Originally posted by Penguin"GB has finally given a clear answer, it is Premise 1 to which he disagrees. Only took 9 days of cajoling to get it out of him." --- Penguin Au contraire: not as stated in the OP. Only if amended to exclude God.
Harumble, hang out the bunting!!!!!
GB has finally given a clear answer, [b]it is Premise 1 to which he disagrees. Only took 9 days of cajoling to get it out of him.
Personally, I agree with him on the falsity of Premise 1. It does not currently appear to be true that everything that exists has a cause.
Wolfgang59, was there anything you wanted ...[text shortened]... e OP from a theist (actually, 2 theists since RJ also disagrees with premise 1)?
--- Penguin.[/b]
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby"True"
Originally posted by wolfgang59
From opening post:
"1. Everything that exists has a cause"
GB: You are asserting that the word "everything" does not include your god?
True or False?
True:
You believe that "everything" does not include your god?
Therefore he does not exist.
29 May 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyMe: it is Premise 1 to which he disagrees.
"GB has finally given a clear answer, it is Premise 1 to which he disagrees. Only took 9 days of cajoling to get it out of him." --- Penguin Au contraire: not as stated in the OP. Only if amended to exclude God.
You: Au contraire: not as stated in the OP. Only if amended to exclude God.
I am starting to wonder whether English is not actually your first language, as you don't seem to understand what I am saying.
So according to your post above, you actually agree with premise 1 as stated in the OP? You only disagree with premise 1 if it is changed to exclude God?
29 May 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy don't you start the thread?
If you want a real challenge then try starting a thread discussing this premise:
1. All that exists other than God, has a cause.
and see if you can get any theists to admit that this premise is not known to be true.
1. "All that exists other than God, has a cause.
and see if you can get any theists to admit that this premise is not known to be true."
Are you saying that the premise, "all that exists other than God, has a cause", is "known to be true", that God has no cause? Are you saying that all that exists could not exist without a cause, except God?
29 May 14
Originally posted by josephwI am saying that it is not a known truth that 'all that exists other than God has a cause'.
Are you saying that the premise, "all that exists other than God, has a cause", is "known to be true", that God has no cause? Are you saying that all that exists could not exist without a cause, except God?
Put another way, the premise:
All that begins has a cause.
is not known to be true.
I am also saying that a fairly high percentage of theists on this forum think that an argument using that premise is a valid argument for the existence of God and thus they will, despite all argument to the contrary, stick to that premise and refuse to admit that it may not be true.
29 May 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59I'm asserting that the word "Everything" in the OP does not exclude God.
From opening post:
"1. Everything that exists has a cause"
GB: You are asserting that the word "everything" does not include your god?
True or False?
"1. Everything that exists has a cause
2. God exists
3. Therefore God has a cause
What's wrong with this argument?"
29 May 14
Originally posted by Penguin"So according to your post above, you actually agree with premise 1 as stated in the OP? [You only disagree with premise 1 if it is changed to exclude God?" --- Penguin
Me: it is Premise 1 to which he disagrees.
You: Au contraire: not as stated in the OP. Only if amended to exclude God.
I am starting to wonder whether English is not actually your first language, as you don't seem to understand what I am saying.
So according to your post above, you actually agree with premise 1 as stated in the OP? You only disagree with premise 1 if it is changed to exclude God?
"So according to your post above, you actually disagree with premise 1 as stated in the OP? [You only agree with premise 1 if it is changed to exclude God?" - Corrected by GB
"1. Everything that exists has a cause
2. God exists
3. Therefore God has a cause
What's wrong with this argument?" -OP
29 May 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySo why, when I said:
"So according to your post above, you actually [b]agree with premise 1 as stated in the OP? [You only disagree with premise 1 if it is changed to exclude God?" --- Penguin
"So according to your post above, you actually disagree with premise 1 as stated in the OP? [You only agree with premise 1 if it is changed to exclude God? ...[text shortened]... a cause
2. God exists
3. Therefore God has a cause
What's wrong with this argument?" -OP[/b]
it is Premise 1 to which he disagrees.
did you reply with:
Au contraire: not as stated in the OP. Only if amended to exclude God.???
Do you get some kind of perverse pleasure in contradicting yourself? Or do you not understand the English language?
Hang on, maybe you are now doing a Del-Boy and using the French incorrectly. You do know that Au contraire means "on the contrary" don't you?
--- Penguin
29 May 14
Originally posted by PenguinMy inadvertent error, Penguin. No excuse. Please forgive. "... on the contrary" was the intended reply at the time.
So why, when I said:
it is Premise 1 to which he [b]disagrees.
did you reply with:
Au contraire: not as stated in the OP. Only if amended to exclude God.???
Do you get some kind of perverse pleasure in contradicting yourself? Or do you not understand the English language?
Hang on, maybe you are now doing a Del-Boy and using the Fre ...[text shortened]... rrectly. You do know that Au contraire means "on the contrary" don't you?
--- Penguin[/b]
31 May 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyMaybe, it's the meaning of cause.
"So according to your post above, you actually [b]agree with premise 1 as stated in the OP? [You only disagree with premise 1 if it is changed to exclude God?" --- Penguin
"So according to your post above, you actually disagree with premise 1 as stated in the OP? [You only agree with premise 1 if it is changed to exclude God? ...[text shortened]... a cause
2. God exists
3. Therefore God has a cause
What's wrong with this argument?" -OP[/b]
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
31 May 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThen you would be wrong.
I'm asserting that the word "Everything" in the OP does not exclude God.
"1. Everything that exists has a cause
2. God exists
3. Therefore God has a cause
What's wrong with this argument?"
If god is a member of the set of things that exists. Which is what premise 2 states,
which you agree with. Then the phrase 'everything that exists' includes god.
'Everything that exists' is identifying the set of all things that exist.
You believe that god is a member of the set of all things that exist.
Thus 'everything' in the OP includes god.