Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God of the Gaps and the Cosmolgical Argument

BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 6:48:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am not here to make a case that God does or does not exist here.

However, I do want to point out one common strawman that atheists create. This strawman is known as the God of the Gaps with regards to the Cosmological Argument.

Atheists often say something like "Theists simply claim that just because we can't explain something means that God is the explanation".

I'm not saying that never happens. However, when it comes to the Cosmological Argument, that is not the argument theists are making.

Instead, we argue that some sort of God is the ONLY possible explanation for existence. This is quite different from simply filling gaps in knowledge.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 6:54:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 6:48:31 PM, BigRat wrote:
I am not here to make a case that God does or does not exist here.

However, I do want to point out one common strawman that atheists create. This strawman is known as the God of the Gaps with regards to the Cosmological Argument.

Atheists often say something like "Theists simply claim that just because we can't explain something means that God is the explanation".

I'm not saying that never happens. However, when it comes to the Cosmological Argument, that is not the argument theists are making.

Instead, we argue that some sort of God is the ONLY possible explanation for existence. This is quite different from simply filling gaps in knowledge.

Agreed. However, some proponents of cosmological arguments will inevitably resort to "God of the gaps" tactics, either unknowingly or otherwise, and I do think the question of what started it all is one for science, not philosophy.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 6:57:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 6:54:47 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 2/22/2013 6:48:31 PM, BigRat wrote:
I am not here to make a case that God does or does not exist here.

However, I do want to point out one common strawman that atheists create. This strawman is known as the God of the Gaps with regards to the Cosmological Argument.

Atheists often say something like "Theists simply claim that just because we can't explain something means that God is the explanation".

I'm not saying that never happens. However, when it comes to the Cosmological Argument, that is not the argument theists are making.

Instead, we argue that some sort of God is the ONLY possible explanation for existence. This is quite different from simply filling gaps in knowledge.

Agreed. However, some proponents of cosmological arguments will inevitably resort to "God of the gaps" tactics, either unknowingly or otherwise, and I do think the question of what started it all is one for science, not philosophy.

Very true. And, the God of the Gaps fallacy does occur. I was just saying that when argued correctly, the Cosmological argument cannot be dismissed as "God of the Gaps".

Also, I would say that what started it all might be an area where philosophy and science interject. But, that is just my view.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 11:55:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 6:48:31 PM, BigRat wrote:
I am not here to make a case that God does or does not exist here.

However, I do want to point out one common strawman that atheists create. This strawman is known as the God of the Gaps with regards to the Cosmological Argument.

Atheists often say something like "Theists simply claim that just because we can't explain something means that God is the explanation".

I'm not saying that never happens. However, when it comes to the Cosmological Argument, that is not the argument theists are making.

Instead, we argue that some sort of God is the ONLY possible explanation for existence. This is quite different from simply filling gaps in knowledge.

Except the cosmological argument only concludes a cause. To move from "there must be a cause" to "God must be that cause", is at the very least a non-sequitur or a God of the Gaps argument without some additional support.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 1:50:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 6:48:31 PM, BigRat wrote:
I am not here to make a case that God does or does not exist here.

However, I do want to point out one common strawman that atheists create. This strawman is known as the God of the Gaps with regards to the Cosmological Argument.

Atheists often say something like "Theists simply claim that just because we can't explain something means that God is the explanation".

I'm not saying that never happens. However, when it comes to the Cosmological Argument, that is not the argument theists are making.

Instead, we argue that some sort of God is the ONLY possible explanation for existence. This is quite different from simply filling gaps in knowledge.

Well saying that a God is the only possible explanation for existence doesn't really have any backing on its own. It is pretty illogical to assume there is no other explanation that could come to light.
Slice_O_Pie
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 8:07:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 6:48:31 PM, BigRat
Instead, we argue that some sort of God is the ONLY possible explanation for existence. This is quite different from simply filling gaps in knowledge.

In what way is it different? And how to you properly deal with Occams Razor in your conclusion?
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 3:02:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 11:55:09 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/22/2013 6:48:31 PM, BigRat wrote:
I am not here to make a case that God does or does not exist here.

However, I do want to point out one common strawman that atheists create. This strawman is known as the God of the Gaps with regards to the Cosmological Argument.

Atheists often say something like "Theists simply claim that just because we can't explain something means that God is the explanation".

I'm not saying that never happens. However, when it comes to the Cosmological Argument, that is not the argument theists are making.

Instead, we argue that some sort of God is the ONLY possible explanation for existence. This is quite different from simply filling gaps in knowledge.

Except the cosmological argument only concludes a cause. To move from "there must be a cause" to "God must be that cause", is at the very least a non-sequitur or a God of the Gaps argument without some additional support.

No. You don't understand the cosmological argument. The argument is that the only possible cause is a God like Entity.

It isn't "we don't know what it is so it must be God". It is "Logically, the existence of a God like entity is the only possible explanation".

The two are VERY different.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 3:04:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 1:50:41 AM, rogue wrote:
At 2/22/2013 6:48:31 PM, BigRat wrote:
I am not here to make a case that God does or does not exist here.

However, I do want to point out one common strawman that atheists create. This strawman is known as the God of the Gaps with regards to the Cosmological Argument.

Atheists often say something like "Theists simply claim that just because we can't explain something means that God is the explanation".

I'm not saying that never happens. However, when it comes to the Cosmological Argument, that is not the argument theists are making.

Instead, we argue that some sort of God is the ONLY possible explanation for existence. This is quite different from simply filling gaps in knowledge.

Well saying that a God is the only possible explanation for existence doesn't really have any backing on its own. It is pretty illogical to assume there is no other explanation that could come to light.

Not really.

We know that the universe began to exist at a finite moment (the Big Bang). The idea is that, at some point, you had to have an intelligent entity that is outside and above both space and time, that is a God.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 3:06:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 8:07:50 AM, Slice_O_Pie wrote:
At 2/22/2013 6:48:31 PM, BigRat
Instead, we argue that some sort of God is the ONLY possible explanation for existence. This is quite different from simply filling gaps in knowledge.

In what way is it different? And how to you properly deal with Occams Razor in your conclusion?

Are you serious?

It is obviously different. God of the gaps would be "we don't know the answer so it must be God". This is "the only possible answer is God".

You may disagree with that strongly but no person can argue that this is God of the gaps.

And, I don't see how Occam's razor contradicts the cosmological argument in any way.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 3:17:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 8:07:50 AM, Slice_O_Pie wrote:
At 2/22/2013 6:48:31 PM, BigRat
Instead, we argue that some sort of God is the ONLY possible explanation for existence. This is quite different from simply filling gaps in knowledge.

In what way is it different? And how to you properly deal with Occams Razor in your conclusion?

Occam's Razor has no place in any discussion where you have to call upon your own supernatural entity, to explain something.
Slice_O_Pie
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 3:29:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 3:06:55 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/23/2013 8:07:50 AM, Slice_O_Pie wrote:
At 2/22/2013 6:48:31 PM, BigRat
Instead, we argue that some sort of God is the ONLY possible explanation for existence. This is quite different from simply filling gaps in knowledge.

Ok. Please do. Argue it.

In what way is it different? And how to you properly deal with Occams Razor in your conclusion?


Are you serious?

Completely.


It is obviously different. God of the gaps would be "we don't know the answer so it must be God". This is "the only possible answer is God".

You may disagree with that strongly but no person can argue that this is God of the gaps.

And, I don't see how Occam's razor contradicts the cosmological argument in any way.

Before I answer this, please define the cosmological argument as you see it.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 3:29:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 3:02:08 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/22/2013 11:55:09 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/22/2013 6:48:31 PM, BigRat wrote:
I am not here to make a case that God does or does not exist here.

However, I do want to point out one common strawman that atheists create. This strawman is known as the God of the Gaps with regards to the Cosmological Argument.

Atheists often say something like "Theists simply claim that just because we can't explain something means that God is the explanation".

I'm not saying that never happens. However, when it comes to the Cosmological Argument, that is not the argument theists are making.

Instead, we argue that some sort of God is the ONLY possible explanation for existence. This is quite different from simply filling gaps in knowledge.

Except the cosmological argument only concludes a cause. To move from "there must be a cause" to "God must be that cause", is at the very least a non-sequitur or a God of the Gaps argument without some additional support.

No. You don't understand the cosmological argument. The argument is that the only possible cause is a God like Entity.

It isn't "we don't know what it is so it must be God". It is "Logically, the existence of a God like entity is the only possible explanation".

The two are VERY different.

Nothing within the cosmological argument compels us to conclude that God is the only possible cause. I'm not the only person in history to point this out.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 3:51:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 3:04:50 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/23/2013 1:50:41 AM, rogue wrote:
At 2/22/2013 6:48:31 PM, BigRat wrote:
I am not here to make a case that God does or does not exist here.

However, I do want to point out one common strawman that atheists create. This strawman is known as the God of the Gaps with regards to the Cosmological Argument.

Atheists often say something like "Theists simply claim that just because we can't explain something means that God is the explanation".

I'm not saying that never happens. However, when it comes to the Cosmological Argument, that is not the argument theists are making.

Instead, we argue that some sort of God is the ONLY possible explanation for existence. This is quite different from simply filling gaps in knowledge.

Well saying that a God is the only possible explanation for existence doesn't really have any backing on its own. It is pretty illogical to assume there is no other explanation that could come to light.


Not really.

We know that the universe began to exist at a finite moment (the Big Bang). The idea is that, at some point, you had to have an intelligent entity that is outside and above both space and time, that is a God.

Nuh uh, I think it's a ham sandwich. Please provide reasoning why it has to be a god, and not a ham sandwich that's only purpose is creating universes from its never ending supply of supernatural mayonnaise.
"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.
Slice_O_Pie
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 4:05:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Nevermind, I have to leave soon, so I shall make my counter argument now.

Your assertion is incorrect. Let me explain.
The Cosmological Argument is as follows:

1.Everything that exists must have a cause.
2. If you follow the chain of events backwards through time, it cannot go back infinitely, so eventually you arrive at the first cause.
3. This cause must, itself, be uncaused.
4. But nothing can exist without a cause, except for God.
5. Therefore, God exists

First off, there are several errors in the reasoning. Infinite regress for one. If you make the argument that there is a first cause, then you must also assume that there was a creator for God, and a creator for that entity, and so forth ad infinitum.
Secondly, You create a contradiction when you state that "but nothing can exist without a cause...", whereas you are again led to the first problem.
In #4, we are to presume that God has a special exception to the rule. This is special pleading. Unless you can give sufficient reason as to why God gets a special exception here, #4 is automatically ruled out as nonsense. In fact, it should ruled out regardless.

From there on, the entire argument falls apart. It has no merit.

Now, as to Occams Razor, I'll let a better man than me explain it...
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 4:09:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The cosmological argument only states this (http://en.wikipedia.org...):

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

There is nothing within the argument itself that would limit that 'cause' only to God.
Slice_O_Pie
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 4:11:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
But your argument against God of the Gaps is perhaps correct. God of the gaps perhaps isnt the proper counter argument. I would prefer to categorize the entire argument as simply argument from ignorance, amongst others.
To assume that "God is the ONLY possible explanation for existence", you must first rule out any possibilities for a conclusion that nature did it without the help of a God. And then you need to explain your evidence for that. Only then can you make such an assertion.

Regardless, the Cosmological argument isn't the way to do it. That has been easily debunked as nonsense.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 4:13:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 4:05:15 PM, Slice_O_Pie wrote:
Nevermind, I have to leave soon, so I shall make my counter argument now.

Your assertion is incorrect. Let me explain.
The Cosmological Argument is as follows:

1.Everything that exists must have a cause.
2. If you follow the chain of events backwards through time, it cannot go back infinitely, so eventually you arrive at the first cause.
3. This cause must, itself, be uncaused.
4. But nothing can exist without a cause, except for God.

Unproven assertion.

5. Therefore, God exists

First off, there are several errors in the reasoning. Infinite regress for one. If you make the argument that there is a first cause, then you must also assume that there was a creator for God, and a creator for that entity, and so forth ad infinitum.
Secondly, You create a contradiction when you state that "but nothing can exist without a cause...", whereas you are again led to the first problem.
In #4, we are to presume that God has a special exception to the rule. This is special pleading. Unless you can give sufficient reason as to why God gets a special exception here, #4 is automatically ruled out as nonsense. In fact, it should ruled out regardless.

From there on, the entire argument falls apart. It has no merit.

Now, as to Occams Razor, I'll let a better man than me explain it...

"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.
Slice_O_Pie
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 4:15:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 4:09:13 PM, Polaris wrote:
The cosmological argument only states this (http://en.wikipedia.org...):

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

There is nothing within the argument itself that would limit that 'cause' only to God.

I presented the version that many Christians argue, just for the sake of argument. Regardless, it can easily be shown that it is a faulty argument for a God. Yours is simpler to argue against.
It is a first cause argument, therefore it suffers from the same infinite regress. And correct, there is no assumption that it must have been created by an intelligent creator.
Slice_O_Pie
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 4:18:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 4:13:49 PM, muzebreak wrote:

Unproven assertion.

Correct. That was my point. The entire cosmological argument as the OP uses it is an unproven assertion.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 4:22:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 3:29:38 PM, Slice_O_Pie wrote:
At 2/23/2013 3:06:55 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/23/2013 8:07:50 AM, Slice_O_Pie wrote:
At 2/22/2013 6:48:31 PM, BigRat
Instead, we argue that some sort of God is the ONLY possible explanation for existence. This is quite different from simply filling gaps in knowledge.

Ok. Please do. Argue it.

In what way is it different? And how to you properly deal with Occams Razor in your conclusion?


Are you serious?

Completely.


It is obviously different. God of the gaps would be "we don't know the answer so it must be God". This is "the only possible answer is God".

You may disagree with that strongly but no person can argue that this is God of the gaps.

And, I don't see how Occam's razor contradicts the cosmological argument in any way.

Before I answer this, please define the cosmological argument as you see it.

Here is how I see the argument:

1.) Everything that exists began.

2.) The universe began.

3.) Everything that begins has a cause.

4.) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

5.) Whatever began the universe (or began what began the universe and so on) had at some point a first cause.

6.) This first cause, by definition, had to have had qualities that could only be described as God like in that it is outside of both space and time and intelligent.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 4:24:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 3:51:07 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/23/2013 3:04:50 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/23/2013 1:50:41 AM, rogue wrote:
At 2/22/2013 6:48:31 PM, BigRat wrote:
I am not here to make a case that God does or does not exist here.

However, I do want to point out one common strawman that atheists create. This strawman is known as the God of the Gaps with regards to the Cosmological Argument.

Atheists often say something like "Theists simply claim that just because we can't explain something means that God is the explanation".

I'm not saying that never happens. However, when it comes to the Cosmological Argument, that is not the argument theists are making.

Instead, we argue that some sort of God is the ONLY possible explanation for existence. This is quite different from simply filling gaps in knowledge.

Well saying that a God is the only possible explanation for existence doesn't really have any backing on its own. It is pretty illogical to assume there is no other explanation that could come to light.


Not really.

We know that the universe began to exist at a finite moment (the Big Bang). The idea is that, at some point, you had to have an intelligent entity that is outside and above both space and time, that is a God.

Nuh uh, I think it's a ham sandwich. Please provide reasoning why it has to be a god, and not a ham sandwich that's only purpose is creating universes from its never ending supply of supernatural mayonnaise.

Well, if that ham sandwich exists outside of time and space and served as the first cause, then it has God like qualities and is God.

Please, I've heard atheists pull this kind of thing before trying to be cute and clever. But, it is neither and only makes the person making the silly ham sandwich (or flying spaghetti monster) argument look stupid.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 4:25:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 4:09:13 PM, Polaris wrote:
The cosmological argument only states this (http://en.wikipedia.org...):

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

There is nothing within the argument itself that would limit that 'cause' only to God.

Nothing in those three points even mentions God.

If you look at the full cosmological argument, you need to look at the "first cause".

It is this first cause argument that begins to make the case for why this cause had to be God.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 4:27:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 4:11:07 PM, Slice_O_Pie wrote:
But your argument against God of the Gaps is perhaps correct. God of the gaps perhaps isnt the proper counter argument. I would prefer to categorize the entire argument as simply argument from ignorance, amongst others.
To assume that "God is the ONLY possible explanation for existence", you must first rule out any possibilities for a conclusion that nature did it without the help of a God. And then you need to explain your evidence for that. Only then can you make such an assertion.

Regardless, the Cosmological argument isn't the way to do it. That has been easily debunked as nonsense.

Saying something has been debunked when it has not doesn't help anyone here.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 4:30:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 4:05:15 PM, Slice_O_Pie wrote:
Nevermind, I have to leave soon, so I shall make my counter argument now.

Your assertion is incorrect. Let me explain.
The Cosmological Argument is as follows:

1.Everything that exists must have a cause.
2. If you follow the chain of events backwards through time, it cannot go back infinitely, so eventually you arrive at the first cause.
3. This cause must, itself, be uncaused.
4. But nothing can exist without a cause, except for God.
5. Therefore, God exists

First off, there are several errors in the reasoning. Infinite regress for one. If you make the argument that there is a first cause, then you must also assume that there was a creator for God, and a creator for that entity, and so forth ad infinitum.
Secondly, You create a contradiction when you state that "but nothing can exist without a cause...", whereas you are again led to the first problem.
In #4, we are to presume that God has a special exception to the rule. This is special pleading. Unless you can give sufficient reason as to why God gets a special exception here, #4 is automatically ruled out as nonsense. In fact, it should ruled out regardless.

From there on, the entire argument falls apart. It has no merit.

Now, as to Occams Razor, I'll let a better man than me explain it...



No, quite simple.

Um, the whole reason the cosmological argument works is that God is the ONLY entity that is uncaused.

Everything in the natural universe has a cause. Everything that exists WITHIN space and time has a cause.

The idea is that, by necessity, there is an uncaused entity outside of space and time... God.

We can argue about the cosmological argument. But, two counter arguments that don't cut it are "What caused God?" or "God of the Gaps fallacy".

Both of these counterarguments are only made if one does not understand the CA.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 4:35:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 4:24:35 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/23/2013 3:51:07 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/23/2013 3:04:50 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/23/2013 1:50:41 AM, rogue wrote:
At 2/22/2013 6:48:31 PM, BigRat wrote:
I am not here to make a case that God does or does not exist here.

However, I do want to point out one common strawman that atheists create. This strawman is known as the God of the Gaps with regards to the Cosmological Argument.

Atheists often say something like "Theists simply claim that just because we can't explain something means that God is the explanation".

I'm not saying that never happens. However, when it comes to the Cosmological Argument, that is not the argument theists are making.

Instead, we argue that some sort of God is the ONLY possible explanation for existence. This is quite different from simply filling gaps in knowledge.

Well saying that a God is the only possible explanation for existence doesn't really have any backing on its own. It is pretty illogical to assume there is no other explanation that could come to light.


Not really.

We know that the universe began to exist at a finite moment (the Big Bang). The idea is that, at some point, you had to have an intelligent entity that is outside and above both space and time, that is a God.

Nuh uh, I think it's a ham sandwich. Please provide reasoning why it has to be a god, and not a ham sandwich that's only purpose is creating universes from its never ending supply of supernatural mayonnaise.


Well, if that ham sandwich exists outside of time and space and served as the first cause, then it has God like qualities and is God.

So anything with god like qualities is automatically god? And what is a god like quality? Also, what do you mean by space and time? Do you mean this universes space and time, or space and time in general?


Please, I've heard atheists pull this kind of thing before trying to be cute and clever. But, it is neither and only makes the person making the silly ham sandwich (or flying spaghetti monster) argument look stupid.
"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.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 4:40:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 4:35:31 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/23/2013 4:24:35 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/23/2013 3:51:07 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/23/2013 3:04:50 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/23/2013 1:50:41 AM, rogue wrote:
At 2/22/2013 6:48:31 PM, BigRat wrote:
I am not here to make a case that God does or does not exist here.

However, I do want to point out one common strawman that atheists create. This strawman is known as the God of the Gaps with regards to the Cosmological Argument.

Atheists often say something like "Theists simply claim that just because we can't explain something means that God is the explanation".

I'm not saying that never happens. However, when it comes to the Cosmological Argument, that is not the argument theists are making.

Instead, we argue that some sort of God is the ONLY possible explanation for existence. This is quite different from simply filling gaps in knowledge.

Well saying that a God is the only possible explanation for existence doesn't really have any backing on its own. It is pretty illogical to assume there is no other explanation that could come to light.


Not really.

We know that the universe began to exist at a finite moment (the Big Bang). The idea is that, at some point, you had to have an intelligent entity that is outside and above both space and time, that is a God.

Nuh uh, I think it's a ham sandwich. Please provide reasoning why it has to be a god, and not a ham sandwich that's only purpose is creating universes from its never ending supply of supernatural mayonnaise.


Well, if that ham sandwich exists outside of time and space and served as the first cause, then it has God like qualities and is God.

So anything with god like qualities is automatically god? And what is a god like quality? Also, what do you mean by space and time? Do you mean this universes space and time, or space and time in general?

I'm not sure you understand the nature of God.

Atheists oftentimes assume that Theists see God as some bearded man who lives in the sky and creates everything. So, they think that saying something like a ham sandwich or flying spaghetti monster is clever.

