Hey Guys! Sorry for the gap in communication! I’m finishing up my paper! YOu guys are AMAZING I’m really liking engaging on these topics. I’ll respond right after the paper! Ya’ll have given me a lot to think about! 2
To be accurate “things transform (bond, repel, chemically mix, etc) in existence. For example, hydrogen and oxygen H2O
What has been demonstrated to “come into existence” from (a lose idea of) NOTHING?.
There has always been something. Demonstrated to Planck Time.
Effect has been demonstrated BEFORE cause (quantum)…
Copy and pasted in all three posts. Lol! Like most of the theist students - I highly doubt we’ll hear back after the paper (knowledge mined us).
Will you be posting the paper (or a link or something)?
I’m starting to wonder…
Could god=nothing cut it? I mean we get theists claiming god is love or universe is god. We get the whole “there HAS to be a cause”.
Stop eye rolling - read -
God has NOT been demonstrated to exist
Nothing has NOT been demonstrated to exist
Cannot qualify NOTHING
Cannot qualify god
No one has yet demonstrated something from NOTHING
No one has yet demonstrated something from god
The “nothing” is as useful a tool as the “god” (labels)
Husband: “what’s wrong?”
I may have to change my mind about prophecy, since you seem to have read my mind.
[quote=“Old_man_shouts_at_cl, post:23, topic:847, full:true”]
@Old_man_shouts_at_cl, If it does not make sense please explain why so I can clarify! I feel that this is a really important point.
Your Statement: “StudentFinalPaper’s argument does not get me any closer to God.”
My Recommended Modification “StudentFinalPaper’s argument does not get conclusively to God.”
Reasoning: It is fair to state that the arguments I put out don’t conclusively get us to God (it might for some) but not reasonable to state that there were 0 movements in that direction.
Expansion 1: If we both look at a 2D shape and I say it’s a triangle and you say it’s a circle then in order for one of us to be right the shape has to meet the all of the criteria of our proposed shapes definition. If the shape we are looking at truly has 1 corner on it, then we have logically moved closer to it potentially being a triangle. By meeting at least 1 criterion of a triangle’s definition, we actually have moved closer to it potentially being a triangle. This is how cumulative cases are built in court and logic when singular conclusive evidence is not available or one wants to bolster their position. (as a sub point we have also debunked that it is a circle since an essential requirement for circles are that they have no corners)
Expansion 2: If after revealing that the shape we are looking at has a corner you say: “this get’s you no closer to having a triangle” or variant “this proves nothing” then your statement would be unreasonable because triangles have corners while circles do not. Now you could say: “this does not prove conclusively that we’re looking at a triangle because lot’s of shapes have corners not just triangles” and that statement would be fair and correct. But your first assertion would be unreasonable to hold since 1 criterion of the triangle has already been met.
Expansion 3: As a theist, I would assert that the God of my particular religion has the characteristic of being beginning-less (there was not a time where he was not) and causeless (there was not another entity/event that caused Him to be). The universe is finite and therefore had a beginning. To argue an infinite past of any variation leads to an infinite regress which is a logical absurdity. Therefore, there would have to be an absolute start to a singular/multiverse. If this is the case then there has to be an absolute beginning where the universe came into existence. Since things to not pop out of existence from nothing then some Entity would have had to cause the universe to exist (which I’ll dub The Cause for now). We don’t know everything about the universe BUT we can assert this from logic: infinite regresses in this contexts cannot exist since if we have an infinite past then we could never arrive at the present moment. If that’s the case then everything has to stop at a Cause. But if the Cause exist’s it has to have certain characteristics to stop the logical absurdity of an infinite past regress. This means that The Cause MUST have at least 2 characteristics: ONE, The Cause must be Causeless (otherwise infinite regress of "who caused The Cause, and who caused the Cause that caused the Cause, and so on); TWO, The Cause must be beginning-less (otherwise infinite regress of “what was before The Cause” and what was before The Before prior the Cause, etc). Therefore, in order to resolve logical absurdities, I would argue that there exists an entity - The Cause - which must have the argued 2 characteristics. But these characteristics match the criterion of a God - especially the God which I would assert exists.
Conclusion: Because of the facts listed above, like the triangle, we are indeed closer to the assertion that The Cause (or God) exists than Him/It not existing. It’s might not be conclusive (from the arguments mentioned), but we are indeed logically closer.
PS. Please provide arguments as to how I’m using semantics as a dodge and not a genuine rebuttal. Perhaps I missed something? That wasn’t my intention.
I finished my paper! I’ll try to stay on these threads (more realistically 1 thread at a time) and respond as long as I can. No promises though since I don’t want to give false expectations =/. You guys are great and I’m really impressed with the thought you guys put into your comments!
We don’t know if there was a before
I make no claim to being a physicist. However, I do happen to know an actual astro physicist. I asked him “What was there before the Big Bang?” He replied There was no before.He went on to explain further and lost me within 2 sentences. What I took from that is that time and space seem to have began with the big bang. BUT, I make no claims. I’ve posted this for interest , It could be quite wrong for all I know.****
***It’s the kind of question I would hope an astro physicist could answer. That in itself does not mean he will necessarily be right. However, I think probably a better chance of being right than say your average presuppositional apologist.
