Total Posts:87|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Knockdown argument for God

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 10:48:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
God is the only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe. I'll explain. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation. Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance. If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable. If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning. Why must it be quantifiable? Because we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to the creation event. If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. This is where we dead end. Logical impossibility.

If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence. Assuming that our universe must have a logically possible explanation, we dead end with God.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 11:03:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 10:48:29 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
God is the only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe. I'll explain. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation. Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance. If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable. If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning. Why must it be quantifiable? Because we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to the creation event. If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. This is where we dead end. Logical impossibility.

If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence. Assuming that our universe must have a logically possible explanation, we dead end with God.

LOL. It's hilarious when believers being their claims with the word, 'logically' and then go on to fill their posts with misunderstanding, misrepresentation and fallacy.
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
Fatihah
Posts: 7,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 11:07:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 11:03:00 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

LOL. It's hilarious when believers being their claims with the word, 'logically' and then go on to fill their posts with misunderstanding, misrepresentation and fallacy.

Response: It's hilarious when deluded atheists trolls think they are actually logical in their remarks to sound statements by believers.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 11:11:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 11:03:00 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:48:29 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
God is the only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe. I'll explain. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation. Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance. If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable. If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning. Why must it be quantifiable? Because we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to the creation event. If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. This is where we dead end. Logical impossibility.

If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence. Assuming that our universe must have a logically possible explanation, we dead end with God.

LOL. It's hilarious when believers being their claims with the word, 'logically' and then go on to fill their posts with misunderstanding, misrepresentation and fallacy.

Go ahead, show that my post is filled with misunderstanding, misrepresentation and fallacy.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 11:21:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 10:48:29 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
God is the only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe. I'll explain. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation.

P1. "If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation."

Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance.

P2. "Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance."

If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable.

P3. "If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable."

If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning.

P4. "If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning."

Why must it be quantifiable?

Not an assertion or premise

Because we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to the creation event. If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal.

P5. "If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. "

This is where we dead end. Logical impossibility.

If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence. Assuming that our universe must have a logically possible explanation, we dead end with God.

P6. "If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence."??

Putting this altogether:

P1. "If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation."
P2. "Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance."
P3. "If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable."
P4. "If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning."
P5. "If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. "
P6. "If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence."

No conclusion follows from the premises, your argument is deductively invalid. So much for a "knockdown" argument for God. Why do you insist on obfuscation instead of clarity? There is a quote I want you to remember:

"A system can be so simple there are obviously no errors, or so complex there are no obvious errors."

Try again, this argument isn't even an argument as it stands.
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 11:23:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 10:48:29 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
God is the only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe. I'll explain. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation.

Causation is necessary for the universe but unnecessary for God? That seems rather arbitrary.

Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance. If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable. If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning.

How so? That seems like a non sequitur.

Why must it be quantifiable? Because we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to the creation event.

We? Who is we? The universe has no history of anything other than itself. That's like saying that if a coin is tossed 10 times and comes up heads on the 10th then the head knows that there were 9 previous tosses. That's obviously erroneous.

If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. This is where we dead end. Logical impossibility.

Failure with proving quantifiability.

If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence. Assuming that our universe must have a logically possible explanation, we dead end with God.

No, God as an explanation for anything is a dead end.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 12:13:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 11:21:48 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:48:29 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
God is the only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe. I'll explain. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation.

P1. "If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation."

Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance.

P2. "Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance."

If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable.

P3. "If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable."

If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning.

P4. "If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning."

Why must it be quantifiable?

Not an assertion or premise

Because we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to the creation event. If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal.

P5. "If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. "

This is where we dead end. Logical impossibility.

If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence. Assuming that our universe must have a logically possible explanation, we dead end with God.

P6. "If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence."??

Putting this altogether:

P1. "If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation."
P2. "Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance."
P3. "If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable."
P4. "If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning."
P5. "If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. "
P6. "If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence."

No conclusion follows from the premises, your argument is deductively invalid. So much for a "knockdown" argument for God. Why do you insist on obfuscation instead of clarity? There is a quote I want you to remember:

"A system can be so simple there are obviously no errors, or so complex there are no obvious errors."

Try again, this argument isn't even an argument as it stands.

Thanks Envisage! I never intentionally obfuscate anything. I intuit arguments that I believe are sound but have trouble formalizing and sometimes clarifying them especially when they get complicated. But hey, I could be wrong. Let's find out. I'll add in the missing components and see where we're at.

P1. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation.
P2. Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance.
P3. If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe, as a product of chance, was inevitable.
P4. If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning.
P5. If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal.
C: The only means of causation without God, if eternal, would be logically impossible.
P6: If the universe was not the product of something eternal, it was the product of an infinite regression of preceding events.
P7: An infinite regression of preceding events is not a logically possible cause for the origin of the universe.
C: There is not a logically possible means for the origin of the universe without God.
P8: If the universe was created by will, then the universe is not a product of chance and doesn't necessarily have a quantifiable beginning.
P9: Creation of the universe from an eternal being, out of will, is logically possible.
C: The only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe is that it was created by the will of an eternal being.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 12:24:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 11:23:17 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:48:29 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
God is the only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe. I'll explain. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation.

Causation is necessary for the universe but unnecessary for God? That seems rather arbitrary.

Correct, but it's not arbitrary. Since the Big Bang was neither an eternal or non-existent action, it had a cause - whether out of nothingness or something.

Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance. If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable. If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning.

How so? That seems like a non sequitur.

Which part are you disputing?

Why must it be quantifiable? Because we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to the creation event.

We? Who is we? The universe has no history of anything other than itself. That's like saying that if a coin is tossed 10 times and comes up heads on the 10th then the head knows that there were 9 previous tosses. That's obviously erroneous.

We, meaning humans that are capable of knowing logical possibility. The coin toss is bound by a set number of possible outcomes. The same applies to the universe if it's the product of probability.

If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. This is where we dead end. Logical impossibility.

Failure with proving quantifiability.

If something occurs by chance, it occurred as a trial system of probability. Probability requires quantification.

If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence. Assuming that our universe must have a logically possible explanation, we dead end with God.

No, God as an explanation for anything is a dead end.

How so?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 12:30:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 11:11:09 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/12/2015 11:03:00 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:48:29 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
God is the only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe. I'll explain. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation. Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance. If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable. If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning. Why must it be quantifiable? Because we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to the creation event. If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. This is where we dead end. Logical impossibility.

If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence. Assuming that our universe must have a logically possible explanation, we dead end with God.

LOL. It's hilarious when believers being their claims with the word, 'logically' and then go on to fill their posts with misunderstanding, misrepresentation and fallacy.

Go ahead, show that my post is filled with misunderstanding, misrepresentation and fallacy.

Why bother, Ben? Like every other thread you've created that are just like this one, plenty of folks show you how you litter them with misunderstanding, misrepresentation and fallacy, and all you do is deny and repeat the same misunderstanding, misrepresentation and fallacy. It's a joke, you never learn.
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
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 12:34:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 12:30:55 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 7/12/2015 11:11:09 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/12/2015 11:03:00 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:48:29 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
God is the only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe. I'll explain. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation. Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance. If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable. If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning. Why must it be quantifiable? Because we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to the creation event. If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. This is where we dead end. Logical impossibility.

If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence. Assuming that our universe must have a logically possible explanation, we dead end with God.

LOL. It's hilarious when believers being their claims with the word, 'logically' and then go on to fill their posts with misunderstanding, misrepresentation and fallacy.

Go ahead, show that my post is filled with misunderstanding, misrepresentation and fallacy.

Why bother, Ben? Like every other thread you've created that are just like this one, plenty of folks show you how you litter them with misunderstanding, misrepresentation and fallacy, and all you do is deny and repeat the same misunderstanding, misrepresentation and fallacy. It's a joke, you never learn.

If you can't defend your assertions why bother with rational discourse?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 12:36:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 12:13:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/12/2015 11:21:48 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:48:29 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
God is the only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe. I'll explain. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation.

P1. "If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation."

Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance.

P2. "Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance."

If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable.

P3. "If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable."

If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning.

P4. "If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning."

Why must it be quantifiable?

Not an assertion or premise

Because we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to the creation event. If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal.

P5. "If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. "

This is where we dead end. Logical impossibility.

If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence. Assuming that our universe must have a logically possible explanation, we dead end with God.

P6. "If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence."??

Putting this altogether:

P1. "If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation."
P2. "Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance."
P3. "If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable."
P4. "If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning."
P5. "If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. "
P6. "If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence."

No conclusion follows from the premises, your argument is deductively invalid. So much for a "knockdown" argument for God. Why do you insist on obfuscation instead of clarity? There is a quote I want you to remember:

"A system can be so simple there are obviously no errors, or so complex there are no obvious errors."

Try again, this argument isn't even an argument as it stands.

Thanks Envisage! I never intentionally obfuscate anything. I intuit arguments that I believe are sound but have trouble formalizing and sometimes clarifying them especially when they get complicated. But hey, I could be wrong. Let's find out. I'll add in the missing components and see where we're at.

P1. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation.
P2. Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance.
P3. If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe, as a product of chance, was inevitable.
P4. If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning.
P5. If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal.
C: The only means of causation without God, if eternal, would be logically impossible.
P6: If the universe was not the product of something eternal, it was the product of an infinite regression of preceding events.
P7: An infinite regression of preceding events is not a logically possible cause for the origin of the universe.
C: There is not a logically possible means for the origin of the universe without God.
P8: If the universe was created by will, then the universe is not a product of chance and doesn't necessarily have a quantifiable beginning.
P9: Creation of the universe from an eternal being, out of will, is logically possible.
C: The only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe is that it was created by the will of an eternal being.

Ben I don't mind helping you formulate this argument. Send me a PM with what you have (i.e. have another look at this and reword it) and I will help you out making it logically valid.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 12:37:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 12:34:55 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/12/2015 12:30:55 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 7/12/2015 11:11:09 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/12/2015 11:03:00 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:48:29 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
God is the only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe. I'll explain. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation. Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance. If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable. If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning. Why must it be quantifiable? Because we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to the creation event. If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. This is where we dead end. Logical impossibility.

If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence. Assuming that our universe must have a logically possible explanation, we dead end with God.

LOL. It's hilarious when believers being their claims with the word, 'logically' and then go on to fill their posts with misunderstanding, misrepresentation and fallacy.

Go ahead, show that my post is filled with misunderstanding, misrepresentation and fallacy.

Why bother, Ben? Like every other thread you've created that are just like this one, plenty of folks show you how you litter them with misunderstanding, misrepresentation and fallacy, and all you do is deny and repeat the same misunderstanding, misrepresentation and fallacy. It's a joke, you never learn.

If you can't defend your assertions why bother with rational discourse?

Rational discourse? From you? LOL!
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
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 12:40:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 12:36:37 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/12/2015 12:13:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/12/2015 11:21:48 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:48:29 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
God is the only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe. I'll explain. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation.

P1. "If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation."

Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance.

P2. "Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance."

If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable.

P3. "If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable."

If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning.

P4. "If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning."

Why must it be quantifiable?

Not an assertion or premise

Because we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to the creation event. If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal.

P5. "If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. "

This is where we dead end. Logical impossibility.

If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence. Assuming that our universe must have a logically possible explanation, we dead end with God.

P6. "If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence."??

Putting this altogether:

P1. "If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation."
P2. "Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance."
P3. "If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable."
P4. "If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning."
P5. "If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. "
P6. "If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence."

No conclusion follows from the premises, your argument is deductively invalid. So much for a "knockdown" argument for God. Why do you insist on obfuscation instead of clarity? There is a quote I want you to remember:

"A system can be so simple there are obviously no errors, or so complex there are no obvious errors."

Try again, this argument isn't even an argument as it stands.

Thanks Envisage! I never intentionally obfuscate anything. I intuit arguments that I believe are sound but have trouble formalizing and sometimes clarifying them especially when they get complicated. But hey, I could be wrong. Let's find out. I'll add in the missing components and see where we're at.

P1. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation.
P2. Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance.
P3. If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe, as a product of chance, was inevitable.
P4. If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning.
P5. If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal.
C: The only means of causation without God, if eternal, would be logically impossible.
P6: If the universe was not the product of something eternal, it was the product of an infinite regression of preceding events.
P7: An infinite regression of preceding events is not a logically possible cause for the origin of the universe.
C: There is not a logically possible means for the origin of the universe without God.
P8: If the universe was created by will, then the universe is not a product of chance and doesn't necessarily have a quantifiable beginning.
P9: Creation of the universe from an eternal being, out of will, is logically possible.
C: The only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe is that it was created by the will of an eternal being.

Ben I don't mind helping you formulate this argument. Send me a PM with what you have (i.e. have another look at this and reword it) and I will help you out making it logically valid.

Thanks, I'll see if I can find another way to reword it but I believe it's logically valid as it stands.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 12:40:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 12:37:28 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 7/12/2015 12:34:55 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/12/2015 12:30:55 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 7/12/2015 11:11:09 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/12/2015 11:03:00 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:48:29 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
God is the only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe. I'll explain. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation. Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance. If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable. If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning. Why must it be quantifiable? Because we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to the creation event. If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. This is where we dead end. Logical impossibility.

If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence. Assuming that our universe must have a logically possible explanation, we dead end with God.

LOL. It's hilarious when believers being their claims with the word, 'logically' and then go on to fill their posts with misunderstanding, misrepresentation and fallacy.

Go ahead, show that my post is filled with misunderstanding, misrepresentation and fallacy.

Why bother, Ben? Like every other thread you've created that are just like this one, plenty of folks show you how you litter them with misunderstanding, misrepresentation and fallacy, and all you do is deny and repeat the same misunderstanding, misrepresentation and fallacy. It's a joke, you never learn.

If you can't defend your assertions why bother with rational discourse?

Rational discourse? From you? LOL!

Assertions defended: 0
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 12:50:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 10:48:29 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
God is the only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe.

Define "origin".

I'll explain. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation.

Why?

Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance.

Why?

If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable. If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning. Why must it be quantifiable? Because we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to the creation event. If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. This is where we dead end. Logical impossibility.

A finite block of time can be eternal if the B-Theory of Time is true.
Also, what if instead of eternal in the past that it goes into the past a finite time, but is then eternal with imaginary time (with the universe's origin causing the progression of "normal" time)?
What about multiverse or 2D eternalism?

If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence. Assuming that our universe must have a logically possible explanation, we dead end with God.

I have not seen that demonstrated yet.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 1:17:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 12:40:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/12/2015 12:36:37 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/12/2015 12:13:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/12/2015 11:21:48 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:48:29 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
God is the only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe. I'll explain. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation.

P1. "If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation."

Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance.

P2. "Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance."

If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable.

P3. "If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable."

If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning.

P4. "If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning."

Why must it be quantifiable?

Not an assertion or premise

Because we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to the creation event. If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal.

P5. "If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. "

This is where we dead end. Logical impossibility.

If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence. Assuming that our universe must have a logically possible explanation, we dead end with God.

P6. "If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence."??

Putting this altogether:

P1. "If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation."
P2. "Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance."
P3. "If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable."
P4. "If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning."
P5. "If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. "
P6. "If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence."

No conclusion follows from the premises, your argument is deductively invalid. So much for a "knockdown" argument for God. Why do you insist on obfuscation instead of clarity? There is a quote I want you to remember:

"A system can be so simple there are obviously no errors, or so complex there are no obvious errors."

Try again, this argument isn't even an argument as it stands.

Thanks Envisage! I never intentionally obfuscate anything. I intuit arguments that I believe are sound but have trouble formalizing and sometimes clarifying them especially when they get complicated. But hey, I could be wrong. Let's find out. I'll add in the missing components and see where we're at.

P1. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation.
P2. Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance.
P3. If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe, as a product of chance, was inevitable.
P4. If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning.
P5. If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal.
C: The only means of causation without God, if eternal, would be logically impossible.
P6: If the universe was not the product of something eternal, it was the product of an infinite regression of preceding events.
P7: An infinite regression of preceding events is not a logically possible cause for the origin of the universe.
C: There is not a logically possible means for the origin of the universe without God.
P8: If the universe was created by will, then the universe is not a product of chance and doesn't necessarily have a quantifiable beginning.
P9: Creation of the universe from an eternal being, out of will, is logically possible.
C: The only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe is that it was created by the will of an eternal being.

Ben I don't mind helping you formulate this argument. Send me a PM with what you have (i.e. have another look at this and reword it) and I will help you out making it logically valid.

Thanks, I'll see if I can find another way to reword it but I believe it's logically valid as it stands.

In logic there is no such thing as "believe" it is logically valid. You either know it is or you don't. You can check with truth tables. Here you have made no attempt to show how the conclusion follows from any of the premises. It is just bad.

You should be able to present that entire argument in symbolic form (as it would be presented in every single philosophical paper) and have a clean argument. However that is not possible from my attempts to do so with your argument.

Drjasoncampbell has a good series on this, well worth spending a couple hours on.

https://www.youtube.com...
bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 1:19:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Zoglod who failed to create anything created existence.
Zoglod is after all Zoglod
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 1:24:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 12:50:48 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:48:29 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
God is the only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe.

Define "origin".

Explanation of its being.

I'll explain. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation.

Why?

What other candidates could there be?

Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance.

Why?

Because things can only be caused by chance, necessity, or by will. The universe exists contingently so that excludes necessity right away. Unless you believe the laws of nature or nothingness can cause the universe by will, chance is your only candidate.

If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable. If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning. Why must it be quantifiable? Because we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to the creation event. If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. This is where we dead end. Logical impossibility.

A finite block of time can be eternal if the B-Theory of Time is true.
Also, what if instead of eternal in the past that it goes into the past a finite time, but is then eternal with imaginary time (with the universe's origin causing the progression of "normal" time)?
What about multiverse or 2D eternalism?

Lets assume it goes into the past at a finite point in time. At T = 0, what caused the universe to exist? If nothing did, then nothing is the cause. Nothingness preceded T = 0 and runs into the dilemma I've described in the OP.

Eternalism runs into a problem of infinite regression, so does the multiverse theory.

If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence. Assuming that our universe must have a logically possible explanation, we dead end with God.

I have not seen that demonstrated yet.

If something is created out of will, the means for causation isn't determined by probability. If something isn't determined by probability then it isn't necessarily quantifiable. This means that creation of the universe by the will of an eternal being is logically possible.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 1:29:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 1:17:55 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/12/2015 12:40:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/12/2015 12:36:37 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/12/2015 12:13:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/12/2015 11:21:48 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:48:29 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
God is the only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe. I'll explain. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation.

P1. "If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation."

Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance.

P2. "Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance."

If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable.

P3. "If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable."

If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning.

P4. "If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning."

Why must it be quantifiable?

Not an assertion or premise

Because we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to the creation event. If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal.

P5. "If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. "

This is where we dead end. Logical impossibility.

If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence. Assuming that our universe must have a logically possible explanation, we dead end with God.

P6. "If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence."??

Putting this altogether:

P1. "If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation."
P2. "Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance."
P3. "If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable."
P4. "If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning."
P5. "If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. "
P6. "If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence."

No conclusion follows from the premises, your argument is deductively invalid. So much for a "knockdown" argument for God. Why do you insist on obfuscation instead of clarity? There is a quote I want you to remember:

"A system can be so simple there are obviously no errors, or so complex there are no obvious errors."

Try again, this argument isn't even an argument as it stands.

Thanks Envisage! I never intentionally obfuscate anything. I intuit arguments that I believe are sound but have trouble formalizing and sometimes clarifying them especially when they get complicated. But hey, I could be wrong. Let's find out. I'll add in the missing components and see where we're at.

P1. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation.
P2. Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance.
P3. If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe, as a product of chance, was inevitable.
P4. If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning.
P5. If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal.
C: The only means of causation without God, if eternal, would be logically impossible.
P6: If the universe was not the product of something eternal, it was the product of an infinite regression of preceding events.
P7: An infinite regression of preceding events is not a logically possible cause for the origin of the universe.
C: There is not a logically possible means for the origin of the universe without God.
P8: If the universe was created by will, then the universe is not a product of chance and doesn't necessarily have a quantifiable beginning.
P9: Creation of the universe from an eternal being, out of will, is logically possible.
C: The only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe is that it was created by the will of an eternal being.

Ben I don't mind helping you formulate this argument. Send me a PM with what you have (i.e. have another look at this and reword it) and I will help you out making it logically valid.

Thanks, I'll see if I can find another way to reword it but I believe it's logically valid as it stands.

In logic there is no such thing as "believe" it is logically valid. You either know it is or you don't. You can check with truth tables. Here you have made no attempt to show how the conclusion follows from any of the premises. It is just bad.

You should be able to present that entire argument in symbolic form (as it would be presented in every single philosophical paper) and have a clean argument. However that is not possible from my attempts to do so with your argument.

Drjasoncampbell has a good series on this, well worth spending a couple hours on.

https://www.youtube.com...

Fine, I'll spend some time to simplify the argument. I "know" that its logically valid (at least intuitively) and that's why I believe it to be true. It will be able to be expressed in symbolic form given than my premises are true.
Nicoszon_the_Great
Posts: 167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 1:29:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 10:48:29 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
God is the only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe. I'll explain. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation. Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance. If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable. If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning. Why must it be quantifiable? Because we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to the creation event. If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. This is where we dead end. Logical impossibility.

If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence. Assuming that our universe must have a logically possible explanation, we dead end with God.

As a layman in the field of physics I'd like you to explain something to me.
Why is it that the trials which create and possibly destroy the universe cannot be infinitely probably but a deity can be? Wouldn't the sheer scope of what could exist beyond the bounds of known space at least offer the chance for evidence to disprove the assertions you've laid afore us?
bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 1:34:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Zoglod who failed to create anything created existence.
Zoglod is after all Zoglod :::
Nicoszon_the_Great
Posts: 167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 1:38:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 1:34:12 PM, bulproof wrote:
Zoglod who failed to create anything created existence.
Zoglod is after all Zoglod :::

All hail Zoglod
bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 1:48:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 1:38:07 PM, Nicoszon_the_Great wrote:
At 7/12/2015 1:34:12 PM, bulproof wrote:
Zoglod who failed to create anything created existence.
Zoglod is after all Zoglod :::

All hail Zoglod

Awen.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 1:54:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 1:29:05 PM, Nicoszon_the_Great wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:48:29 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
God is the only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe. I'll explain. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation. Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance. If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable. If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning. Why must it be quantifiable? Because we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to the creation event. If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. This is where we dead end. Logical impossibility.

If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence. Assuming that our universe must have a logically possible explanation, we dead end with God.

As a layman in the field of physics I'd like you to explain something to me.
Why is it that the trials which create and possibly destroy the universe cannot be infinitely probably but a deity can be? Wouldn't the sheer scope of what could exist beyond the bounds of known space at least offer the chance for evidence to disprove the assertions you've laid afore us?

Because it renders these actions to a quantifiable beginning whereas if the action was by will it doesn't. Something can't be infinite and quantifiable.

No because then you're delving beyond logical possibly.
bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 1:57:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 1:54:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/12/2015 1:29:05 PM, Nicoszon_the_Great wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:48:29 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
God is the only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe. I'll explain. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation. Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance. If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable. If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning. Why must it be quantifiable? Because we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to the creation event. If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. This is where we dead end. Logical impossibility.

If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence. Assuming that our universe must have a logically possible explanation, we dead end with God.

As a layman in the field of physics I'd like you to explain something to me.
Why is it that the trials which create and possibly destroy the universe cannot be infinitely probably but a deity can be? Wouldn't the sheer scope of what could exist beyond the bounds of known space at least offer the chance for evidence to disprove the assertions you've laid afore us?

Because it renders these actions to a quantifiable beginning whereas if the action was by will it doesn't. Something can't be infinite and quantifiable.

No because then you're delving beyond logical possibly.

And what of Zoglod? Do you deny his existence?
Zoglod created you and left you.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 2:01:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 12:40:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/12/2015 12:36:37 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/12/2015 12:13:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/12/2015 11:21:48 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:48:29 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
God is the only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe. I'll explain. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation.

P1. "If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation."

Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance.

P2. "Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance."

If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable.

P3. "If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable."

If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning.

P4. "If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning."

Why must it be quantifiable?

Not an assertion or premise

Because we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to the creation event. If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal.

P5. "If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. "

This is where we dead end. Logical impossibility.

If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence. Assuming that our universe must have a logically possible explanation, we dead end with God.

P6. "If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence."??

Putting this altogether:

P1. "If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation."
P2. "Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance."
P3. "If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable."
P4. "If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning."
P5. "If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. "
P6. "If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence."

No conclusion follows from the premises, your argument is deductively invalid. So much for a "knockdown" argument for God. Why do you insist on obfuscation instead of clarity? There is a quote I want you to remember:

"A system can be so simple there are obviously no errors, or so complex there are no obvious errors."

Try again, this argument isn't even an argument as it stands.

Thanks Envisage! I never intentionally obfuscate anything. I intuit arguments that I believe are sound but have trouble formalizing and sometimes clarifying them especially when they get complicated. But hey, I could be wrong. Let's find out. I'll add in the missing components and see where we're at.

P1. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation.
P2. Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance.
P3. If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe, as a product of chance, was inevitable.
P4. If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning.
P5. If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal.
C: The only means of causation without God, if eternal, would be logically impossible.
P6: If the universe was not the product of something eternal, it was the product of an infinite regression of preceding events.
P7: An infinite regression of preceding events is not a logically possible cause for the origin of the universe.
C: There is not a logically possible means for the origin of the universe without God.
P8: If the universe was created by will, then the universe is not a product of chance and doesn't necessarily have a quantifiable beginning.
P9: Creation of the universe from an eternal being, out of will, is logically possible.
C: The only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe is that it was created by the will of an eternal being.

Ben I don't mind helping you formulate this argument. Send me a PM with what you have (i.e. have another look at this and reword it) and I will help you out making it logically valid.

Thanks, I'll see if I can find another way to reword it but I believe it's logically valid as it stands.

It's not even close to logically valid yet. None of your conclusions follow from their premises; they're total non-sequiturs.

You also have a set of premises conditional on nothingness or the laws of nature being eternal, leading to the universe having a beginning, and then concluding that the universe couldn't have a beginning without God, which is not a logical progression at all. Since it's not written unambiguously, you may have meant something different. But at best, you're contradicting P3 with C1 directly.

You should let Envisage help you formulate an actual logical argument. I'd be interested to see what he comes up with.

In fact, why doesn't Envisage just do it on his own? Free tutoring?
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 2:03:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 1:57:26 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/12/2015 1:54:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/12/2015 1:29:05 PM, Nicoszon_the_Great wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:48:29 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
God is the only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe. I'll explain. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation. Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance. If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable. If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning. Why must it be quantifiable? Because we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to the creation event. If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. This is where we dead end. Logical impossibility.

If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence. Assuming that our universe must have a logically possible explanation, we dead end with God.

As a layman in the field of physics I'd like you to explain something to me.
Why is it that the trials which create and possibly destroy the universe cannot be infinitely probably but a deity can be? Wouldn't the sheer scope of what could exist beyond the bounds of known space at least offer the chance for evidence to disprove the assertions you've laid afore us?

Because it renders these actions to a quantifiable beginning whereas if the action was by will it doesn't. Something can't be infinite and quantifiable.

No because then you're delving beyond logical possibly.

And what of Zoglod? Do you deny his existence?
Zoglod created you and left you.

We are but the mould on the cheese Zoglod left out.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 2:18:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 1:29:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

Fine, I'll spend some time to simplify the argument. I "know" that its logically valid (at least intuitively) and that's why I believe it to be true. It will be able to be expressed in symbolic form given than my premises are true.

Hence, the problem with belief systems, their usage brings results that are often wrong.
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
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 2:21:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 2:03:17 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/12/2015 1:57:26 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/12/2015 1:54:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/12/2015 1:29:05 PM, Nicoszon_the_Great wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:48:29 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
God is the only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe. I'll explain. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation. Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance. If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable. If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning. Why must it be quantifiable? Because we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to the creation event. If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. This is where we dead end. Logical impossibility.

If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence. Assuming that our universe must have a logically possible explanation, we dead end with God.

As a layman in the field of physics I'd like you to explain something to me.
Why is it that the trials which create and possibly destroy the universe cannot be infinitely probably but a deity can be? Wouldn't the sheer scope of what could exist beyond the bounds of known space at least offer the chance for evidence to disprove the assertions you've laid afore us?

Because it renders these actions to a quantifiable beginning whereas if the action was by will it doesn't. Something can't be infinite and quantifiable.

No because then you're delving beyond logical possibly.

And what of Zoglod? Do you deny his existence?
Zoglod created you and left you.

We are but the mould on the cheese Zoglod left out.

the only way that story would become reasonable is if you twisted what it means to be "mould" what we refer to when we say "cheese" and most importantly if you describe "Zoglod" with all the attributes of God.

This is the tactic isn't it? take the Theist argument and change "God" to be "Xenoprosopon".

You forget a Rose by any other name is still a Rose.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 2:22:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 2:01:57 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/12/2015 12:40:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/12/2015 12:36:37 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/12/2015 12:13:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/12/2015 11:21:48 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:48:29 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
God is the only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe. I'll explain. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation.

P1. "If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation."

Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance.

P2. "Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance."

If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable.

P3. "If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable."

If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning.

P4. "If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning."

Why must it be quantifiable?

Not an assertion or premise

Because we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to the creation event. If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal.

P5. "If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. "

This is where we dead end. Logical impossibility.

If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence. Assuming that our universe must have a logically possible explanation, we dead end with God.

P6. "If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence."??

Putting this altogether:

P1. "If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation."
P2. "Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance."
P3. "If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe was inevitable."
P4. "If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning."
P5. "If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal. "
P6. "If the universe was created by will, then it has a logically possible explanation of its existence."

No conclusion follows from the premises, your argument is deductively invalid. So much for a "knockdown" argument for God. Why do you insist on obfuscation instead of clarity? There is a quote I want you to remember:

"A system can be so simple there are obviously no errors, or so complex there are no obvious errors."

Try again, this argument isn't even an argument as it stands.

Thanks Envisage! I never intentionally obfuscate anything. I intuit arguments that I believe are sound but have trouble formalizing and sometimes clarifying them especially when they get complicated. But hey, I could be wrong. Let's find out. I'll add in the missing components and see where we're at.

P1. If God doesn't exist, nothingness or laws of nature are the only means of causation.
P2. Laws of nature or nothingness can only cause something to occur by chance.
P3. If nothingness or the laws of nature are eternal, then the beginning of the universe, as a product of chance, was inevitable.
P4. If it was inevitable, it must have a quantifiable beginning.
P5. If something is quantifiable it cannot be eternal.
C: The only means of causation without God, if eternal, would be logically impossible.
P6: If the universe was not the product of something eternal, it was the product of an infinite regression of preceding events.
P7: An infinite regression of preceding events is not a logically possible cause for the origin of the universe.
C: There is not a logically possible means for the origin of the universe without God.
P8: If the universe was created by will, then the universe is not a product of chance and doesn't necessarily have a quantifiable beginning.
P9: Creation of the universe from an eternal being, out of will, is logically possible.
C: The only logically possible explanation for the origin of the universe is that it was created by the will of an eternal being.

Ben I don't mind helping you formulate this argument. Send me a PM with what you have (i.e. have another look at this and reword it) and I will help you out making it logically valid.

Thanks, I'll see if I can find another way to reword it but I believe it's logically valid as it stands.

It's not even close to logically valid yet. None of your conclusions follow from their premises; they're total non-sequiturs.

You also have a set of premises conditional on nothingness or the laws of nature being eternal, leading to the universe having a beginning, and then concluding that the universe couldn't have a beginning without God, which is not a logical progression at all.

Of course it is. If the only means for causation is both eternal and has a quantifiable beginning (which it must) it's logically impossible. "Without God" wasn't a necessary disclosure but doesn't impact the truth of the argument.

Since it's not written unambiguously, you may have meant something different. But at best, you're contradicting P3 with C1 directly.

That was the point - to show the contradiction.

You should let Envisage help you formulate an actual logical argument. I'd be interested to see what he comes up with.

In fact, why doesn't Envisage just do it on his own? Free tutoring?