[split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2014, 12:20 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 11:58 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 07:35 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The Kalam Cosmological argument is a two premise philosophical syllogism. It reads thus:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore the universe has a cause for its existence.
I'll debate you.

My first point.
I challenge your assertion that everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
This is a scientific statement and thus is empirically falsifiable.
It has already been proven false.
Quantum Fluctuation
Quote:Quantum fluctuations may have been very important in the origin of the structure of the universe: according to the model of inflation the ones that existed when inflation began were amplified and formed the seed of all current observed structure.
In order for you to continue with your assertion that "Everything that begins to exist has a case for its existence" you now have the burdon of proving Quantum Fluctuations as false.

My second point
I challenge your assertion that the universe began to exist.
This is a scientific statement and thus provides empirical evidence.
There is empirical evidence for what happened after the big bang, but not for before. It is not known what was around before.
What came before the big bang
Quote:it's not able to answer some of the more challenging questions, including what – if anything – came before it?

You have a couple of burdons here on your shoulders that you must resolve before you are able to draw your conclusion (out of necessity).

Please do so and then we can move forward with this debate.

I will start a thread in the boxing ring.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 12:25 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 12:17 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 11:24 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  You're reversing the burden of proof. "Churches are evidence for God's existence" is a statement of truth in itself, and yet you've advanced it without support. Why do you think the burden of proof falls on us to disprove such a wild assertion?

Buddhist temples are proof Buddha listens to his followers.

Mosques are proof of Allah's existence.

The Vatican is proof that Catholicism is the only true version of Christianity.

You would require support for any of the above claims, why do your claims require special consideration?

Epic fail. I have never argued that churches are evidence for the existence of God.

I see, so you're just creating strawman arguments as hypotheticals of what atheists argue, and aren't even able to do that without advancing truth claims yourself.

Do you think your assertions need to be backed with proof, or you only demand this of atheists?

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 12:27 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 12:25 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 12:17 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Epic fail. I have never argued that churches are evidence for the existence of God.

I see, so you're just creating strawman arguments as hypotheticals of what atheists argue, and aren't even able to do that without advancing truth claims yourself.

Do you think your assertions need to be backed with proof, or you only demand this of atheists?

I believe truth claims need to be demonstrated to be true with evidence or good arguments.

We can always debate if you are willing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 01:30 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 07:35 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The Kalam Cosmological argument is a two premise philosophical syllogism. It reads thus:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore the universe has a cause for its existence.

Alright Smile Let's say I accept that at face value, i.e. I assume that 1 and 2 are true, and therefore accept that 3 follows. Now what? I'm guessing you're gonna get from "universe has a cause" to "God is the cause" somehow?

Oh wait. I think I see your sneaky trick. It's the "begins to exist" phrase, isn't it? Big Grin

You're gonna say this "God didn't *begin* to exist, he *always* existed, and he made the universe". Am I right?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 01:37 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 01:30 PM)morondog Wrote:  Alright Smile Let's say I accept that at face value, i.e. I assume that 1 and 2 are true, and therefore accept that 3 follows. Now what? I'm guessing you're gonna get from "universe has a cause" to "God is the cause" somehow?

Actually if you and I were discussing the argument over coffee at Starbucks and you agreed with one and two, I would just probably let you think about it and mull over it in your head.

If you had questions about the conclusion I would try to answer them, but no, I would not try to convince you that the God of the bible was the cause.

I would just ask you what you thought the cause of the universe could be and go from there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 01:41 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 07:35 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.

Being that existence exists, there is just as much reason to think that it always has existed rather than complicate things by positing a supernatural creator for which there is no evidence. This is further complicated by positing that said force magically has no need for a cause for it's own existence.

Kalam is a superfluous argument based on ignorance.

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
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
23-03-2014, 01:42 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 01:41 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Kalam is a superfluous argument based on ignorance.

(citation needed)

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 01:47 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 01:42 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 01:41 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Kalam is a superfluous argument based on ignorance.

(citation needed)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

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
23-03-2014, 01:59 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 01:37 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  If you had questions about the conclusion I would try to answer them, but no, I would not try to convince you that the God of the bible was the cause.

I would just ask you what you thought the cause of the universe could be and go from there.

Are you saying that if I accepted the argument as you have stated it then the logical conclusion which I could come to myself without guidance would be the God of the Bible?

As an aside, I feel that assuming premises 1 and 2 to hold is assuming a little bit too much about our knowledge of the universe.

Specifically how do you define "beginning", "existence" and "cause"?

Besides it's not a question of convincing me. I'm not a specialist in the relevant physical theory so my opinion would hold no weight even if you managed to do so.

The next question is, *are* you in fact, by using this argument, leading up to some sort of argument for the existence of the God of the Bible?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 02:06 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 01:47 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 01:42 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  (citation needed)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

Okay, I jumped the gun here. The bible isn't really used in the kalam argument, but the kalam argument is always used to lead up to the bible.

There is no citation needed. My statement before the one that you quoted is relevant enough, I believe, to dismiss the first premiss of the kalam argument outright, thus rendering the remaining premises and resulting conclusion null and void of any further need of contemplation until any valid evidence is discovered to the contrary.

There is no citation needed, only a logical line of thought.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: