Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Refutations in 1,000 characters or less

Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 5:36:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Theists & Atheists, present your proofs for/against God here. I will refute them all in 1,000 characters or less! All of my responses will be under this mark.

Go!
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 5:50:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
God spoke to me in a dream and he told me to go forth to the mountain, and I did so and on the way up the mountain there was a storm and I was afraid, but a voice told me to have faith, and I continued, and on top of the mountain there was a shaft of light and all was calm. I was amazed, because in all directions I could see the rain falling on the rocks and trees, but the sun came down on the peak and where it touched the land there was an ipad. Even though the grass was wet from the storm, the ipad was dry, and not a raindrop had fallen upon it. I looked around - i could see in all directions - but I was alone. I picked up the ipad, and before I even touched the screen, it lit up and it said "PROOF OF GOD'S EXISTENCE" then it said "Dear Garbanza, you have been chosen to spread the word online to the people of DDO. Please return to your home and family. In the evening, go to the DDO religion forum. One of my servants will be moved to call for proof of my existence. Tell him everything that happened here."

When I finished reading, the ipad burst into flames, and the flames rose into the sky. I could feel the heat- it was seering hot - but when it had burnt out, there was not a blister or mark to my skin. I was amazed, and fell to my knees to thank God for this miracle. Then, I returned at once to my home and came here to the religion forum as requested. It was as the holy ipad told me, and so I have told you now of all the wondrous events of today.
dee-em
Posts: 6,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 6:04:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 5:36:48 AM, Envisage wrote:
Theists & Atheists, present your proofs for/against God here. I will refute them all in 1,000 characters or less! All of my responses will be under this mark.

Go!

I will take the definition of God as "creator of our universe".

Time is a property of our universe. Space-time is the very fabric of the universe.
Therefore time does not exist independently of the universe, by definition.

Creation is an act. Actions are temporal events and require time. There had to be a state in which the universe did not exist and then another state where it did in order for the process to be called "creation".

There is an inherent contradiction. Therefore a creator God cannot exist.

Note: Even if you had God subject to some external-to-our-universe time, that would also be a problem. Then you would have to explain the nature of that time and God being contingent to it. That rules out most conceptions of God.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 6:54:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I define God to be the Power of Refutation.

Clearly, a Power of Refutation can refute anything. This makes it both Omniscient in its perspicacious insight and Omnipotent in its devastating logic.

In fact it's so powerful, it can refute its own existence while nevertheless continuing to exist. This makes it Transcendent.

The Power of Refutation is also infinitely Creative, since it can refute non-existence just by demonstrating existence. However, it can also refute existence just by demonstrating either infinite improbability, insufficient data, or irreconcilable inconsistency.

The Power of Refutation is Many-in-One, since all rebuttals achieve its end, yet any rebuttal is sufficient.

Moreover, the Power of Refutation is clearly Compassionate, since Love conquers all -- and so can Refutation. Thus Refutation is functionally indistinguishable from Love.

Finally, the Power of Refutation is All-embracing, since every act of rejection, no matter how scornful is also an act of worship.

The Power of Refutation demonstrates all the capabilities only ever ascribed to divinity. Therefore it is divine.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 7:21:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 5:36:48 AM, Envisage wrote:
Theists & Atheists, present your proofs for/against God here. I will refute them all in 1,000 characters or less! All of my responses will be under this mark.

Go!

Why does anything at all exist?

If nature or the appearance of nature is a combination of chemicals, what brought those chemicals into existence? Why do they exist?

Furthermore, why do they serve specific functions necessary for the formation of planets and human life, the only life form able to comprehend the intricate details of the universe.

If nature is a combination of chemicals, then what is causing them to combine so that we can exist? And why only, when combined do they perform specific functions that are necessary for the formation of planets and for the existence of life?

Why to the laws of physics exist? that cause the combination of the chemicals?

Examples, Water which is necessary for life, is a combination of hydrogen and oxygen, without the combination of these two chemicals, we can never experience water, thus life can not exist. Why do these chemicals exist at all, rather than the opposite, the absence of these chemicals.

The question firstly is not,

That I have all the ingredients to bake a cake, yet leave them in the kitchen and return to discover the cake already made, but why do all the ingredients
necessary to bake the cake, exist at all?

And secondly, what is causing all the ingredients to combine so that planets can form along with human life?

I look forward to your response.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 8:00:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 5:50:32 AM, Garbanza wrote:
This is not an argument nor proof, it is a statement. No premises that lead to any conclusion is shown, thus if it is intended to be an argument, it is logically invalid.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 8:02:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 5:36:48 AM, Envisage wrote:
Theists & Atheists, present your proofs for/against God here. I will refute them all in 1,000 characters or less! All of my responses will be under this mark.

Go!

I know God is real from personal experience. He talked to me on an acid trip once. It changed my life. I'm thinking about standing on a road side holding up signs that say the end is near.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 8:05:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 6:04:07 AM, dee-em wrote:

The statement "actions are temporal events" is not a deductively derived premise, it is an inductively derived premise from within our universe. Thus this premise's implicit derivation commits the fallacy of hasty generalisation, since we have absolutely no experience atemporally to make that generalisation.

Moreover, yes positing an ad hoc version of time that is independent of the time we experience would also solve this, and no the nature does not need to be explained since that presupposes the principle of sufficient reason (PSR) is correct. Moreover, even if PSR is correct, then this version of time could also exist necessarily.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 8:13:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 6:54:46 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

Your argument begs the question of the "Power of Refutation's" existance, and hence is invalid.

Also, the notion that a begin that is both omnipotence and omniscient simply does not follow from something that can refute anything. If we formulate the incomplete syllogism:

P1. A Power of Refutation that can refute anything exists
P2. ???
C. Therefore, the Power of Refutation is Omnipotent/Omniscient

If your argument was something like:

P1. A Power of Refutation that can refute anything exists
P2. If a being is omnipotent, then a Power of Refutation that can refute anything exists
C. Therefore, the Power of Refutation is Omnipotent/Omniscient

This commits the formal logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.[http://en.wikipedia.org...]
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 8:21:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 5:36:48 AM, Envisage wrote:
Theists & Atheists, present your proofs for/against God here. I will refute them all in 1,000 characters or less! All of my responses will be under this mark.

Go!

I hope you are not going to be so absurd as to demand proof of God, rather than Gods existence being more likely.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 8:22:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
First, there is no argument here. Questions are not arguments or proofs. Moreover, your implicit point begs the question of the soundness of the principle of sufficient reason, and runs into questions of cognitivism of "why".

The question of "why does anything exist" doesn't mandate an answer, the answer "no reason" is coherent.

Furthermore, the rest of your argument, which is an implicit form of the fine tuning argument, presupposes that *this* life is the *only* way for life to form. In a universe where water does not exist, we will also have drastically different physical laws, thus the spectrum of ways for life to form consequently shifts. We know life on Earth is extremely plastic to a variety of conditions, including aerobic, anerobic, reducing, hot, cold, toxic, dark, bright conditions. Thus the assumption that life of come form cannot exist if water does not exist is completely baseless.

Furthermore, you are privileging life, for no objective reason. Why not diamonds etc?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 8:24:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 8:02:04 AM, Wylted wrote:
I know God is real from personal experience. He talked to me on an acid trip once. It changed my life. I'm thinking about standing on a road side holding up signs that say the end is near.

This is not an argument. The moment you say "I know God is real" is the moment you beg the question.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 8:27:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 8:24:44 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/15/2015 8:02:04 AM, Wylted wrote:
I know God is real from personal experience. He talked to me on an acid trip once. It changed my life. I'm thinking about standing on a road side holding up signs that say the end is near.

This is not an argument. The moment you say "I know God is real" is the moment you beg the question.

He talked to me, during an acid trip. How the fvck is that fake. I'm talking to you right now. Are you saying I don't exist, despite the proof being in your face. What else must I do to prove mine and God's existence. Do you need penis pictures or something?
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 8:33:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 8:22:37 AM, Envisage wrote:
First, there is no argument here. Questions are not arguments or proofs. Moreover, your implicit point begs the question of the soundness of the principle of sufficient reason, and runs into questions of cognitivism of "why".

The question of "why does anything exist" doesn't mandate an answer, the answer "no reason" is coherent.

Furthermore, the rest of your argument, which is an implicit form of the fine tuning argument, presupposes that *this* life is the *only* way for life to form. In a universe where water does not exist, we will also have drastically different physical laws, thus the spectrum of ways for life to form consequently shifts. We know life on Earth is extremely plastic to a variety of conditions, including aerobic, anerobic, reducing, hot, cold, toxic, dark, bright conditions. Thus the assumption that life of come form cannot exist if water does not exist is completely baseless.

Furthermore, you are privileging life, for no objective reason. Why not diamonds etc?

That's not an answer, that is simply avoiding the answer.

As you so boldly state. You have no reason for this.

I am fine with that. But I suggest you seek and discover the reason for the combination of chemicals, is quite possible God, who by His power is able to generate such potency and also direct it.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 8:58:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
That's not an answer, that is simply avoiding the answer.

The question "why" doesn't necessitate an answer. Until you show it does, then you do not even have an argumentt. Until you realise this, then you are never going to be able to demonstrate anything regarding God. If you ask me the question "have you stopped beating your wife", my refusal to answer that question directly with a yes or no does not mean I am "avoiding the answer", it is me stating that I disagree with the question's presuppositions (e.g. in that case, the presupposition that I am already beating me wife).

Similarly, asking me why anything exists presupposes that "why" is a coherent and meaningful question when it regards existence as a whole. Furthermore, there is nothing in principle that an atheistic worldview cannot posit even assuming your assumption.

Furthermore you are ignoring that you are privileging the result (i.e. the result that life exists) for entirely arbitrary reasons.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 9:06:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 5:36:48 AM, Envisage wrote:
Theists & Atheists, present your proofs for/against God here. I will refute them all in 1,000 characters or less! All of my responses will be under this mark.

Go!

Refute the Kalam Cosmo Argument! How do you avoid the infinite regress paradox? GO!
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 9:07:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 8:58:24 AM, Envisage wrote:
That's not an answer, that is simply avoiding the answer.

The question "why" doesn't necessitate an answer. Until you show it does, then you do not even have an argumentt. Until you realise this, then you are never going to be able to demonstrate anything regarding God. If you ask me the question "have you stopped beating your wife", my refusal to answer that question directly with a yes or no does not mean I am "avoiding the answer", it is me stating that I disagree with the question's presuppositions (e.g. in that case, the presupposition that I am already beating me wife).

Similarly, asking me why anything exists presupposes that "why" is a coherent and meaningful question when it regards existence as a whole. Furthermore, there is nothing in principle that an atheistic worldview cannot posit even assuming your assumption.

Furthermore you are ignoring that you are privileging the result (i.e. the result that life exists) for entirely arbitrary reasons.

You are just making up silly excuses which are nonsensical to avoid the question. As If asking why questions is silly, you are absurd.

Thank-you very much for showing me that.

Also I am not just privileging life, instead you are doing that into the argument. I stated that nature or the appearance of nature is a combination of chemicals. That includes everything, ie the whole material cosmic manifestation. What has caused it to manifest? What has caused the chemicals to become existent that perform specific function especially when combined?

Show me an example of life that exists that doesn't depend on water?

Otherwise your whole response is void of reason.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 9:22:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 9:06:10 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/15/2015 5:36:48 AM, Envisage wrote:
Theists & Atheists, present your proofs for/against God here. I will refute them all in 1,000 characters or less! All of my responses will be under this mark.

Go!

Refute the Kalam Cosmo Argument! How do you avoid the infinite regress paradox? GO!

I've Sean Carroll propose an eternal universe in his debate with WLC but never saw a refutation to the infinite regress paradox.

Good question.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 9:35:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
KCA is only valid if "begins to exist" means the same thing in both premises, otherwise it commits the formal fallacy of equivocation. Thus, one needs to actually define "beginning to exist coherently to even start making an argument.

Secondly, the argument presupposes presentism is correct, in eternalism, or four-dimensionalism, the past present and future all exist at once, and hence the universe no more "begins to exist" at the first moment in time than a ruler "begins to exist" at its first inch.

There are 3 reasons to accept eternalism over presentism
1. Our modern notions of physics do not differentiate between time directionality
2. Unifications of QM and Relativity predict a static universe (e.g. Wheeler de Whit equation), which is exactly what eternalism posits
3. General Relativity strongly supports four dmensionalism via simultaneity-breaking

No universe = no laws of physics = loss of constraints that the "law of causality" arises from. Thus the first premise is dubious.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 9:38:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 9:35:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
KCA is only valid if "begins to exist" means the same thing in both premises, otherwise it commits the formal fallacy of equivocation. Thus, one needs to actually define "beginning to exist coherently to even start making an argument.

Begins to exist is defined by the big bang.

Secondly, the argument presupposes presentism is correct, in eternalism, or four-dimensionalism, the past present and future all exist at once, and hence the universe no more "begins to exist" at the first moment in time than a ruler "begins to exist" at its first inch.

Given that we have evidence for the big bang I don't understand how you can argue eternalism. Isn't there such thing as heat death via entropy that shows that if the universe existed for eternity it'd be destroyed? Something about entropy.

There are 3 reasons to accept eternalism over presentism
1. Our modern notions of physics do not differentiate between time directionality
2. Unifications of QM and Relativity predict a static universe (e.g. Wheeler de Whit equation), which is exactly what eternalism posits
3. General Relativity strongly supports four dmensionalism via simultaneity-breaking

No universe = no laws of physics = loss of constraints that the "law of causality" arises from. Thus the first premise is dubious.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 9:41:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
You are not engaging in my criticisms of your presuppositions, of the principle of sufficient reason and in the latter post, the law of causality. You have given me no reason to believe that these principles hold when it regards existence as a whole (since your OP did throw in the universe in there).

Furthermore, naturalism gives mechanistic explanations for how things occur. Principally, the law of thermodynamics explains the mechanistic "why" some things would form over others, and the laws of physics explain "how" things do that. Regarding life, it is clearly a thermodynamically driven and favoured state given that the Earth is in state that is not in equilibrium.

Note that naturalism is not exclusive to atheism (metaphysical naturalism is exclusive, however), thus while it does not rule out a God, it renders that positing God as a direct explanation for chemistry etc. to be unsound and unnecessary.

You have not presented an argument FOR God's existance. I am still waiting.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 9:52:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 9:41:50 AM, Envisage wrote:
You are not engaging in my criticisms of your presuppositions, of the principle of sufficient reason and in the latter post, the law of causality. You have given me no reason to believe that these principles hold when it regards existence as a whole (since your OP did throw in the universe in there).

Furthermore, naturalism gives mechanistic explanations for how things occur. Principally, the law of thermodynamics explains the mechanistic "why" some things would form over others, and the laws of physics explain "how" things do that. Regarding life, it is clearly a thermodynamically driven and favoured state given that the Earth is in state that is not in equilibrium.

Note that naturalism is not exclusive to atheism (metaphysical naturalism is exclusive, however), thus while it does not rule out a God, it renders that positing God as a direct explanation for chemistry etc. to be unsound and unnecessary.

You have not presented an argument FOR God's existance. I am still waiting.

Is this addressed to me?
dee-em
Posts: 6,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 9:54:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 8:05:24 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/15/2015 6:04:07 AM, dee-em wrote:

The statement "actions are temporal events" is not a deductively derived premise, it is an inductively derived premise from within our universe. Thus this premise's implicit derivation commits the fallacy of hasty generalisation, since we have absolutely no experience atemporally to make that generalisation.

Your rebuttal assumes the existence of an atemporality. My generalisation cannot be hasty if you can't demonstrate this existence.

Besides, I am not deriving my premise. The temporal nature of action is implicit in the very definition of the word:

action
[ak-shuh n]
noun
1. the process or state of acting or of being active:
The machine is not in action now.
2. something done or performed; act; deed.
3. an act that one consciously wills and that may be characterized by physical or mental activity:
a crisis that demands action instead of debate; hoping for constructive action by the landlord.
4. actions, habitual or usual acts; conduct:
He is responsible for his actions.
5. energetic activity:
a man of action.
6. an exertion of power or force:
the action of wind upon a ship's sails.
7. effect or influence:
the action of morphine.

If you are suggesting that atemporal action is possible, I respectfully suggest that this is an oxymoron and you need another word other than "action".

Moreover, yes positing an ad hoc version of time that is independent of the time we experience would also solve this, and no the nature does not need to be explained since that presupposes the principle of sufficient reason (PSR) is correct. Moreover, even if PSR is correct, then this version of time could also exist necessarily.

That's philosophical nonsense. You're rejecting PSR for no reason other than it suits you. Then if you grudgingly accept it, you go with "could also exist necessarily" which is not an argument.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 10:49:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 9:41:50 AM, Envisage wrote:
You are not engaging in my criticisms of your presuppositions, of the principle of sufficient reason and in the latter post, the law of causality. You have given me no reason to believe that these principles hold when it regards existence as a whole (since your OP did throw in the universe in there).

Furthermore, naturalism gives mechanistic explanations for how things occur. Principally, the law of thermodynamics explains the mechanistic "why" some things would form over others, and the laws of physics explain "how" things do that. Regarding life, it is clearly a thermodynamically driven and favoured state given that the Earth is in state that is not in equilibrium.

Note that naturalism is not exclusive to atheism (metaphysical naturalism is exclusive, however), thus while it does not rule out a God, it renders that positing God as a direct explanation for chemistry etc. to be unsound and unnecessary.

You have not presented an argument FOR God's existance. I am still waiting.

Your responses is nothing more than sophistry.

Convincing yourself doesn't win an argument, but if it makes you feel better, so be it.

What can be done?

I'm out, until the next time.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 10:52:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 9:52:27 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/15/2015 9:41:50 AM, Envisage wrote:
You are not engaging in my criticisms of your presuppositions, of the principle of sufficient reason and in the latter post, the law of causality. You have given me no reason to believe that these principles hold when it regards existence as a whole (since your OP did throw in the universe in there).

Furthermore, naturalism gives mechanistic explanations for how things occur. Principally, the law of thermodynamics explains the mechanistic "why" some things would form over others, and the laws of physics explain "how" things do that. Regarding life, it is clearly a thermodynamically driven and favoured state given that the Earth is in state that is not in equilibrium.

Note that naturalism is not exclusive to atheism (metaphysical naturalism is exclusive, however), thus while it does not rule out a God, it renders that positing God as a direct explanation for chemistry etc. to be unsound and unnecessary.

You have not presented an argument FOR God's existance. I am still waiting.

Is this addressed to me?

No, he is engaging in sophistry, designed to confuse the reader, it was addressed to me, but utter nonsense on his part.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 12:33:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 9:05:54 AM, Wylted wrote:
Envisage is ignoring my arguments, because I just fvcked him up on an intellectual level.

LOL

(I'm not laughing AT you; I'm laughing PAST you...)
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 12:49:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 9:38:46 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/15/2015 9:35:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
KCA is only valid if "begins to exist" means the same thing in both premises, otherwise it commits the formal fallacy of equivocation. Thus, one needs to actually define "beginning to exist coherently to even start making an argument.

Begins to exist is defined by the big bang.

Incorrect. The Big Bang still presupposes the existence of "all that which 'went bang.' " There had to be SOMETHING to "go bang," in order for the "bang" to even happen. Thus, the "Big Bang" was not the beginning of the universe but, rather, the beginning of its current STATE of existence. It still existed, in its previous state, prior to whatever even caused it to expand, rapidly. Whether it was matter, energy, or something we have not yet discovered/postulated, it had to exist prior to going "bang."


Secondly, the argument presupposes presentism is correct, in eternalism, or four-dimensionalism, the past present and future all exist at once, and hence the universe no more "begins to exist" at the first moment in time than a ruler "begins to exist" at its first inch.

Given that we have evidence for the big bang I don't understand how you can argue eternalism. Isn't there such thing as heat death via entropy that shows that if the universe existed for eternity it'd be destroyed? Something about entropy.

Entropy does not presuppose what you are proposing... Entropy deals with SYSTEMS, not existence, as such. If your deity existed outside of space/time, the conditions in which it existed are also outside of space/time. This is where the concept of "transcendence" must assume far too much to be valid. If an entity that existed outside of the former state of all that is (available to our perception), then all that is (available to our perception) is outside of exists outside of said entity. The word "transcendent" is a convenient term used to link that which people WANT to believe, and that which we are able to perceive. In order to be perceived, that entity must be external to the one perceiving it. Unfortunately, it is already external to that which CAN BE perceived, by rational deduction. It MUST "transcend," in order to be perceived, in any way. This still leaves unanswered the origin of all the matter/energy that HAD to exist, prior to any "bang" occurring. Ockham's razor, if accepted at face value, eliminates the probability of the existence of a creative deity, at least from the standpoint of "fewest required assumptions." As an agnostic, I am quite satisfied to accept that I don't know, and probably never will...

There are 3 reasons to accept eternalism over presentism
1. Our modern notions of physics do not differentiate between time directionality
2. Unifications of QM and Relativity predict a static universe (e.g. Wheeler de Whit equation), which is exactly what eternalism posits
3. General Relativity strongly supports four dmensionalism via simultaneity-breaking

No universe = no laws of physics = loss of constraints that the "law of causality" arises from. Thus the first premise is dubious.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 1:00:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Your argument is supposed to be a refutation of God's existance, thus you need to show that your refutation even if a temporal states exist/existed OR show such states are impossible

You are shifting the BoP on your own argument by making unwarranted assumptions. If I was going to make arguments which necessarily presuppose existential nihilism to be correct yec. Then my opponent will rightly call out this unsupported assumption.

If you are suggesting that atemporal action is possible, I respectfully suggest that this is an oxymoron and you need another word other than "action".

1. If an "act" doesn't presuppose time, then my refutation is coherent
2. If an "act" presupposes time, then the creation of the universe is not necessarily an "act", hence a presupposition of your argument is unsound
C. In either case, your argument is unsound

You have given no reason to accept the PSR is necessarily true (your argument, your presuppositions). Indeterminism is an example of a logically coherent state of affairs where PSR breaks down.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 1:06:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 5:36:48 AM, Envisage wrote:
Theists & Atheists, present your proofs for/against God here. I will refute them all in 1,000 characters or less! All of my responses will be under this mark.

Go!

God operates at the Planck level with the laws of nature, that's why we can't observe God even though He permeates all of spacetime. Because of this, God is subject to the very same limitations, those being the permittivity and permeability of spacetime, hence God can only operate at light speed, just like electromagnetic radiation and gravity, both of which, incidentally, He can use at His disposal. That's how God created the universe, setting free an ocean of electromagnetic energy to slowly cool and then forming it with gravity, like a sculptor.

That's how God communicates with us, too. At the Planck level, he manipulates the photons that fires the synapses of our brains, thus sending us signals of information our brain can easily understand. We call them "Spiritual Experiences", it's how we know God is speaking to us.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth