Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

argument that destroys belief in god

atheismo
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 1:08:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
here is an argument from the rational wiki, its bulletproof. People use the kalm argument to say the universe needs a cause because it begins, well your God needs a cause if he has something complicated like "sentience".

(P1) Everything that has sentience has a cause.
(P2) The Judeo-Christian God is said to have sentience.
(C) Therefore the Judeo-Christian God has a cause.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan
likespeace
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 1:49:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 1:08:58 PM, atheismo wrote:
here is an argument from the rational wiki, its bulletproof.

Your borrowed argument needs more work to make your point--

1) First, you have not supported either of your premises.
2) Second, this argument ends with "God has a cause" not "God doesn't exist".
3) Third, this doesn't destroy belief in god as per your thread title, as this only applies to the Judeo-Christian God.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 1:58:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 1:08:58 PM, atheismo wrote:
here is an argument from the rational wiki, its bulletproof. People use the kalm argument to say the universe needs a cause because it begins, well your God needs a cause if he has something complicated like "sentience".

(P1) Everything that has sentience has a cause.
(P2) The Judeo-Christian God is said to have sentience.
(C) Therefore the Judeo-Christian God has a cause.

I feel like I'm just throwing a bone in the looney bin, but to properly asses this argument, it would be helpful to know what you mean by "sentience" and on what grounds you are defending/justifying your first premise.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 2:20:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 1:08:58 PM, atheismo wrote:
here is an argument from the rational wiki, its bulletproof. People use the kalm argument to say the universe needs a cause because it begins, well your God needs a cause if he has something complicated like "sentience".

(P1) Everything that has sentience has a cause.
(P2) The Judeo-Christian God is said to have sentience.
(C) Therefore the Judeo-Christian God has a cause.

They will simply deny P1.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Pwner
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 4:14:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hah. This is invalid in a fairly ironic way. See, in order to be valid, premise (2) has to say that the Judeo-Christian God has sentience, not that it's said to have sentience. But, if it has sentience, then it exists. lol
Zaradi
Posts: 14,127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 4:49:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't feel that this is actually an argument to disprove the existence of God per se, but rather an argument to say that God isn't the most powerful thing in existence. I feel that you could expand the argument to disprove an all-powerful god by adding another premise or two. Maybe something like this:

P1: Anything that has sentience has a creator
P2: God is said to have sentience
C1: God has a creator
P3: If God has a creator, god is not the most powerful thing to exist.
P4: An all powerful god must be the most powerful thing to exist.
C2: An all-powerful god cannot exist.

Of course that's still a fairly weak argument since there are zillions of places to attack it.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 5:40:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If I had a bullet proof argument about something, I'd initiate a debate but not tell anybody I had a bullet proof argument until they accepted.
"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
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 5:56:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 1:08:58 PM, atheismo wrote:
here is an argument from the rational wiki, its bulletproof. People use the kalm argument to say the universe needs a cause because it begins, well your God needs a cause if he has something complicated like "sentience".

(P1) Everything that has sentience has a cause.
(P2) The Judeo-Christian God is said to have sentience.
(C) Therefore the Judeo-Christian God has a cause.

It's just a question of what came first, the mind or the matter. And we've no non-circular reason for thinking that matter came first.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 6:00:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 5:56:55 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/9/2013 1:08:58 PM, atheismo wrote:
here is an argument from the rational wiki, its bulletproof. People use the kalm argument to say the universe needs a cause because it begins, well your God needs a cause if he has something complicated like "sentience".

(P1) Everything that has sentience has a cause.
(P2) The Judeo-Christian God is said to have sentience.
(C) Therefore the Judeo-Christian God has a cause.

It's just a question of what came first, the mind or the matter. And we've no non-circular reason for thinking that matter came first.

Why do you assume something came first? Eventually, the infinite-regress has to end at something simply existing. I know it's mind-boggling.
atheismo
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 6:06:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 1:58:12 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 3/9/2013 1:08:58 PM, atheismo wrote:
here is an argument from the rational wiki, its bulletproof. People use the kalm argument to say the universe needs a cause because it begins, well your God needs a cause if he has something complicated like "sentience".

(P1) Everything that has sentience has a cause.
(P2) The Judeo-Christian God is said to have sentience.
(C) Therefore the Judeo-Christian God has a cause.

I feel like I'm just throwing a bone in the looney bin, but to properly asses this argument, it would be helpful to know what you mean by "sentience" and on what grounds you are defending/justifying your first premise.

Sentience is the conscious feeling that we have in our brain. Sentience requires a brain, and that's caused. you need something to give you sentience
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan
atheismo
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 6:07:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 5:40:36 PM, philochristos wrote:
If I had a bullet proof argument about something, I'd initiate a debate but not tell anybody I had a bullet proof argument until they accepted.

i had a debate about this but my opponent (who was a christian) forfeited. I think he forfeited because his time ran out though. but he could have acknowledged that this argument is sound no matter how you try to escape it.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan
atheismo
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 6:08:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 5:56:55 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/9/2013 1:08:58 PM, atheismo wrote:
here is an argument from the rational wiki, its bulletproof. People use the kalm argument to say the universe needs a cause because it begins, well your God needs a cause if he has something complicated like "sentience".

(P1) Everything that has sentience has a cause.
(P2) The Judeo-Christian God is said to have sentience.
(C) Therefore the Judeo-Christian God has a cause.

It's just a question of what came first, the mind or the matter. And we've no non-circular reason for thinking that matter came first.

well uyou need a brain prior to having sentience, and the brain is material so it makes sense that matter is before mind
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 6:47:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 6:06:30 PM, atheismo wrote:
Sentience is the conscious feeling that we have in our brain. Sentience requires a brain, and that's caused. you need something to give you sentience

Oh. Well, isn't it just obvious that you're just begging the question for materialism & the non-existence of non-embodied minds?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 10:04:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 1:08:58 PM, atheismo wrote:
here is an argument from the rational wiki, its bulletproof. People use the kalm argument to say the universe needs a cause because it begins, well your God needs a cause if he has something complicated like "sentience".

(P1) Everything that has sentience has a cause.
(P2) The Judeo-Christian God is said to have sentience.
(C) Therefore the Judeo-Christian God has a cause.

P1 has an much justification as P1 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, not much. Just because every sentient being around us had a cause, that doesn't mean that everything that is sentient must have a cause. Same with the KCA, just because everything we see around us that begins to exist has a cause, that doesn't mean everything that begins to exist has a cause.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 10:53:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
P1 is unsupported unless you can show that the law of causality applies to something that is independent of the natural universe.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 1:59:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 1:08:58 PM, atheismo wrote:
here is an argument from the rational wiki, its bulletproof. People use the kalm argument to say the universe needs a cause because it begins, well your God needs a cause if he has something complicated like "sentience".

(P1) Everything that has sentience has a cause.
(P2) The Judeo-Christian God is said to have sentience.
(C) Therefore the Judeo-Christian God has a cause.

God, by definition, is beyond time. God has always existed. God is, if you will, the only uncaused entity in existence (because God has always existed).

The entire KCA is built around the fundamental assumption that everything in the universe has a cause but that God is beyond the universe and thus not needing a cause.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 2:08:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 10:53:04 AM, medic0506 wrote:
P1 is unsupported unless you can show that the law of causality applies to something that is independent of the natural universe.

Sentience is "independent of the natural universe"? ...

This is similar to the Kalam cosmological argument;

"Classical argument
Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
The universe has a beginning of its existence;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause of its existence."

The universe has a cause, but that isn't necessarily God. That is if the rest of the argument is correct.

Sentience always has a cause? Well if you can show that sentience always has a beginning of existence, then parallel it to Kalam, then you have a counter-argument.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 3:43:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 2:08:25 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 3/10/2013 10:53:04 AM, medic0506 wrote:
P1 is unsupported unless you can show that the law of causality applies to something that is independent of the natural universe.

Sentience is "independent of the natural universe"? ...

No, God is independent of the natural universe. The only claim that can be made about sentience and causation is that everything in the natural world that has sentience, has a cause. That limits any argument to the natural world, thus it can't refute God.

This is similar to the Kalam cosmological argument;

"Classical argument
Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
The universe has a beginning of its existence;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause of its existence."

The universe has a cause, but that isn't necessarily God. That is if the rest of the argument is correct.

Sentience always has a cause? Well if you can show that sentience always has a beginning of existence, then parallel it to Kalam, then you have a counter-argument.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 4:24:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 3:43:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:

No, God is independent of the natural universe. The only claim that can be made about sentience and causation is that everything in the natural world that has sentience, has a cause. That limits any argument to the natural world, thus it can't refute God.

Yeah God can't be touched by observations of the natural world. Shame that's the only thing we can observe, isn't it... ?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 5:26:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 4:24:40 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 3/10/2013 3:43:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:

No, God is independent of the natural universe. The only claim that can be made about sentience and causation is that everything in the natural world that has sentience, has a cause. That limits any argument to the natural world, thus it can't refute God.

Yeah God can't be touched by observations of the natural world. Shame that's the only thing we can observe, isn't it... ?

What is it exactly that you're observing, that relates to this discussion?? If God does exist then everything you see is proof of His existence. If God tapped you on the shoulder and proved to you that He exists, do you think that your observations would be different afterwards, than they are now?? Point being that you don't know what you're observing evidence of, you only know what you want to believe.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 5:28:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 1:08:58 PM, atheismo wrote:
here is an argument from the rational wiki, its bulletproof. People use the kalm argument to say the universe needs a cause because it begins, well your God needs a cause if he has something complicated like "sentience".

(P1) Everything that has sentience has a cause.
(P2) The Judeo-Christian God is said to have sentience.
(C) Therefore the Judeo-Christian God has a cause.

rIead it and it didn't destroy my belief in God, I guess it doesn't work.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
atheismo
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 5:35:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 5:28:38 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/9/2013 1:08:58 PM, atheismo wrote:
here is an argument from the rational wiki, its bulletproof. People use the kalm argument to say the universe needs a cause because it begins, well your God needs a cause if he has something complicated like "sentience".

(P1) Everything that has sentience has a cause.
(P2) The Judeo-Christian God is said to have sentience.
(C) Therefore the Judeo-Christian God has a cause.

rIead it and it didn't destroy my belief in God, I guess it doesn't work.

I guess that's probably because you have "faith" in your god. religion poisons everything, even your mind, because even when it's shown in logic that god can't exist unless he's caused, religious people still hold the belief, like nothing ever happened.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 6:58:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 10:04:01 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/9/2013 1:08:58 PM, atheismo wrote:
here is an argument from the rational wiki, its bulletproof. People use the kalm argument to say the universe needs a cause because it begins, well your God needs a cause if he has something complicated like "sentience".

(P1) Everything that has sentience has a cause.
(P2) The Judeo-Christian God is said to have sentience.
(C) Therefore the Judeo-Christian God has a cause.

P1 has an much justification as P1 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, not much. Just because every sentient being around us had a cause, that doesn't mean that everything that is sentient must have a cause. Same with the KCA, just because everything we see around us that begins to exist has a cause, that doesn't mean everything that begins to exist has a cause.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 7:09:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 1:49:51 PM, likespeace wrote:
At 3/9/2013 1:08:58 PM, atheismo wrote:
here is an argument from the rational wiki, its bulletproof.

Your borrowed argument needs more work to make your point--

1) First, you have not supported either of your premises.
2) Second, this argument ends with "God has a cause" not "God doesn't exist".
3) Third, this doesn't destroy belief in god as per your thread title, as this only applies to the Judeo-Christian God.

I second everything this guy said.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 7:54:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 5:35:39 PM, atheismo wrote:
At 3/10/2013 5:28:38 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/9/2013 1:08:58 PM, atheismo wrote:
here is an argument from the rational wiki, its bulletproof. People use the kalm argument to say the universe needs a cause because it begins, well your God needs a cause if he has something complicated like "sentience".

(P1) Everything that has sentience has a cause.
(P2) The Judeo-Christian God is said to have sentience.
(C) Therefore the Judeo-Christian God has a cause.

rIead it and it didn't destroy my belief in God, I guess it doesn't work.

I guess that's probably because you have "faith" in your god. religion poisons everything, even your mind, because even when it's shown in logic that god can't exist unless he's caused, religious people still hold the belief, like nothing ever happened.

No, I don't think that's it, I think it's because it hasn't been shown in logic that God can't exist unless he's caused, it's only been asserted in an inane unsupported premise as part of a psuedo-argument that doesn't really say anything.

Arguments are supposed to have supported premises and be logical, this fails on both counts...the only thing this destroys is belief in is logical arguments.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 1:58:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Bullet proof? Not hardly. Anything you can draw a circle around (let's say the universe) cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle " something you have to assume but cannot prove.
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 2:02:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Bullet proof? Not hardly. Anything you can draw a circle around (let's say the universe) cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle -- something you have to assume but cannot prove.
Suqua
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 10:01:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 1:08:58 PM, atheismo wrote:
here is an argument from the rational wiki, its bulletproof. People use the kalm argument to say the universe needs a cause because it begins, well your God needs a cause if he has something complicated like "sentience".

(P1) Everything that has sentience has a cause.
(P2) The Judeo-Christian God is said to have sentience.
(C) Therefore the Judeo-Christian God has a cause.

This to shall pass!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 4:41:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 10:53:04 AM, medic0506 wrote:
P1 is unsupported unless you can show that the law of causality applies to something that is independent of the natural universe.

How do you tell if something is "independent of the natural universe"?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!