Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Devil's Advocate Thread [Week 1]

SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 2:56:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Welcome to the Devil's Advocate Thread!
This thread is unique in that every participant will be arguing devil's advocate!

If you wish to participate in this thread you must abide by the following rules:
1) You must be playing Devil's Advocate in this thread at all times.
2) If you wish to continue a discussion in this thread without playing Devil's Advocate you must create a new thread. You will be permitted to post a link to that thread here.
3) You must not strawman the position you are playing Devil's Advocate for.

Rules are subject to change on a week by week basis if seen necessary.
A new thread will be made every Monday (not including 10/26).
______________________________________________________________________________________

This week's topic will be...
Was the universe created by God!

There are many popular arguments used in favor of this position, the most popular probably being the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
P1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause;
P2) The universe began to exist;
C1) The universe has a cause.
P3) The universe has a cause;
P4) If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
C2) An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 3:38:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Quantum mechanics: the Observer Effect. (http://www.quantum-energy.org...)

P1.) O > M
- "If the Observer Effect is true, then the mind exists."
P2.) (M & ~P) > I
- "If the mind exists and is not physical, then immaterial entities can exist."
P3.) E > C
- "If an immaterial entity's existence is variable, then there must be an immaterial cause."
P4.) C > ~B
- "If there is an immaterial cause, then it is not conceivable that it could begin to exist as a result of itself."
P5.) ~B > E
- "If the immaterial cannot begin to exist by itself, then it must be eternal."
P6) O
- "The Observer Effect has been demonstrated to be true."
P7) ~P
- "The mind, in of and itself, is not physical."
P8) E
- "Consciousness, being immaterial, begins and ceases to exist, variably."
C1) M
- "The mind exists." (P1, P6, Modus Ponens)
C2) I
- "Immaterial entities can exist." (C1, P7, Conjunction w/ P2, Modus Ponens)
C3) C
- "There is an immaterial cause." (P3, P8, Modus Ponens)
C4) ~B
- "The immaterial cannot begin to exist by itself." (P4, C3, Modus Ponens)
C5) E
- "An eternal, immaterial cause exists." (P5, C4, Modus Ponens)

C) Therefore, God.

This is long, clunky, and made in haste, but I think the spirit of the argument (no pun intended) is clear.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 3:53:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I just notices I used 'E' twice. D'oh! Correction:

At 10/23/2015 3:38:44 PM, Chaosism wrote:

P5.) ~B > G
- "If the immaterial cannot begin to exist by itself, then it must be eternal."

C5) G
- "An eternal, immaterial cause exists." (P5, C4, Modus Ponens)
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 4:39:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
1. Things in the universe exist contingently.

2. Something that exists contingently has (and needs) an explanation of why it exists; after all, its existence is not inevitable.

3. This explanation may be provided by the existence of some other contingent being. But then we must explain these other contingent beings.

4. To repeat this ad infinitum is no explanation of why anything exists at all.

5. Therefore, what explains why contingent beings exist at all can only be a non-contingent being.

6. A non-contingent being is one that exists necessarily, and doesn"t need some further explanation for why it exists.

7. This necessary being is the creator.

Premise one states things in the universe are dependent on other things in the universe for their existence. I think we can all agree to that. Premise two is valid. Explanations are readily available to anything we may encounter in our known universe. Premise three and four are self-explanatory. Premise five follows from four. As a necessity, a being which is not dependent on anything for existence must exist, and that being is the creator.

http://www.debate.org...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2015 3:31:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
P1) If God created the universe, the universe has a cause.
P2) The universe can only have a cause if tensed facts exist.
P3) Tensed facts do not exist.
C1) The universe does not have a cause (follows from P2 and P3).
C2) God did not create the universe (follows from P1 and C1).
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2015 3:36:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Just as an fyi, this thread is not just about presenting arguments but also attempting to debate if they work.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2015 6:18:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2015 3:31:03 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1) If God created the universe, the universe has a cause.
P2) The universe can only have a cause if tensed facts exist.
P3) Tensed facts do not exist.
C1) The universe does not have a cause (follows from P2 and P3).
C2) God did not create the universe (follows from P1 and C1).

Nice argument SNP1...er...Ben! ;-)

Should I ask him or you what a 'tensed fact' is?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 11:14:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Look at how many people are active in this forum, why are so few willing to participate in this?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 11:24:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Abiogenesis came forth oh ye of little faith! Hear me out. There was nothing. Then there was something. We don't know how this happened but it did. The first self replicating molecule came into being. We don't know how that could happen either, but it did. Then a cell came into existance and died but before it died another two cells sprung into being and eventaully there was a microbe then a worm a fish a chicken, some dinosaurs somewhere that morphed into chickens, chickens became fish, fish became bats. It was wierd. There wasan ice age or a comet in here that wiped it out so the process had to restart and a monkey jumped off the dinosaur ark, turned into a person, and the rest is history. How did it all come to being? We have no clue, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night, and play a doctor on tv, thus I am an expert. And...I made a lot of money for promoting such an idea. Thanks for your support! Send your checks to barackobama.com
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 4:05:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 11:14:35 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Look at how many people are active in this forum, why are so few willing to participate in this?

Good question. I had high hopes for this one...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 6:15:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 4:05:52 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/25/2015 11:14:35 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Look at how many people are active in this forum, why are so few willing to participate in this?

Good question. I had high hopes for this one...

The only 2 people I would be able to respond to I can't. One because they used an argument I developed and the other because they are a moron who completely strawmanned the non-theistic position.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 6:33:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/23/2015 3:38:44 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Quantum mechanics: the Observer Effect. (http://www.quantum-energy.org...)

P1.) O > M
- "If the Observer Effect is true, then the mind exists."
P2.) (M & ~P) > I
- "If the mind exists and is not physical, then immaterial entities can exist."
P3.) E > C
- "If an immaterial entity's existence is variable, then there must be an immaterial cause."
P4.) C > ~B
- "If there is an immaterial cause, then it is not conceivable that it could begin to exist as a result of itself."
P5.) ~B > E
- "If the immaterial cannot begin to exist by itself, then it must be eternal."
P6) O
- "The Observer Effect has been demonstrated to be true."
P7) ~P
- "The mind, in of and itself, is not physical."
P8) E
- "Consciousness, being immaterial, begins and ceases to exist, variably."
C1) M
- "The mind exists." (P1, P6, Modus Ponens)
C2) I
- "Immaterial entities can exist." (C1, P7, Conjunction w/ P2, Modus Ponens)
C3) C
- "There is an immaterial cause." (P3, P8, Modus Ponens)
C4) ~B
- "The immaterial cannot begin to exist by itself." (P4, C3, Modus Ponens)
C5) E
- "An eternal, immaterial cause exists." (P5, C4, Modus Ponens)

C) Therefore, God.

This is long, clunky, and made in haste, but I think the spirit of the argument (no pun intended) is clear.

Why is the mind assumed to be immaterial rather than physical (P2)? If the mind isn't immaterial the whole argument fails.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 6:43:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/23/2015 4:39:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
1. Things in the universe exist contingently.

2. Something that exists contingently has (and needs) an explanation of why it exists; after all, its existence is not inevitable.

3. This explanation may be provided by the existence of some other contingent being. But then we must explain these other contingent beings.

4. To repeat this ad infinitum is no explanation of why anything exists at all.

5. Therefore, what explains why contingent beings exist at all can only be a non-contingent being.

6. A non-contingent being is one that exists necessarily, and doesn"t need some further explanation for why it exists.

7. This necessary being is the creator.

Premise one states things in the universe are dependent on other things in the universe for their existence. I think we can all agree to that. Premise two is valid. Explanations are readily available to anything we may encounter in our known universe. Premise three and four are self-explanatory. Premise five follows from four. As a necessity, a being which is not dependent on anything for existence must exist, and that being is the creator.

http://www.debate.org...

Any non-contingent being isn't exempt from requiring an explanation of its existence. The non-contingently existing thing doesn't necessarily have to be a being in the first place. All of this assumes the A- theory of time where past and future tenses exist. Under the B- theory of time everything that exists has always existed. This means that anything that appears to be caused into being is merely an illusory temporal effect. There could also be "brute contingencies" which would require no explanation of themselves. It's a fallacy of composition to assert that since things within the universe have causes that things outside the universe must have a cause as well. In fact, sans the universe there was no space-time and space-time is required for cause and effect.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 6:46:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2015 6:18:58 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/24/2015 3:31:03 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1) If God created the universe, the universe has a cause.
P2) The universe can only have a cause if tensed facts exist.
P3) Tensed facts do not exist.
C1) The universe does not have a cause (follows from P2 and P3).
C2) God did not create the universe (follows from P1 and C1).

Nice argument SNP1...er...Ben! ;-)

Should I ask him or you what a 'tensed fact' is?

Thanks! A tensed fact is a fact about past and future tenses. Under the B-theory of time, time is a universal present where past and future doesn't actually exist.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 2:44:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 6:15:24 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/26/2015 4:05:52 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/25/2015 11:14:35 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Look at how many people are active in this forum, why are so few willing to participate in this?

Good question. I had high hopes for this one...

The only 2 people I would be able to respond to I can't. One because they used an argument I developed and the other because they are a moron who completely strawmanned the non-theistic position.

Well, I don't understand the A/B theories of time, so feel free to provide explanation. The other can be written off as disingenuous caricature not to be dignified with response.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten