The Cosmological Proof

[LinuxGal]

Believer: The things we see around us come into being as a result of the activity of other things.  These other things are themselves the result of the activity of still other things.  But this series cannot go back to infinity.  Hence there must be a first member which is not itself caused by any preceding member, or in other words a first cause, which all men call God.  This is the cosmological proof.

Atheist: Is the first cause all powerful, all good, and personal?

Believer: Of course! He's God!

Atheist:  How does the cosmological proof necessitate an all-powerful, all good, and personal being to be the cause of the second cause?

Believer: It doesn't.  It was never intended to prove that. You need different arguments for that.

Atheist: To say there is a necessary being is to say it would be a self-contradiction to deny its existence.

Believer: That's obvious.

Atheist: That implies the claim of a first cause is a necessary truth, which in turn presupposes that existence is contained within the concept.

Believer: Agreed.

Atheist: But only predicates can be contained within a concept, and existence is not a predicate.  Therefore to talk about anything "existing necessary" is to commit a category mistake.  This is the same error that renders the ontological argument absurd.

[Angrboda]

No has to have all the answers to have some..or one..answer.

There is no god.

Sure there is. You can't justify its existence to yourself, but God is real, or as good as real.

What does it mean for something to be "as good as real?"

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Sure there is. You can't justify its existence to yourself, but God is real, or as good as real.

What does it mean for something to be "as good as real?"

It means he got to Chapter 6 of ‘Internet Trolling For Dummies’.

Boru

[awty]

What does it mean for something to be "as good as real?"

It means he got to Chapter 6 of ‘Internet Trolling For Dummies’.

Boru

That must be a big book if it has taken this long to get to chapter 6.  OY!

[Ahriman]

Sure there is. You can't justify its existence to yourself, but God is real, or as good as real.

What does it mean for something to be "as good as real?"

It means the thing might not meet every possible criteria for something existing, but still functions as if it exists.

[awty]

What does it mean for something to be "as good as real?"

It means the thing might not meet every possible criteria for something existing, but still functions as if it exists.

Take your meds.

[Paraselene]

If there is no empirical evidence for it, it cannot function except as an imaginary concept in your mind.

[Ahriman]

It means the thing might not meet every possible criteria for something existing, but still functions as if it exists.

Take your meds.

I will take an extra Centrum just for you.

[LinuxGal]

What does it mean for something to be "as good as real?"

It means the thing might not meet every possible criteria for something existing, but still functions as if it exists.

The real God cannot heal amputees, and he doesn't exist, but he still functions as if he exists and leaves amputees shit out of luck as before.

[Ahriman]

It means the thing might not meet every possible criteria for something existing, but still functions as if it exists.

The real God cannot heal amputees, and he doesn't exist, but he still functions as if he exists and leaves amputees shit out of luck as before.

Well it's not God's job to heal amputees in the first place, not sure how that got stuck in some people's heads.