OK Christians. your chance. Convince me of God.

[genkaus]

Not the Kalam bullshit again.

The presuppositions of the atheistic position is that it is at least empirically, impossible to prove god exists and if-so facto (given atheist tend to be strict empiricalists) then god must not exist

Incorrect. Atheists are perfectly willing to accept empirical proof for god. It's just that there has been none.

Disregarding all preconcieved notions we can deductively prove God without Appealing to Biblical authority.

Take care that you do that.

1. (x) (Bx -> Cx)
2. Bu
3. Cu

Where B = begins to exist; c = cause, u = universe.
Premise one
Everything that begins to exist has a cause
Premise Two
The Universe began to exist
Therefore,
The Universe has a cause.
Regarding premise 1:
It seems rather intuitive. It is confirmed by virtually every area of our sense experience. It is a axiom at best.Even quantum fluctuations, which many suppose to be uncaused, are causally conditioned in that they depend on the existence of a pre-existing quantum vacuum.

Is this you disregarding preconceived notions? Intuition is the very basis for pre-conception. Your axiom is rejected until proven and an axiom is not proof.

David Oderberg argues:

We are asked to countenance the possibility of the following situation: the nonexistence of anything followed by the existence of something. The words “followed by” are crucial — how are they to be interpreted? What they cannot mean is that there is at one time nothing and at a subsequent time something, because the nonexistence of anything is supposed toinclude time: to say that at one time there is nothing whatsoever is self-defeating because it is to say that there is a time at which nothing exists — hence something did exist. But it is hard to see how else we are supposed to understand “followed by”; or when the denier of the causal principle says that it is possible for something to come from nothing what are we to understand by “from”? Again it cannot have a causal sense because something is supposed to have come into existence uncaused. All that appears to be left is a timeless contradiction — the existence of nothing and the existence of something.

And what he apparently fails to understand is that the principle of causation itself is temporal in nature. The only way in which there can be a cause of the universe is if there is a "time" before the beginning of the universe. That is, time existed before and after the universe and at some point in that time when the universe began. But if time and the universe can only coexist, then there is no such thing as "before" the universe or the "beginning" of the universe and therefore no such this as a cause of the universe.

Regarding Premise two:
"An actual infinite cannot exist.
An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
Therefore an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist" WLC
If the Universe was infinite along with being temporal because it relates to causes within time, which likewise always existed, then is an infinite temporal regress because it goes into the past forever. The universe must be explained this way in order to avoid an absolute cosmic beginning to all of space-time reality. It requires there exist an actual infinite within natural reality, because past causes and events have to go on forever into the past by definition given an eternal universe. This perennial philosophical problem is not an issue under theistic accounts which produce arguments for transcendent being like a personal God because traditionally God is considered the only non-contingent or always existing, non-caused cause. The infinite regress is stopped by an ontological commitment to a supernatural personal agent that is the ultimate cause of the existence, and according to the kalam cosmological argument, the beginning of the universe.

Why is an actual infinite a problem at all? Is making a blanket statement like that another example of you letting go of your preconceptions?

And by the way, proving an infinite would be proving a negative. Something is defined as finite once it's boundary or limit has been discovered. Proving that it is infinite is proving that it does not have a boundary - a negative.

All I see here is another theist who talks about letting go of preconceived notions and yet clings to them like a life-jacket. The two arguments you use - everything has a cause and everything is finite - are two of the most common of all preconceived notions. While they may be applicable to most of the things, there is no evidence that they are applicable to everything.

[Mystic]

Modus tollens is derived from Modus Ponens or can be. Therefore it can always be re-written as each other.

For example, if you transform the verse from A -> B to Not A -> Not B

"If you don't find much contradictions, then it is from God"

Then you don't have to use modus tollens but can use Modus ponens:


If there is no contradictions found in the book, then it is from God
There is no contradictions found in the book.
Therefore it is from God.


Every modus tollen can be re-written as modus ponen because of the fact you can derive:

A -> B = Not B -> Not A.

[The Grand Nudger]

Here I was starting to think that I had misread the situation. Apparently, I had not.

"And if it were from any other than Allah (if from other than god[A]), they would have found in it many a discrepancy.(then contradictions will be found[B])"

You clearly aren't getting the gist of what I'm saying here.

This verse looks to me (if we're going to be using it as a conditional statement and premise), to be a statement of sufficient condition (a statement of if, but not only if). All that could be established from a sufficient condition is that "If A were a sufficient condition of B, then A, implies....B." Neither of us seem to disagree here. Correct me if I'm wrong, this would be the proper form of modus ponens, eh?

-A necessary aside regarding sufficient and necessary conditions-

---

To use a different example (one I have already tried to use to demonstrate the difference between sufficient and necessary conditions)
If I get an A, I will pass this test
I got an A
Therefore I passed this test

The reason that this is sufficient condition -and as such subject to modus ponens as the valid rule of inference is that as per the premise my passing the test follows from my getting an A. The reason that it is not a necessary condition (and as suh not subject to the valid rule of inference for necessary conditions- modus tollens) is that as per the premise, I don't -have- to get an A to pass the test. IOW, even assuming the premise, there is no reason to assume that if I passed, I got an A.

---

If it were a sufficient condition (if I accepted the premise)- the valid rule of inference is modus ponens (not modus tollens - which you keep trying to apply) To use modus tollens we would have to indicate -somehow- that A was a necessary condition of B in that premise (which we have not). My questions to you are as follows. How can I accept what is not contained in the premise? Why would I be compelled to accept a conclusion that followed from an unstated premise by accepting a premise which it does not follow from? This is what I am asking you, I am not asking you to explain to me how either of these rules of inference work- because I already understand that.

