Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Exactly, you don't know. In other words you have no basis for arguing God doesn't exist, and theists have many reasons for believing God does (Moral, Ontological, Kalam, Liebniz's cosmological, Fine Tuning arguments for a start, besides any personal experience) So who's on the stronger side? Moi

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Which God? Zeus?Thor? Neptune? Which god are we arguing doesnt exist here? Lets be honest here you might argue that God is just some unknown force that created the universe but the vast majority of religous people believe in a personal god who intervenes in human affairs.Such a god is clearly ludicrous.Why does noone believe in the greek or roman gods anymore?Because its ridiculous.The idea of a pantheon of gods sitting on top of mount olympus and occasionally coming down to have affairs with mortal women is just as stupid as a god who creates floods or talks through burning bushes.It doesnt matter what proffessional theologians think because thats not the idea that most people have of god.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Read my edit to the other post. I do not know all of these but most of these apologetic ******** is based on the retarded assumption, note assumption not premise, of a "first cause" or versions of that.

    Not knowing the exact scientific explanation for the origin of the universe does not equate to the answer being "God".

    The ancient Greeks and Romans did not know about say how oceans works. They prayed to a "God" like Apollo in order to explain something they didn't understand. Your God, is nothing more than the manifestation of scared humans that need some sort of reason for their miserable existence in the universe.

    I pity you.
    (Original post by RobML)
    They're all inconclusive/*****y arguments, no offense.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well, I guess you asked for this. Feel free to present any counter arguments - if we're going to talk Philosophy, let's do it properly:

    Here is a philosophical argument for the existence of God. Traditionally it relies on philosophical reasoning and logic, but modern science has given it new grounds to work with, so for the second premise I’m only including the scientific evidence. Remember: for an argument to be a good one, the conclusion must follow necessarily from the two premises, and the two premises must each be more likely true than their alternative. This is not a proof of God’s existence, it is an argument for it. A good argument will be enough to convince a reasonable person, only the unreasonable person needs a proof. The syllogism goes like this:

    1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
    2. The universe began to exist.
    3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

    Premise 1:
    Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

    Firstly, it seems logically impossible for something to begin existing out of nothing whatsoever. To claim something can come from nothing is essentially an appeal to magic, and is as much a question of faith on the scientist’s part as any religious doctrine.
    Secondly, quantum mechanics has not disproved this premise at all. You may have heard of the so-called 'virtual particles' that come into being from 'nothing'. But what a physicist means by ‘nothing’ is not what a philosopher means by ‘nothing’. A physicist means a vacuum - but that isn't really nothing. It has space, physical laws and fluctuating energy waves for a start. The ‘nothing’ used for this argument really does mean nothing, including space itself.
    Thirdly, if you allow something to come from nothing, it becomes inexplicable why everything and anything wouldn’t just pop into existence from nothing all the time, all around us. If Big Bangs can do it, why not trees, or people, or planets?
    Fourthly, the scientific process constantly reaffirms this premise. Science is always looking for causes and, when confronted with a new discovery without an apparent cause, doesn't just say – ‘oh, it just popped into existence from nothing!’

    Premise 2:
    The Universe began to exist.

    For this premise there are two really amazing philosophical explanations for why the universe's past cannot be infinite, first formed by Ghazali in the eleventh century. They're great, but take a while to explain, so I’ve left them out here. The scientific arguments are as follows:
    Firstly, the Big Bang theory, unrefuted for a remarkably long time given the rate of modern scientific research, points towards a point of singularity – a beginning of the universe.
    Secondly, there are, as of today, no successful models of an infinite universe. Any ideas of an oscillating universe or baby universes have all failed due to inherent problems, like the build-up of entropy (unavailability of thermal energy causing decline into disorder).
    Thirdly, in 2003, three leading astrophysicists, Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe, such as ours, that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history, cannot be infinite in the past and must have a beginning.
    Fourthly, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all the energy in existence, even the energy in ‘multiverses’ (if they were to exist), given long enough, will eventually even itself out into one, constant concentration everywhere - rather than being clustered in objects like stars. Since this state has not been reached, it therefore follows that all the energy in existence has not been around eternally, and therefore had a beginning.