But, if you understood Theism, you would know that it is the properties of a certain entity that make it God like or not (not the form it happens to take). The form God takes is irrelevant. He could be a flying spaghetti monster or a ham sandwich. Here is how somebody put it:

"I believe God is an entity that is above and beyond the universe. This means that God is not subject to the laws of the universe. In addition, He created the universe and the physical laws that govern it. He has existed eternally, which is why He had no cause for His existence. Moreover, God is able to make decisions. He is not merely a robot, but instead has the ability to decide to do certain things."
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 4:53:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 4:40:01 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/23/2013 4:35:31 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/23/2013 4:24:35 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/23/2013 3:51:07 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/23/2013 3:04:50 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/23/2013 1:50:41 AM, rogue wrote:
At 2/22/2013 6:48:31 PM, BigRat wrote:
I am not here to make a case that God does or does not exist here.

However, I do want to point out one common strawman that atheists create. This strawman is known as the God of the Gaps with regards to the Cosmological Argument.

Atheists often say something like "Theists simply claim that just because we can't explain something means that God is the explanation".

I'm not saying that never happens. However, when it comes to the Cosmological Argument, that is not the argument theists are making.

Instead, we argue that some sort of God is the ONLY possible explanation for existence. This is quite different from simply filling gaps in knowledge.

Well saying that a God is the only possible explanation for existence doesn't really have any backing on its own. It is pretty illogical to assume there is no other explanation that could come to light.


Not really.

We know that the universe began to exist at a finite moment (the Big Bang). The idea is that, at some point, you had to have an intelligent entity that is outside and above both space and time, that is a God.

Nuh uh, I think it's a ham sandwich. Please provide reasoning why it has to be a god, and not a ham sandwich that's only purpose is creating universes from its never ending supply of supernatural mayonnaise.


Well, if that ham sandwich exists outside of time and space and served as the first cause, then it has God like qualities and is God.

So anything with god like qualities is automatically god? And what is a god like quality? Also, what do you mean by space and time? Do you mean this universes space and time, or space and time in general?


I'm not sure you understand the nature of God.

For me to do so would require that I have a definition of god. I do not, I simply address definitions brought to me.


Atheists oftentimes assume that Theists see God as some bearded man who lives in the sky and creates everything. So, they think that saying something like a ham sandwich or flying spaghetti monster is clever.

Not exactly. I used a ham sandwich because it is funny, not clever, and it is not a god. I have no idea what theists think of god, beyond those that have told me. As to your description of what you believe atheists presume of theists, please refer to MichaelAngelos painting in the systine chapel. It is not exactly without basis. But that doesn't excuse your generalisation.


But, if you understood Theism, you would know that it is the properties of a certain entity that make it God like or not (not the form it happens to take). The form God takes is irrelevant. He could be a flying spaghetti monster or a ham sandwich. Here is how somebody put it:

This is true, and I have never said anything different.


"I believe God is an entity that is above and beyond the universe. This means that God is not subject to the laws of the universe. In addition, He created the universe and the physical laws that govern it. He has existed eternally, which is why He had no cause for His existence. Moreover, God is able to make decisions. He is not merely a robot, but instead has the ability to decide to do certain things."

Have you ever heard of pantheism? It is the belief that god is the earth, the stars, every plant, everything. The universe itself is god. You don't seem to understand that different people think different things of god. Saying "god like qualities" is nonsense, because god has no real set definition. A god can be anything and everything, it just depends on what you believe.
"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.
Slice_O_Pie
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 5:23:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 4:30:38 PM, BigRat wrote
No, quite simple.

Um, the whole reason the cosmological argument works is that God is the ONLY entity that is uncaused.


Special pleading

Everything in the natural universe has a cause. Everything that exists WITHIN space and time has a cause.

But why must this be a God? And if it is, which God?

The idea is that, by necessity, there is an uncaused entity outside of space and time... God.


Actually, time itself is a problem for the argument, in several different ways.

We can argue about the cosmological argument. But, two counter arguments that don't cut it are "What caused God?" or "God of the Gaps fallacy".

Actually, it is very valid. Again, assuming God did not have a creator is special pleading.

Both of these counterarguments are only made if one does not understand the CA.

The entire argument was made during a time when metaphysics was actually considered valid, before the tenets of modern science and physics were discovered.

Correct me if I am wrong, but does not the Big Bang theory state that all of space, time, and all dimensions began at that point? If so, then the argument is invalid. It is just as valid to argue that the Big Bang itself was the first cause as it is to state that God that we cannot prove is the same. The difference is, we can prove the universe exists.
Therefore, Occams Razor concludes that we must choose that which we can already prove. It is illogical to go one step farther and say God must have done it.
Again, argument you use to state that Uses God can just as easily be corrected to nature or the universe instead. Assuming the God had no beginning is begging the question and special pleading.

But then again, trying to figure out what came before the Big Bang is like trying to find out what is north of the North Pole. The argument itself is invalid to all but a theist.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 5:30:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 4:25:48 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/23/2013 4:09:13 PM, Polaris wrote:
The cosmological argument only states this (http://en.wikipedia.org...):

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

There is nothing within the argument itself that would limit that 'cause' only to God.



Nothing in those three points even mentions God.

If you look at the full cosmological argument, you need to look at the "first cause".

It is this first cause argument that begins to make the case for why this cause had to be God.

Follow the link I provided. This is the cosmological argument. It's been argued numerous times by William Lane Craig.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 5:36:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 4:53:11 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/23/2013 4:40:01 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/23/2013 4:35:31 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/23/2013 4:24:35 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/23/2013 3:51:07 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/23/2013 3:04:50 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/23/2013 1:50:41 AM, rogue wrote:
At 2/22/2013 6:48:31 PM, BigRat wrote:
I am not here to make a case that God does or does not exist here.

However, I do want to point out one common strawman that atheists create. This strawman is known as the God of the Gaps with regards to the Cosmological Argument.

Atheists often say something like "Theists simply claim that just because we can't explain something means that God is the explanation".

I'm not saying that never happens. However, when it comes to the Cosmological Argument, that is not the argument theists are making.

Instead, we argue that some sort of God is the ONLY possible explanation for existence. This is quite different from simply filling gaps in knowledge.

Well saying that a God is the only possible explanation for existence doesn't really have any backing on its own. It is pretty illogical to assume there is no other explanation that could come to light.


Not really.

We know that the universe began to exist at a finite moment (the Big Bang). The idea is that, at some point, you had to have an intelligent entity that is outside and above both space and time, that is a God.

Nuh uh, I think it's a ham sandwich. Please provide reasoning why it has to be a god, and not a ham sandwich that's only purpose is creating universes from its never ending supply of supernatural mayonnaise.


Well, if that ham sandwich exists outside of time and space and served as the first cause, then it has God like qualities and is God.

So anything with god like qualities is automatically god? And what is a god like quality? Also, what do you mean by space and time? Do you mean this universes space and time, or space and time in general?


I'm not sure you understand the nature of God.

For me to do so would require that I have a definition of god. I do not, I simply address definitions brought to me.

I give one below.



Atheists oftentimes assume that Theists see God as some bearded man who lives in the sky and creates everything. So, they think that saying something like a ham sandwich or flying spaghetti monster is clever.

Not exactly. I used a ham sandwich because it is funny, not clever, and it is not a god. I have no idea what theists think of god, beyond those that have told me. As to your description of what you believe atheists presume of theists, please refer to MichaelAngelos painting in the systine chapel. It is not exactly without basis. But that doesn't excuse your generalisation.

That is what many people think God is. However, when Atheists argue against the existence of God, they need to realise that form is truly irrelevant.



But, if you understood Theism, you would know that it is the properties of a certain entity that make it God like or not (not the form it happens to take). The form God takes is irrelevant. He could be a flying spaghetti monster or a ham sandwich. Here is how somebody put it:

This is true, and I have never said anything different.

Really.?

I got the sense that you were saying that, since God could take the form of a ham sandwich if we are right, that God does not exist. Maybe I misread your argument.



"I believe God is an entity that is above and beyond the universe. This means that God is not subject to the laws of the universe. In addition, He created the universe and the physical laws that govern it. He has existed eternally, which is why He had no cause for His existence. Moreover, God is able to make decisions. He is not merely a robot, but instead has the ability to decide to do certain things."


Have you ever heard of pantheism? It is the belief that god is the earth, the stars, every plant, everything. The universe itself is god. You don't seem to understand that different people think different things of god. Saying "god like qualities" is nonsense, because god has no real set definition. A god can be anything and everything, it just depends on what you believe.

True.

But, when I say "I believe God exists", I am saying something with the qualities defined above exists. Some people may believe something else about God. But, I think it is fair to say that atheists don't believe in the definition provided.

I am a Christian and Thiest, but I am defending my Theism right now (I'll defend Christianity elsewhere).