Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Modified Argument from the Universe

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 4:21:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is my modification to an argument I previously constructed a year ago. The previous argument contained about two premises and a conclusion, so this one is quite different.

Modified Argument from the Universe

P1: If God exists, he is the creator of the Universe (whole of existence).
P2: If God exists, he is omnipresent.
P3: A composite entity cannot be the cause of its components. (Axiom)
P4: God pervades all things. (P2)
P5: The Universe is a part (component) of God. (P4)
P6: God could not have possibly created the Universe. (P3, P5)
Conclusion: Therefore it is impossible for God to exist. (P1, P2, P6)

The definition of "Universe" is not in question and is besides the point. If you don't like that word, replace it with "whole of existence" and move on.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 4:30:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
And if you try to say "omnipresence doesn't necessarily mean he pervades all things" (which woud be a difficult proposition to defend, yet possible to claim), I will simply say, ok if God is infinite, then he pervades all things, lol. And if you deny he is infinite, then you're saying he is limited and thus he is not God!
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 4:32:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Say my hand is 10 cubic centimeters. If I put it in an empty hole of same volume, would you say that I am also in it, at least partially (i.e., not only my hand)?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 4:48:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Good luck refuting this argument guys! I already have rebuttals in store for a few counter arguments I predicted.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 4:52:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 4:48:44 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Good luck refuting this argument guys! I already have rebuttals in store for a few counter arguments I predicted.
Don't ask for rebuttals and don't wish luck when you don't mean it. You wish for sympathy for rubbish and outdated arguments. Make up your own. And reply when somebody tries to reply to you (at least follow that part of your religion please, also known as respect).
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 5:00:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 4:52:56 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/12/2011 4:48:44 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Good luck refuting this argument guys! I already have rebuttals in store for a few counter arguments I predicted.
Don't ask for rebuttals and don't wish luck when you don't mean it.

Ever heard of something called rhetoric? I was inviting people to challenge my argument.

You wish for sympathy for rubbish and outdated arguments.

No I don't. I explicitly asked for people to challenge it, not sympathisize it. Also, it's brand new, not outdated. In fact, I just made it a half hour ago.

Make up your own.

I just did.

And reply when somebody tries to reply to you (at least follow that part of your religion please, also known as respect).

I didn't see a need to reply to something that doesn't affect my argument. It was close, but missed the target. Also, I don't recall seeing a tenet in Buddhism that said to respect anything. In fact, it calls for "vanquishing and refuting" opposing view points.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 5:14:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 5:00:37 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Ever heard of something called rhetoric? I was inviting people to challenge my argument.
To give you the challenge you know in advance? Is that even a challenge?

No I don't. I explicitly asked for people to challenge it, not sympathisize it. Also, it's brand new, not outdated. In fact, I just made it a half hour ago.
Expect challenges that you are unaware of. Do not just go by your own rules.

I just did.
You modified it. This argument is classic and not new. The Transcendence vs. Omnipresence Argument is the basis for it. New? I think not. What people boast of regarding all these arguments is like copy-pasting from philosophical journals and books. Use your own reasoning (and not specifically you of course, but this whole environment).

I didn't see a need to reply to something that doesn't affect my argument. It was close, but missed the target. Also, I don't recall seeing a tenet in Buddhism that said to respect anything. In fact, it calls for "vanquishing and refuting" opposing view points.
Well then reply to it and we will see how close it is to the target.

Please, as an off-note, don't attempt to make Buddhism look like your idol Christopher Hitchens. For one, there are far more people who support your general viewpoints than he does in better efficiency, and for two, the religion itself is not about "refuting" opposing views first and foremost. Respect has no conflict with that. How shameful that you think respect is not compatible with being able to debate properly and beat your opponents. Shameful. What is this nonsense that people believe in these days? Good Lord.

Now come to my point, thanks.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 5:23:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
@Mirza

I did not modify the Transcendence vs. Omnipresence argument. This has nothing to do with that. In fact, transcendence nor space-time are mentioned in my argument which are core parts of the "T vs. O" argument.

I modified an argument I made a year ago with the same title. Admittedly, this argument is radically different from my previous so essentially it is brand new.

Regarding your argument, the relationship between God and creation is not the same as a hand in a box. Your hand is separate from the box and your hand isn't omnipresent/infinite contrary to Gods nature and relation to creation.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 5:26:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Back to the point.

At 4/12/2011 5:23:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Regarding your argument, the relationship between God and creation is not the same as a hand in a box. Your hand is separate from the box and your hand isn't omnipresent/infinite contrary to Gods nature and relation to creation.
But it is possible that when my hand is in the space (not simply box), then it counts as if I am in the space, do we agree? Hand in space, rest is not.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 5:47:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If anything you are still making an attempt at refuting a certain idea of what god is.

At 4/12/2011 4:21:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Modified Argument from the Universe

P1: If God exists, he is the creator of the Universe (whole of existence).

You are basically saying that nothing created something. If God created existence, then God couldn't have possibly existed, as you can't exist before existence. This first premise doesn't make any sense.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 5:48:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 4:30:05 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

... if God is infinite, then he pervades all things, lol.

That is not what infinite means, for something to be infinite just means that you can take a proper sub-set of it and that has the same cardinality. The set of natural numbers is infinite, but does the set of natural numbers contain all real numbers - why not? The density of a black hole is infinite - but does every black hole contain all the matter in the universe, why not? When God is traditionally argued to be omni-present it means that you can not go somewhere inside the universe and thus be unaware to God, it does not however mean that God physically resides in the atoms of your underwear.

Now if you want to explore the concept of God-as-Universe, then research the Brahman (not Brahma) of the Hindu faith, as Brahman is the everything and what exists in the universe comes from the Hiranyagarbha or womb of the universe. Note here though very clearly there is no creation as such, there is a cycle of events, of creation and destruction which are simply changes of state, like water freezing into ice. Brahman is eternal, however what comes from it is not. This cyclic nature carried over into the Gods themselves as Brahma is created in cycles and it creates the universe in cycles, the people live in cycles, etc. .
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 5:55:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 5:47:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
If anything you are still making an attempt at refuting a certain idea of what god is.

99.9% of people believe God is a creator God. This is the notion that is relevant. I don't care to refute the 0.1% that believe God is not a creator.

At 4/12/2011 4:21:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Modified Argument from the Universe

P1: If God exists, he is the creator of the Universe (whole of existence).

You are basically saying that nothing created something. If God created existence, then God couldn't have possibly existed, as you can't exist before existence. This first premise doesn't make any sense.

By P1 I mean that created everything other than himself. That's the definition of God accepted in the philosophy of religion.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 6:15:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 4:21:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
This is my modification to an argument I previously constructed a year ago. The previous argument contained about two premises and a conclusion, so this one is quite different.

Modified Argument from the Universe

P1: If God exists, he is the creator of the Universe (whole of existence).
False. God did not create absolutely everything; He created everything except Himself.

And after that, the entire proof falls apart.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 6:39:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 4:21:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
This is my modification to an argument I previously constructed a year ago. The previous argument contained about two premises and a conclusion, so this one is quite different.

Modified Argument from the Universe

P1: If God exists, he is the creator of the Universe (whole of existence).
P2: If God exists, he is omnipresent.
P3: A composite entity cannot be the cause of its components. (Axiom)
P4: God pervades all things. (P2)
P5: The Universe is a part (component) of God. (P4)
P6: God could not have possibly created the Universe. (P3, P5)
Conclusion: Therefore it is impossible for God to exist. (P1, P2, P6)

The definition of "Universe" is not in question and is besides the point. If you don't like that word, replace it with "whole of existence" and move on.

This appears to be again placing definitional constraints on God that few religious systems of belief would do.
For God to pervade all things (P)4 is to assume His deity is contained in all atoms? I believe most hold to an omni-excellent God, would state that God is separate from His creation. Christianity would hold that he is separate and transcendent.

He may be omni-aware of all of its elements but not "contained" within the elements.

Everything seems to unravel with P4 though I do not know that P4 necessitates P5.

Concerning P5 -
God theoretically could pervade all things by a process of temporary "infusion" or saturation but the universe still be wholly separate from the essence of Deity.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 7:06:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 6:15:30 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 4/12/2011 4:21:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
This is my modification to an argument I previously constructed a year ago. The previous argument contained about two premises and a conclusion, so this one is quite different.

Modified Argument from the Universe

P1: If God exists, he is the creator of the Universe (whole of existence).
False. God did not create absolutely everything; He created everything except Himself.

And after that, the entire proof falls apart.

You Fail. I already acknowledged that fact.

At 4/12/2011 5:55:37 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
By P1 I mean that created everything other than himself. That's the definition of God accepted in the philosophy of religion.

And this fact does not refute my argument. If you think it does, you must demonstrste as such.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 7:18:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 4:21:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
P3: A composite entity cannot be the cause of its components. (Axiom)

at best, you can get a composite entity can't be the cause of all of its components. IOW, nothing can cause itself. but things can certainly modify themselves. humans grow from babies, trees from seeds, computer programs learn and edit themselves. these all may be cases of "programming" in a sense, but as an omnipotent being, why can't god reprogram himself?

what caused god/the big bang is already an argument that comes up when talking about origins and its a very garbled conversation. but unless you're willing to argue that god is identical with the universe, which i don't think you are given your above comment, P3 doesn't limit god from creating something in which he is "omnipresent" that is an extension of what he already is.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 7:28:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 7:18:17 PM, belle wrote:
At 4/12/2011 4:21:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
P3: A composite entity cannot be the cause of its components. (Axiom)

at best, you can get a composite entity can't be the cause of all of its components. IOW, nothing can cause itself. but things can certainly modify themselves. humans grow from babies, trees from seeds, computer programs learn and edit themselves. these all may be cases of "programming" in a sense, but as an omnipotent being, why can't god reprogram himself?

what caused god/the big bang is already an argument that comes up when talking about origins and its a very garbled conversation. but unless you're willing to argue that god is identical with the universe, which i don't think you are given your above comment, P3 doesn't limit god from creating something in which he is "omnipresent" that is an extension of what he already is.

God created the Universe ex-nihilo. Nobody claims that the Universe is the result of God growing a new body part.

In philosophy, there is a distinction between "create" and "construct."

"Create" = bringing things into existence from nothing

"Construct" = transforming pre-existing materials into something else

God is a creator, not a constructor.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 7:31:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 7:28:42 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/12/2011 7:18:17 PM, belle wrote:
At 4/12/2011 4:21:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
P3: A composite entity cannot be the cause of its components. (Axiom)

at best, you can get a composite entity can't be the cause of all of its components. IOW, nothing can cause itself. but things can certainly modify themselves. humans grow from babies, trees from seeds, computer programs learn and edit themselves. these all may be cases of "programming" in a sense, but as an omnipotent being, why can't god reprogram himself?

what caused god/the big bang is already an argument that comes up when talking about origins and its a very garbled conversation. but unless you're willing to argue that god is identical with the universe, which i don't think you are given your above comment, P3 doesn't limit god from creating something in which he is "omnipresent" that is an extension of what he already is.

God created the Universe ex-nihilo. Nobody claims that the Universe is the result of God growing a new body part.

In philosophy, there is a distinction between "create" and "construct."

"Create" = bringing things into existence from nothing

"Construct" = transforming pre-existing materials into something else

God is a creator, not a constructor.

sure but irl no one/nothing "creates" anything, at least not as far as we know. energy, matter, etc, are always conserved. it was just an example to illustrate the point. addressing a flaw in my analogy doesn't really address the flaw in your argument, which is that bare assertion that god cannot create new parts for himself. if god can create other things out of nothing theres no reason why specifically them ultimately being components of god himself is a problem. at least you haven't provided one.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 7:44:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 7:31:52 PM, belle wrote:
At 4/12/2011 7:28:42 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
God created the Universe ex-nihilo. Nobody claims that the Universe is the result of God growing a new body part.

In philosophy, there is a distinction between "create" and "construct."

"Create" = bringing things into existence from nothing

"Construct" = transforming pre-existing materials into something else

God is a creator, not a constructor.

sure but irl no one/nothing "creates" anything, at least not as far as we know. energy, matter, etc, are always conserved.

Correct.

It as just an example to illustrate the point. addressing a flaw in my analogy doesn't really address the flaw in your argument, w

That's not what I was doing. Your analogy does match up and I acknowledged it.

which is that bare assertion that god cannot create new parts for himself.

I was saying that no one claims God grew the Universe as a new part for himself. Why? Because God is a creator, not a constructor.

And God can't create new parts for himself because of the original axiom I used in my syllogism.

if god can create other things out of nothing theres no reason why specifically them ultimately being components of god himself is a problem.

Yes, he creates things out of nothing. No, he cannot be the creator of his own components given the axiom.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 7:51:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 7:06:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/12/2011 6:15:30 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 4/12/2011 4:21:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
This is my modification to an argument I previously constructed a year ago. The previous argument contained about two premises and a conclusion, so this one is quite different.

Modified Argument from the Universe

P1: If God exists, he is the creator of the Universe (whole of existence).
False. God did not create absolutely everything; He created everything except Himself.

And after that, the entire proof falls apart.

You Fail. I already acknowledged that fact.

Acknowledging a false fact as correct, then daring everybody to find a flaw in your proof, doensn't sound very reasonable to me.

At 4/12/2011 5:55:37 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
By P1 I mean that created everything other than himself. That's the definition of God accepted in the philosophy of religion.

And this fact does not refute my argument. If you think it does, you must demonstrste as such.

Simple. If God did not create Himself, then the main flaw that you pointed out, that God must have created Himself, wouldn't exist.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 7:54:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 5:48:53 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/12/2011 4:30:05 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

... if God is infinite, then he pervades all things, lol.

That is not what infinite means, for something to be infinite just means that you can take a proper sub-set of it and that has the same cardinality. The set of natural numbers is infinite, but does the set of natural numbers contain all real numbers - why not? The density of a black hole is infinite - but does every black hole contain all the matter in the universe, why not?

That's not the version of infinity I am talking about. When I say "infinite" I mean Gods being is ubiquitous and extends unendingly in every direction. His being exists throughout all things.

When God is traditionally argued to be omni-present it means that you can not go somewhere inside the universe and thus be unaware to God, it does not however mean that God physically resides in the atoms of your underwear.

Then you concede that God is limited. His being doesn't extend throughout everything.

Now if you want to explore the concept of God-as-Universe, then research the Brahman (not Brahma) of the Hindu faith, as Brahman is the everything and what exists in the universe comes from the Hiranyagarbha or womb of the universe. Note here though very clearly there is no creation as such, there is a cycle of events, of creation and destruction which are simply changes of state, like water freezing into ice. Brahman is eternal, however what comes from it is not. This cyclic nature carried over into the Gods themselves as Brahma is created in cycles and it creates the universe in cycles, the people live in cycles, etc. .

I'm already aware of that.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 8:04:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 7:54:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

His being exists throughout all things.

Yes, congratulations, you can create a satire and then defeat it, now to actually achieve something, take an actual ontological argument, one which is reviewed in the literature, and then defeat that.

Not take a page from the creation science movement and create an image of evolution which is nonsense and then show, all while feigning surprise, hey this is nonsense! Well of course you defined it in a nonsensical way what did you expect - no rational person makes those claims anyway.

Now if you are actually going to claim that what you are describing is actually God as presented in modern theology, then cite the sources by where God s described as you have indicated, this is an academic subject so show the workings. Then you can claim to have a defeater for that claim of God.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 8:08:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 7:51:22 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 4/12/2011 7:06:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

And this fact does not refute my argument. If you think it does, you must demonstrste as such.

Simple. If God did not create Himself, then the main flaw that you pointed out, that God must have created Himself, wouldn't exist.

Lol. Do you not know what the goal of a logical disproof is? The point is to show that a certain proposition is logically contradictory and thus non-existent.

The first premise is that God created everything but himself aka he created the Universe.

Later, the argument demonstrates that the Universe is a component of God, i.e. the Universe is a part of God.

Given the aforementioned axiom, God could not have possibly created the Universe because it poses a contradiction.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 9:22:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 8:08:30 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/12/2011 7:51:22 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 4/12/2011 7:06:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

And this fact does not refute my argument. If you think it does, you must demonstrste as such.

Simple. If God did not create Himself, then the main flaw that you pointed out, that God must have created Himself, wouldn't exist.

Lol. Do you not know what the goal of a logical disproof is? The point is to show that a certain proposition is logically contradictory and thus non-existent.

Your disproof concludes that God does not exist. It does not conclude that God cannot have created the Universe.

The first premise is that God created everything but himself aka he created the Universe.

Ah, so you consider God and the Universe separate? That makes more sense.

Later, the argument demonstrates that the Universe is a component of God, i.e. the Universe is a part of God.

Given the aforementioned axiom, God could not have possibly created the Universe because it poses a contradiction.

Alright, I'm going to have another go at your proof now that that's cleared up.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 9:30:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 4:21:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
This is my modification to an argument I previously constructed a year ago. The previous argument contained about two premises and a conclusion, so this one is quite different.

