Total Posts:289|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A logical argument for God

medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 11:02:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I just found this argument, by Charlie Campbell, and it seems pretty good even though I know the challenges that it will get.

1. Something exists.
2. Nothing does not produce something.
3. Something must have always existed.

Now, there are only two options as to what that "something (No.3) [that] always existed" might be:

A. The universe, or

B. Something outside the universe

The fourth premise in my argument is this:

4. The universe has not always existed.
5. There must be an external power beyond the universe that caused the universe to come into existence.
6. Intelligent life exists in the universe.
7. It takes an intelligent living being to create an intelligent living being.
8. Therefore there must be an intelligent, living, eternal power, beyond the universe, that created the universe.

Here he fully explains the argument. Can you successfully refute it??
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 11:20:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Prove 2,3,4,5, and 7.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 11:45:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 11:02:21 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I just found this argument, by Charlie Campbell, and it seems pretty good even though I know the challenges that it will get.

1. Something exists.
2. Nothing does not produce something.
3. Something must have always existed.

Now, there are only two options as to what that "something (No.3) [that] always existed" might be:

A. The universe, or

B. Something outside the universe

The fourth premise in my argument is this:

4. The universe has not always existed.
5. There must be an external power beyond the universe that caused the universe to come into existence.
6. Intelligent life exists in the universe.
7. It takes an intelligent living being to create an intelligent living being.
8. Therefore there must be an intelligent, living, eternal power, beyond the universe, that created the universe.

Here he fully explains the argument. Can you successfully refute it??

I forgot to put up the link for his explanation...

http://www.alwaysbeready.com...
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 11:59:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1: Our perceptions could be completely wrong and nothing may exist.
2: Same as above
3: ^^^
4: Eternal Recurrence.
5: This supports Pantheism as well. I wouldn't call Pantheism much different than Atheism.
6: Define intelligence.
7: Abiogenesis is working on that.
8: Nope
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 12:05:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 11:59:30 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
1: Our perceptions could be completely wrong and nothing may exist.
2: Same as above
3: ^^^
4: Eternal Recurrence.
5: This supports Pantheism as well. I wouldn't call Pantheism much different than Atheism.
6: Define intelligence.
7: Abiogenesis is working on that.
8: Nope

"Nothing may exist."
Nothing can't exist. If it did exist it would be something
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 12:27:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 12:05:37 AM, stubs wrote:
At 10/6/2012 11:59:30 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
1: Our perceptions could be completely wrong and nothing may exist.
2: Same as above
3: ^^^
4: Eternal Recurrence.
5: This supports Pantheism as well. I wouldn't call Pantheism much different than Atheism.
6: Define intelligence.
7: Abiogenesis is working on that.
8: Nope

"Nothing may exist."
Nothing can't exist. If it did exist it would be something

If you restrain it within our laws of the universe.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 12:30:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
5 is totally ridiculously non sequitur.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 12:31:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
And 7 is downright retarded to anyone who knows first grade biology.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Double_Helix46
Posts: 466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 12:35:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
1. Something exists.:
I know I do.
2. Nothing does not produce something.:
I haven't seen nothing just become.
3. Something must have always existed.:
Something can not come from nothing, so yes.

4. The universe has not always existed.:
IDK, about this one. Need to prove it.
5. There must be an external power beyond the universe that caused the universe to come into existence.:
Gotta show NO. 4 is true.
6. Intelligent life exists in the universe.:
Yes, it does. There are also unintelligent life ;)
7. It takes an intelligent living being to create an intelligent living being.:
I agree.
8. Therefore there must be an intelligent, living, eternal power, beyond the universe, that created the universe.:
Need to show NO.4 to make it complete.
Double_Helix46
Posts: 466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 12:36:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 12:31:33 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
And 7 is downright retarded to anyone who knows first grade biology.

Please, my good fellow, elaborate.
Double_Helix46
Posts: 466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 12:39:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 11:59:30 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
1: Our perceptions could be completely wrong and nothing may exist.:
Wow, you do not exist. Interesting, please prove you do not. Stop posting.
2: Same as above:
3: ^^^
4: Eternal Recurrence.
5: This supports Pantheism as well. I wouldn't call Pantheism much different than Atheism.
6: Define intelligence.
Capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental
activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings.
7: Abiogenesis is working on that.:
How can you recreate something you do not know how it created itself?
8: Nope:
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 12:53:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 12:39:38 AM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
At 10/6/2012 11:59:30 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
1: Our perceptions could be completely wrong and nothing may exist.:
Wow, you do not exist. Interesting, please prove you do not. Stop posting.
You agree that I could not exist, right?
2: Same as above:
3: ^^^
4: Eternal Recurrence.
5: This supports Pantheism as well. I wouldn't call Pantheism much different than Atheism.
6: Define intelligence.
Capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental
activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings.
So sentience. By that measure snails are not intelligent, so they don't need to have an intelligent creator. Add Evolution to the mix and BAM! intelligent life.
7: Abiogenesis is working on that.:
How can you recreate something you do not know how it created itself?
By learning how it created itself...
8: Nope:
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Double_Helix46
Posts: 466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 1:01:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 12:53:35 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/7/2012 12:39:38 AM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
At 10/6/2012 11:59:30 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
1: Our perceptions could be completely wrong and nothing may exist.:
Wow, you do not exist. Interesting, please prove you do not. Stop posting.
You agree that I could not exist, right?:
I would have until you replied.
2: Same as above:
3: ^^^
4: Eternal Recurrence.
5: This supports Pantheism as well. I wouldn't call Pantheism much different than Atheism.
6: Define intelligence.
Capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental
activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings.
So sentience. By that measure snails are not intelligent, so they don't need to have an intelligent creator. Add Evolution to the mix and BAM! intelligent life.:
Do snails not learn? Do snails not learn not to remain in the sun? Do any living thing learn what is harmful and they to eat to live? This is learning. You gotta show any living thing can not learn. You haven't. Even bacteria learns to become immune. Plants also learn, http://www.pnas.org...
7: Abiogenesis is working on that.:
How can you recreate something you do not know how it created itself?
By learning how it created itself...:
Good luck on accomplishing that. It is yet to happen.
8: Nope:
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 1:23:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Laws of science prevent one from stating that energy and matter can be created or destroyed as is required for the big bang to be possible. BoP on the athiest to show why laws of science are wrong. Not why they could be wrong, which hasn't been done either. If the atheist uses reasoning like this to prove matter came out of nowhere, then he/she must accept that a priori reasoning is proof of Gods existence.
Atheist reasoning:
Nothing cannot exist, therefore there must be something.

Apriori Ontological argument: Gcb = greater/greatest conceivable being
Suppose that the greatest conceivable being (GCB) exists in the mind alone and not in reality(gcb1).
Then the greatest conceivable being would not be the greatest conceivable being because one could think of a being like (gcb1) but think of the gcb as existing in reality (gcb2) and not just in the mind.
So, gcb1 would not be the GCB but gcb2 would be.
gcb2 is God.

So if atheist can use their reasoning to explain the universe without science, then Christians can use the Apriori Ontological argument using logic alone.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 1:30:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 11:59:30 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
1: Our perceptions could be completely wrong and nothing may exist.

But, bossyburrito, it doesn't follow that because our perceptions could be wrong that it's therefore possible for nothing to exist. After all, even if perceptions are wrong, the perceptions themselves must exist as well as whoever is doing the perceiving.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 1:36:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 12:53:35 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/7/2012 12:39:38 AM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
At 10/6/2012 11:59:30 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
1: Our perceptions could be completely wrong and nothing may exist.:
Wow, you do not exist. Interesting, please prove you do not. Stop posting.
You agree that I could not exist, right?

Wrong, you're too much of a yackerbox for anyone to buy that. :)

2: Same as above:
3: ^^^
4: Eternal Recurrence.
5: This supports Pantheism as well. I wouldn't call Pantheism much different than Atheism.
6: Define intelligence.
Capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental
activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings.
So sentience. By that measure snails are not intelligent, so they don't need to have an intelligent creator. Add Evolution to the mix and BAM! intelligent life.
7: Abiogenesis is working on that.:
How can you recreate something you do not know how it created itself?
By learning how it created itself...

How it created itself??...lol

8: Nope:
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 3:54:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 11:02:21 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I just found this argument, by Charlie Campbell, and it seems pretty good even though I know the challenges that it will get.

1. Something exists.
2. Nothing does not produce something.
3. Something must have always existed.

Now, there are only two options as to what that "something (No.3) [that] always existed" might be:

A. The universe, or

B. Something outside the universe

The fourth premise in my argument is this:

4. The universe has not always existed.
5. There must be an external power beyond the universe that caused the universe to come into existence.
6. Intelligent life exists in the universe.
7. It takes an intelligent living being to create an intelligent living being.
8. Therefore there must be an intelligent, living, eternal power, beyond the universe, that created the universe.

Here he fully explains the argument. Can you successfully refute it??

What a horrible argument. Something has always existed, it's called the universe. Thus #4 of your argument is false. Now, "always" is simply defined as "At all times". We know that as long as time has existed, the universe has. Therefore, the universe has always existed, regardless if it is finite in the past. Also, #7 is not supported. We know that it takes a biological living intelligent being to create another biological living human being, but we don't know anything with regards to beings which aren't biological. If God exists, he is not biological. This means, that your key premise (#7) doesn't actually lead to the conclusion of God's existence.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 4:01:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 1:23:16 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Laws of science prevent one from stating that energy and matter can be created or destroyed as is required for the big bang to be possible. BoP on the athiest to show why laws of science are wrong. Not why they could be wrong, which hasn't been done either. If the atheist uses reasoning like this to prove matter came out of nowhere, then he/she must accept that a priori reasoning is proof of Gods existence.

Huh? If Energy and matter cannot be created, that kills the case for theism (not atheism) because theism is based around a creator of energy and matter lol

Atheist reasoning:
Nothing cannot exist, therefore there must be something.

Apriori Ontological argument: Gcb = greater/greatest conceivable being
Suppose that the greatest conceivable being (GCB) exists in the mind alone and not in reality(gcb1).
Then the greatest conceivable being would not be the greatest conceivable being because one could think of a being like (gcb1) but think of the gcb as existing in reality (gcb2) and not just in the mind.
So, gcb1 would not be the GCB but gcb2 would be.
gcb2 is God.

So if atheist can use their reasoning to explain the universe without science, then Christians can use the Apriori Ontological argument using logic alone.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 4:03:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Theists act like at first there was nothing, and then, the big bang happened...No. It's more like, at first the big bang happened. There is no "before" in which this imaginary "nothing" could have produced "something".
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 4:26:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 1:23:16 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Laws of science prevent one from stating that energy and matter can be created or destroyed as is required for the big bang to be possible. BoP on the athiest to show why laws of science are wrong. Not why they could be wrong, which hasn't been done either. If the atheist uses reasoning like this to prove matter came out of nowhere, then he/she must accept that a priori reasoning is proof of Gods existence.
Atheist reasoning:
Nothing cannot exist, therefore there must be something.

Apriori Ontological argument: Gcb = greater/greatest conceivable being
Suppose that the greatest conceivable being (GCB) exists in the mind alone and not in reality(gcb1).
Then the greatest conceivable being would not be the greatest conceivable being because one could think of a being like (gcb1) but think of the gcb as existing in reality (gcb2) and not just in the mind.
So, gcb1 would not be the GCB but gcb2 would be.
gcb2 is God.

So if atheist can use their reasoning to explain the universe without science, then Christians can use the Apriori Ontological argument using logic alone.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2Jmty_NiaXc?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Quantum mechanics, I choose you!

Smithereens sends out: Laws of physics!

Laws of physics hits Quantum mechanics with: First law of thermodynamics!

Quantum mechanics is unaffected.

Quantum mechanics use's: Virtual particles!

Critical hit!

Laws of physic is unable to continue.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 5:33:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 12:31:33 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
And 7 is downright retarded to anyone who knows first grade biology.

Man is an example of number 7. Can you give an example for an intelligent being created by any other means??
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 6:22:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
So let me get this straight: you've never seen Aquinas' Ways before, then?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 8:31:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 12:35:04 AM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
1. Something exists.:
I know I do.
2. Nothing does not produce something.:
I haven't seen nothing just become.
3. Something must have always existed.:
Something can not come from nothing, so yes.

4. The universe has not always existed.:
IDK, about this one. Need to prove it.
5. There must be an external power beyond the universe that caused the universe to come into existence.:
Gotta show NO. 4 is true.
6. Intelligent life exists in the universe.:
Yes, it does. There are also unintelligent life ;)
7. It takes an intelligent living being to create an intelligent living being.:
I agree.
8. Therefore there must be an intelligent, living, eternal power, beyond the universe, that created the universe.:
Need to show NO.4 to make it complete.

Scientists put the age of the universe at about 13.7 billion years old. That means it had a beginning.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 10:27:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 5:33:59 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/7/2012 12:31:33 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
And 7 is downright retarded to anyone who knows first grade biology.

Man is an example of number 7. Can you give an example for an intelligent being created by any other means??

Can you give me an example of intelligence that isn't biological?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 10:31:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 8:31:16 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/7/2012 12:35:04 AM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
1. Something exists.:
I know I do.
2. Nothing does not produce something.:
I haven't seen nothing just become.
3. Something must have always existed.:
Something can not come from nothing, so yes.

4. The universe has not always existed.:
IDK, about this one. Need to prove it.
5. There must be an external power beyond the universe that caused the universe to come into existence.:
Gotta show NO. 4 is true.
6. Intelligent life exists in the universe.:
Yes, it does. There are also unintelligent life ;)
7. It takes an intelligent living being to create an intelligent living being.:
I agree.
8. Therefore there must be an intelligent, living, eternal power, beyond the universe, that created the universe.:
Need to show NO.4 to make it complete.

Scientists put the age of the universe at about 13.7 billion years old. That means it had a beginning.

A finite past doesn't automatically equate to a beginning. Philosophers like Richard Swinburne (theist) and Adolf Grunbaum (atheist) argue that something only begins to exist if there was a time before said thing, in which it didn't exist. Since there is no time before the universe in which it could have not existed, the universe didn't have a true beginning. My cup began to exist, because there was a time before the cup, in which it didn't exist for example. So, while the universe may have a finite past, it may not be accurate to say it began to exist.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 10:36:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 5:33:59 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/7/2012 12:31:33 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
And 7 is downright retarded to anyone who knows first grade biology.

Man is an example of number 7. Can you give an example for an intelligent being created by any other means??

If your argument is "Since there are no examples of something else besides intelligence creating intelligence, then all intelligence is created by intelligence", then I can just say "Since there are no examples of something else besides biological beings that have intelligence, then all intelligence is biological" using the same logic. Your argument is embarrassing because biologists have a very good grasp with regards to how intelligence came about (it evolved due to natural selection). Intelligent beings only reproduce and give birth to other humans after intelligence already originated.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 12:43:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 10:31:23 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
A finite past doesn't automatically equate to a beginning. Philosophers like Richard Swinburne (theist) and Adolf Grunbaum (atheist) argue that something only begins to exist if there was a time before said thing, in which it didn't exist. Since there is no time before the universe in which it could have not existed, the universe didn't have a true beginning. My cup began to exist, because there was a time before the cup, in which it didn't exist for example. So, while the universe may have a finite past, it may not be accurate to say it began to exist.

So do you believe the universe was creation ex nihilo?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 12:45:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 5:33:59 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/7/2012 12:31:33 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
And 7 is downright retarded to anyone who knows first grade biology.

Man is an example of number 7. Can you give an example for an intelligent being created by any other means??

Ev-evo-evol-evolu-evolut-evoluti-evolutio-evolution.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 12:46:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 5:22:20 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/7/2012 12:30:49 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
5 is totally ridiculously non sequitur.

How so??

Because it eliminates the possibility that cause and effect could have been reversed or even eliminated prior to the universe existing, in that the universe could have literally come from nothing.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."