Something about magic and super-powers makes sense to you? What part? I'm afraid that this isn't how it works Mystic, you don't get to say "Hey look, here's some science, ergo Magic!"

(July 6, 2012 at 4:50 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Something about magic and super-powers makes sense to you? What part? I'm afraid that this isn't how it works Mystic, you don't get to say "Hey look, here's some science, ergo Magic!"

Magical beings are cool.
God is a magical Being.
God is cool.

How about that argument!

God is cool! Can you believe it! I've proved not only that "ergo Magic" but that we got a cool creator!

Now if you don't worship Ultimate Coolness, WTH will you worship!

(Just lightening up the mood)

Waffles.

(July 6, 2012 at 5:01 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Waffles.

Only if they have super powers and are magical.

Anyone want to discuss why god doesn't exist?

(July 6, 2012 at 5:07 pm)jerNYC Wrote: Anyone want to discuss why god doesn't exist?

Sure, discuss why you think God doesn't exist.

(July 6, 2012 at 3:31 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: But where's the question begging? The KCA doesn't say "Everything begins to exist except for this one thing." It says:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist
3) Therefore, the universe had a cause.

It doesn't assume that the universe had a cause. Since that's the only conclusion here, it can't possibly be begging the question.

Ok, let's try this one more time

I think we both agree that if you imply the conclusion in the premise the argument is question begging.
If you want to get around the question begging, your argument would have to be something like this:
1. Everything has a cause
2. The universe
c. The universe has a cause.

Obviously not sound. So what KCA is attempting to do, is tie the first two premises with beginning to exist. The issue is, when you introduce the "begin to exist" condition, you automatically imply that some things DO NOT begin to exist. Hence the question begging, because you are attempting to prove that some cause, which does not begin to exist, is THE CAUSE, or god, or whatever else your argument is trying to prove.

(July 6, 2012 at 4:15 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: ...uh, what?

I'll repeat my objection to your line of thinking:

Let X = { a | a began to exist}
Let X' = { b | b is not in X}
Q(x) = x has a cause

(1) For all x in X, Q(x).
(2) y is in X.
(3) Therefore, Q(y).

You're saying that if the cause of y--let's call it z--is the only element in X', then the argument is guilty of begging the question.

Remember, begging the question is a fallacy wherein a premise is used again as the conclusion. So in order for this argument to beg the question, one of the premises must be "Q(y)", i.e., "The universe has a cause".

So let's suppose that, indeed, z is the only element in X'. But note that X' is never referenced in the KCA. Furthermore, neither premise (1) nor premise (2) include the assumption that the universe has a cause. So the argument can't be begging the question.

Not all of us have taken some course in syllogistic logic. I am not of the inclination to argue with letters, now will I give it a shot. I hardly believe you have anything of value to say hidden in those letters anyway.

Quote:Uh, what? How do you know that if God can do something, then the universe can too?

You have't been following this thread, have you?
The original premise was that some things can come from nothing, which I took to mean that if God could come about from nothing then create the universe, then Occham's razor dictates the universe skipping the God step was the most plausible.

Quote:You're just questioning whether his premises are actually true. That has nothing to do with whether the argument is circular, or valid in general.

Just... wow. Do I need to respond, or will most people just see the blatant stupidity for what it is?

Quote:Wow, that's completely irrelevant.

How was it said again? Oh yes. That is complete and utter bullshit.
Moving on.

Quote:Even if morality is proven not to be eternal, it could be that 'morality is not separate from consciousness' and that therefore 'if morality is eternal, so is consciousness'.

If morality is not eternal, and consciousness is necessary for morality, then consciousness isn't eternal.
I understand that the argument is sound. I don't care, because it can't be said that morality is eternal affirmatively, and is thus useless to make conversation about.

Guys, in the universe, are things that have laws.
You guys honestly believe that all these laws and time, and everything associated could've just popped out of nothing?
Or that time didn't exist, and material existence was timeless, then all of sudden creates time and motion and all the laws that come with time?

And not only does it pop out of nothing, but that it continues to exist on and on and on - on it's own?
Minuscule existence all independent just existing on and on independently out of coming from nothing?

(July 6, 2012 at 6:27 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Guys, in the universe, are things that have laws.
You guys honestly believe that all these laws and time, and everything associated could've just popped out of nothing?
Or that time didn't exist, and material existence was timeless, then all of sudden creates time and motion and all the laws that come with time?

And not only does it pop out of nothing, but that it continues to exist on and on and on - on it's own?
Minuscule existence all independent just existing on and on independently out of coming from nothing?

Yes, of course I think that's likely. After all, I have no evidence to the contrary. We exist because the universe we live in is such that it allows our existence. Otherwise, we couldn't even contemplate the wonders of our world.
I find it likely that the universe began to exist from some type of matter or energy that is yet undiscovered, as that is infinitely more plausible than a creator God.