Stump the Christian?

[Jenny A]

Pretending may be too strong a word.  But yes, Christians claim to have answers, such as god exists, that they have no real evidence for.  They claim knowledge that they have not.  That they really believe such claims, does not make them correct.

Jenny-

If you had met God, would you think differently?

---

 What do you mean met?  A burning bush that talks?  A voice in my head?  A booming voice from the sky?  An inner feeling?  An encounter with someone who appears to be able to walk on water or feed a multitude with a basket of bread?

None of those things would prove an omniscient, all powerful, creator of the universe.  But that's what the Bible suggests meeting god would be like.

[Jenny A]

You're constantly arguing the god of the gaps argument without even knowing it. It's as old as humanity and therefore fails to impress. In the olden days, folks looked up to the sky and saw the sun. They didn't know what it was and so the called it a god. They saw the moon and didn't know what it was and called it a god. They saw lightning and didn't know what it was, so it had to be an enraged god.

Today we know a whole lot more. The fact that we don't know everything doesn't mean there's a god required. It only means, we don't know - yet.

I'm familiar with the "god-of-the-gaps" objection, and since you guys have "done it all before", I'm sure you're equally familiar with the "science-of-the-gaps" fallacy.

Interestingly, though, just a few posts earlier, JennyA. opined that there are questions which science will never answer.

But that doesn't seem to stop some from assuming that or behaving as if it will eventually.

They've simply placed their faith in a different god.

Yes, there probably are questions science will never answer, like what was there before the big bang.  But that doesn't make god or any other answer more probable.  Nor is not assuming magic or god, assuming science will eventually answer all questions.

So what is this science of the gaps fallacy?  Is we don't know a fallacy?  I we hope to learn more a fallacy?

[Longhorn]

composition fallacy, fallacy of equivocation and general idiocy, for starters

a quick search on the forums alone would've told you that and much more.

Composition Fallacy?

The argument is in the classic form Modus ponens:

P implies Q.
P.
Therefore, Q.

1. All men are mortal. (Everything that begins has a cause.)
2. Socrates was a man. (The universe began.)
3. Therefore, Socrates is moral. (Therefore, the universe has a cause.)

The argument does not imply that because some things in the universe have a cause, therefore the whole universe must have a cause. Instead, the premises are argued as follows:

Regarding the first premise:

1. Something cannot come from nothing.
   
2. If something can come from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything does not come into being from nothing. If the universe can come into being out of nothing, why not root beer? Or bowling balls? And why don't they appear out of nothing at random?
   
3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise one of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. (This is an example of the type of inductive reasoning that undergirds all of science.)
   

Regarding the second premise:

1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics shows that if the universe had existed forever, it would have run out of energy long ago.
   
2. Modern cosmologists, Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin, have proved that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history, cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning. This also applies to multiverses – if there is such a thing. Vilenkin said,
   

“This means that scientists “can no longer hide behind a past eternal-universe. There is no escape; they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”

The Fallacy of Equivocation?

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a word is used in two different ways as follows:

1. Socrates was Greek.
2. Greek is a language.
3. Therefore, Socrates is a language.

However, in the Kalam Argument, God is the efficient cause of the universe, not the material cause. Here is another example:

Michaelangelo is the efficient cause of the statue, "David". The material cause of the statue is the block of marble.

Further, "begins to exist" means "comes into being". Thus, the Kalam argument may also be stated:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe came into being.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

In the Kalam argument, there simply is no equivocation.

'everything that begins to exist has a cause' is equivalent to 'everything except God has a cause', thus begging the question at the very first premise

Also special pleading, asserting that god is not subject to infinite regress

See, there you go again conflating 'beginning to exist out of nothing' and 'beginning to exist by rearrangement of things that already exist'

There is a composition fallacy in there, because you are a placing the set (universe) on the same last as it's members (every physical thing)

Here Randy. Let's not derail this thread with that pile of shit. Do a little reading.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-32198.ht...ight=kalam
http://atheistforums.org/thread-31488.ht...ight=kalam
http://atheistforums.org/thread-19972.ht...ight=kalam
http://atheistforums.org/thread-18263.ht...ight=kalam

[robvalue]

@all: It's funny how the one thing no one ever seems to want to discuss are these actual supposed "meetings" with god/jesus. Come on, what's the problem? Tell us about those meetings Why would you not want to? Something is propping up all these beliefs, and it isn't these broken-ass arguments.

[Randy Carson]

Composition Fallacy?

The argument is in the classic form Modus ponens:

P implies Q.
P.
Therefore, Q.

1. All men are mortal. (Everything that begins has a cause.)
2. Socrates was a man. (The universe began.)
3. Therefore, Socrates is moral. (Therefore, the universe has a cause.)

