Why God can not exist - logical arguments
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-06-2014, 07:56 AM
RE: Why God can not exist - logical arguments
(22-06-2014 07:54 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 10:06 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  The fuck you don't.
Jeremy - "Okay hear me out. I know this is gonna sound completely batshit crazy insane as fuck and shit but the alternatives are even batshittier crazier." is not particularly compelling.

You did not really address my arguments for why I said what I said. You just quoted the first twenty or so words and then stopped.

You never answer the members questions about your horshit. So who cares?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Leo's post
22-06-2014, 08:31 AM
RE: Why God can not exist - logical arguments
(21-06-2014 07:24 PM)Freethought Wrote:  Just because the universe (cosmos) began to exist doesn't mean a god created it. That would just be arguing out of ignorance. For example, if you don't know how the next tissue comes up from the tissue box, you don't assume it's god.

If the universe began to exist, then it needs a cause. Upon a conceptual analysis of what properties said cause must at minimum possess, we arrive at an efficient cause that possess properties which have been traditionally attributed to what we call "God".

Incidentally, I do know why tissue paper comes up from the box when you pull one out.

(21-06-2014 07:24 PM)Freethought Wrote:  What you are doing is plugging a gap in our knowledge with the god of your choosing (god of the gaps).

Rosa Rubicondior’s primary objection to the Kalam is that it is a God Of The Gaps argument. When one says that an argument is a God Of The Gaps argument, one means the arguer is filling a gap of scientific knowledge with God. They are saying that they do not know how it happened and therefore it must be God.

This is fallacious because such an argument is predicated only on ones’ own ignorance, and the conclusion that God exists would have to be the only possible explanation in such an argument. But the Kalam Cosmological argument is not like that.

This argument is predicated upon unpacking what it means to be the cause of the universe. The cause of the universe cannot be natural because nature is part of and contingent upon the universe. It cannot be spacial or temporal, because as Rosa pointed out, space and time were proven to be contingent upon the universe. So the cause of the universe must be: beyond nature, beyond space, and beyond time.

But there are only two types of things that fit that description: abstract objects, and personal minds. But abstract objects do not stand in causal relation with anything, that is what makes them abstract. Therefore the cause of the universe must be a transcendent, personal mind.

So you see, this argument does not just insert God as a sort of explanatory hypothesis, as Rosa Rubicondior’s objection implies. It is deductive.

This is not an argument for the Christian God, for the traits attributed to God in His revelation to man would be an unjustified consequence of this argument. One cannot conclude that the personal mind has omnipotence or omniscience from this argument. To insert the Christian God, Zeus, a Flying Spaghetti Monster, a committee of Greco-Roman gods or a peanut-butter sandwich (as Rosa suggested) would all be unjustified because the traits that they contain do not follow deductively (Also a peanut-butter sandwich, Zeus and the FSM are all contingent upon space and therefore could not be the cause of space).

The traits of this personal transcendence are left in open question for future inquiry.

http://thereforegodexists.com/2013/01/wh...-the-gaps/




(21-06-2014 07:24 PM)Freethought Wrote:  As I've already said, the Kalam is self-refuting.

Indeed you stated this but have supplied no reason to think so that I have not already shown to be without merit.


(21-06-2014 07:24 PM)Freethought Wrote:  In addition, you haven't addressed any of my points yet about how the Kalam begs the question. All you've said is that since premise 2 (universe had a beginning) is more practical than its contrary (universe is infinite), then god exists.

I have never said that premise two is more "practical" than its contradictory but rather that it is more plausibly true than its contradictory. To support this I appeal to the empirical data from contemporary cosmology and astronomy.


(21-06-2014 07:24 PM)Freethought Wrote:  That doesn't help anything because you're back where you started, and I could in fact say likewise, god having a beginning is more practical than its contradictory (his being infinite), which means he'd need a god to create him, and that god would need one to create him, and so on.

And all of that would be moot to showing premise two to be false because premise two does not argue that God is infinite, but rather that the universe began to exist. So to mention God being more plausibly finite here is a red herring.

(21-06-2014 07:24 PM)Freethought Wrote:  Just because you happen to infer a particular god created the universe because you cannot fathom a universe's "beginning" without one doesn't mean it can't happen another way, or that the way you proposed is right just because it seems to be the only way to you. If the universe needs a creator, why doesn't god?

