(February 2, 2022 at 6:10 pm)Nomad Wrote:(February 2, 2022 at 4:05 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Congratulations for butchering the contrapositive of a conditional statement.
P: "Causality holds"
Q: "God exists"
Assume P=>Q. Now, Not-Q therefore not-P is, in words, No god therefore no causality. No first cause therefore no causality, sounds reasonable.
Back to the issue of causality, I recently encountered an interesting quote in a popular Muslim apologetics group, it's from a recent book: the Kalam Cosmological Argument: A Reassessment.
Sounds like we were right, we were right all along...
All this is assertion. To be able to do the P Q thing you are trying to do you require evidence. You have none. If you did you'd post evidence instead of this bullshit.
This is one of the things in logic that many theists seem not to notice.
A valid syllogism is only as good as the soundness of the evidence fed into it.
It is quite easy to create a valid logical argument, that does not demonstrate a thing.
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.