1. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    06 May '14 06:59
    1. Everything that exists has a cause
    2. God exists
    3. Therefore God has a cause

    What's wrong with this argument?
  2. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    06 May '14 08:16
    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?
    LOL! Well, I can't see anything wrong with it.
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    06 May '14 08:27
    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.

    HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
  4. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    06 May '14 08:29
    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?
    1. Everything that exists [in this universe] has a cause


    we do not know how causality works outside it. (if there is an outside). maybe there is no time and everything is a messed up soup of events.
  5. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    06 May '14 11:33
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Everything is wrong with it.

    HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
    Premise 1
    Premise 2
    Conclusion
    What exactly is your problem?
  6. Joined
    01 Jun '06
    Moves
    274
    06 May '14 12:21
    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).

    --- Penguin
  7. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    06 May '14 13:14
    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 contrary to my belief, so god has a cause.
  8. SubscriberBigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    bigdogghouse.com/RHP
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    110912
    06 May '14 14:501 edit
    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.)
  9. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    06 May '14 20:59
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    1. Everything that exists [in this universe] has a cause


    we do not know how causality works outside it. (if there is an outside). maybe there is no time and everything is a messed up soup of events.
    Precisely.
    But I was really after hooking one of the mad Christians.
    Seems not one of them can argue (logically) against it.
  10. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    06 May '14 22:06
    Originally posted by C Hess
    That's contrary to my belief, so god has a cause.
    God has a purpose.
  11. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    06 May '14 23:25
    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?
    God isn't a thing.
  12. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    06 May '14 23:38
    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?
  13. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91666
    06 May '14 23:41
    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).

    --- Penguin
    I gotta side with RJ on this one 😕
  14. SubscriberBigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    bigdogghouse.com/RHP
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    110912
    06 May '14 23:421 edit
    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]
    Yes. 🙂
  15. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91666
    06 May '14 23:45
    Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
    Yes, they do.
    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"? )
Back to Top