The argument does not imply that because some things in the universe have a cause, therefore the whole universe must have a cause. Instead, the premises are argued as follows:

Regarding the first premise:

1. Something cannot come from nothing.
   
2. If something can come from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything does not come into being from nothing. If the universe can come into being out of nothing, why not root beer? Or bowling balls? And why don't they appear out of nothing at random?
   
3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise one of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. (This is an example of the type of inductive reasoning that undergirds all of science.)
   

Regarding the second premise:

1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics shows that if the universe had existed forever, it would have run out of energy long ago.
   
2. Modern cosmologists, Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin, have proved that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history, cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning. This also applies to multiverses – if there is such a thing. Vilenkin said,
   

“This means that scientists “can no longer hide behind a past eternal-universe. There is no escape; they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”

The Fallacy of Equivocation?

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a word is used in two different ways as follows:

1. Socrates was Greek.
2. Greek is a language.
3. Therefore, Socrates is a language.

However, in the Kalam Argument, God is the efficient cause of the universe, not the material cause. Here is another example:

Michaelangelo is the efficient cause of the statue, "David". The material cause of the statue is the block of marble.

Further, "begins to exist" means "comes into being". Thus, the Kalam argument may also be stated:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe came into being.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

In the Kalam argument, there simply is no equivocation.

'everything that begins to exist has a cause' is equivalent to 'everything except God has a cause', thus begging the question at the very first premise[/qupte]

And here you blunder from the very first premise which states clearly that "everything which BEGINS has a cause." Thus, you have not dealt with the consideration that God, by definition, does not begin.

Also special pleading, asserting that god is not subject to infinite regress

Ooooh. Special pleading. Well, Kalam fails for sure, huh? Seriously, address the argument.

[quote'See, there you go again conflating 'beginning to exist out of nothing' and 'beginning to exist by rearrangement of things that already exist'

You have failed to address the Kalam (or the science of cosmology). In the beginning, there was NOTHING to rearrange.

Further, if everything that exists is merely rearranged, then you have to answer by what cause. An object at rest tends to stay at rest.

So, no...

[Tonus]

You can stomp your feet all you want demanding proof. If I (and 2.2 billion others) want to believe the 1900+ year old content of the NT, I don't see why we are being unreasonable. I think for the belief to be unreasonable, you would have to prove that it is not what it claims to be. Are you denying that the first century Christians did not believe the way they said they did (and history shows the results)? I think the burden of proof does shift when there is no good reason not to believe the testimony of so many people.

Ah yes, the appeal to popularity. However, we all know that a significant percentage of those 2.2 billion are pretty sure that you have it wrong to some degree or another. The eight million Jehovah's Witnesses are absolutely certain that you other 1.192 billion are wrong enough to incur god's wrath, and they're using the Bible to "prove" it. There are thousands of denominations and splinter groups and individuals who have interpretations of the Bible that contradict your interpretation on many points, with some being a complete opposite.

But please, tell us again about what "it claims to be." Your interpretation is almost certain to be at odds with even a few of the handful of Christians who visit this forum, but you think that the burden of proof is on the non-believers.

[Longhorn]

Jesus fuck, Randy, fix your formatting

And here you blunder from the very first premise which states clearly that "everything which BEGINS has a cause." Thus, you have not dealt with the consideration that God, by definition, does not begin.

and that is the point exactly.it's begging the fucking question in the very first premise. it's specifically worded for its refutation and it's just dishonest

Ooooh. Special pleading. Well, Kalam fails for sure, huh? Seriously, address the argument.

I have. Maybe YOU would like to address the refutation?

You have failed to address the Kalam (or the science of cosmology). In the beginning, there was NOTHING to rearrange.

Further, if everything that exists is merely rearranged, then you have to answer by what cause. An object at rest tends to stay at rest.

So, no...

You don't know what was in 'the beginning', nobody does. And you're still conflating the two meanings of 'begin to exist' as well

The furthest Kalam can get you is 'a creator'. There's a huge unjustified leap you'd have to take to get to the theistic god, and an even bigger one to get to your particular pet diety. But it fails to do even that.

Seriously Randy, read the threads I linked. It's been done to death. You're not surprising anybody.

[pocaracas]

So this is where y'all have been hiding...
Don't mind me, I'm just signing up for the thread.
Keep stumping the christians.

[abaris]

You have failed to address the Kalam (or the science of cosmology). In the beginning, there was NOTHING to rearrange.

Further, if everything that exists is merely rearranged, then you have to answer by what cause. An object at rest tends to stay at rest.

So, no...

God of the gaps again.

You don't know the answer, nobody does. But at heart you're still the caveman praying to the moon. Don't know doesn't mean god required. Don't know is simply what it says: Don't know.

In a hundred years, we will know more and in a thousand years, we will have learned a lot more. For me, we don't know simply means interesting question. Would be nice if some of them could be answered while I'm still around. And no, god done it isn't the answer.

[Aoi Magi]

NOTHING(layman term) != NOTHING(scientific term)