Originally posted by wolfgang59 1. Everything that exists has a cause
2. God exists
3. Therefore God has a cause
What's wrong with this argument?
Everything is wrong with it.
First, it should be that everything that came to exist has a cause.
Second, God did not come to exist, but always existed.
Third, therefore God was uncaused.
Originally posted by wolfgang59 Premise 1
Premise 2
Conclusion
What exactly is your problem?
His problem, as he stated and you ignored, is that it concludes that God has a cause. This is contrary to his belief and so he rephrased the premises to allow for a conclusion that does fit his belief. That's my understanding anyway and I am sure RJ will correct me if I am wrong.
On a separate point, I don't think premise 1 is true (or indeed premise 2).
Originally posted by Penguin His problem, as he stated and you ignored, is that it concludes that God has a cause. This is contrary to his belief and so he rephrased the premises to allow for a conclusion that does fit his belief.
Originally posted by wolfgang59 1. Everything that exists has a cause
2. God exists
3. Therefore God has a cause
What's wrong with this argument?
It's valid, to be sure ... but is it sound?
I tend to reject Premise 1. I am not sure the Universe has a cause. At any rate, as S. Hawking points out, any events that may have happened before the Big Bang can have no observable consequences, so we might as well cut them out and say time started at the Big Bang.
Also, Quantum Physics currently tells us that particles pop in and out of existence in a Quantum Vacuum.
(These are some of the same objections that popped up in the Kalam thread.)
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem It's valid, to be sure ... but is it sound?
I tend to reject Premise 1. I am not sure the Universe has a cause. At any rate, as S. Hawking points out, any events that may have happened before the Big Bang can have no observable consequences, so we might as well cut them out and say time started at the Big Bang.
Also, Quantum Physics currently te ...[text shortened]... a Quantum Vacuum.
(These are some of the same objections that popped up in the Kalam thread.)
Also, Quantum Physics currently tells us that particles pop in and out of existence in a Quantum Vacuum. They do?
Or is it that they pop in and out of observation?
Originally posted by Penguin His problem, as he stated and you ignored, is that it concludes that God has a cause. This is contrary to his belief and so he rephrased the premises to allow for a conclusion that does fit his belief. That's my understanding anyway and I am sure RJ will correct me if I am wrong.
On a separate point, I don't think premise 1 is true (or indeed premise 2).
Originally posted by FreakyKBH [b]Also, Quantum Physics currently tells us that particles pop in and out of existence in a Quantum Vacuum. They do?
Or is it that they pop in and out of observation?[/b]
And that's putting it in the most simplistic way ,( "pop in and out..." ), I reckon it's a very complicated and intricate quantum world out there (or "in here"? )
06 May '14 06:59
Back to Top