    Conclusion
    Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

    What can we deduce about the properties of this cause? Firstly, it must be transcendent, spaceless and timeless with respect to the universe, since it created it. Secondly, it must be a mind endowed with freedom of the will. This is because, having existed timelessly, if it were not a mind its effects would have to exist timelessly (eternally) also (just like how an iron catalyst will always have the same effect in the same environment). As the effects have not existed eternally, the ‘cause’ chose the moment for its effect (the universe) to take place at an otherwise arbitrary point, which it could only have done if it was a mind and had free will allowing it to do so. Lastly, it must also be incredibly powerful and intelligent, how else would it have been able to create such a dazzlingly complex entity, with so much energy and so many constructs, constants and laws? Omniscient, omnipotent, eternal and a transcendent mind with free will? Sounds like God to me.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Well, I guess you asked for this. Feel free to present any counter arguments - if we're going to talk Philosophy, let's do it properly:

    Here is a philosophical argument for the existence of God. Traditionally it relies on philosophical reasoning and logic, but modern science has given it new grounds to work with, so for the second premise I’m only including the scientific evidence. Remember: for an argument to be a good one, the conclusion must follow necessarily from the two premises, and the two premises must each be more likely true than their alternative. This is not a proof of God’s existence, it is an argument for it. A good argument will be enough to convince a reasonable person, only the unreasonable person needs a proof. The syllogism goes like this:

    1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
    2. The universe began to exist.
    3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

    Premise 1:Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
    Firstly, it seems logically impossible for something to begin existing out of nothing whatsoever. To claim something can come from nothing is essentially an appeal to magic, and is as much a question of faith on the scientist’s part as any religiousdoctrine. Secondly, quantum mechanics has not disproved this premise at all. You may have heard of the so-called 'virtual particles' that come into being from 'nothing'. But what a physicist means by ‘nothing’ is not what a philosopher means by ‘nothing’. A physicist means a vacuum - but that isn't really nothing. It has space, physical laws and fluctuating energy waves for a start. The ‘nothing’ used for this argument really does mean nothing, including space itself. Thirdly, if you allow something to come from nothing, it becomes inexplicable why everything and anything wouldn’t just pop into existence from nothing all the time, all around us. If Big Bangs can do it, why not trees, or people, or planets?Fourthly, the scientific process constantly reaffirms this premise. Science is always looking for causes and, when confronted with a new discovery without an apparent cause, doesn't just say – ‘oh, it just popped into existence from nothing!’

    Premise 2:
    The Universe began to exist.For this premise there are two really amazing philosophical explanations for why the universe's past cannot be infinite, first formed by Ghazali in the eleventh century. They're great, but take a while to explain, so I’ve left them out here. The scientific arguments are as follows:Firstly, the Big Bang theory, unrefuted for a remarkably long time given the rate of modern scientific research, points towards a point of singularity – a beginning of the universe.Secondly, there are, as of today, no successful models of an infinite universe. Any ideas of an oscillating universe or baby universes have all failed due to inherent problems, like the build-up of entropy (unavailability of thermal energy causing decline into disorder).Thirdly, in 2003, three leading astrophysicists, Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe, such as ours, that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history, cannot be infinite in the past and must have a beginning. Fourthly, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all the energy in existence, even the energy in ‘multiverses’ (if they were to exist), given long enough, will eventually even itself out into one, constant concentration everywhere - rather than being clustered in objects like stars. Since this state has not been reached, it therefore follows that all the energy in existence has not been around eternally, and therefore had a beginning.

    Conclusion
    Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

    What can we deduce about the properties of this cause? Firstly, it must be transcendent, spaceless and timeless with respect to the universe, since it created it. Secondly, it must be a mind endowed with freedom of the will. This is because, having existed timelessly, if it were not a mind its effects would have to exist timelessly (eternally) also (just like how an iron catalyst will always have the same effect in the same environment). As the effects have not existed eternally, the ‘cause’ chose the moment for its effect (the universe) to take place at an otherwise arbitrary point, which it could only have done if it was a mind and had free will allowing it to do so. Lastly, it must also be incredibly powerful and intelligent, how else would it have been able to create such a dazzlingly complex entity, with so much energy and so many constructs, constants and laws? Omniscient, omnipotent, eternal and a transcendent mind with free will? Sounds like God to me.
    It's all pretty sound up until this point
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    basically, there is no god that we can perceive, the universe is our creator; the universe is our god
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    It's all pretty sound up until this point
    Why so? Don't you agree that if the universe came into existence at an otherwise arbitrary point, and its cause (as you do seem to agree) is timeless, the cause must be capable of choosing when to make its 'effect' take place - using free will. If a material catalyst is placed in the same condditions it will always produce the same effect. So why the difference in this case? Clearly the cause was not material, and could what it produces and when. These are traditional characteristics of God.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Why so? Don't you agree that if the universe came into existence at an otherwise arbitrary point, and its cause (as you do seem to agree) is timeless, the cause must be capable of choosing when to make its 'effect' take place - using free will. If a material catalyst is placed in the same condditions it will always produce the same effect. So why the difference in this case? Clearly the cause was not material, and could what it produces and when. These are traditional characteristics of God.
    But without time or space there are no "points" or "whens", in fact I think it is impossible to argue that any property can exist in the absence of time and space. Therefore I may deduce anything outside of time and space is undefinable, and you are erronously trying to define the undefinable.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    But without time or space there are no "points" or "whens", in fact I think it is impossible to argue that any property can exist in the absence of time and space. Therefore I may deduce anything outside of time and space is undefinable, and you are erronously trying to define the undefinable.
    Unless you can dispute either of these premises, I'm afraid you simply have to accept that something must have existed outside of space and time. This is simply how the argument works.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Unless you can dispute either of these premises, I'm afraid you simply have to accept that something must have existed outside of space and time. This is simply how the argument works.
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Why so? Don't you agree that if the universe came into existence at an otherwise arbitrary point, and its cause (as you do seem to agree) is timeless, the cause must be capable of choosing when to make its 'effect' take place - using free will. If a material catalyst is placed in the same condditions it will always produce the same effect. So why the difference in this case? Clearly the cause was not material, and could what it produces and when. These are traditional characteristics of God.
    There are no "points" in absence of space and time, points are defined by space and time, therefore there is not this "arbitrary point" you speak of. And I wasn't saying I agree with everything else you posted, it's just that I wanted to target more obvious problems.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Perhaps talking of a 'point' is misleading. I'm just experimenting here for a bit of fun (this is original philosophy lol):

    1) If a cause exists eternally, without free will, its effect will exist eternally also.

    2) The effect does not exist eternally. (we know this from premise 2 of the original argument)

    3) Therefore, a cause does not exist eternally *without* free will.

    Yet we know that an eternal cause does exist (from the conclusion of the original argument). Therefore, the eternal cause must be *with* free will.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Perhaps talking of a 'point' is misleading. I'm just experimenting here for a bit of fun (this is original philosophy lol):

    1) If a cause exists eternally, without free will, its effect will exist eternally also.

    2) The effect does not exist eternally. (we know this from premise 2 of the original argument)

    3) Therefore, a cause does not exist eternally *without* free will.

    Yet we know that an eternal cause does exist (from the conclusion of the original argument). Therefore, the eternal cause must be *with* free will.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm going to look at your argument again...

    (let's take everything you said to be true)


    -Premise A: You say "the ‘[first] cause’ chose the moment for its effect to take place at an otherwise arbitrary point".

    -The cause did something- it "made" a "choice"

    -A cause can do nothing but create effect

    -Therefore the choice must be an effect

    -Premise B: You say "If a cause exists eternally [...] its effect will exist eternally also"

    -Therefore the choice is eternal

    -This eternal choice was a cause to an effect (the universe)

    -Therefore the universe is eternal

    -This contradicts premise 2

    -In order to not contradict premise 2 either premise A or premise B is false

    -Premise B seems like a logical certainty, so premise A must be false

    -Therefore there is nothing to support the first cause having a mind and free will

    -Therefore there is nothing to support that God is the first cause if premise 2 is true

    -If premise 2 is not true, the universe doesn't have a cause according to premise 1, and so there is no room for God if this is the case

    I really hurt my brain figurig this out so I hope you reply lol
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Well, I guess you asked for this. Feel free to present any counter arguments - if we're going to talk Philosophy, let's do it properly:

    Here is a philosophical argument for the existence of God.
    Stopped reading.

    You can philosophize as much as you want. Ain't never gonna be anything more than wishful thinking.

    Edit:

    "What can we deduce about the properties of this cause? Firstly, it must be transcendent..."

    "it must be" - says who, you? Other people that want it to be so? As I said "philosophy" is nothing but wishful thinking. You are not deducing anything. Looooooooool.

