What is wrong with this argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-05-2014, 08:16 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.

He is begging the question. He assumes his conclusion in his premise. He is also leaving out another alternative. He is leaving out the possibility that the universe or the matter and energy that make up the universe are eternal and thus needed no creator. The first law of thermodynamics says that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That sounds like something that has always existed and will always exist to me.

This current universe of galaxies and stars and everything else may have had a beginning but how does he know that there was nothing before. He doesn't and neither does anyone else.

There is a reason they have to have god existing outside of existence, as if that makes any sense, because that puts god outside of the realm of logic, reason and evidence.

It is true that things within the universe have causes but when you are talking about the universe as a whole you can't look for a cause because there is no where to look. If you have to start with something that is eternal what reason is there to go outside of existence to an unknowable cause. He is saying "well I no the universe exists but I'm not happy with that as a starting point, so I'll go outside of it and propose a supernatural explanation that is unfalsifiable and thus unknowable".
How can that explain anything.

No one can logically exclude the universe from the list of things that could be eternal and not need a cause without being guilty of special pleading. His argument is just a fallacyapalooza.

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
01-05-2014, 08:26 AM
RE: What is wrong with this argument
I honestly get confused by the theist version of creation.
They're always saying that something can't come from nothing. If this is the case, where did god get the materials to make the something?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2014, 08:28 AM
RE: What is wrong with this argument
(01-05-2014 08:08 AM)Alex_Leonardo Wrote:  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.

He talks scientific but he probably avoids a lot of scientific facts to make his argument seem true.

(01-05-2014 08:16 AM)true scotsman 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?

He is begging the question. He assumes his conclusion in his premise. He is also leaving out another alternative. He is leaving out the possibility that the universe or the matter and energy that make up the universe are eternal and thus needed no creator. The first law of thermodynamics says that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That sounds like something that has always existed and will always exist to me.

This current universe of galaxies and stars and everything else may have had a beginning but how does he know that there was nothing before. He doesn't and neither does anyone else.

There is a reason they have to have god existing outside of existence, as if that makes any sense, because that puts god outside of the realm of logic, reason and evidence.

It is true that things within the universe have causes but when you are talking about the universe as a whole you can't look for a cause because there is no where to look. If you have to start with something that is eternal what reason is there to go outside of existence to an unknowable cause. He is saying "well I no the universe exists but I'm not happy with that as a starting point, so I'll go outside of it and propose a supernatural explanation that is unfalsifiable and thus unknowable".
How can that explain anything.

No one can logically exclude the universe from the list of things that could be eternal and not need a cause without being guilty of special pleading. His argument is just a fallacyapalooza.

I had to give you +rep for using the word "fallacyapalooza". Best word ever invented right there haha. What your saying is true, how can something thats eternal be created? It cannot because it already exists. He sounds like a know it all who knows little 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
01-05-2014, 08:28 AM
RE: What is wrong with this argument
(01-05-2014 08:26 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  I honestly get confused by the theist version of creation.
They're always saying that something can't come from nothing. If this is the case, where did god get the materials to make the something?

And in that case how was God created?

"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, 08:30 AM
RE: What is wrong with this argument
(01-05-2014 08:28 AM)JDog554 Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 08:08 AM)Alex_Leonardo Wrote:  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.

He talks scientific but he probably avoids a lot of scientific facts to make his argument seem true.

(01-05-2014 08:16 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  He is begging the question. He assumes his conclusion in his premise. He is also leaving out another alternative. He is leaving out the possibility that the universe or the matter and energy that make up the universe are eternal and thus needed no creator. The first law of thermodynamics says that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That sounds like something that has always existed and will always exist to me.

This current universe of galaxies and stars and everything else may have had a beginning but how does he know that there was nothing before. He doesn't and neither does anyone else.

There is a reason they have to have god existing outside of existence, as if that makes any sense, because that puts god outside of the realm of logic, reason and evidence.

It is true that things within the universe have causes but when you are talking about the universe as a whole you can't look for a cause because there is no where to look. If you have to start with something that is eternal what reason is there to go outside of existence to an unknowable cause. He is saying "well I no the universe exists but I'm not happy with that as a starting point, so I'll go outside of it and propose a supernatural explanation that is unfalsifiable and thus unknowable".
How can that explain anything.

No one can logically exclude the universe from the list of things that could be eternal and not need a cause without being guilty of special pleading. His argument is just a fallacyapalooza.

I had to give you +rep for using the word "fallacyapalooza". Best word ever invented right there haha. What your saying is true, how can something thats eternal be created? It cannot because it already exists. He sounds like a know it all who knows little lol
Strawpalooser. Strawman + Palooza + looser

[Image: v0jpzpT.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2014, 08:31 AM
RE: What is wrong with this argument
(01-05-2014 08:30 AM)Alex_Leonardo Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 08:28 AM)JDog554 Wrote:  He talks scientific but he probably avoids a lot of scientific facts to make his argument seem true.


I had to give you +rep for using the word "fallacyapalooza". Best word ever invented right there haha. What your saying is true, how can something thats eternal be created? It cannot because it already exists. He sounds like a know it all who knows little lol
Strawpalooser. Strawman + Palooza + looser

Eh doesn't roll off the tongue as much Tongue

"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, 08:37 AM
RE: What is wrong with this argument
(01-05-2014 08:31 AM)JDog554 Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 08:30 AM)Alex_Leonardo Wrote:  Strawpalooser. Strawman + Palooza + looser

Eh doesn't roll off the tongue as much Tongue

[Image: tongue.gif]

[Image: v0jpzpT.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alex_Leonardo's post
01-05-2014, 08:55 AM
RE: What is wrong with this argument
J Dog have you seen this website?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com


"Life is a daring adventure or it is nothing"--Helen Keller
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2014, 09:03 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.

So which is it, was there true nothing before the big bang or not ?
He or she asserts a true nothing and then says that a god is there too ?
You can't have both.

If he or she is asserting that something is there to get the ball rolling then there cannot be a true nothing and if there never was a true nothing then the universe has always existed. It never came into being at all. It simply always was, just not in it's current form.

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
01-05-2014, 09:04 AM
RE: What is wrong with this argument
Many fundies would answer thus:

Nobody created God. He exists outside of time. He is a spirit, and not bound by space and time. He is eternal. He speaks matter into existence. He does not require matter on hand in order to form material things. He is all-powerful.

Former Fundy, reporting in.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: