Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Argument against an Interveining God

Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 4:43:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I am still working on making this argument more complete, but it does against the notions of God that most people on this forum believe in.

P1) All causes exist within time
P2) All time is encompassed within the universe (space-time)
C) The universe cannot have an external cause

Now to negate an internal/pantheistic God

P3) All internal causes are finite
P4) God is not finite
C) If the universe has an internal cause, it's not God

The only point of contention I can see if probably P1, which would result in the theist abandoning any common notion of causation, and hence need to make a special case (special pleading) for God. Also however, P1 is also supported by the fact that for any cause to have an effect, an interaction must occur. However any interaction is impossible for the following reasons:

1. Ex nihilo, there is nothing to interact with
2. Even if there was something to interact with, God would require a physical property, which would in effect constrain God, he would no longer be omnipotent/boundless

P2 is strongly affirmed by special relativity and models of cosmology that depict an absolute beginning to the universe (such as the Hawking-model), and all other models depict an infinitely old universe, hence it cannot be created by God either.

P3) For there to be an internal cause, it needs to be within and part of the universe, or THE universe, according to pantheism, by definition. Because it's part of the universe it is constrained by the universe, and everything internal to the universe is only so old.

P4) By definition.

The conclusions logically follow if the premises are true. I have a cleaner version of this argument in the works, although many similar ones exist.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 4:53:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 4:43:35 PM, Envisage wrote:
I am still working on making this argument more complete, but it does against the notions of God that most people on this forum believe in.

P1) All causes exist within time
P2) All time is encompassed within the universe (space-time)
C) The universe cannot have an external cause


You are already contradicted by the Big Bang Envy. It had a beginning, we know this.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 4:58:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 4:53:36 PM, neutral wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:43:35 PM, Envisage wrote:
I am still working on making this argument more complete, but it does against the notions of God that most people on this forum believe in.

P1) All causes exist within time
P2) All time is encompassed within the universe (space-time)
C) The universe cannot have an external cause


You are already contradicted by the Big Bang Envy. It had a beginning, we know this.

On the contrary this argument actually assumes the universe indeed has a beginning, since the contrary negates God anyway. To give a horned argument:

P1) Either universe if eternal, or not eternal
P2) If the universe is eternal, then God could not have created it
P3) If the universe is not eternal, then God could not have created it (according to my argument in this thread)
C) God did not create the universe
C2) God does not exist (as defined as the being that created the universe)

My arguments fulfil P3 of this horned dilemma.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 5:00:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 4:58:30 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:53:36 PM, neutral wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:43:35 PM, Envisage wrote:
I am still working on making this argument more complete, but it does against the notions of God that most people on this forum believe in.

P1) All causes exist within time
P2) All time is encompassed within the universe (space-time)
C) The universe cannot have an external cause


You are already contradicted by the Big Bang Envy. It had a beginning, we know this.

On the contrary this argument actually assumes the universe indeed has a beginning, since the contrary negates God anyway. To give a horned argument:

P1) Either universe if eternal, or not eternal
P2) If the universe is eternal, then God could not have created it
P3) If the universe is not eternal, then God could not have created it (according to my argument in this thread)
C) God did not create the universe
C2) God does not exist (as defined as the being that created the universe)

My arguments fulfil P3 of this horned dilemma.

The universe has a beginning. As proved by science.

Claiming otherwise is nonsensical. You are already wrong. Why deny science?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 5:01:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 5:00:02 PM, neutral wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:58:30 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:53:36 PM, neutral wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:43:35 PM, Envisage wrote:
I am still working on making this argument more complete, but it does against the notions of God that most people on this forum believe in.

P1) All causes exist within time
P2) All time is encompassed within the universe (space-time)
C) The universe cannot have an external cause


You are already contradicted by the Big Bang Envy. It had a beginning, we know this.

On the contrary this argument actually assumes the universe indeed has a beginning, since the contrary negates God anyway. To give a horned argument:

P1) Either universe if eternal, or not eternal
P2) If the universe is eternal, then God could not have created it
P3) If the universe is not eternal, then God could not have created it (according to my argument in this thread)
C) God did not create the universe
C2) God does not exist (as defined as the being that created the universe)

My arguments fulfil P3 of this horned dilemma.

The universe has a beginning. As proved by science.

Claiming otherwise is nonsensical. You are already wrong. Why deny science?

Why are your ignoring what I said? This argument ASSUMES that the universe has a beginning. Please actually read.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 5:03:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 5:01:23 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/13/2014 5:00:02 PM, neutral wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:58:30 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:53:36 PM, neutral wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:43:35 PM, Envisage wrote:
I am still working on making this argument more complete, but it does against the notions of God that most people on this forum believe in.

P1) All causes exist within time
P2) All time is encompassed within the universe (space-time)
C) The universe cannot have an external cause


You are already contradicted by the Big Bang Envy. It had a beginning, we know this.

On the contrary this argument actually assumes the universe indeed has a beginning, since the contrary negates God anyway. To give a horned argument:

P1) Either universe if eternal, or not eternal
P2) If the universe is eternal, then God could not have created it
P3) If the universe is not eternal, then God could not have created it (according to my argument in this thread)
C) God did not create the universe
C2) God does not exist (as defined as the being that created the universe)

My arguments fulfil P3 of this horned dilemma.

The universe has a beginning. As proved by science.

Claiming otherwise is nonsensical. You are already wrong. Why deny science?

Why are your ignoring what I said? This argument ASSUMES that the universe has a beginning. Please actually read.

P3 is without proof. Its ... nothing. Its the unsupported claim that God could not have created a universe with a beginning - which, curiously, God claims.

Tat God could not create a universe with no beginning is apparent.

P3 - does not logically flow.

It is a flaw - period.

Don't really care whether you agree, it is what it is.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 5:06:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 5:03:12 PM, neutral wrote:
At 9/13/2014 5:01:23 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/13/2014 5:00:02 PM, neutral wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:58:30 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:53:36 PM, neutral wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:43:35 PM, Envisage wrote:
I am still working on making this argument more complete, but it does against the notions of God that most people on this forum believe in.

P1) All causes exist within time
P2) All time is encompassed within the universe (space-time)
C) The universe cannot have an external cause


You are already contradicted by the Big Bang Envy. It had a beginning, we know this.

On the contrary this argument actually assumes the universe indeed has a beginning, since the contrary negates God anyway. To give a horned argument:

P1) Either universe if eternal, or not eternal
P2) If the universe is eternal, then God could not have created it
P3) If the universe is not eternal, then God could not have created it (according to my argument in this thread)
C) God did not create the universe
C2) God does not exist (as defined as the being that created the universe)

My arguments fulfil P3 of this horned dilemma.

The universe has a beginning. As proved by science.

Claiming otherwise is nonsensical. You are already wrong. Why deny science?

Why are your ignoring what I said? This argument ASSUMES that the universe has a beginning. Please actually read.

P3 is without proof. Its ... nothing. Its the unsupported claim that God could not have created a universe with a beginning - which, curiously, God claims.

Tat God could not create a universe with no beginning is apparent.

P3 - does not logically flow.

It is a flaw - period.

Don't really care whether you agree, it is what it is.

I demonstrated P3 of the horned dilemma in the OP. Actually address the argument instead of making dismissing assertions due to your lack of ability to read the arguments put forth.

If you don't understand the arguments or need clarification I will be happy to provide then but you need to actually address the argument first.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 5:30:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
A causes B if only:
1- If A would not exist, then B would not exist.
2- If B were not to exist, A would still exist.

You are assuming a temporal causation and begging the question regarding P1, please provide support.

The word "cause" is being used to describe something that brings about an effect. Whether it is ex nihilo or not is irrelevant.