and asinine) thanks to the invention of what we like to call 'Special Pleading' AKA 'Give me special exemptions from my own logic because magic!'.

I need to use that more often! Could get me out of a speeding ticket one day lol

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes JDog554's post
01-05-2014, 07:21 AM
RE: What is wrong with this argument
(01-05-2014 06:28 AM)wazzel Wrote:  I am no debate expert, but I think this falls in the "god of gaps" bucket. Looks like the argument is assigning a surpreem being to the unknown.

I agree, though I wouldn't say the unknown is proof of a God. I'd just say it's information about our universe that we have yet to discover.

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2014, 07:58 AM
RE: What is wrong with this argument
"If we wish to pursue this question courageously we must of course ask the next question: Where did God come from?"



Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
01-05-2014, 08:01 AM
RE: What is wrong with this argument
(01-05-2014 07:21 AM)JDog554 Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 06:28 AM)wazzel Wrote:  I am no debate expert, but I think this falls in the "god of gaps" bucket. Looks like the argument is assigning a surpreem being to the unknown.

I agree, though I wouldn't say the unknown is proof of a God. I'd just say it's information about our universe that we have yet to discover.
That is what I would say also. Not everyone is comfortabel with things being not yet known and need to give a surpreem being credit so a reason can be assigned to the unknown.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2014, 08:08 AM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2014 08:19 AM by Alex_Leonardo.)
RE: What is wrong with this argument
Actually, science proves something can come from nothing. Quantum particles and other ordinary particles pop in and out of existence all of the time.
Also, the big bang theory describes what happens after the original matter was created, so he's basically created a strawman.
To add, not all atheists "worship" or have "faith" in science. He's created another strawman assuming that anyone who is an atheist doesn't have an alternative. (In example, spirit science, buddhism, general woo, etc.)
Also, the big bang didn't go, "BANG!..." it simply expanded. We can observe that almost all matter expands if it has enough energy, or heat. It's like ice. Imagine that the singularity was a solid. (Specifically not water.) The solid had a lot of heat, and then, because of heat, it expanded, into a water, making it more spread out.
So, he's created 3 strawmen here. Not very good.

[Image: v0jpzpT.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alex_Leonardo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: