Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[Jackalope]

@disciplus

* Jackalope gouges his eyes out with a fork

[Mystical]

I think I've covered everything here.

Really? Because I saw you ignoring Chtulhu's appeal to knowledge about virtual particles, thus you haven't covered anything at all.

Just to address the topic question properly what would prove to me that God doesn't exist is if I were to die and discover that I myself didn't exist.

Feel free to point out the problem with this method of discovering Gods non-existence. You'll never proven completely wrong as a theist. But you can be proven completely wrong as an atheist.

Feel free to demonstrate an atheist being proven completely wrong. Please.

[Bad Writer]

Did SoC seriously just pull a George W. Bush? Seriously, remember when Bush declared victory in Operation Iraqi Freedom? Yeah...

[Jackalope]

Pigeons.

Playing chess.

[Angrboda]

Also - you are correct in that I reversed the meaning of "valid" and "sound" with respect to logical arguments. Mea culpa. That error does not detract from the point of my post that P1 and P2 of the KCA are not known to be true, for the reasons I gave.

With respect to your argument that premises one and two of the KCA are "not known to be true", it will suffice to say that they do not need to be known to be true unless you require that the premises be absolutely certainly known.

If you take this view, then there are at least two conspicuous issues you must deal with:

1. You must admit that not only does the KCA fail to be persuasive, but every other argument that has been formulated or ever will be formulated that does not have premises that are known to be true beyond all doubt i.e. absolutely known. Surely you do not want to go to such epistemically restrictive lengths just to avoid the conclusion of an argument would you?

2. In addition to the above, your objection is based upon a misconstrual of what the requisites or criteria that a premise in an argument must meet. You wrongly reason that in order for a premise to be considered "true" that it must be proven and or known with absolute certainty. This is clearly false.

In a good argument, the argument will have premises that are more plausible than their contradictories or denials .

For an argument to be a good one , it is not required that we have 100% certainty of the truth of the premises. Some of the premises in a good argument may strike us as only slightly more plausible than their denials; other premises may seem to us highly plausible in contrast to their denials. But so long as a statement is more plausible than its contradictory (that is, its negation), then one should believe it rather than its negation, and so it may serve as a premise in a good argument. (Moreland, James Porter; William Lane Craig (2009-11-08). Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (pp. 29-30). Intervarsity Press - A. Kindle Edition.)

---

My friend, these concepts we are dealing with are basic introduction to philosophy concepts. They must be mastered if you wish to actually get into genuine debate regarding the KCA.

Now you can understand why the criterion of plausibility is used in critiquing the quality of a premise and not absolute certainty which you claim is required.

While it is true that we would like to be able to provide premises that are highly plausible or pretty certain, it simply is not necessary to know beyond all doubt that a premise is true for it to be a part of a good argument. Even in deductive arguments, which is what the KCA is, the premises themselves can and often times are supported using inductive arguments.

Therefore, since I have presented the argument to you in order to convince you or persuade you that "the universe has a cause" by using a deductive syllogistic argument, if you do not find the conclusion persuasive or convincing, you must offer either an undercutting or rebutting defeater to premise one or two.

Simply dismissing the argument by saying the premises are not known to be true does not constitute either a rebutting or undercutting defeater to either premise. For this reason you will find no contemporary philosopher objecting to the KCA in their peer reviewed published work on these grounds that you have suggested.

Now, if you do not wish to debate the KCA further with me, then I respect that, and thank you for your time.

Best of wishes to you and may you learn more and more each day!

P.S., some have suggested that quantum physics furnishes us with an exception to premise one in that virtual particles are uncaused. If this line is one you would like to use, then I am prepared to engage it.

---

First of all, I wouldn't look to douche bags like William Lane Craig for your information. There's a reason people like Craig and Plantinga push such ideas. I suggest that you find out what it is.

If one is arguing that your conclusions are logically necessary, one is invoking the model of a deductive syllogism in which case, yes, your premises have to be known to be true (or stipulated as such) or else your conclusions aren't known to be true. If the plausibility of the premise is unknown, then the plausibility of the conclusion is unknown. You don't get something for nothing by higgledy-piggledly mixing Toulminesque epistemological models with classical logic. All you end up with is a mess.

[Jackalope]

Another cookie for apophenia.

[pocaracas]

---

All things that exist anywhere in reality were caused by something else that exists that brought them into existence to begin with, this is why they exist. What the bloody hell is your problem here?

Your inability to discern everything from (Universe plus god).
Your first premise concerns everything within the Universe.

A Helium atom's nucleus was caused into existence by the fusion of two hydrogen atom nuclei and two neutrons thrown into the mix. Both these things were already existing, only in a different form. two protons and two neutrons. As a Helium nucleus, these 4 particles are simply arranged in a particular way, different from the original arrangement.

What you propose is that you can take this mechanism whereby everything that exists is a transformation from something to something else using the same basic components and you extrapolate it to "there was nothing and then *puff* something exists". The *puff* you explain with a super powerful entity willing the transformation.
This extrapolation is completely illogical, as the premise does not include the mechanism of transforming nothing into something.

We simply say that we don't know what was before the big bang, if there was a "before the big bang", because that's the most honest position there can be.

I hope you finally understand why we don't accept your reasoning.

---

People keep ignoring the awesome stuff... I don' get why...

[Ryantology]

You'll never proven completely wrong as a theist. But you can be proven completely wrong as an atheist.

This is entirely true, but there's a reason that reasoning creatures dismiss unfalsifiable theories as having any value when discussing real-world matters.

[Darwinian]

SoC..

So basically because you have refused and/or failed to understand a single point that has been made to you it means that you have won the argument and defeated those stupid atheists?

Wow!

[Bad Writer]

Since we can't disprove god, then he MUST exist. While we are at it, we may as well start believing in dragons and unicorns. Can't prove they're false either.