Atheism Destroyed in Under 50 Seconds

[CliveStaples]

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

Alright. Here's the hypothetical:

Let "event" denote a state of affairs that has resulted from some cause, and that the only state of affairs that are causes are those that exist. Suppose that an event B is such that it can only ever be caused by A. That is "X caused B" is only true when X = A.

Now, suppose that B occurs. Since B is an event, it was the result of a cause. Call this cause C. Thus, we know "C caused B" is true. From the above, we know C = A. Hence "A caused B" is true. Hence A exists. QED.

Thus your claim is false.

[Ace Otana]

Let "event" denote a state of affairs that has resulted from some cause, and that the only state of affairs that are causes are those that exist. Suppose that an event B is such that it can only ever be caused by A.

Outside of this 'hypothetical situation' you'll need to demonstrate A and that it is the cause, but continue with what you're saying....

That is "X caused B" is only true when X = A.

Outside of this 'hypothetical situation' you'd need to demonstrate this. But feel free to continue.....

Now, suppose that B occurs. Since B is an event, it was the result of a cause

A little side note, not all events may require a 'cause'. Virtual particles for example, randomly pop in and out of existence seemingly without a cause. But continue....

Call this cause C. Thus, we know "C caused B" is true.

So we've established that the 'cause' caused the event, and the point being?

From the above, we know C = A. Hence "A caused B" is true. Hence A exists. QED.

Sorry but it didn't make a lick of sense.

Thus your claim is false.

Like I said, it's a fucking standard. It's a basic principle. I see where you're going with this but I'm afraid it doesn't add up. The universe exists, and you're saying god is the only cause right? However god's existence hasn't been demonstrated and so cannot be used to explain the existence of the universe. Anything can be used to explain the existence of the universe, and it'll have the same likely hood as this 'god' character.

So far all I've seen is assertion after assertion.

[Gambit]

A causes B, yet we do not know what A is. We can be sure that A causes B, yet there are numerous possible labels to assign to A. So, why God? Why not me? For all you know I am the only conscious being in existence that can cause anything. You could be a product of my eternal loneliness. It is quite probable that everything has cause; given what we know. However, you can't just go around assigning whatever you want to A. What you want it to be has a slim to no chance of being the actual case. Seriously, are we really having this debate?

[Skepsis]

A causes B, yet we do not know what A is. We can be sure that A causes B, yet there are numerous possible labels to assign to A. So, why God? Why not me? For all you know I am the only conscious being in existence that can cause anything. You could be a product of my eternal loneliness. It is quite probable that everything has cause; given what we know. However, you can't just go around assigning whatever you want to A. What you want it to be has a slim to no chance of being the actual case. Seriously, are we really having this debate?

What he is trying to do is create a hypothetical where God would be the only possible explanation for event X. He says that, if this hyothetical came to pass, the claims that you need to prove God before you can prove that God did something loses its validity. However, in which universe will this hypothetical ever come to pass, where only God as he personally defines it can cause an event that only said defined God could accomplish?
This will never happen, and everyone here knows it, but this argument doesn't seem anywhere near its close.

[Gambit]

A causes B, yet we do not know what A is. We can be sure that A causes B, yet there are numerous possible labels to assign to A. So, why God? Why not me? For all you know I am the only conscious being in existence that can cause anything. You could be a product of my eternal loneliness. It is quite probable that everything has cause; given what we know. However, you can't just go around assigning whatever you want to A. What you want it to be has a slim to no chance of being the actual case. Seriously, are we really having this debate?

What he is trying to do is create a hypothetical where God would be the only possible explanation for event X. He says that, if this hyothetical came to pass, the claims that you need to prove God before you can prove that God did something loses its validity. However, in which universe will this hypothetical ever come to pass, where only God as he personally defines it can cause an event that only said defined God could accomplish?
This will never happen, and everyone here knows it, but this argument doesn't seem anywhere near its close.

Mooooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!! Clive is not playing fair, he is trying to change the rules of the game in his favor, and it's not fair!!!

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

What he is trying to do is create a hypothetical where God would be the only possible explanation for event X. He says that, if this hyothetical came to pass, the claims that you need to prove God before you can prove that God did something loses its validity. However, in which universe will this hypothetical ever come to pass, where only God as he personally defines it can cause an event that only said defined God could accomplish?
This will never happen, and everyone here knows it, but this argument doesn't seem anywhere near its close.

Mooooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!! Clive is not playing fair, he is trying to change the rules of the game in his favor, and it's not fair!!!

LMAO and in the other thread he is lying his ass off, braying and bleating that he doesn't assert the existence of his fairy tale monster at all. Of course, in order to dodgr his burden of proof. Can you even imagine a Christian acting in such a disdisingenuous way?

[Gambit]

I'm sorry, but as open-minded to new ideas as I am, reducing everything down to one choice has to be the most intellectually dishonest argument I have ever seen in the absence of any supporting evidence.

This is the conversation I hear in my head:

Theist: So remember when the lights went off with no explanation?
Nonbeliever: Yeah, then I went out and checked the breaker, and hey presto, let there be light.
Theist: OK, now imagine it wasn't the breaker.
Nonbeliever: OK, so I called the electricity company and there was a fault with the main line.
Theist: Right, now imagine there wasn't a fault.

...fast forward through every plausible explanation...

Theist: See! All that's left is God, so it must be he!
Atheist: So which God are we talking about again?

[Angrboda]

Under the hypothetical, yes, if A entails B, and For all X, if X does not entail B, then B entails A. This is all very reminiscent of many ontological arguments for the existence of God which are essentially definitional: they are true given the assumption of certain definitions, but the assumption of the relevant definitions is never shown to be necessary. As it is, the question of A -> B was spun off from your assumption that the Kalaam cosmological argument demonstrated the existence of God. In that context, your A -> B argument is equivocating to avoid a clear misapplication of the law of the excluded middle. On top of which, Kalaam is a shit argument to start with. Anyway, yes, given the hypothetical, if A -> B, and only A -> B, all other X -> ~B, then yes, B -> A. So what? This wasn't the hypothetical to begin with. (I can only guess that you truly were too stupid to comprehend Ace's point in bringing it up. All is forgiven. Come home soon. The cows need milking.)


On pragmatism, another ball of so what. If we accept the notion of tacit beliefs, for which there are an essentially infinite number, sitting motionless in a room entails the denial of an infinite number of beliefs and entities. Even if this weren't fundamentally stupid, and a bit of a misunderstanding of pragmatism, our minds supposedly exist as implementations on wetware consisting of 100 billion neurons — not your requisite near infinite host. (I must confess to not having studied pragmatism. It seems to suffer massive foundational issues. And in this case, anyway, it appears to blur into constructivism, which I have more sympathy for, or would, if you were using it as more than a temporary epistemic crutch. Postulating 'belief' as an atomistic element of mind is far from demonstrable. And if you are tempted to detour into dualism, I highly recommend that you do not. Failing that, your "under pragmatism" notion flounders. You seem to favor arguments of the definitional form, that would be true, if the given assumptions and definitions are true, but for which you seem to lack any actual justifying reasons for accepting them.)

[Opsnyder]

This video is full of shit.