RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
July 23, 2015 at 11:43 am
(This post was last modified: July 23, 2015 at 11:58 am by robvalue.)
I agree. I see no way anyone can claim that. It's just slipped in, hoping to pass by "common sense".
Regarding your exception MK, it's just something you make up and you assume must exist. It is an exception simply because you define it that way. That's not the same as proving it's possible it can exist, let alone does exist.
Let me give you another example:
I define x as being the smallest real number.
If x < 1 then x*x < x so it's not the smallest number
If x > 1 then sqrt(x) < x so it's not the smallest number
Therefor x=1, the only remaining option. 1 is the smallest real number.
See the problem?
Regarding your exception MK, it's just something you make up and you assume must exist. It is an exception simply because you define it that way. That's not the same as proving it's possible it can exist, let alone does exist.
Let me give you another example:
I define x as being the smallest real number.
If x < 1 then x*x < x so it's not the smallest number
If x > 1 then sqrt(x) < x so it's not the smallest number
Therefor x=1, the only remaining option. 1 is the smallest real number.
See the problem?
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum