Posts: 3709
Threads: 18
Joined: September 29, 2015
Reputation:
10
RE: Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic
March 30, 2018 at 4:34 pm
(March 30, 2018 at 4:09 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: (March 30, 2018 at 2:53 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: There has been a lot of talk about that in this thread. If it is false, then the the logic would not follow. However it is more reasonable to believe that this is true; rather than the opposite. I find that many atheists scoff at, and make claims about much less, but things poofing into existence without cause or reason seems to be readily accepted. I find that for some, it all depends on which side of the argument God is on. Except that we know that is not the case.
Take a single atom of U235. When will it decay exactly and what causes it to do so?
Why is that? I'm skeptical that it is from nothing. I would also think that if it didn't have a cause or reason, that it would not be consistent enough to be used for dating.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
Posts: 6610
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic
March 30, 2018 at 4:34 pm
(March 30, 2018 at 2:53 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: (March 30, 2018 at 2:45 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: 1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause.
Go ahead and prove that. Take your time.
There has been a lot of talk about that in this thread. If it is false, then the the logic would not follow. However it is more reasonable to believe that this is true; rather than the opposite. I find that many atheists scoff at, and make claims about much less, but things poofing into existence without cause or reason seems to be readily accepted. I find that for some, it all depends on which side of the argument God is on.
Everything that begins to exist must have a [material] cause. Material cause is sufficient cause. This is far more reasonable than saying that something can be made from nothing. And if you're going to argue that "material cause is sufficient cause" is arbitrary, so is "efficient cause is sufficient cause". People who continue to defend the KCA to this day, despite the logic and science, are doing nothing more but play word games. They're not doing proper logic.
Posts: 3709
Threads: 18
Joined: September 29, 2015
Reputation:
10
RE: Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic
March 30, 2018 at 4:35 pm
(This post was last modified: March 30, 2018 at 4:36 pm by RoadRunner79.)
(March 30, 2018 at 4:34 pm)Grandizer Wrote: (March 30, 2018 at 2:53 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: There has been a lot of talk about that in this thread. If it is false, then the the logic would not follow. However it is more reasonable to believe that this is true; rather than the opposite. I find that many atheists scoff at, and make claims about much less, but things poofing into existence without cause or reason seems to be readily accepted. I find that for some, it all depends on which side of the argument God is on.
Everything that begins to exist must have a [material] cause. Material cause is sufficient cause. This is far more reasonable than saying that something can be made from nothing. And if you're going to argue that "material cause is sufficient cause" is arbitrary, so is "efficient cause is sufficient cause". People who continue to defend the KCA to this day, despite the logic and science, are doing nothing more but play word games. They're not doing proper logic.
Are you arguing both sides? Do you agree with the first premise of the KCA?
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
Posts: 6610
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic
March 30, 2018 at 4:36 pm
(This post was last modified: March 30, 2018 at 4:37 pm by GrandizerII.)
(March 30, 2018 at 4:35 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: (March 30, 2018 at 4:34 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Everything that begins to exist must have a [material] cause. Material cause is sufficient cause. This is far more reasonable than saying that something can be made from nothing. And if you're going to argue that "material cause is sufficient cause" is arbitrary, so is "efficient cause is sufficient cause". People who continue to defend the KCA to this day, despite the logic and science, are doing nothing more but play word games. They're not doing proper logic.
Are you arguing both sides?
No, but you should've known the answer without me saying.
(March 30, 2018 at 4:35 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: (March 30, 2018 at 4:34 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Everything that begins to exist must have a [material] cause. Material cause is sufficient cause. This is far more reasonable than saying that something can be made from nothing. And if you're going to argue that "material cause is sufficient cause" is arbitrary, so is "efficient cause is sufficient cause". People who continue to defend the KCA to this day, despite the logic and science, are doing nothing more but play word games. They're not doing proper logic.
Are you arguing both sides? Do you agree with the first premise of the KCA?
The first premise isn't clear. If by "cause", you mean "material cause", then the universe must be eternal.
Posts: 3709
Threads: 18
Joined: September 29, 2015
Reputation:
10
RE: Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic
March 30, 2018 at 4:40 pm
(March 30, 2018 at 4:36 pm)Grandizer Wrote: (March 30, 2018 at 4:35 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Are you arguing both sides?
No, but you should've known the answer without me saying.
(March 30, 2018 at 4:35 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Are you arguing both sides? Do you agree with the first premise of the KCA?
The first premise isn't clear. If by "cause", you mean "material cause", then the universe must be eternal.
The universe is not found in the first premise.... it states is the everything which begins to exist, has a cause. Do you agree with this?
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
Posts: 6610
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic
March 30, 2018 at 4:43 pm
(This post was last modified: March 30, 2018 at 4:43 pm by GrandizerII.)
(March 30, 2018 at 4:40 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: (March 30, 2018 at 4:36 pm)Grandizer Wrote: No, but you should've known the answer without me saying.
The first premise isn't clear. If by "cause", you mean "material cause", then the universe must be eternal.
The universe is not found in the first premise.... it states is the everything which begins to exist, has a cause. Do you agree with this?
I already said the first premise isn't clear. If by "cause", you mean "material cause", then the conclusion should state that the universe must be eternal, not have a beginning (according to premise 2).
Posts: 3709
Threads: 18
Joined: September 29, 2015
Reputation:
10
RE: Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic
March 30, 2018 at 4:46 pm
(This post was last modified: March 30, 2018 at 4:47 pm by RoadRunner79.)
(March 30, 2018 at 4:43 pm)Grandizer Wrote: (March 30, 2018 at 4:40 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: The universe is not found in the first premise.... it states is the everything which begins to exist, has a cause. Do you agree with this?
I already said the first premise isn't clear. If by "cause", you mean "material cause", then the conclusion should state that the universe must be eternal, not have a beginning (according to premise 2).
I only asked you about the first premise.... there was no mention of universe in that premise? And I'm not asking for your evaluation of the entire argument.
edit: Do you agree with the first premise?
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
Posts: 6610
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic
March 30, 2018 at 4:50 pm
(March 30, 2018 at 4:46 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: (March 30, 2018 at 4:43 pm)Grandizer Wrote: I already said the first premise isn't clear. If by "cause", you mean "material cause", then the conclusion should state that the universe must be eternal, not have a beginning (according to premise 2).
I only asked you about the first premise.... there was no mention of universe in that premise? And I'm not asking for your evaluation of the entire argument.
edit: Do you agree with the first premise?
Define "cause" properly. Are we talking "material" or "efficient" or "formal" or "final" or some non-Aristotelian type of cause or a combination of types of causes?
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic
March 30, 2018 at 4:58 pm
What is funny is there is neopagans who don't believe in a Creator and believe in gods and spirituality.
Posts: 3709
Threads: 18
Joined: September 29, 2015
Reputation:
10
RE: Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic
March 30, 2018 at 5:06 pm
(March 30, 2018 at 4:50 pm)Grandizer Wrote: (March 30, 2018 at 4:46 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I only asked you about the first premise.... there was no mention of universe in that premise? And I'm not asking for your evaluation of the entire argument.
edit: Do you agree with the first premise?
Define "cause" properly. Are we talking "material" or "efficient" or "formal" or "final" or some non-Aristotelian type of cause or a combination of types of causes?
By "cause", I simply mean that it is contingent or dependent on something else for that existence. For your Aristotelian list, then efficient would likely be the closest. I'm not getting overly complicated, or anything. It seems to me, that given your other statement, you would necessarily have to agree with the first premise of the KCA.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
|
