Atheism Destroyed in Under 50 Seconds

[downbeatplumb]

I think I feel the we are the vicinity of Edgar Allen if you know what i mean.

[CliveStaples]

Strawman argument.

The answer is - I don't know.
How do you know he's the only one who can draw a perfect circle? If I saw a perfect circle I'd think it was done by someone who had a tool or used a computer.

Not a straw man, because if I can show that you can infer that Mr. X drew the circle, without having shown that Mr. X has in fact drawn a circle, then I will have proved false your claim that you must show A before you can claim A caused B.

But perhaps we're getting bogged down in specifics. Maybe going more abstract would help.

Suppose that the only logically possible explanation for B is A. That is, A is the only thing that ever even possibly causes B. Suppose you don't have any evidence that A has ever happened. But then you see that B happened. Can't you infer that A happened?

---

The other reason your hypothetical fails is because a perfect circle could form due to natural phenomina, or chance. After all, this is a large world we are talking about, right?

Man, now you won't ever make any inferences? If you see a bear, will you infer that there's a bear? After all, you might be crazy, or in the Matrix! You have a strange commitment to ignorance for someone so supposedly devoted to reason and science.

[Minimalist]

It's a standard to first demonstrate that pixies (or in your case 'god') exists before it can be used to explain anything.

They always want to skip that step, Ace. Its a common failing of them,

[downbeatplumb]

Suppose that the only logically possible explanation for B is A. That is, A is the only thing that ever even possibly causes B. Suppose you don't have any evidence that A has ever happened. But then you see that B happened. Can't you infer that A happened?

There is always another possible explanation.

All claims require evidence to back them up.

And an extradinary claim such as that of god requires extradinary proof.

[Ace Otana]

t the only logically possible explanation for B is A. That is, A is the only thing that ever even possibly causes B. Suppose you don't have any evidence that A has ever happened. But then you see that B happened. Can't you infer that A happened?

No. How can you state that A (for which hasn't been demonstrated to exist) be the only possible cause to B? I could state that X is the only possible cause and look, there's B so X must be true!!!

Wrong! It doesn't work that way. You can state that A or C or D or E or F or G, ect ect were the ONLY possible cause but they'd be just as valid as each other. Just as likely (which is not at all to be realistic). Unless you can demonstrate that A exists and is the cause, nothings going to change.

Here's your argument thrown back at you -

You can only exist through the intervention of pixies, now pixies haven't been proven to exist but look! You exist, so there for pixies must exist!

See why it fails?

[Skepsis]

The other reason your hypothetical fails is because a perfect circle could form due to natural phenomina, or chance. After all, this is a large world we are talking about, right?

Man, now you won't ever make any inferences? If you see a bear, will you infer that there's a bear? After all, you might be crazy, or in the Matrix! You have a strange commitment to ignorance for someone so supposedly devoted to reason and science.

You are the one getting into the deeeeep abstracts here, not me. I simply suggested that the circle could have began natually. That is, until you defined in your next example, that no such beginning could have occured. You are digging deep into that bottomless pit of a brain to try to find a possible hypothetical world where you wouldn't have to demonstrate God before you demonstrate that he created something.

First reason your second, more abstract (and immensely unlikely), hypothetical fails is because it assumes absolute knowledge on the part of the being doing the reasoning. That they know for certain that the only logically possible way for B to occur is because of A.
Next reason is that your example is too abstract to have any impact in any real world scenario. You might be right in the distant, abstract world where there is an omniscient being who knows of this A-B scenario but in this world you are way too far past applicable for your answer to be considered.

[Faith No More]

Um, no, it's not. What things are assumed and what must be shown depends on the audience of your proof. A mathematician writing in an academic journal might not bother to prove that the real numbers form an integral domain, even if that fact was necessary for a proof he wrote, because it would be 'common knowledge'.

Minor quibble here, but the reason mathemeticians don't have to prove all of the foundations of their arguments is not that it is 'common knowledge' but the fact that it has already been proven. For example, if I am trying to determine the length of the hypotenuse of a triangle while having the value of the other two sides, I do not first have to prove a^2 + b^2 = c^2, because it has already been proven.

Since we are talking about using the existence of god as the basis of an argument, you would first have to prove it, because it has yet to be proven

Edit: Some things in mathematics are known to be true, but cannot be proven. So, I guess those could be considered 'common knowledge,' however, god does not fall into that category.

[CliveStaples]

No. How can you state that A (for which hasn't been demonstrated to exist) be the only possible cause to B? I could state that X is the only possible cause and look, there's B so X must be true!!!

It was given in the hypothetical that A is the only cause of B. Since X is the only possible cause, X = A.

Wrong! It doesn't work that way. You can state that A or C or D or E or F or G, ect ect were the ONLY possible cause but they'd be just as valid as each other. Just as likely (which is not at all to be realistic). Unless you can demonstrate that A exists and is the cause, nothings going to change.

No, if there's only one possible cause, then it's the only possible cause. You're just ignoring the conditions of the hypothetical.

Here's your argument thrown back at you -

You can only exist through the intervention of pixies, now pixies haven't been proven to exist but look! You exist, so there for pixies must exist!

See why it fails?

Well, I would say that he hasn't shown "You can only exist through the intervention of pixies".

But that's not what we're talking about. You are making a claim not just about pixies, but about all causes. Your claim is that in order to prove that A caused B, you must first show that A exists, and then that A caused B.

Now, if I can provide an example of an A and a B, such that I can prove that A caused B without first proving that A exists, then I will have shown that your claim is false. Do you agree with that? That if I could provide such an A and B, you would concede that your claim was wrong?

---

Minor quibble here, but the reason mathemeticians don't have to prove all of the foundations of their arguments is not that it is 'common knowledge' but the fact that it has already been proven. For example, if I am trying to determine the length of the hypotenuse of a triangle while having the value of the other two sides, I do not first have to prove a^2 + b^2 = c^2, because it has already been proven.

Since we are talking about using the existence of god as the basis of an argument, you would first have to prove it, because it has yet to be proven

Edit: Some things in mathematics are known to be true, but cannot be proven. So, I guess those could be considered 'common knowledge,' however, god does not fall into that category.

Except that mathematicians don't always do that. Real analysis came like 100 years after Newton and Liebniz discovered calculus.

[Ace Otana]

It was given in the hypothetical that A is the only cause of B. Since X is the only possible cause, X = A.

Then you've answered it yourself haven't you. For me, A hasn't be demonstrated to cause B. That's pretty much the end of it.

Well, I would say that he hasn't shown "You can only exist through the intervention of pixies".

Just as I would state that you haven't shown that only god can create the universe. Or that a god exists.

Your claim is that in order to prove that A caused B, you must first show that A exists, and then that A caused B.

It's a fucking standard. Bloody fucking hell.....!!!
*Slaps head* SHEESH!!!

Now, if I can provide an example of an A and a B, such that I can prove that A caused B without first proving that A exists, then I will have shown that your claim is false.

Alright, go do it. Demonstrate that A caused B. Prove me wrong.

[Gambit]

You fuckers are seriously over complicating this shit. A is the God of gaps, Jesus. I don't mean it is Jesus. Jesus at the end of my sentence was an exclamation of exasperation, not a claim that Jesus is A. What was B again?