There is no reason to assume that the cause of the universe "came into existence" that's why.

If you agree that things that come into existence have causes, then the universe has a cause if it came into existence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2014, 08:38 AM
RE: Why God can not exist - logical arguments
(21-06-2014 10:11 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  This will stop a lot of confusion. Everybody take note. The next time someone says "Look at all these marvelous trees and clouds and rainbows and stars........who created all this? How come there's something instead of nothing?

You say it's all here we can see it, we know it exists. That's the explanation, it just is. The explanation for why there's something instead of nothing is that there is something.

And when they say "yeah but who created it" you say ah, ah, ah, that's an improper question. You are asking for an explanation of the explanation. You can't do that.

Thank you again Jeremy.

I never said we should not attempt to explain the observable phenomenon in the natural world. This is what scientists attempt to do.

What I said was that it is absurd to reason that just because we cannot give an explanation for an explanation x, that therefore we cannot recognize that x is the most plausible explanation for a given set of data. For reasoning thus would undermine science. Thus you now know why scientists can justifiably say for example that the Big Bang model is the best model out of all of the competing models for explaining how the universe came to be without knowing what mechanism caused it to be.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2014, 08:42 AM
RE: Why God can not exist - logical arguments
(22-06-2014 08:31 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  If the universe began to exist....

That's a very big "if" you've got there. You're going to need to explain why we should entertain that before we call it god.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like evenheathen's post
22-06-2014, 08:46 AM
RE: Why God can not exist - logical arguments
(22-06-2014 01:11 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  But the difference between me stating that God does not exist and you considering the possibility that he does is that you know and have admitted that you can't put forward a decent case.

If you consider a decent case for the existence of God a case wherein absolute proof of His existence is offered, then you are correct. I cannot do this, nor have I said I could.

Too bad this criterion for a "decent case" is far too restrictive and by its very nature renders much of what you hold to be true "indecent". For there is much that you yourself believe that cannot be proven with absolute certainty yet you nontheless believe it and feel justified in doing so.



(22-06-2014 01:11 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  You just want to create enough doubt and make it look like it's a valid question. This is evidence that what's more important to you is that people believe in the existence of God regardless of whether they can justify the belief.

P.S God does not exist

I would love to see one of your arguments that seeks to show that God does not exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2014, 08:53 AM
RE: Why God can not exist - logical arguments
(22-06-2014 08:31 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  If the universe began to exist, then it needs a cause. Upon a conceptual analysis of what properties said cause must at minimum possess, we arrive at an efficient cause that possess properties which have been traditionally attributed to what we call "God".

No it doesn't. You are fallaciously applying a (flawed) principle from INSIDE this universe to what would have been "external to it", as has been pointed out to you MANY times. Your continued use of this bullshit is dishonest, and more proof you are here to preach, not discuss, you lying SOB. The very use of the word "cause" in the absence of spacetime, (as Sean Carroll schooled your butt-buddy Dr. William Craig about in their debate), is meaningless drivel.

No Elevation Church today, Wanker ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
22-06-2014, 08:55 AM
RE: Why God can not exist - logical arguments
(22-06-2014 08:53 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No Elevation Church today, Wanker ?

Probably got turned down for a day pass.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2014, 08:59 AM (This post was last modified: 22-06-2014 09:04 AM by Leo.)
RE: Why God can not exist - logical arguments
(22-06-2014 08:38 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 10:11 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  This will stop a lot of confusion. Everybody take note. The next time someone says "Look at all these marvelous trees and clouds and rainbows and stars........who created all this? How come there's something instead of nothing?

You say it's all here we can see it, we know it exists. That's the explanation, it just is. The explanation for why there's something instead of nothing is that there is something.

And when they say "yeah but who created it" you say ah, ah, ah, that's an improper question. You are asking for an explanation of the explanation. You can't do that.

Thank you again Jeremy.

I never said we should not attempt to explain the observable phenomenon in the natural world. This is what scientists attempt to do.

