When in Rome

josephw

Spirituality

31 Jul '14 19:22

JS357
Joined
29 Dec '08
Moves
6788
05 Aug '14 17:22
Originally posted by josephw
[b]"If God created all existing things then this will be evidenced by things existing.

There is evidence of things existing.

Therefore, God created these existing things.

If P then Q

Q

Therefore, P.
If P then Q

Q

Therefore, P.

This is a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent."

But I did not follow that logic! Nor did ...[text shortened]... o options.
Either build a mental construct on God's truth, or on man's truth. Whatever that is![/b]
OK. Here is what you said:

My contention is that what exists, i.e., 'all things whether visible or invisible', is the evidence for a creator God. If that is true, then 'everything has a cause'.

I have made this claim time and again in this forum, but have been unable to develop the argument because as of yet I don't think it has resonated.

It may be a belief of yours but you state that it is a contention as well.

You also say you have been unable to develop the argument.

I am interested in seeing if the argument can be developed. I saw one avenue that seems not to work, and that is what I posted about affirming the consequent. If we agree that this approach won't work because affirming the consequent is fallacious, then I am at a bit of a loss as to how to proceed.

What do you mean by developing the argument?
AThousandYoung
or different places
tinyurl.com/2tp8tyx8
Joined
23 Aug '04
Moves
26660
05 Aug '14 18:23
Originally posted by josephw
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8
To every [thing there is] a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up [that which is] planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to da ...[text shortened]... e, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
YouTube
josephw
Owner
Scoffer Mocker
Joined
27 Sep '06
Moves
9958
05 Aug '14 19:11
Originally posted by josephw
It is not logical to think that all that exists just exists without a cause.

"You believe a god exists without a cause.
atheists believe the Universe exists without a cause."

You don't believe that God exists. Therefore, it is both irrational and illogical to make the statement "...god exists without a cause", because God doesn't exist in your experience. And it is equally irrational and illogical to make the statement that the universe exists without a cause. Mind numbingly irrational!

I, on the other hand, believe that God is eternal. A concept beyond human understanding. I don't think of God having had a cause because God had no beginning. Another concept beyond human comprehension.

"Both beliefs have the same problem.
(Although science has more than one theory to logically explain the atheist point of view)"

Science can only theorize about the how things exist. It can not explain how they came into existence. It is irrational for an atheist to use science to bolster an argument about the cause for the existence of the universe.

Originally posted by josephw
It's not logical to think there is evidence for there not being a creator God, but it is very logical to see what exists as evidence for the existence of its creation.

"Show us the logical argument for either clause.

... Please."

Can't right now. Gotta go. Back later. God willing. 😉
josephw
Owner
Scoffer Mocker
Joined
27 Sep '06
Moves
9958
05 Aug '14 19:13
Originally posted by AThousandYoung
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIBu2p8FR3o
Please use your own words.

I don't do YouTube. Much.
josephw
Owner
Scoffer Mocker
Joined
27 Sep '06
Moves
9958
05 Aug '14 19:14
Originally posted by JS357
OK. Here is what you said:

[quote]My contention is that what exists, i.e., 'all things whether visible or invisible', is the evidence for a creator God. If that is true, then 'everything has a cause'.

I have made this claim time and again in this forum, but have been unable to develop the argument because as of yet I don't think it has resonated. [/quote ...[text shortened]... en I am at a bit of a loss as to how to proceed.

What do you mean by developing the argument?
I'll get back to this. Tomorrow more likely.
wolfgang59
Quiz Master
RHP Arms
Joined
09 Jun '07
Moves
48793
05 Aug '14 20:28
Originally posted by josephw
It is irrational for an atheist to use science to bolster an argument about the cause for the existence of the universe.
I don't know what to say.

🙄
JS357
Joined
29 Dec '08
Moves
6788
06 Aug '14 04:281 edit
Originally posted by josephw
I'll get back to this. Tomorrow more likely.
bumped for joe
twhitehead
Cape Town
Joined
14 Apr '05
Moves
52945
06 Aug '14 07:56
Originally posted by josephw
And it is equally irrational and illogical to make the statement that the universe exists without a cause. Mind numbingly irrational!
Then feel free to point out the logical error. Merely stating it is irrational doesn't suffice.
Stating that it is 'mind numbingly irrational' suggests the logical error should be obvious, so you should have no problem pointing it out.
josephw
Owner
Scoffer Mocker
Joined
27 Sep '06
Moves
9958
06 Aug '14 10:59
Originally posted by twhitehead
Then feel free to point out the logical error. Merely stating it is irrational doesn't suffice.
Stating that it is 'mind numbingly irrational' suggests the logical error should be obvious, so you should have no problem pointing it out.
wolfgang said, "atheists believe the Universe exists without a cause".

Are we to believe the universe exists without a cause? Do we know that the universe exists without a cause?

Think of it - what we know of the universe - its existence is without question, if we are to believe our senses! There's no question that the universe exists. The question is not about what exists, although there may be questions about what exists beyond our senses in the outer reaches of space.

No, the question is how did the universe come into existence? And we're not even asking why! We're asking how did the universe come into existence? That's the question we're debating.

Some say we don't know. Some say it was created. Some say it's always been in existence in one form or another as energy.

But it is mindlessly irrational to say, in light of the nature of the question of how the universe exists, that it exists without a cause because we know that nothing that happens, in relation to matter and energy, which as far as we know, Reveal Hidden Content
as far as I know
happens without a cause.

And, if it is true that nothing happens, in relation to the stuff the universe is made of, without a cause, then there had to be a first cause, but if one believes that the universe has always existed, then they have a big problem ever trying to prove that. To accept that idea is truly by blind faith.

By the way, what is the cause of making the statement that atheist believe the universe came into existence without a cause? Is it that obvious that the universe came into existence without a cause?
josephw
Owner
Scoffer Mocker
Joined
27 Sep '06
Moves
9958
06 Aug '14 11:18
Originally posted by JS357
OK. Here is what you said:

[quote]My contention is that what exists, i.e., 'all things whether visible or invisible', is the evidence for a creator God. If that is true, then 'everything has a cause'.

I have made this claim time and again in this forum, but have been unable to develop the argument because as of yet I don't think it has resonated. [/quote ...[text shortened]... en I am at a bit of a loss as to how to proceed.

What do you mean by developing the argument?
"What do you mean by developing the argument?"

I think I may have 'developed' a certain aspect of that argument in my reply to twhitehead above.

We use the word evidence as a means of proving a belief or an idea about what we perceive about what exists.

The evidence is all that exists. All that exists is the only evidence we have for proving anything we think or believe. There is no other evidence than that which exists.

Therefore, if there be a creator God of all that exists, all that exists is the evidence for a creator God.

All that exists is not evidence for a negative postulation, namely, that there is no evidence for the existence of a creator God.

It's seems bewildering. I'll say it another way. What exists provides for evidence for what exists, not for what doesn't exist.

What doesn't exist is the stuff of fiction. We play with it, but we know it's not real because we know there is no evidence for it in existence.

What exists is the evidence for what exists.
JS357
Joined
29 Dec '08
Moves
6788
06 Aug '14 16:07
Originally posted by josephw
[b]"What do you mean by developing the argument?"

I think I may have 'developed' a certain aspect of that argument in my reply to twhitehead above.

We use the word evidence as a means of proving a belief or an idea about what we perceive about what exists.

The evidence is all that exists. All that exists is the only evidence we have for proving ...[text shortened]... e know there is no evidence for it in existence.

What exists is the evidence for what exists.[/b]
The simple obvious immediate reply is that many people don't see "all that exists" as "evidence as a means of proving a belief" that there is a creator God, but you already know that.

I think you are not stating a premise that links the existence of things to their having been created, but I am not going to try (again) to say what it is.
twhitehead
Cape Town
Joined
14 Apr '05
Moves
52945
06 Aug '14 16:32
Originally posted by josephw
Are we to believe the universe exists without a cause?
That would be up to the individual.

Do we know that the universe exists without a cause?
No, we don't.

... because we know that nothing that happens, in relation to matter and energy, which as far as we know, as far as I know happens without a cause.
Well then, you have been sadly misinformed. There is no good scientific reason to think that everything that happens does so in a causal manner. In fact there are fairly good reasons to think that many of them do not.

And, if it is true that nothing happens, in relation to the stuff the universe is made of, without a cause, then there had to be a first cause,
But that first cause, does not have to be the creation of the universe. The universe could have come into existence without a cause, and then causation started after that.

...but if one believes that the universe has always existed, then they have a big problem ever trying to prove that. To accept that idea is truly by blind faith.
But one doesn't need to prove it or even believe it happened for it to remain a possibility.

By the way, what is the cause of making the statement that atheist believe the universe came into existence without a cause?
I didn't make it, and disputed it.

So in sum, your argument has a number of glaring logical flaws as well as some false assumptions.
So, now you know that the universe isn't actually evidence for God as you previously thought - at least not by that argument.
josephw
Owner
Scoffer Mocker
Joined
27 Sep '06
Moves
9958
06 Aug '14 16:38
Originally posted by JS357
The simple obvious immediate reply is that many people don't see "all that exists" as "evidence as a means of proving a belief" that there is a creator God, but you already know that.

I think you are not stating a premise that links the existence of things to their having been created, but I am not going to try (again) to say what it is.
Good! That settles it then. What a relief! I thought it would never end. 😕 😉
twhitehead
Cape Town
Joined
14 Apr '05
Moves
52945
06 Aug '14 17:01
Originally posted by josephw
Good! That settles it then. What a relief! I thought it would never end. 😕 😉
I must also point out that if in future, you have not yet found a better argument, yet still claim it is evidence, you will be lying.
josephw
Owner
Scoffer Mocker
Joined
27 Sep '06
Moves
9958
06 Aug '14 17:18
Originally posted by twhitehead
That would be up to the individual.

[b]Do we know that the universe exists without a cause?
No, we don't.

... because we know that nothing that happens, in relation to matter and energy, which as far as we know, as far as I know happens without a cause.
Well then, you have been sadly misinformed. There is no good scientific reason to t ...[text shortened]... verse isn't actually evidence for God as you previously thought - at least not by that argument.[/b]
Originally posted by josephw
"Are we to believe the universe exists without a cause"?

twhitehead
"That would be up to the individual."

Believing is up to the individual, but knowing is another matter. In my question above "are we to believe" is used as a phrase to question the validity of a matter, such as "believing" the universe exists without a cause.

josephw
"Do we know that the universe exists without a cause"?

twhitehead
"No, we don't."

And neither do we know that is does? Then all bets are off! The entire debate is moot. It seems that all that's left is for me to prove the universe was created. 🙂 Just more fun for me. lol

josephw
"... because we know that nothing that happens, in relation to matter and energy, which as far as we know, as far as I know happens without a cause."

twhitehead
"Well then, you have been sadly misinformed. There is no good scientific reason to think that everything that happens does so in a causal manner. In fact there are fairly good reasons to think that many of them do not."

In other words, science is out of its field when it comes to matters beyond its grasp, such as the origin of all that exists. Just proves my point don't you think?

josephw
"And, if it is true that nothing happens, in relation to the stuff the universe is made of, without a cause, then there had to be a first cause,"

twhitehead
"But that first cause, does not have to be the creation of the universe. The universe could have come into existence without a cause, and then causation started after that."

But you don't know any of that for certain because you are merely theorizing possibilities without a shread of evidence in spite of the fact that the evidence is the entire universe for the truth of its existence, which is it was created.

Exasperating is it not? 😕

josephw
"...but if one believes that the universe has always existed, then they have a big problem ever trying to prove that. To accept that idea is truly by blind faith."

twhitehead
"But one doesn't need to prove it or even believe it happened for it to remain a possibility."

True, but then we're no further ahead in our understanding by remaining in the dark about the "possibility" that the universe was created.

josephw
"By the way, what is the cause of making the statement that atheist believe the universe came into existence without a cause"?

twhitehead
"I didn't make it, and disputed it."

I saw that.

twhitehead
"So in sum, your argument has a number of glaring logical flaws as well as some false assumptions.
So, now you know that the universe isn't actually evidence for God as you previously thought - at least not by that argument."

Not so fast amigo, I'm not done yet! 😉