    And as I have said before, even if there is a magnificent entity that created the universe, which I by no means complete discount, there is 0 evidence it is even remotely like the God as characterized in the Bible or the Quran or whatever.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Unless you can dispute either of these premises, I'm afraid you simply have to accept that something must have existed outside of space and time. This is simply how the argument works.
    They are not premises they are assumptions.

    No one has to accept anything. This is how the argument works???? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLL

    "I am saying Manu are a better football team than Arsenal"
    "Why"
    "Well you have to accept it. That's how the argument works".

    I actually have much much less of a problem with blind religionists, that admit that it's just blind faith.

    But people like you, trying to pretend there is evidence or even arguments for God. You are the worst. Completely and utterly delusional. And pathetic. You can't even admit to yourself that your belief is just that, blind faith. No you need justification but you know you can't find it so you come up with these lies to kid yourself. "It must be so" loooool what kind of argument is that...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Stopped reading.

    You can philosophize as much as you want. Ain't never gonna be anything more than wishful thinking.

    Edit:

    "What can we deduce about the properties of this cause? Firstly, it must be transcendent..."

    "it must be" - says who, you? Other people that want it to be so? As I said "philosophy" is nothing but wishful thinking. You are not deducing anything. Looooooooool.

    And as I have said before, even if there is a magnificent entity that created the universe, which I by no means complete discount, there is 0 evidence it is even remotely like the God as characterized in the Bible or the Quran or whatever.
    (Original post by inhuman)
    They are not premises they are assumptions.

    No one has to accept anything. This is how the argument works???? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLL

    "I am saying Manu are a better football team than Arsenal"
    "Why"
    "Well you have to accept it. That's how the argument works".

    I actually have much much less of a problem with blind religionists, that admit that it's just blind faith.

    But people like you, trying to pretend there is evidence or even arguments for God. You are the worst. Completely and utterly delusional. And pathetic. You can't even admit to yourself that your belief is just that, blind faith. No you need justification but you know you can't find it so you come up with these lies to kid yourself. "It must be so" loooool what kind of argument is that...
    I must say, I probably enjoy it most when my opposition get so visibly frustrated that they're losing an argument!

    Perhaps 'philosophy' was the wrong word to use here. Let's try another one, how about 'logic' or 'reason'. The syllogism is a form of argument which uses the rules of both of these. So unless you are seriously suggesting that using logic is false, I suggest you pipe down and reread the argument.

    If you had been bothered to read and comprehend, you would have noticed why 'it must be etc'. I don't just nake a statement - I explained it thoroughly also (that's what all those words that cone after it mean).

    As for the insults, again, they're not an argument. They're just insults, and possibly a sign of desperation.

    If you want to regain your intellectual dignity I suggest you choose one of the argument's premises and argue why it is false. Until then, the conclusion stands.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    I must say, I probably enjoy it most when my opposition get so visibly frustrated that they're losing an argument!

    Perhaps 'philosophy' was the wrong word to use here. Let's try another one, how about 'logic' or 'reason'. The syllogism is a form of argument which uses the rules of both of these. So unless you are seriously suggesting that using logic is false, I suggest you pipe down and reread the argument.

    If you had been bothered to read and comprehend, you would have noticed why 'it must be etc'. I don't just nake a statement - I explained it thoroughly also (that's what all those words that cone after it mean).

    As for the insults, again, they're not an argument. They're just insults, and possibly a sign of desperation.

    If you want to regain your intellectual dignity I suggest you choose one of the argument's premises and argue why it is false. Until then, the conclusion stands.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I get frustrated because I am talking to a crazy person. Who lies by pretending assumptions are premises.

    You win arguments by saying "it must be so".

    I am frustrated yes. As would anyone who is offended by the sheer stupidity of what is written in your posts.

    And no, philosophy is exactly the right word. Because that is what you are doing. Philosophy. Logic is exactly what you are NOT doing. If you were using logic correctly I would have no qualms with your argument.

    Take any one of them say that something must have a cause. Why? And even if, what do you define "cause" to be? or this one, "it seems logically impossible for something to begin existing out of nothing whatsoever". Oh great, because it seems impossible to you, that means it must be so? And how did God come into being? Oh wait, he is timeless, he just is. Yea, makes total sense. What you is logic here, is pure and simple conjecture, based on a desperate hope that there is a God out there.

