[split] Critical Thinking Skills

[fr0d0]

Ah but logic isn't material. Point to me :p

[Violet]

Ah but logic isn't material. Point to me :p

Are you sure about that?

* Violet takes a wrench and beats logic into an entirely new shape.

Material shit isn't reliant on logic either... it's our expectations of it which rely desperately upon it

[Angrboda]

I think this all misses the point. Jstrodel was challenged to present a logically compelling argument for the existence of God. (Reviewing the original post by Mister Agenda, it appears his requirements are that it be sound and not employ logical fallacies; this may be a case in which truth is in the eye of the beholder, as there is likely to be little agreement from both sides on this. While I suspect the argument has failings, I must confess, personally, that it is emotionally, if not strictly logically, troubling. It seems to make intuitive sense, at least up until the special pleading bit; but even then, it's still a troubling argument in that it appears to demand that something fulfill that role filled by God in the argument, and regardless of what that something is, it would seem to also require special pleading, regardless of what it is. Since that bit ultimately requires dissolution, it appears the only way to truly dissolve it is to attack the premise that every thing that exists has a cause [or however it is worded], and to the best of my recollection, that has not been done.) Whether the particular argument is valid or sound, the history of the argument shows that it has been taken seriously by many, and thus readily meets the challenge. If you're going to challenge someone, perhaps you should propose a bar that is not so easily met.

[fr0d0]

*splats cutie cat*

Well yes without logic where would we be. All atheist? *shudders*

[Violet]

*splats cutie cat*

Well yes without logic where would we be. All atheist? *shudders*

Logic itself takes faith. (P/N) Belief in the existence of gods is not necessarily logical, but certainly is a position of faith.

Having no belief in the 'existence' or 'nonexistence', or having criteria which must be met to begin believing in the 'existence' or 'nonexistence' is in the first scenario not a position of faith, and in the second branded 'skepticism' (a state of disbelief until criteria _____ is met), which is a position mild negative faith... much as one might consider any other conclusion made from conjecture.

[Tonus]

If we go by the premise

"everything requires a cause for existence"

It would imply at least one thing is the cause of it's own existence. Cause is not necessarily linear.

The premise is self-contradicting, unless we agree that something need not exist in order to cause something else to exist. In which case, universe!

[Mister Agenda]

I think this all misses the point. Jstrodel was challenged to present a logically compelling argument for the existence of God. (Reviewing the original post by Mister Agenda, it appears his requirements are that it be sound and not employ logical fallacies; this may be a case in which truth is in the eye of the beholder, as there is likely to be little agreement from both sides on this. While I suspect the argument has failings, I must confess, personally, that it is emotionally, if not strictly logically, troubling. It seems to make intuitive sense, at least up until the special pleading bit; but even then, it's still a troubling argument in that it appears to demand that something fulfill that role filled by God in the argument, and regardless of what that something is, it would seem to also require special pleading, regardless of what it is. Since that bit ultimately requires dissolution, it appears the only way to truly dissolve it is to attack the premise that every thing that exists has a cause [or however it is worded], and to the best of my recollection, that has not been done.) Whether the particular argument is valid or sound, the history of the argument shows that it has been taken seriously by many, and thus readily meets the challenge. If you're going to challenge someone, perhaps you should propose a bar that is not so easily met.

I was not aware that being taken seriously historically by many makes special pleading nonfallacious.

[Mystic]

If we go by the premise

"everything requires a cause for existence"

It would imply at least one thing is the cause of it's own existence. Cause is not necessarily linear.

The premise is self-contradicting, unless we agree that something need not exist in order to cause something else to exist. In which case, universe!

Not necessarily. If cause precedes effect, then this is true. But if the super natural created must cause itself to exist by it's own power constantly and everything else needs to be caused as well (like atoms can't exist on their own), then there is no contradiction.

[Mister Agenda]

Everything cannot require a cause. That would be illogical. But everything material that we know of needs a cause. Materialist dilemma.

The only thing we know of that begins to exist are virtual particles. The reason they begin to exist is that momentum and location of a particle cannot both be known simultaneously, and the momentum and location of a non-existing particle would be known: 0, 0. Virtual particles are not caused, they occur spontaneously.

So not everything material that we know of needs a cause. In addition, observing a chain of causality within the universe does not entitle us to assume that the universe itself requires causation. Time begins with the universe, causality is meaningless without time.

So, not a materialist dillemma. Just sayin'. There's no inherent problem in materialism with either an uncaused cause or infinite regression. Unless you've a proof that either is impossible? It would settle some things if you do.

[Mystic]

But everything material that we know of needs a cause. Materialist dilemma.

"We" as in most people believe and you believe they know. However, to a lot of people, it's very well possible material universe existed at time zero, and caused the universe from there. Others believe in infinite regress (infinite chain of cause and effect), however I do believe infinite regress is impossible, but it's another thing if most people know that or not.