Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What proved God to you?

KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2009 11:37:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If you believe in God I just want to ask a few simple questions. What proved God to you? When did you accept Jesus as your savior? I am hoping this topic does not lead to a debate as I am hoping to hear from Christians.
I win ;D
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2009 11:42:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/7/2009 11:37:40 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
If you believe in God I just want to ask a few simple questions. What proved God to you? When did you accept Jesus as your savior? I am hoping this topic does not lead to a debate as I am hoping to hear from Christians.

Why does the topic of God only pertain to Christians? 80% of the world population believes in God, yet only 33% are Christians.

.
"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
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2009 11:50:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/7/2009 11:43:49 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
I was asking Christians what proved God to them is there something wrong with that?

You asked "What proved God to you?" and then went on to ask "When did you accept Jesus as your savior?". He was simply pointing out that Christians are not the only people who believe in God, and other believers do have reasons why there is proof of God to them.

The more appropriated title would be "What proved the Judeo-Christian God to you?".
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2009 11:50:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/7/2009 11:43:49 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
I was asking Christians what proved God to them is there something wrong with that?

No, you first said "If you believe in God I just want to ask a few simple questions."

I was willing to talk about that until you said:

"When did you accept Jesus as your savior?"

Then I realized it no longer pertained to me.

.
"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
KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2009 11:52:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I should have but I didn't but as it seems evident in my post that I am referring to the Christian God, that is the crowd I am attempting to hear from.
I win ;D
KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2009 11:54:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/7/2009 11:50:33 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/7/2009 11:43:49 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
I was asking Christians what proved God to them is there something wrong with that?

No, you first said "If you believe in God I just want to ask a few simple questions."

I was willing to talk about that until you said:

"When did you accept Jesus as your savior?"

Then I realized it no longer pertained to me.

.

Even though I was trying to speak to Christians I will accept anyone who wants to share their experience with God. What proved your God to you?
I win ;D
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2009 12:31:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/7/2009 11:54:36 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
Even though I was trying to speak to Christians I will accept anyone who wants to share their experience with God. What proved your God to you?

Well, I was raised a Christian and believed in God from the beginning. I never really questioned his existence (but I wasn't certain), though throughout the whole of my life, I questioned Christianity (I would rarely do this, but when I did, I would forget about it and move on). I later abandoned Christianity and found a new philosophy. So there was never a point where something proved God for me, but I did completely change my view of what God is, and now I am 100% certain that what I perceive to be God, exists. I suppose you can say that discovering what God is proved God to me.

.
"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
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2009 4:58:34 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Nothing has proved God. God exists, to those who believe, despite lack of empirical/logical evidence and/or proof.

This is the whole point of faith. Such was never intended to be held to an empirical evidence/proof/logical standard.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2009 5:11:08 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2009 2:47:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I 'kind of' believed when I was 8 or 9..
Then 3 years ago I was at a music festival and Jesus Christ spoke directly to me..
I 'heard' eternity'..
Nothing will, or can, EVER be the same for me again.
Being a Christian is hard. Not being one is harder.

I absolutely, 100% KNOW that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way, Truth & Life.
That means EVERYTHING else is the WRONG way, a LIE and DEATH.
The Cross.. the Cross.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2009 3:20:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Staying on topic; some atheists want to troll, apparently.

I went through an agnostic period, but when I was exploring both sides, I found the following argument:
(Misquote, perhaps): Time could not have existed indefinitely, because if it had, we would have never reached the present.

In the same manner, zero can not be counted to from negative infinity.

So, we must then deduce that time had a beginning, and that nothing can change without the passage of time. The conclusion I reached is that nothing in the universe could have caused time to begin, so some form of omnipotence exists.

Up til here, this argument supports all proposed forms of supremecy: diety or multiverse, etc.

What I found next was in Locke:
"But now let us see how they can satisfy themselves, or others, that this, eternal thinking being is material.
First, I would ask them, whether they imagine, that all matter, every paricle of matter, thinks?"
(GeoLaureate's system)
"This, I suppose, they will scarce say; since then there would be as many eternal thinking beings, as there are particles of matter, and so an infinity of Gods."
(This obviously doesn't work due to the Omnipotence Polytheism Contradiction:
If there existed multiple supremecies, they would be limited by the supremecy of eachother. Therefore, there can not be multiple supremecies.)
"Secondly, if all matter does not think, I next ask, whether it be only one atom that does so?"
(I don't think a member here believes the above proposal, anyways)
"This has as many absurdities as the other; ...Every particle of matter, as matter is capable of all the same figures and motions of any other, and I challenge anyone in this thoughts, to add anything else to one above another."
"Thirdly, if then neither one peculiar atom alone can be this eternal thinking being; not all matter, as matter; i.e., some certain system of matter duly put together, that is this eternal thinking being. This is that, which, I imagine, is that notion, which men are aptest to have of God, who would have him a material being, as most readily suggested to them, by the ordinary conceit they have of themselves, and other men, whcih they take to be materil thinking beings."
Above is the Roman/Greek mythological belief.
"For unthinking particles of matter, however put together, can have nothing thereby added to them, but a new relation of position, which 'tis impossible should give [infinite] thought and knowledge to them."
"If it be the motion of parts, on which its thinking depends, all the thoughts there must be unavoidably accidental, and limited; since all the particles that by motioncause thought, being each of them in itself without any thought, cannot regulate its own motions, much less be regulated by the thought of the whole; sincethat thought is not the cause of motion, but consequence of it, whereby freedom, power, choice, and all rational and wise thinking or acting will be quite taken away: so tha such a thinking being will be not better nor wiser, than pure blind matter."

The infinite cognition, therefore, lies entirely separate of matter: a diety.

And this does not make one Christian, for Christianity as a religion cannot be proven.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2009 3:52:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/8/2009 3:20:15 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Staying on topic; some atheists want to troll, apparently.

I went through an agnostic period, but when I was exploring both sides, I found the following argument:
(Misquote, perhaps): Time could not have existed indefinitely, because if it had, we would have never reached the present.

Perhaps you shouldn't view time as a linear construct.

In the same manner, zero can not be counted to from negative infinity.

So, we must then deduce that time had a beginning, and that nothing can change without the passage of time. The conclusion I reached is that nothing in the universe could have caused time to begin, so some form of omnipotence exists.

Just because a first cause is required, does not mean it had to be omnipotent.

Up til here, this argument supports all proposed forms of supremecy: diety or multiverse, etc.

What I found next was in Locke:
"But now let us see how they can satisfy themselves, or others, that this, eternal thinking being is material.
First, I would ask them, whether they imagine, that all matter, every paricle of matter, thinks?"
(GeoLaureate's system)

Not quite. The pantheist notion is that the Universe as one whole is conscious.

"This, I suppose, they will scarce say; since then there would be as many eternal thinking beings, as there are particles of matter, and so an infinity of Gods."

Assuming that every individual particle is conscious, how can it be concluded that they are gods. Consciousness does not imply omnipotent, Godlike properties.

(This obviously doesn't work due to the Omnipotence Polytheism Contradiction:
If there existed multiple supremecies, they would be limited by the supremecy of eachother. Therefore, there can not be multiple supremecies.)

This is just a big string of non sequitors. Conscious particles, therefore they are Gods, therefore they are Omnipotent/Supreme. Does not follow.

The rest of the syllogism can no longer hold it's ground since it's premises were flawed.

.
"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
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2009 4:02:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/8/2009 3:52:37 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/8/2009 3:20:15 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Staying on topic; some atheists want to troll, apparently.

I went through an agnostic period, but when I was exploring both sides, I found the following argument:
(Misquote, perhaps): Time could not have existed indefinitely, because if it had, we would have never reached the present.

Perhaps you shouldn't view time as a linear construct.

How would you construct it?

So, we must then deduce that time had a beginning, and that nothing can change without the passage of time. The conclusion I reached is that nothing in the universe could have caused time to begin, so some form of omnipotence exists.

Just because a first cause is required, does not mean it had to be omnipotent.

I left out the derivation of omnipotence, sorry. All that the aforementioned proves is that the universe could not have started time.

Here, I will simply provide a weak argument for omnipotence: If something can do the logically impossible (cause the motion of time without time itself), then it will easily be able to do the logically possible.

Up til here, this argument supports all proposed forms of supremecy: diety or multiverse, etc.

What I found next was in Locke:
"But now let us see how they can satisfy themselves, or others, that this, eternal thinking being is material.
First, I would ask them, whether they imagine, that all matter, every paricle of matter, thinks?"
(GeoLaureate's system)

Not quite. The pantheist notion is that the Universe as one whole is conscious.

O that's right. Then your case would fall under the "arrangement" system, under which somehow the arrangement of incognitive particles gives them cognition. Correct me if I'm wrong.


"This, I suppose, they will scarce say; since then there would be as many eternal thinking beings, as there are particles of matter, and so an infinity of Gods."

Assuming that every individual particle is conscious, how can it be concluded that they are gods. Consciousness does not imply omnipotent, Godlike properties.

This is just a big string of non sequitors. Conscious particles, therefore they are Gods, therefore they are Omnipotent/Supreme. Does not follow.

Actually, Locke was referring to infinite cognition at this point in his essay. I added brackets in some places, but not all.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2009 10:06:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/8/2009 7:57:47 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
God proved himself to me by consistently blessing me and helping me during times of struggle.

When I was a Christian, I too was reassured of God's presence through various blessings and apparent miracles. It was quite a satisfying, if exceedingly convenient, system of belief I followed for many years.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2009 10:18:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
@WJM

1. False Dichotomy. The first change in the universe would define the beginning of time. Time need not exist prior to the first change, it just could not follow it, meaning that it can happen concurrently. This bypasses your weak argument for omnipotence because it negates the premise that starting time without time existing prior is an impossible act.

2. Argument does not reduce to absurdity. The conclusion that free will does not exist, when stemming from the conclusion of your second part, does not adequately show that the premises must be incorrect. Determinism is an acceptable truth.

And although I am weak in this, does Quantum Mechanics not have an answer to the free will debate?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 12:59:44 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/8/2009 10:06:36 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 8/8/2009 7:57:47 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
God proved himself to me by consistently blessing me and helping me during times of struggle.

When I was a Christian, I too was reassured of God's presence through various blessings and apparent miracles. It was quite a satisfying, if exceedingly convenient, system of belief I followed for many years.

What caused you to throw away your belief?
I win ;D
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 10:37:27 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/8/2009 10:18:24 PM, Kleptin wrote:
@WJM

1. False Dichotomy. The first change in the universe would define the beginning of time. Time need not exist prior to the first change, it just could not follow it, meaning that it can happen concurrently. This bypasses your weak argument for omnipotence because it negates the premise that starting time without time existing prior is an impossible act.

Gotcha.
This goes back to the necessity of a first cause, and if nothing caused this first cause, then the first cause acted on its own (with free will).
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 2:40:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/9/2009 10:37:27 AM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/8/2009 10:18:24 PM, Kleptin wrote:
@WJM

1. False Dichotomy. The first change in the universe would define the beginning of time. Time need not exist prior to the first change, it just could not follow it, meaning that it can happen concurrently. This bypasses your weak argument for omnipotence because it negates the premise that starting time without time existing prior is an impossible act.

Gotcha.
This goes back to the necessity of a first cause, and if nothing caused this first cause, then the first cause acted on its own (with free will).

The first cause argument contains a flawed premise - it assumes causality as a premise and then rejects it in the conclusion. You cannot create a logical argument that has (X & A) as a premise, but (Y & ~A) as a conclusion.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 2:49:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/9/2009 2:40:10 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 8/9/2009 10:37:27 AM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/8/2009 10:18:24 PM, Kleptin wrote:
@WJM

1. False Dichotomy. The first change in the universe would define the beginning of time. Time need not exist prior to the first change, it just could not follow it, meaning that it can happen concurrently. This bypasses your weak argument for omnipotence because it negates the premise that starting time without time existing prior is an impossible act.

Gotcha.
This goes back to the necessity of a first cause, and if nothing caused this first cause, then the first cause acted on its own (with free will).

The first cause argument contains a flawed premise - it assumes causality as a premise and then rejects it in the conclusion. You cannot create a logical argument that has (X & A) as a premise, but (Y & ~A) as a conclusion.

But you can create a logical argument that has (X&A) as a premise and (Y & ~B) as a conclusion.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 4:34:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/9/2009 2:49:01 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/9/2009 2:40:10 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

The first cause argument contains a flawed premise - it assumes causality as a premise and then rejects it in the conclusion. You cannot create a logical argument that has (X & A) as a premise, but (Y & ~A) as a conclusion.

But you can create a logical argument that has (X&A) as a premise and (Y & ~B) as a conclusion.

Well duh, but that's pretty useless because the first cause argument isn't that sort...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 7:34:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/9/2009 12:59:44 AM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:

What caused you to throw away your belief?

My loss of faith was too gradual and hard-fought to point to any one crystallizing moment. However, concerning the experiences we've been discussing, it doesn't take long to realize that attributing various positive occurrences to a higher power is an arbitrary and self-assuring practice. One can only mistake coincidences for proof so long before faith becomes strained and meaningless.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 1:25:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/9/2009 4:34:00 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 8/9/2009 2:49:01 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/9/2009 2:40:10 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

The first cause argument contains a flawed premise - it assumes causality as a premise and then rejects it in the conclusion. You cannot create a logical argument that has (X & A) as a premise, but (Y & ~A) as a conclusion.

But you can create a logical argument that has (X&A) as a premise and (Y & ~B) as a conclusion.

Well duh, but that's pretty useless because the first cause argument isn't that sort...

Nonsence. "Change requires causation" is legitimate. If you mean here that "God doesn't have a cause, so A & ~A", then you ignore that God is defined as eternal.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 1:37:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/9/2009 10:37:27 AM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/8/2009 10:18:24 PM, Kleptin wrote:
@WJM

1. False Dichotomy. The first change in the universe would define the beginning of time. Time need not exist prior to the first change, it just could not follow it, meaning that it can happen concurrently. This bypasses your weak argument for omnipotence because it negates the premise that starting time without time existing prior is an impossible act.

Gotcha.
This goes back to the necessity of a first cause, and if nothing caused this first cause, then the first cause acted on its own (with free will).

That's an equivocation.

Something that acts on its own does not necessarily have free will. It could have simply been a single phenomenon without the conscious ability to will at all. Thus, you can conclude a first cause with the sole attribute of being the first cause, but you cannot conclude the Judeo-Christian God, which is a first cause along with a multitude of unjustified characteristics.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 1:41:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 1:25:44 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/9/2009 4:34:00 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 8/9/2009 2:49:01 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/9/2009 2:40:10 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

The first cause argument contains a flawed premise - it assumes causality as a premise and then rejects it in the conclusion. You cannot create a logical argument that has (X & A) as a premise, but (Y & ~A) as a conclusion.

But you can create a logical argument that has (X&A) as a premise and (Y & ~B) as a conclusion.

Well duh, but that's pretty useless because the first cause argument isn't that sort...

Nonsence. "Change requires causation" is legitimate. If you mean here that "God doesn't have a cause, so A & ~A", then you ignore that God is defined as eternal.

Sigh - you misunderstand.

Premise - All things are caused (C).
Premise - There is a long causal chain of events (E).
Premise - This chain cannot go on forever (~F).
Conclusion - There is a first cause (A) = At least one thing is not caused (~C).

Ok - so we have:

C
C -> E
---------
.: E
(E & ~F) -> A
~F
---------
.: A

But A and C are not compatible. In other words, the equation needs to be reorganized with ~(A & C) as a premise. Why? Because the obvious logical extension of "There is a first cause" is "At least one thing is not caused," which is a DIRECT CONTRADICTION with the first premise.

The first cause argument that theists make routinely lacks this CRUCIAL premise.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 1:56:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 1:41:39 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 8/10/2009 1:25:44 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/9/2009 4:34:00 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 8/9/2009 2:49:01 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/9/2009 2:40:10 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

The first cause argument contains a flawed premise - it assumes causality as a premise and then rejects it in the conclusion. You cannot create a logical argument that has (X & A) as a premise, but (Y & ~A) as a conclusion.

But you can create a logical argument that has (X&A) as a premise and (Y & ~B) as a conclusion.

Well duh, but that's pretty useless because the first cause argument isn't that sort...

Nonsence. "Change requires causation" is legitimate. If you mean here that "God doesn't have a cause, so A & ~A", then you ignore that God is defined as eternal.

Sigh - you misunderstand.

Premise - All things are caused (C).
Premise - There is a long causal chain of events (E).
Premise - This chain cannot go on forever (~F).
Conclusion - There is a first cause (A) = At least one thing is not caused (~C).

Ok - so we have:

C
C -> E
---------
.: E
(E & ~F) -> A
~F
---------
.: A

But A and C are not compatible. In other words, the equation needs to be reorganized with ~(A & C) as a premise. Why? Because the obvious logical extension of "There is a first cause" is "At least one thing is not caused," which is a DIRECT CONTRADICTION with the first premise.

The first cause argument that theists make routinely lacks this CRUCIAL premise.

Sigh - You misunderstand.
The first premise is not "All things are caused", it is "All changes are caused". The movement of air into your lungs is caused by the movement of your diaphragm, which is caused by nerve impulses, which are caused by...

The argument that the first cause argument is self contradictory is based on a misintepretation of a premise.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 7:24:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 1:56:57 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/10/2009 1:41:39 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

Sigh - you misunderstand.

Premise - All things are caused (C).
Premise - There is a long causal chain of events (E).
Premise - This chain cannot go on forever (~F).
Conclusion - There is a first cause (A) = At least one thing is not caused (~C).

Ok - so we have:

C
C -> E
---------
.: E
(E & ~F) -> A
~F
---------
.: A

But A and C are not compatible. In other words, the equation needs to be reorganized with ~(A & C) as a premise. Why? Because the obvious logical extension of "There is a first cause" is "At least one thing is not caused," which is a DIRECT CONTRADICTION with the first premise.

The first cause argument that theists make routinely lacks this CRUCIAL premise.

Sigh - You misunderstand.
The first premise is not "All things are caused", it is "All changes are caused". The movement of air into your lungs is caused by the movement of your diaphragm, which is caused by nerve impulses, which are caused by...

The argument that the first cause argument is self contradictory is based on a misintepretation of a premise.

If you change the first premise to "All changes are caused," then the argument fails Occam's Razor in that there is no non-definitional reason for one to suppose that the universe didn't simply always exist OR that God was the reason the universe exists.

By non-definitional, I mean that you cannot explain away the eternal-ness of God and the non-eternal-ness of matter by defining matter as the created and God as the creator.

So either you have to accept the "all things are caused" premise or accept that there is no logical line of reasoning that delivers an eternal God, but no eternal matter.

Secondly, the first cause argument fails by making an unwarranted leap from "first cause" to "God." There is nothing inherent in a first cause that indicates that the first cause is the Christian, or any other God. In fact, most current schools of astrophysics point towards intersecting multidimensional branes or something of that sort. I guarantee you that scientists are more equipped to handle this argument than priests.

Lastly, there exists a difference between "all things are caused" and "all changes are caused" that presents a problem. Consider a rock... nothing happens to it - it just sits there. Even though nothing has changed the rock, it still was caused to exist by something.

And again - if you accept that something (God) could have always simply existed, you must also accept that something (matter) could have always simply existed.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 8:18:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Occam's Razor is irrelevant here, because we can logically deduce that ininite regression is impossible (because we would have never reached the present in the same way that we can't count to zero from negative infinity).

I already pointed this out and acknowledged the dilemma you produced (first cause of an eternal vs. infinite regression).
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 2:58:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 7:24:17 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

DUH.. *sigh* DUH.. *sigh* DUH.. *sigh* (ad infinitum..)
The Cross.. the Cross.