    If your argument was actually 100% logical then it would be widely accepted. But it is not. Because it is a philosophical idea of how things could be. Not logic. So yes again, I get very frustrated by people that are intellectually dishonest like you are, that pretend ideas are logic. That are as arrogant as you are ("I don't just make a statement...", kiddo, that is exactly what you are doing and your so-called reasoning is pure conjecture).

    ps ofc you get most enjoyment out of that. you are nothing but a troll with an agenda.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Haha that looks very well thought through! I suggest putting your head in a fridge for a bit - help the old brain cool off

    Why can a cause do nothing but create the effect?

    Your counter seems to rest on that, so I'd appreciate an explanation, because aren't there examples of 'causes' e.g. humans, doing many things besides causing a specific effect? Perhaps I've misunderstood you

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There's no God, your DNA is ruling over you and it wants you to survive and replicate and will award you with pain if you do anything else against its will
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    I get frustrated because I am talking to a crazy person. Who lies by pretending assumptions are premises.

    You win arguments by saying "it must be so".

    I am frustrated yes. As would anyone who is offended by the sheer stupidity of what is written in your posts.

    And no, philosophy is exactly the right word. Because that is what you are doing. Philosophy. Logic is exactly what you are NOT doing. If you were using logic correctly I would have no qualms with your argument.

    Take any one of them say that something must have a cause. Why? And even if, what do you define "cause" to be?

    If your argument was actually 100% logical then it would be widely accepted. But it is not. Because it is a philosophical idea of how things could be. Not logic.

    ps ofc you get most enjoyment out of that. you are nothing but a troll with an agenda.
    Firstly, my original post was a condensed version of WLC's argument. In academic circles, this argument was part of what has been a positive revolution in theological philosophy over the last 50 years, partly caused by new scientific discoveries providing useful new evidence (see premise 2). In this sense, it is widely accepted, or at least taken seriously (nothing in philosophy is ever wholly accepted - there's always room for argument, which, imo, is one of its beauties). You can't separate logic and philosophy. Logic is a subject you take when you study Philosophy for goodness sake! Without logic philosophy is nothing, so let's be thankful it relies wholly on logic. I know the argument is logically sound because it has been in existence for a thousand years, and any number of philosophers and mathematicians etc. have been unable to find logical contradiction in it. Indeed, this particular formulation was put together by someone with a PhD in Philosophy - of anyone, he would know if an argument contained logical contradiction.

    As for something requiring a cause, this is the defence of the first premise, so I invite you to look there for reasons as to why it is so.





    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Take any one of them say that something must have a cause. Why? And even if, what do you define "cause" to be? or this one, "it seems logically impossible for something to begin existing out of nothing whatsoever". Oh great, because it seems impossible to you, that means it must be so? And how did God come into being? Oh wait, he is timeless, he just is. Yea, makes total sense. What you is logic here, is pure and simple conjecture, based on a desperate hope that there is a God out there.
    The properties of the cause I am happy to accept initially as being anything - the final paragraph (conclusion) is a deductive analysis through which the properties are established.

    The 'it seems logically impossible' was, firstly, just ome of many defenses of this argument provided, and, secondly, I would ask, does it not seem so to you? As a seeker of truth, does it seem possible to you that material could arrive from not just empty space, but quite literally *nothing* at all. Not even space itself? If you are happy to postulate that this is possible it is you whonis relyibg in faith.

    The reason God is timeless is that time is a property of the universe. Thus, existing independent if the universe, God is independent if time (timeless).
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Haha that looks very well thought through! I suggest putting your head in a fridge for a bit - help the old brain cool off

    Why can a cause do nothing but create the effect?

    Your counter seems to rest on that, so I'd appreciate an explanation, because aren't there examples of 'causes' e.g. humans, doing many things besides causing a specific effect? Perhaps I've misunderstood you

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Quantum mechanics has demonstrated that not everything has a cause...

    But anyway, let's take your argument: "Why can a cause do nothing but create the effect?" What does that even mean? I am confused, looks like you are. I may have rambled on a bit but every piece of ramble was on point. You, like all you apologetics, make confused statements leading to the other debator having to waste time and effort sieving through the mess before being in a position to answer. In this example, you have turned my words around. I did not say that a cause can do nothing. I said the assumption that a cause must exist is just that, an assumption, not a premise. That is not the same as you have now made my point out to be.

    Do you now see why I am saying you are intellectually dishonest?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    --

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.