Modified Argument from the Universe

P1: If God exists, he is the creator of the Universe (whole of existence).
P2: If God exists, he is omnipresent.
P3: A composite entity cannot be the cause of its components. (Axiom)
P4: God pervades all things. (P2)
P5: The Universe is a part (component) of God. (P4)
Here's where the proof goes wrong, then. If I create a swimming pool, then fill it with my own essence, the swimming pool does not become a part of me. If God creates a Universe, then fills it with His own ever-prevading essence, it does not become part of Him; He is merely omni-present in it. It is not in a physical sense, however; He is kind of in a separate dimension of the Universe, so that he occupies all three-dimensional points in the universe without occupying the same four-dimensional point as anything else.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 10:33:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 4:21:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
P1: If God exists, he is the creator of the Universe (whole of existence).
P2: If God exists, he is omnipresent.
P3: A composite entity cannot be the cause of its components. (Axiom)
P4: God pervades all things. (P2)
P5: The Universe is a part (component) of God. (P4)
P6: God could not have possibly created the Universe. (P3, P5)
Conclusion: Therefore it is impossible for God to exist. (P1, P2, P6)

O RLY?

You're working with definites here. Your axiom cannot he held as true and can never, ever, be deducted.

If your axiom is true however your argument holds.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 10:47:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
please elaborate on the axiom in p3
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 10:54:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 4:21:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
This is my modification to an argument I previously constructed a year ago. The previous argument contained about two premises and a conclusion, so this one is quite different.

Modified Argument from the Universe

P1: If God exists, he is the creator of the Universe (whole of existence).
P2: If God exists, he is omnipresent.
P3: A composite entity cannot be the cause of its components. (Axiom)
P4: God pervades all things. (P2)
P5: The Universe is a part (component) of God. (P4)
P6: God could not have possibly created the Universe. (P3, P5)
Conclusion: Therefore it is impossible for God to exist. (P1, P2, P6)

The definition of "Universe" is not in question and is besides the point. If you don't like that word, replace it with "whole of existence" and move on.

P1: If God exists, he is the creator of the Universe (whole of existence).

Nope, if God exists, he is the creator of the things created.

Whole of existence = Uncreated things + created things
If God exists (as an uncreated thing) then the universe is not the whole of existence.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 11:08:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
what is your sorce that god is omnipresent? I think whatever the sorce is it is probably based on a mistranslation or misunderstanding, bec. god is not phisical it is there for not possable to describe him rather all we do is describe what he does. I there for think the original sorce for this idea of gods omni presence is not to be understood in its phisical terms but rather an description of what he does , that he is constantly in control and aware of everything at all places at all times (with the exclusion of the free will he gave to man.) please recheck your source and tell me what you think.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 11:14:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 10:33:37 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 4/12/2011 4:21:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
P1: If God exists, he is the creator of the Universe (whole of existence).
P2: If God exists, he is omnipresent.
P3: A composite entity cannot be the cause of its components. (Axiom)
P4: God pervades all things. (P2)
P5: The Universe is a part (component) of God. (P4)
P6: God could not have possibly created the Universe. (P3, P5)
Conclusion: Therefore it is impossible for God to exist. (P1, P2, P6)

O RLY?

You're working with definites here. Your axiom cannot he held as true and can never, ever, be deducted.

If your axiom is true however your argument holds.
Okay, little error, my mistake - I muddled your words.

First -
God is everywere.
God is not everything.


Omnipresence is the quality of being in every possible component of existence. An object can be created by an entity but that is not to say that that the object is a part the creator entity. The creator simply needs to be in the same set space as the object. Each are together in space but exist apart.

If god was everything we would be pantheist.

Second -
Suppose that god is everything - pantheism - if existence is god and god created existence then world created it. You set this up as the clause: A composite entity cannot be the cause of its components. If, hypothetically an object was the cause of it's components: A caused B which caused C which is turn cause A. Then you have paradox. Can something create itself? Surely, not. A Pantheist cannot then believe that the world was created by God and must therefore believe in the worlds lack of creation.

The world [...] hath never experienced birth and will never know death, and the human race has always existed. There is not any origin or beginning of things. The earth subsists, as always, of itself. - Mephostophiles, Historia von D. Johann Fausten.

tl;dr - Your argument only defeats pantheist creationism.

tl;dr - Your argument only defeats pantheist creationism.
'sup DDO -- july 2013