Premise: Everything that has come into existence has had a cause.
What is wrong with the above premise?
What is wrong with the above premise?
What is wrong with this premise?
|
Premise: Everything that has come into existence has had a cause.
What is wrong with the above premise? (January 18, 2015 at 3:43 am)Heywood Wrote: Premise: Everything that has come into existence has had a cause. Nothing. It is when you make the insupportable claim that god is the cause that the problems arise.
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter RE: What is wrong with this premise?
January 18, 2015 at 3:50 am
(This post was last modified: January 18, 2015 at 3:50 am by Darkstar.)
(January 18, 2015 at 3:43 am)Heywood Wrote: Premise: Everything that has come into existence has had a cause. We have never observed anything coming into existence that had a discernible cause, so we cannot say that this is true. We have observed particles coming into existence without any definable cause, however: Quantum fluctuation John Adams Wrote:The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
By default I don't see why your premise should be true.
But can you specify what your definition of a cause is, and what you mean by something coming into existence.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
(January 18, 2015 at 3:43 am)Heywood Wrote: Premise: Everything that has come into existence has had a cause.For one, it's unsupported by any evidence. 2ndly, if causality only relates to entities that exist because in order to change --- which is what casualty is --- something must be for it to change from or into, then to say that causality involves change from nothing to something while yet nothing is at least the propensity to be, is to refute the notion that nothing is in fact not something.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
(January 18, 2015 at 3:58 am)Alex K Wrote: By default I don't see why your premise should be true. I would accept the premise as true because in my experience everything which has come into existence has had some cause. (January 18, 2015 at 4:12 am)Heywood Wrote:(January 18, 2015 at 3:58 am)Alex K Wrote: By default I don't see why your premise should be true. What in your experience has come into existence? And before you answer that question you need to very specifically define what you mean by 'come into existence' so everybody understands what we're discussing, and nobody tries to move the goalposts later in. RE: What is wrong with this premise?
January 18, 2015 at 4:21 am
(This post was last modified: January 18, 2015 at 4:22 am by Heywood.)
(January 18, 2015 at 4:15 am)Darkstar Wrote:(January 18, 2015 at 4:12 am)Heywood Wrote: I would accept the premise as true because in my experience everything which has come into existence has had some cause. A Harry Potter movie has come into existence. The movie didn't exist 100 years ago and now it does. (January 18, 2015 at 3:50 am)Darkstar Wrote:(January 18, 2015 at 3:43 am)Heywood Wrote: Premise: Everything that has come into existence has had a cause. How do we know that these particles are not caused by existence, I.e. their cresttion is inherent within the physical laws of existence. (January 18, 2015 at 4:22 am)reiemdis Wrote:(January 18, 2015 at 3:50 am)Darkstar Wrote: We have never observed anything coming into existence that had a discernible cause, so we cannot say that this is true. I would sooner believe that the cause is non-local rather than they come into existence un-caused. |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Possibly Related Threads... | |||||
Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Post | |
Why is murder wrong if Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is true? | FlatAssembler | 52 | 5586 |
August 7, 2022 at 8:51 am Last Post: The Grand Nudger |
|
What is wrong with FW? | Little Rik | 126 | 19401 |
August 17, 2018 at 4:10 am Last Post: bennyboy |
|
God does not determine right and wrong | Alexmahone | 134 | 19944 |
February 12, 2018 at 7:14 pm Last Post: The Grand Nudger |
|
Abortion is morally wrong | Arthur123 | 1121 | 187862 |
September 18, 2014 at 2:46 am Last Post: genkaus |
|
The foundations of William L. Craigs "science" proven wrong? | Arthur Dent | 5 | 1451 |
July 25, 2014 at 1:08 pm Last Post: Rabb Allah |
|
Why is Kant's practical reason for God wrong? | filambee | 23 | 7806 |
October 29, 2013 at 1:27 am Last Post: filambee |
|
Is it wrong to care about children? | soman-rush | 9 | 6156 |
August 9, 2013 at 3:38 am Last Post: Kayenneh |
|
Morality without the righteous. What is right and wrong? | Tranquility | 35 | 10259 |
March 13, 2013 at 5:27 pm Last Post: NoMoreFaith |