Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Kalām Cosmological Argument

Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 3:51:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
KCA debunked!
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 4:26:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 3:51:07 PM, Microsuck wrote:
KCA debunked!

Yes, advocates of the Kalam Cosmological Argument equivocate with regards to the words "begins to exist" to mean both:

(i) Pre-existing materials changing form or being rearranged

(ii) Materials popping into existence out of absolute nothingness

The difference between these two conceptions are so vast it is baffling that theists think that the words "begin to exist" can apply to both (i) and (ii), when it's clear this term should only apply to (ii) in the context of this argument in the first place.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 4:32:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
According to the theistic logic, If I have a square piece of paper at T1 and folded the top of it at T2, this would mean that a rectangular piece of paper "began to exist" at T2. However, all I did was rearrange matter, nothing new was added to the universe that didn't already exist in some form or another so the term began to exist doesn't seem right. This is all that happens when a chair "begins to exist" as well, it's just the manipulation of pre-existing wood like folding the top of a piece of paper if just rearranging pre-existing paper.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 4:40:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 4:32:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
According to the theistic logic, If I have a square piece of paper at T1 and folded the top of it at T2, this would mean that a rectangular piece of paper "began to exist" at T2. However, all I did was rearrange matter, nothing new was added to the universe that didn't already exist in some form or another so the term began to exist doesn't seem right. This is all that happens when a chair "begins to exist" as well, it's just the manipulation of pre-existing wood like folding the top of a piece of paper if just rearranging pre-existing paper.

To be fair, I'm a theist, and I don't agree with Cosmological arguments.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 5:01:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 4:40:19 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:32:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
According to the theistic logic, If I have a square piece of paper at T1 and folded the top of it at T2, this would mean that a rectangular piece of paper "began to exist" at T2. However, all I did was rearrange matter, nothing new was added to the universe that didn't already exist in some form or another so the term began to exist doesn't seem right. This is all that happens when a chair "begins to exist" as well, it's just the manipulation of pre-existing wood like folding the top of a piece of paper if just rearranging pre-existing paper.

To be fair, I'm a theist, and I don't agree with Cosmological arguments.

My apologies, "advocates of the KCA" seems more suited anyway.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 5:13:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 5:01:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:40:19 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:32:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
According to the theistic logic, If I have a square piece of paper at T1 and folded the top of it at T2, this would mean that a rectangular piece of paper "began to exist" at T2. However, all I did was rearrange matter, nothing new was added to the universe that didn't already exist in some form or another so the term began to exist doesn't seem right. This is all that happens when a chair "begins to exist" as well, it's just the manipulation of pre-existing wood like folding the top of a piece of paper if just rearranging pre-existing paper.

To be fair, I'm a theist, and I don't agree with Cosmological arguments.

My apologies, "advocates of the KCA" seems more suited anyway.

Most of the arguments pro or con I think are just stupid anyway. People try to come up with clever ways of making poor premises sound rational, and use that to justify their belief.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 5:45:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
THe Fool: I have been saying this over and over, what is IS, the only thing that changes is the Forms of existence.(aka Forumulae)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 5:47:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 5:45:45 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
THe Fool: I have been saying this over and over, what is IS, the only thing that changes is the Forms of existence.(aka Forumulae)

The Fool: or I should say Aristotle did, its his arguement really.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 5:54:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 3:51:07 PM, Microsuck wrote:
KCA debunked!

Can't tell if joking.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 6:05:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 5:54:20 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/15/2012 3:51:07 PM, Microsuck wrote:
KCA debunked!

Can't tell if joking.

The Fool: Faith wise. but not rational wise. At least not Logicion rational.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 6:44:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 4:26:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/15/2012 3:51:07 PM, Microsuck wrote:
KCA debunked!

Yes, advocates of the Kalam Cosmological Argument equivocate with regards to the words "begins to exist" to mean both:

(i) Pre-existing materials changing form or being rearranged

(ii) Materials popping into existence out of absolute nothingness

The difference between these two conceptions are so vast it is baffling that theists think that the words "begin to exist" can apply to both (i) and (ii), when it's clear this term should only apply to (ii) in the context of this argument in the first place.

http://www.debate.org...
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 7:10:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 4:26:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/15/2012 3:51:07 PM, Microsuck wrote:
KCA debunked!

Yes, advocates of the Kalam Cosmological Argument equivocate with regards to the words "begins to exist" to mean both:

(i) Pre-existing materials changing form or being rearranged

(ii) Materials popping into existence out of absolute nothingness

The difference between these two conceptions are so vast it is baffling that theists think that the words "begin to exist" can apply to both (i) and (ii), when it's clear this term should only apply to (ii) in the context of this argument in the first place.

Is this really the basic argument of the vid?(I can't watch it since this pc's really slow to load videos). If so I don't know how on earth it could be titled "KCA debunked". It is true that some theists make the mistake of confusing ex-materia and ex-nihilo. I just dealt with it in my previous debate in fact(sig), which I played devils advocate on. But few knowledgable theists would argue that the universe came about ex-materia, when defending the KCA at least. That's an absurdity. Creatio ex-materia neccesarily entails that the matter the object was made of existed prior to its creation. To apply that to the universe that would mean the matter that made up the universe would exist prior to its existence which makes really no sense at all. It's also contradictory to arguments that defend premise 2 of the KCA which attempt to demonstrate the impossibility of an actual infinity.

All that I'm sure you agree with, but ask William Lane Craig and I'm sure he's not going to mix creatio ex-nihilo and creatio ex-materia together. Point is, only some theists argue that way.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 11:27:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 6:44:44 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:26:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/15/2012 3:51:07 PM, Microsuck wrote:
KCA debunked!

Yes, advocates of the Kalam Cosmological Argument equivocate with regards to the words "begins to exist" to mean both:

(i) Pre-existing materials changing form or being rearranged

(ii) Materials popping into existence out of absolute nothingness

The difference between these two conceptions are so vast it is baffling that theists think that the words "begin to exist" can apply to both (i) and (ii), when it's clear this term should only apply to (ii) in the context of this argument in the first place.

http://www.debate.org...

Remember, kids. The Kalam Cosmological Argument contains invisible language and unstated meanings! If you throw salt over your shoulder and say "God bless you" three times, you just might see it!
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 11:37:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 3:51:07 PM, Microsuck wrote:
KCA debunked!

1:30

Totally false. http://now.tufts.edu...

Then there's the Big Bang, and the problem of infinite regress. Clearly this guy is ignorant to the available evidence.

2:08 "There is simply nothing known in nature that has begun to exist"

Okay, this guy has got to be trolling. Perhaps I've always existed? Why then can I not remember dinosaurs? This is one of the most absurd statements I've ever seen. I can't believe a rational person would imply that because the material that makes me always existed, I always existed. I believe this should be offered as a textbook example of the fallacy of composition. Seriously.

*Sigh*
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 12:02:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 11:37:13 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 6/15/2012 3:51:07 PM, Microsuck wrote:
KCA debunked!

1:30

Totally false. http://now.tufts.edu...

Then there's the Big Bang, and the problem of infinite regress.

The Fool: why is infinite regress a problem? (answer this first)

I would argue that infinite is simply an undifined direction. In that its the ignorance of knowing an ending. Not Knowing a non-exisence ending. do you get it, what is non-existent, can't known. All an infnite regres means is we don't know?

Clearly this guy is ignorant to the available evidence.

The Fool: what is this other evidence?

2:08 "There is simply nothing known in nature that has begun to exist"

The Fool: you are confusing Forms of existence.

For we may have a wooden table. but I only RECOGNIZE(key word)
it as a table when it match the form(as in formula) of my idea/concept of a table.

If I bash it to bits , lets say with a super hammer, now we have wooden bits. Thus or the fomula(in this case shape) has change but existence of the pieces remain the same. It not longer matches our formula/idea do a table.

Now we can then burn the wooden bits, further, and we would get energy ,and smaller elements, if we break that down we get atomic elements. These are difference forms of existence. But the existence itself never seized to exist. We at best can only claim that we no longer RECOGNIZE them. They may no-longer be detectable by our senses. But we can NEVER ClAIM logicall that they don't actually exist. Aka matter cannot be created or destroyed but rather only change forms.

You are making a RECOGNITION/REALIY fallacy.

Perhaps I've always existed?

The Fool: maybe you have but you have no memory of it? Maybe you will be back again? But the sain answer is I DON"T KNOW. All you could be certain of is That you recognize that you are here Now.

This is one of the most absurd statements I've ever seen.

The Fool: really, more then a virgin Birth?? More then' And God said let there be light and there was light?? More then Noah;s ark. and the list goes on.. and on..

I can't believe a rational person would imply that because the material that makes me always existed,

The Fool: At what part did he say that? (Rational is incoherence with logic/logicians) or theolgin rational.

I always existed. I believe this should be offered as a textbook example of the fallacy of composition. Seriously.

The Fool: Now what version of the Cosmological Argument do you think he is refering. The COSMOLOCAL argument. or the METAPHYSICAL cosmologic argument?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 2:56:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 11:37:13 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 6/15/2012 3:51:07 PM, Microsuck wrote:
KCA debunked!

1:30

Totally false. http://now.tufts.edu...

Then there's the Big Bang, and the problem of infinite regress. Clearly this guy is ignorant to the available evidence.

2:08 "There is simply nothing known in nature that has begun to exist"

Okay, this guy has got to be trolling. Perhaps I've always existed? Why then can I not remember dinosaurs? This is one of the most absurd statements I've ever seen. I can't believe a rational person would imply that because the material that makes me always existed, I always existed. I believe this should be offered as a textbook example of the fallacy of composition. Seriously.

*Sigh*

"Okay, this guy has got to be trolling. Perhaps I've always existed? Why then can I not remember dinosaurs?"

All you are doing is copying William Lanes Craigs horrible rebuttal. "I" and "dinosaurs" are labels we give to particular rearrangements of matter which always existed in some form or another.

You are Dr. Craig are making a huge philosophical error....
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 3:00:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 11:37:13 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 6/15/2012 3:51:07 PM, Microsuck wrote:
KCA debunked!

1:30

Totally false. http://now.tufts.edu...

Then there's the Big Bang, and the problem of infinite regress. Clearly this guy is ignorant to the available evidence.

2:08 "There is simply nothing known in nature that has begun to exist"

Okay, this guy has got to be trolling. Perhaps I've always existed? Why then can I not remember dinosaurs? This is one of the most absurd statements I've ever seen. I can't believe a rational person would imply that because the material that makes me always existed, I always existed. I believe this should be offered as a textbook example of the fallacy of composition. Seriously.

*Sigh*

According to your logic, If you have a square piece of paper at T1 and folded the top of it at T2, this would mean that a rectangular piece of paper "began to exist" at T2. This is absurd. All you did was rearrange matter, nothing new was added to the universe that didn't already exist in some form or another so the term began to exist doesn't seem right. This is all that happens when a chair "begins to exist" as well, it's just the manipulation of pre-existing wood like folding the top of a piece of paper if just rearranging pre-existing paper.

According to your logic, if you are in position 1 and take a step forward, a human in position 2 "began to exist".

It's outrageous to think that anything "begins to exist", everything in the universe is recycled.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 3:07:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 11:37:13 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 6/15/2012 3:51:07 PM, Microsuck wrote:
KCA debunked!

1:30

Totally false. http://now.tufts.edu...

Then there's the Big Bang, and the problem of infinite regress. Clearly this guy is ignorant to the available evidence.

2:08 "There is simply nothing known in nature that has begun to exist"

Okay, this guy has got to be trolling. Perhaps I've always existed? Why then can I not remember dinosaurs? This is one of the most absurd statements I've ever seen. I can't believe a rational person would imply that because the material that makes me always existed, I always existed. I believe this should be offered as a textbook example of the fallacy of composition. Seriously.

*Sigh*

Here is the video which addresses Dr. Craig's face-palm worthy "Did I always begin to exist, did the galaxies always exist, did the dinosaurs always exist?" comment. Dr. Craig also makes a face-palm worthy comment about galaxies not existing 10 billion years ago in this video as well lol
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 2:05:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 3:00:01 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/15/2012 11:37:13 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 6/15/2012 3:51:07 PM, Microsuck wrote:
KCA debunked!

1:30

Totally false. http://now.tufts.edu...

Then there's the Big Bang, and the problem of infinite regress. Clearly this guy is ignorant to the available evidence.

2:08 "There is simply nothing known in nature that has begun to exist"

Okay, this guy has got to be trolling. Perhaps I've always existed? Why then can I not remember dinosaurs? This is one of the most absurd statements I've ever seen. I can't believe a rational person would imply that because the material that makes me always existed, I always existed. I believe this should be offered as a textbook example of the fallacy of composition. Seriously.

*Sigh*

According to your logic, If you have a square piece of paper at T1 and folded the top of it at T2, this would mean that a rectangular piece of paper "began to exist" at T2. This is absurd. All you did was rearrange matter, nothing new was added to the universe that didn't already exist in some form or another so the term began to exist doesn't seem right. This is all that happens when a chair "begins to exist" as well, it's just the manipulation of pre-existing wood like folding the top of a piece of paper if just rearranging pre-existing paper.

Did the rectangle piece of paper exist before? No?

According to your logic, if you are in position 1 and take a step forward, a human in position 2 "began to exist".

Being in a specific position contrary to another has no bearing on your existence.

It's outrageous to think that anything "begins to exist", everything in the universe is recycled.

>.< I don't even...
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 2:07:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 2:56:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/15/2012 11:37:13 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 6/15/2012 3:51:07 PM, Microsuck wrote:
KCA debunked!

1:30

Totally false. http://now.tufts.edu...

Then there's the Big Bang, and the problem of infinite regress. Clearly this guy is ignorant to the available evidence.

2:08 "There is simply nothing known in nature that has begun to exist"

Okay, this guy has got to be trolling. Perhaps I've always existed? Why then can I not remember dinosaurs? This is one of the most absurd statements I've ever seen. I can't believe a rational person would imply that because the material that makes me always existed, I always existed. I believe this should be offered as a textbook example of the fallacy of composition. Seriously.

*Sigh*

"Okay, this guy has got to be trolling. Perhaps I've always existed? Why then can I not remember dinosaurs?"

All you are doing is copying William Lanes Craigs horrible rebuttal. "I" and "dinosaurs" are labels we give to particular rearrangements of matter which always existed in some form or another.

You are Dr. Craig are making a huge philosophical error....

Are you kidding me? Let's debate "Nothing begins to exist".
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 5:07:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 2:05:00 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 6/16/2012 3:00:01 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/15/2012 11:37:13 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 6/15/2012 3:51:07 PM, Microsuck wrote:
KCA debunked!

1:30

Totally false. http://now.tufts.edu...

Then there's the Big Bang, and the problem of infinite regress. Clearly this guy is ignorant to the available evidence.

2:08 "There is simply nothing known in nature that has begun to exist"

Okay, this guy has got to be trolling. Perhaps I've always existed? Why then can I not remember dinosaurs? This is one of the most absurd statements I've ever seen. I can't believe a rational person would imply that because the material that makes me always existed, I always existed. I believe this should be offered as a textbook example of the fallacy of composition. Seriously.

*Sigh*

According to your logic, If you have a square piece of paper at T1 and folded the top of it at T2, this would mean that a rectangular piece of paper "began to exist" at T2. This is absurd. All you did was rearrange matter, nothing new was added to the universe that didn't already exist in some form or another so the term began to exist doesn't seem right. This is all that happens when a chair "begins to exist" as well, it's just the manipulation of pre-existing wood like folding the top of a piece of paper if just rearranging pre-existing paper.

Did the rectangle piece of paper exist before? No?

*facepalm*

A "rectangular piece of paper" is a label we give to a particular rearrangement of matter. A rearrangement is not a "thing" and the matter existed before, so the only thing that began was a new rearrangement, but no "thing" actually began to exist.

According to your logic, if you are in position 1 and take a step forward, a human in position 2 "began to exist".

Being in a specific position contrary to another has no bearing on your existence.

The position of wood can determine whether a chair begins to exist or not according to your logic, so don't kid yourself.


It's outrageous to think that anything "begins to exist", everything in the universe is recycled.

>.< I don't even...

Brilliant argument, you deserve a Gold Star.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 5:26:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 2:07:41 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 6/16/2012 2:56:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/15/2012 11:37:13 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 6/15/2012 3:51:07 PM, Microsuck wrote:
KCA debunked!

1:30

Totally false. http://now.tufts.edu...

Then there's the Big Bang, and the problem of infinite regress. Clearly this guy is ignorant to the available evidence.

2:08 "There is simply nothing known in nature that has begun to exist"

Okay, this guy has got to be trolling. Perhaps I've always existed? Why then can I not remember dinosaurs? This is one of the most absurd statements I've ever seen. I can't believe a rational person would imply that because the material that makes me always existed, I always existed. I believe this should be offered as a textbook example of the fallacy of composition. Seriously.

*Sigh*

"Okay, this guy has got to be trolling. Perhaps I've always existed? Why then can I not remember dinosaurs?"

All you are doing is copying William Lanes Craigs horrible rebuttal. "I" and "dinosaurs" are labels we give to particular rearrangements of matter which always existed in some form or another.

You are Dr. Craig are making a huge philosophical error....

Are you kidding me? Let's debate "Nothing begins to exist".

Well, maybe the universe did. I'm just saying, that using the term "begin to exist" to describe rearrangements and form changes inside the universe is outrageous and absurd.

Change the resolution slightly, and we can debate this if you would like.

Also, I would love to know at exactly what point do you believe the Earth "began to exist"? When the first two rocks clumped together in space? When it started to look like a sphere? At exactly what particular time do you believe it "began to exist" and we could give it the label "Earth"? This is why your logic is hilarious, at what time does a chair "begin to exist?"? When the first leg goes up? The second leg? When the arm rests go up?

The idea of "x begins to exist at t" doesn't make much sense in a lot of situations, because it would be completely subjective exactly what point an object actually "began to exist". Nothing begins to exist in the universe that didn't already exist in some form or another. However, if it already existed in some form or another, it didn't really begin to exist, it just got rearranged and changed it's form.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 5:44:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If theists believe that you can move wood around can cause a "chair" to begin to exist, then using the same logic, if I take a step forward that caused a "Gorg" (a human in another position) to begin to exist. If I can fold the top of a piece of paper, and cause a new one to begin to exist (a rectangular one) like SuburbiaSurvivor believes, then using the same logic, I can dive off a cliff into water and cause a new human to begin to exist because the positioning was different than before lol
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 5:51:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Basically, if I have a square piece of paper and fold the top of it, a rectangular piece of paper began to exist according to SuburbiaSurvivor. If this is true, then if I take a step, a human in position 2 began to exist. This means, there are are two humans (human in position 1, and human in position 2) according to this logic just like there would be two pieces of paper (a square paper, and rectangular piece of paper)...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 5:54:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm just trying to illustrate that rearranging and changing the form of things does not magically cause something new to begin to exist...That is all..
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 11:54:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 5:44:07 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If theists believe that you can move wood around can cause a "chair" to begin to exist, then using the same logic, if I take a step forward that caused a "Gorg" (a human in another position) to begin to exist. If I can fold the top of a piece of paper, and cause a new one to begin to exist (a rectangular one) like SuburbiaSurvivor believes, then using the same logic, I can dive off a cliff into water and cause a new human to begin to exist because the positioning was different than before lol

I believe WLC said that he was using Aristotle's term "efficient cause" and efficient cause is what causes an effect into being, what produces an effect. The material cause is the stuff in which the effect is made. The chair did "come into being" (which is what WLC says is the exact same terminology as "begins to exist" ) from the material cause of wood, but the efficient cause was the person who made it (or the machine who made it. It doesn't matter.) The argument that the universe, since it began to exist, had an efficient cause.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 12:01:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 11:54:39 AM, stubs wrote:
At 6/17/2012 5:44:07 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If theists believe that you can move wood around can cause a "chair" to begin to exist, then using the same logic, if I take a step forward that caused a "Gorg" (a human in another position) to begin to exist. If I can fold the top of a piece of paper, and cause a new one to begin to exist (a rectangular one) like SuburbiaSurvivor believes, then using the same logic, I can dive off a cliff into water and cause a new human to begin to exist because the positioning was different than before lol

I believe WLC said that he was using Aristotle's term "efficient cause" and efficient cause is what causes an effect into being, what produces an effect. The material cause is the stuff in which the effect is made. The chair did "come into being" (which is what WLC says is the exact same terminology as "begins to exist" ) from the material cause of wood, but the efficient cause was the person who made it (or the machine who made it. It doesn't matter.) The argument that the universe, since it began to exist, had an efficient cause.

This has nothing to do with my comments...I'm talking about the "begins to exist" terminology, not causation.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 12:25:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 12:01:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

This has nothing to do with my comments...I'm talking about the "begins to exist" terminology, not causation.

Okay, my apologies.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 1:17:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's outrageous to think that anything "begins to exist", everything in the universe is recycled.

Many scientists believe the universe had a beginning not to mention many atheists. Why do you think its outrageous?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)