The disagreement we are having here is not about how modus ponens or modus tollens works, everytime you respond to my very simple criticism of the way this premise has been worded by arguing for modus tollens or modus pollens, or transposition, or contraposition you are completely ignoring my criticism, and it's starting to irritate me.


Is there, in your estimation, a difference between-

If, then
and
Only if, then

-if so, what is that difference?

To be clear, I am not suggesting that you could not from a valid argument from necessary condition. It ought to be fairly simple. Just and the word "only".

"And -ONLY- if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy." Now you have a premise whose valid rule of inference is modus tollens.

If this were the premise, and I accepted it (along with the assertion that followed), I could not deny the conclusion.

[Mystic]

it's starting to irritate me.

Maybe it's best we stop then.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh IDK Mystic, I don't think it's so bad, I think (and this is why I linked you that article) that our english "if" just may be interfering in this case. That you and I aren't actually so far in position from each other as either of us may assume. Thats why I keep stressing to you that I am not arguing against modus tollens or modus ponens, but that the premise (and following argument) -specifically as it was arranged colloquially- does not satisfy the requirements for either.

[Darkstar]

It seems to me that if one wishes to believe something, then it makes this thing much easier to believe however if one rejects the possibly of the [non] belief without consideration of the [lack of] evidence then one is hard-pressed to accept any evidence that contradicts his own preconceived notions.
Disregarding all preconcieved notions we can[not] deductively prove God without Appealing to Biblical authority. Of course the analysis is required but truely if a thiest abandons reason simply because that reason no longer supports reason then perhaps he ought to reconsider his worldview because I happen to know plenty of pseudo scientists who abandon reason to fit their nee ds: Young Earth Creationists.

I think my only slightly altered version of the quote is much more accurate. We aren't in denial, you (maybe) are. Bolding mine, all underlined segments are also mine and not part of the original quote.

1. (x) (Bx -> Cx)
2. Bu
3. Cu

Where B = begins to exist; c = cause, u = universe.
Premise one
Everything that begins to exist has a cause
Premise Two
The Universe began to exist
Therefore,
The Universe has a cause.
Regarding premise 1:
It seems rather intuitive. It is confirmed by virtually every area of our sense experience. It is a axiom at best.Even quantum fluctuations, which many suppose to be uncaused, are causally conditioned in that they depend on the existence of a pre-existing quantum vacuum.

Yet god is exempt from having a cause. Why? He's just that awesome, don't question it! We don't need to conform to standard rules of logic!

Regarding Premise two:
"An actual infinite cannot exist.
An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
Therefore an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist" WLC
If the Universe was infinite along with being temporal because it relates to causes within time, which likewise always existed, then is an infinite temporal regress because it goes into the past forever. The universe must be explained this way in order to avoid an absolute cosmic beginning to all of space-time reality. It requires there exist an actual infinite within natural reality, because past causes and events have to go on forever into the past by definition given an eternal universe. This perennial philosophical problem is not an issue under theistic accounts which produce arguments for transcendent being like a personal God because traditionally God is considered the only non-contingent or always existing, non-caused cause. The infinite regress is stopped by an ontological commitment to a supernatural personal agent that is the ultimate cause of the existence, and according to the kalam cosmological argument, the beginning of the universe.

Bolding mine. Do you know what omnipotent means? God's power is an infinity. Likewise, I've read arguments claiming that entropy would have caused the universe to reach equilibrium had it been eternal. However, I doubt that entropy would have had much effect on the singularity, so if we take the 'beginning' of the universe as after the singularity, then the universe has a finite age, if not it may or may not be eternal.

[System of Solace]

Where B = begins to exist; c = cause, u = universe.
Premise one
Everything that begins to exist has a cause
Premise Two
The Universe began to exist
Therefore,
The Universe has a cause.

"Does William Lane Craig approve of you rummaging through his underwear drawer and then using the most stained specimen? -Cato123"

[treshbond]

Ok, I am curious. I am not sure if this is the best spot for this.

If Jesus has been established by the majority of scholars as a true character of history and that history also records that he was crucified for claiming to be the son of God.
Also as I understand it, as unreliable as any ancient text is, the Bible has been better preserved than all others.

Wouldn't that provide at least a starting point to examine further as 'a scrap of evidence' ?

[Whatkins]

Ok, I am curious. I am not sure if this is the best spot for this.

If Jesus has been established by the majority of scholars as a true character of history and that history also records that he was crucified for claiming to be the son of God.
Also as I understand it, as unreliable as any ancient text is, the Bible has been better preserved than all others.

Wouldn't that provide at least a starting point to examine further as 'a scrap of evidence' ?

The Bible is certainly subject to examination when it comes to evidence. Many Christians cite it as divinely inspired. Problem is, no one can demonstrate that the Bible is evidence of any god or miracle (unless their definition of "evidence" and "miracle" have been distorted).

And the historicity of the Bible is much more dubious than you seem to think. It has been translated and reset so many times through the ages that the residual loss or alteration of names and facts were inevitable.

[Angenlina star]

Stop thinking,then you will find god and religion,believe me this is how many people do it.


When thinking is stopped,religion is introduced to the masses,people believe in religion because it gives them an simple answer to everything.

Surely that's brainwashing !?!
I can think for myself