No you are not for the reasons stated. A ‘cause’ even if logically concluded (which it ain’t) is not a conclusion for a god or gods. It is a cause which could equally be Eric the Rainbow Farting Unicorn Who Lives in my Garage, Universe Vomiting Blue Bunnies, merely an accident (yes, that can be ‘a cause’) or the fevered imagination of an apologetics student. It could be absolutely anything.
No closer to a god, and, a particular god.
Expansion 1: pretty accurate analogy
Good observation. And you acknowledge you may be closer to “identifying” HOWEVER there may be 4 or more corners which would make both of the guesses (to the shape) wrong.
Again, one is “ruled” out (intelligent to keep it 2d ) but it does not make the other guess correct.
Alas… Expansion 3 does not hold to the logic you demonstrated in the previous two:
This is an assertion that I do not accept. I could assert my god is a fairy who farts universes
- unlike a circle triangle or octagon there is no measure
It is measured to Planck Time. Beyond that we have no knowledge (yet or ever).
Perhaps - but “infinity” existing within “infinities” and effect before cause are also “logical absurdities” - yet…
There could just as likely be infinite universes.
You are limiting the context (?) AND what demonstrable evidence do you have to support this statement?
“WHO???” Laughable. Why a “who” with your use of “The Cause” …
Planck Time is the cause of our universe’s beginning. Before this cause, we do not know (just as you argued for not knowing a “before” God).
You cannot simply assert a “bigger, better who” in place of Planck Time or try to place your invisible friend as before the known cause of this universe existing in the manner we observe it to exist as
To relate it back to your analogy of the circle and triangle… science has demonstrated a corner (Planck Time). There is “no circle” (infinite timeless being outside the triangle) unless you have demonstrable evidence.
Yes, things do not pop into existence (ignoring quantum mechanics). No valid scientist will accept that the known universe popped into existence. Therefore, please provide proof that the universe popped out of nowhere. Because you are the one making this claim.
You have not proven that a god was the cause. The cause has many explanations, as I mentioned, from a much larger cosmos. I just pointed out another explanation, thus rendering you plugging in a god as the cause a moot point.
That is the “god of the gaps fallacy”.
God exists beyond time and space. He exists in no time, for no time, and in no space. In a place with no time and no space where there is no place because a place would actually need time and space you could also find no god which does not need time or space to exist in no place.
It doesn’t get you to any deity at all, it only involves a string of assumptions that lead you to a first cause, and then a deity. The argument is demonstrably fallacious, and of course, contains no objective evidence whatsoever.
Only for those prepared to make pure assumption in their arguments, as you did.
Well there you go, pure unevidenced assumption. It is nothing more than an argument from assertion fallacy. It is also of course a begging the question fallacy.
Can you seriously not see the contradiction there? This is also a special pleading fallacy, and so it makes your argument irrational by definition.
So universes can’t be infinite, but a deity can, and all without explanation or evidence? Another special pleading fallacy, and making unevidenced inexplicable assumptions about magic, and the supernatural is not sound argument.
Since when is pure assumption remotely rational, and you have used several known logical fallacies, which I have listed here yet again. So your argument is demonstrably irrational, and not logical as you keep claiming.
And if a god does not interact with this known universe (which some theists claim because interaction is a trail that leads to confirmation) then the god = zero, nothing.
@Old_man_shouts_at_cl, it sounds like your logic is as follows (please correct me if I’m wrong cause I want to get this right): "StudentfinalPaper’s logic can lead to something “The Cause” but because that “Cause” could be anything (i.e. a unicorn, fairy monster, God, etc), then it is nothing and absurd because of the wide range of options/ lack of specificity and we can drop it from evaluation. Would this be a correct assessment of your Position?
@Cognostic, what are your thoughts on my most recent post (here’s the link it’s comment 34) to @Old_man_shouts_at_cl on the analogy of circles and triangles. You guys are saying something similar in that “the Kalam argument as it is and it gets you no place near the existence of a god…”. What would you say in response to my comments to him? I’m trying to loop multiple people into one comment as it’s hard to respond to all of you guys thoughtfully quickly cause you guys are smart and have great comments and I want to give them my full attention! Haven’t forgotten about this!
Let us agree this known universe had a cause. But you immediately inject a god, ignoring other possibilities. You must prove it is a god and not other explanations, thus having to prove a god FIRST.
Unfortunately, you opened three threads at the same time. I suggest next time, one thread at a time to avoid confusion.
Well - it is imaginative pondering and not unique to the human species.
The “cause” could HAVE BEEN a god or fairy or unicorn etc… AND also died when it “pushed” out of “no time/space”. This death could have “caused” our physical universe (back to the “Big Bang”) and humanity has just been examining (and is subsequently apart of) this being’s body parts.
Why do you assume the cause was an agent? It may have been a natural process.
You have a lot to prove.
These are assertions you must prove.
- The universe was caused by an agent
- There is a god.
- god caused the universe
Each proof must stand alone. A hint: research “circular reasoning fallacy”.