RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
July 23, 2015 at 9:05 pm
(This post was last modified: July 23, 2015 at 9:06 pm by Simon Moon.)
(July 23, 2015 at 5:37 am)MysticKnight Wrote: The premise is not everything needs a cause. The premise is everything that begins to exist needs a cause.
It's not only proven to be a valid argument, but a sound argument.
Not in the least is it valid or sound.
Your first premise affirms the consequent.
Which I'm sure, you know is a fallacy.
Modus ponens fails. This version of the first cause argument fails.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.