To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Pachomius, Nov 8, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    This is a very subtle form of the complex question fallacy. An "effect" is something that is, by definition, the result of a cause. However, we do not know that everything in the universe that we live in is an effect.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,224
    Can you give me an example of something that may not be an effect?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,917
    That would be difficult if we are talking about physical events within space and time. (Quantum mechanics may or may not provide examples.)

    But the physical universe in its entirety, the space-time continuum and all of its contents, would seem to be a good example.

    What's more, there are metaphysically problematic things like logic, the 'laws of physics' and '2 + 2 = 4'.

    Obviously important and very real questions exist about what these things ultimately are, why they are as they are, and why they exist at all. But if anything ultimately explains them, it wouldn't seem to be physical causation, in the sense of earlier physical states of affairs conditioning later physical states of affairs.

    Another thing that needs to be kept in mind here is the problem of induction, the difficulty inherent in drawing universal conclusions from incomplete data sets. Deductively speaking, it simply can't be done.
     
    Seattle likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    The entire universe. If you want to beg the question and merely assume that the entire universe is an effect, go ahead. Then we will know that there is no argument.
     
  8. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,224
    Personally, I'm going with the law of cause and effect. Everything in the universe is an effect of a cause, and it's never ending.


    PhysBang:
    I do subscribe to the big bang theory.
     
  9. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Great. Don't really care.
     
  10. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,224
    Why did you ask then?
     
  11. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Did not ask.
     
  12. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,224
    True. Next time I won't share my opinion unless you specifically ask.
     
  13. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,903
    Woud you like to clearly say what you'r religious-type beliefs are an discuss 'em... or do you actualy prefer bein coy.???
     
  14. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,224
    I'll post them(that were on the list) in the religious belief thread.
     
  15. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    Thanks everyone for your posts.

    I have not seen Seattle reply to my last post here over 24 hours ago.


    Tell you what, guys here, when he does not show up in the next 24 hours, please I invite you only one of you, to take up the dialog with me on the proposition from my part, everything with a beginning has a cause, and you from your side taking up the counter proposition, everything with a beginning does not has a cause.

    So, be patient.
     
  16. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,379
    You still don't get it, Pachomius, in that no one is offering the counter proposition that's everything with a beginning does not have a cause.
    The closest anyone has argued, Sarkus, Seattle, Yazata included, is that it is simply unknown whether everything with a beginning has a cause.
    You are the one making the proposition so the onus is on you to support it.
    And simply naming one example, or any example, especially one that is inherently within the universe, and is also merely a change of form rather than any actual creation anew, is insufficient for us to take the proposition as sound.
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,402
    A baby doesn't have "a beginning" other than an arbitrary one assigned by somebody for purposes of some discussion;

    and its parents are not its "cause" anyway, as becomes obvious whenever a beginning is chosen and the actual event or situation of that beginning analyzed.

    In general, things are not causes: actions are causes. The division between things and actions is of course artificial - the one is the other, considered from a different perspective by a limited mind - but "cause" normally refers to the perspective in which actions are being identified and defined, verbs and gerunds are employed, etc.

    Cause/effect analysis is a human shortcut, or simplifying abstraction, that allows a limited mind to comprehend significant aspects of reality. It's very, very, useful - but should never be mistaken for a property of the universe itself.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2015
  18. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    {QUOTE="Pachomius, post: 3263951, member: 26969"]Thanks everyone for your posts.


    I have not seen Seattle reply to my last post here over 24 hours ago.



    Tell you what, guys here, when he does not show up in the next 24 hours, please I invite you only one of you, to take up the dialog with me on the proposition from my part, everything with a beginning has a cause, and you from your side taking up the counter proposition, everything with a beginning does not has a cause.


    So, be patient.{/QUOTE]



    It's already since 48 hours ago, and Seattle has not replied to me.


    Okay, oh ye posters here, please let you and me have a dialog on the proposition from me, everything with a beginning has a cause; then you can start with your counter proposition.


    Don't ask what is the meaning of this sentence, everything with a beginning has a cause; if you do, then I submit you are not qualified to do dialog with rational and honest folks in a forum.


    And don't keep saying that I don't get what you are trying to tell me.


