(August 27, 2013 at 6:31 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: You are arguing, by your own admission, for something contradictory. Logic cannot do this, according to its own laws.

"Yes, but God invented the laws of logic too, so he gets to break them whenever he wants! God is awesome!"

(August 27, 2013 at 6:24 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote:

(August 27, 2013 at 5:59 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: It is easy to create god as one wishes him to be when there is no proof that he actually exists. Simply stating your biased characteristics of what you think defines god does not make him real.

I've been using logical proofs that fit with the Biblical definition of God and of course the universe as we understand it through science. If it works then it works. Atheism wouldn't work because what you lack is a cause for the effect.

I'm sorry that you are emotionally unable to accept "we don't know, yet" as a statement of knowledge, that you are so insecure that you have to invent an answer.

We are working on the answers to cosmological questions.

"God" is not an explanation with any evidence to support it.

(August 27, 2013 at 6:36 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(August 27, 2013 at 6:31 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: You are arguing, by your own admission, for something contradictory. Logic cannot do this, according to its own laws.

"Yes, but God invented the laws of logic too, so he gets to break them whenever he wants! God is awesome!"

If one is willing to invoke magic, then merely saying "it's magic" suffices with a great deal more intellectual honesty.

(August 27, 2013 at 6:14 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote:

(August 27, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Some of us have the ability to reason. You got bit on the ass by the Law of Non-contradiction a few posts ago.

Contradiction is a part of Gods nature yes.

Wikipedia Wrote:The principle of explosion, (Latin: ex falso quodlibet or ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet, "from a contradiction, anything follows") or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus, is the law of classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction. That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (or its negation) can be inferred from it.

As a demonstration of the principle, consider two contradictory statements - “All lemons are yellow” and "Not all lemons are yellow", and suppose (for the sake of argument) that both are simultaneously true. If that is the case, anything can be proven, e.g. "Santa Claus exists", by using the following argument:

1) We know that "All lemons are yellow" as it is defined to be true.
2) Therefore the statement that (“All lemons are yellow" OR "Santa Claus exists”) must also be true, since the first part is true.
3) However, if "Not all lemons are yellow" (and this is also defined to be true), Santa Claus must exist — otherwise statement 2 would be false [note 1]. It has thus been "proven" that Santa Claus both exists and does not exist, and the same could be applied to any assertion.

---

Wikipedia:

In other words, from assuming contradiction, nonsense follows.

Congratulations. You've just proven that God doesn't exist. The truth of the statement "There is no God" follows logically from a contradiction.


[note 1] This is via disjunctive syllogism, aka modus tollendo ponens. (See: )

(August 27, 2013 at 2:08 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Also - you are correct in that I reversed the meaning of "valid" and "sound" with respect to logical arguments. Mea culpa. That error does not detract from the point of my post that P1 and P2 of the KCA are not known to be true, for the reasons I gave.

With respect to your argument that premises one and two of the KCA are "not known to be true", it will suffice to say that they do not need to be known to be true unless you require that the premises be absolutely certainly known.

If you take this view, then there are at least two conspicuous issues you must deal with:

1. You must admit that not only does the KCA fail to be persuasive, but every other argument that has been formulated or ever will be formulated that does not have premises that are known to be true beyond all doubt i.e. absolutely known. Surely you do not want to go to such epistemically restrictive lengths just to avoid the conclusion of an argument would you?

2. In addition to the above, your objection is based upon a misconstrual of what the requisites or criteria that a premise in an argument must meet. You wrongly reason that in order for a premise to be considered "true" that it must be proven and or known with absolute certainty. This is clearly false.

In a good argument, the argument will have premises that are more plausible than their contradictories or denials . For an argument to be a good one , it is not required that we have 100% certainty of the truth of the premises. Some of the premises in a good argument may strike us as only slightly more plausible than their denials; other premises may seem to us highly plausible in contrast to their denials. But so long as a statement is more plausible than its contradictory (that is, its negation), then one should believe it rather than its negation, and so it may serve as a premise in a good argument. (Moreland, James Porter; William Lane Craig (2009-11-08). Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (pp. 29-30). Intervarsity Press - A. Kindle Edition.)

My friend, these concepts we are dealing with are basic introduction to philosophy concepts. They must be mastered if you wish to actually get into genuine debate regarding the KCA.

Now you can understand why the criterion of plausibility is used in critiquing the quality of a premise and not absolute certainty which you claim is required.

While it is true that we would like to be able to provide premises that are highly plausible or pretty certain, it simply is not necessary to know beyond all doubt that a premise is true for it to be a part of a good argument. Even in deductive arguments, which is what the KCA is, the premises themselves can and often times are supported using inductive arguments.

Therefore, since I have presented the argument to you in order to convince you or persuade you that "the universe has a cause" by using a deductive syllogistic argument, if you do not find the conclusion persuasive or convincing, you must offer either an undercutting or rebutting defeater to premise one or two.

Simply dismissing the argument by saying the premises are not known to be true does not constitute either a rebutting or undercutting defeater to either premise. For this reason you will find no contemporary philosopher objecting to the KCA in their peer reviewed published work on these grounds that you have suggested.

Now, if you do not wish to debate the KCA further with me, then I respect that, and thank you for your time.

Best of wishes to you and may you learn more and more each day!

P.S., some have suggested that quantum physics furnishes us with an exception to premise one in that virtual particles are uncaused. If this line is one you would like to use, then I am prepared to engage it.

I think apophenia should get a cookie for this thread

I think I've covered everything here. You can continue deny the logical conclusion of Gods inevitable existence if you like. Sure it isn't inevitable that the God who exists is the Christian God of the Trinity, but I have also covered the arguments for that specific faith in God in relation to all the alternatives available including deism. So...





Just to address the topic question properly what would prove to me that God doesn't exist is if I were to die and discover that I myself didn't exist. Feel free to point out the problem with this method of discovering Gods non-existence. You'll never proven completely wrong as a theist. But you can be proven completely wrong as an atheist.

Quote:Contradiction is a part of Gods nature yes.

Facts are not contradictory. Is god a fact? Which part of god is a fact?

"No effect can cause itself, but requires another cause. If there were no first cause, there would be an infinite sequence of preceding causes. Clearly there cannot be an infinite sequence of causes, therefore there is a first cause, and this is God." ~ St. Thomas Aquinas

For what reason does nature need a beginning? Everything is in motion, as particles never stop moving. The mass-energy equivalence is constant, mass or energy is never created or destroyed, only changed. Mass converts to energy and energy to mass in a balance. For what cause do subatomic particles need to be created if they always exist without being destroyed or created? The universe is consistent and so stable as it is right now. A god in a universe is not. Not on your evidence anyhow.

"God is a being than which none greater can be thought. A being thought of as existing is greater than one thought of as not existing. Therefore, one cannot think of God as not existing, so God must exist." ~ St. Anselm

Even if god is a thought, god is not physical. What separates the physical from the metaphysical is an objective experience that everyone can object to. 0+1+2=3 is an objective experience. If god is real, he must have a detectable means of being found. We have charge, mass, volume, luminosity, among other physical properties. If god has no physical properties within what is measured, god is nothing more than suggestion. Theists get the benefit of the doubt because there are some physical aspects that We have not fully studied, such as antimatter, dark matter, or dark energy (there may be more). There may be a god, but maybe is not proof, only suggestion. The swimming pastrami creature is as maybe as a god without real support.

I would say SoC has been instrumental in helping to prove that there is no logical conclusion that ends in "god".

Way to ignore the rebuttals, SoC.

Fucking pigeons.