What I said was that it is absurd to reason that just because we cannot give an explanation for an explanation x, that therefore we cannot recognize that x is the most plausible explanation for a given set of data. For reasoning thus would undermine science. Thus you now know why scientists can justifiably say for example that the Big Bang model is the best model out of all of the competing models for explaining how the universe came to be without knowing what mechanism caused it to be.
I see were you are going with this and you are talking horseshit. If we don't have the explanation for something , the honest thing to do is saying I don't know. Christards like you have a bad habit of saying , if we can't explain it then god did it. Rolleyes . The truth is that science is working and searching to have all the answers of the origin of the universe. Scientists don't have all the answers yet.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Leo's post
22-06-2014, 09:56 AM (This post was last modified: 22-06-2014 10:12 AM by true scotsman.)
RE: Why God can not exist - logical arguments
(22-06-2014 08:38 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 10:11 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  This will stop a lot of confusion. Everybody take note. The next time someone says "Look at all these marvelous trees and clouds and rainbows and stars........who created all this? How come there's something instead of nothing?

You say it's all here we can see it, we know it exists. That's the explanation, it just is. The explanation for why there's something instead of nothing is that there is something.

And when they say "yeah but who created it" you say ah, ah, ah, that's an improper question. You are asking for an explanation of the explanation. You can't do that.

Thank you again Jeremy.

I never said we should not attempt to explain the observable phenomenon in the natural world. This is what scientists attempt to do.

What I said was that it is absurd to reason that just because we cannot give an explanation for an explanation x, that therefore we cannot recognize that x is the most plausible explanation for a given set of data. For reasoning thus would undermine science. Thus you now know why scientists can justifiably say for example that the Big Bang model is the best model out of all of the competing models for explaining how the universe came to be without knowing what mechanism caused it to be.

And we can also justifiably say that existence needs no explanation because when you are looking for origins of the universe and you recognize as you do that there can't be an infinite regress of causes, that we must start with something that just was always there, it makes sense to start with the totality of nature. After all we have a universe worth of evidence that it exists. It doesn't make sense to go outside of the total and imagine a supernatural realm where the cause resides. If you do that then you haven't solved any problems because then you still don't know what the cause is and by definition we can't find out what it is. Existence is the widest of all possible concepts denoting everything which exists now, ever will exist and has ever existed. There is no antecedent concept to look to to define it. It can only be defined ostensibly. There is no explaining existence there is only acceptance or rejection of it.

The law of causality says that all actions are caused by entities, not that every entity has a cause. The law of causality presupposes existence. Some entity has to exist for their to be a cause. And since all entities posses specific natures (identity) they can only cause actions that are within their nature to cause. So there can be no such thing as a supernatural cause. Not in reality. Of course we can imagine a supernatural cause.

It all comes back to that fourth axiom I was talking about the other day, the primacy of existence. It is interesting that believers have no problem starting with an irreducible starting point so long as it is a form of consciousness. That's because the content of their beliefs affirm a primacy of consciousness model of metaphysics. But we know from every observation of nature that existence has primacy so what method of thinking allowed them to arrive at the concept of the primacy of consciousness. The answer is a subjective one not an objective one i.e. the imagination.

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
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
22-06-2014, 10:18 AM
RE: Why God can not exist - logical arguments
(22-06-2014 08:46 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Too bad this criterion for a "decent case" is far too restrictive and by its very nature renders much of what you hold to be true "indecent".

I never once mentioned "absolute proof", that's you strawmanning to avoid getting into such a debate. After all, you have never offered absolute proof. All you have offered is word play.

I can leave it entirely up to you to determine whatever level of 'proof' is enough for both positions. Whatever you come up with I can come up with something more convincing merely because I will be arguing something easier to support. This is because removing God from an argument removes special pleading and I can always refer to the laws of thermodynamics.


(22-06-2014 08:46 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(22-06-2014 01:11 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  You just want to create enough doubt and make it look like it's a valid question. This is evidence that what's more important to you is that people believe in the existence of God regardless of whether they can justify the belief.

P.S God does not exist

I would love to see one of your arguments that seeks to show that God does not exist.


And I know for a fact that you have already seen such arguments because you posted in a thread containing them without even trying to counter any of them. All you did was try to derail the thread. So once again we have evidence of you just saying things to create an impression.

P.S God does not exist
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Mathilda's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: