If god then ...

1. Everything that exists has a cause
2. God exists
3. Therefore God has a cause

What's wrong with this argument?

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.

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!

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.

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?

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

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.

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 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.

Originally posted by C Hess
That's contrary to my belief, so god has a cause.

God has a purpose.

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.

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).

--- Penguin

I gotta side with RJ on this one 😕

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. 🙂

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"? )