    If you can't understand the sentence, everything with a beginning has a cause, then try to use a dictionary and get each word's meaning, then if you still don't get the communication in the sentence, everything with a beginning has a cause, go to your local school grade school language teacher, and ask him or her to explain to you what is the meaning of that sentence, everything with a beginning has a cause.


    Dear readers, let us sit back, and wait for people who are still asking me what do I understand by the sentence everything with a beginning has a cause.


    What about anyone who understands the sentence, everything with a beginning has a cause, will you help the folks here who are still lost for the meaning of the sentence, everything with a beginning has a cause?


    But read it a without any fear that you are walking into a semantic landmined trap, no one should be into laving semantic landmine traps in a forum, least of all yours truly.


    Or there are folks here with the suspicion that I am laying semantic landmined traps here, with my invitation to dialog with me on the sentence, everything with a beginning has a cause?


    Okay, then come forward and tell me what you see to be any semantic landmined trap with my invitation to dialog with me on the sentence, everything with a beginning has a cause.
     
  19. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,205
    I assert that everything with a beginning can have no cause. Causes are actions in time and space, which only exist among existing things, that is, with matter and energy already present, and the beginning is merely a semantic one, that is to say, the beginning is not a real beginning, but simply a question of naming. Things that seem like beginnings in everyday life are not true beginnings, due to the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that energy is neither created nor destroyed, it only changes form.
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2015
  20. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,491
    That's the First Law and not the Second Law (which relates to entropy)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2015
  21. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,205
    Thank you. Fixed it.
     
  22. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,379
    People have tried to have a dialogue with you, Pachomius.
    On this very subject.
    Sarkus included.
    But, as is your style, as soon as you can't answer something (either through lack of comprehension or simply an inability to come up with a suitable answer) you cry foul and try to start the whole process again.
    You play the victim yet it is you, solely you, who has been the cause of this thread not moving on since you posted your proposition initially.
    From around page 22, and 38 of your posts later, all you have done is make the same assertion, provided one or two specific examples of it (which do not prove the principle universally), and then merely ignored everything that others have said by way of criticism of your position.
    You don't like what one person says so you start all over again and look for someone else.
    You once posted that you enjoy discussing philosophy.
    Yet you seem oblivious to the importance of being accurate in meaning.
    Maybe you like the woolliness that comes with being vague.
    I will say it as I see it.
    But if you do get it then your insistence on ignoring it must mean you do so deliberately.
    And that makes you intellectually dishonest.
    Or at worst simply a troll.
    And now you reconfirm your hypocritical side.
    You have previously asked what other people mean with the words they use.
    But now you try to ridicule anyone who would ask you the same?
    Given you demonstrable inability to comprehend, most are probably thinking you incapable of deliberately doing so.
    Yet it is that lack of comprehension that also makes people wary that such mines exist whether you are aware of them or not.


    One day, hopefully in the not too distant future, you may actually move on from your proposition and try to show how this relates to your concept of God.
    And then, rather than merely highlighting the unsoundness of the conclusion due to your inability to prove the truth of the proposition, we can highlight all the other issues there will undoubtedly be with your argument.

    So, please, do continue...
     
  23. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    You see, Baldee, I get the impression that Sarkus is into requiring endless explanation from me on a sentence that is obvious to anyone what is the meaning of the thought intended by the writer of the sentence, everything with a begininng has a cause.

    Suppose you and I dialog on the sentence, we will not go back anymore to who said what, etc.

    But I just have to say this, do you understand the sentence, everything with a beginning has a cause, and the example to illustrate to you what is the meaning intended by the writer of the sentence, namely: a baby has a beginning, it has a cause for its beginning, scil., in its parents.

    If you will ask me to explain even though I already give an example, in a court of law the judge will remind you that you are in danger of contempt of court; as the author of this thread, I will just tell you that you are not qualified to dialog with me.

    Suppose, let you be the one to make a sentence and ask me to tell you what I understand of your sentence, and further do I have a sentence opposite to your sentence.

    Oh no, please don't ask me to explain to you what I mean by asking you to make a sentence, etc., etc. etc.

    That will be for me the realization again that it is impossible to have a viable communication with you as also with Sarkus and with Seattle.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page