Total Posts:131|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God must exist

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 7:42:20 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
ultimately, everything that exists must have originated from a source that created it out of free will. Otherwise we run into a problem of infinite regression or a necessary cause with a quantitative beginning (logically absurd).

The only means for action is free will, chance, or physical necessity.

Any action that occurs by chance or physical necessity implicitly had a non-zero chance of occurring. Given an infinite amount of time, any action with a non-zero chance of occurring will inevitably occur. Once an action occurs, we can't count backwards the number of fluctuations or trials that led up to that action. If we can count backwards the number of fluctuations or trials that led up to that action, it has a quantitative beginning. So under atheism, either we have an infinite regression or a necessary cause with a quantitative beginning. The only way to avoid both of these problems is a necessary cause where the action occurred by free will (a necessary cause that doesn't entail a quantitative beginning).
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 7:51:31 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 7:42:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
ultimately, everything that exists must have originated from a source that created it out of free will.

So even God originates from something. Great, then we've cleared that out.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 7:58:59 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 7:51:31 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:42:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
ultimately, everything that exists must have originated from a source that created it out of free will.

So even God originates from something. Great, then we've cleared that out.

"Everything" referring to everything in the universe. A necessary cause doesn't have an origin.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 8:12:59 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 7:58:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:51:31 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:42:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
ultimately, everything that exists must have originated from a source that created it out of free will.

So even God originates from something. Great, then we've cleared that out.

"Everything" referring to everything in the universe. A necessary cause doesn't have an origin.

Ah, so we get to exclude God because we defined him as being excluded. Impressive.

Here's a question for you: Was "existence" originated?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 8:20:45 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 8:12:59 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:58:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:51:31 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:42:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
ultimately, everything that exists must have originated from a source that created it out of free will.

So even God originates from something. Great, then we've cleared that out.

"Everything" referring to everything in the universe. A necessary cause doesn't have an origin.

Ah, so we get to exclude God because we defined him as being excluded. Impressive.

No, it's because things that exist necessarily don't have an origin, by definition. This goes for any uncaused source. I should have said everything *with an origin* must have originated from a source that created it out of free will.

Here's a question for you: Was "existence" originated?

No, existence regresses to God's mind.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 8:42:42 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
You assume that:
1) The universe began to exist.
AND/OR
2) The Principal of Sufficient Reason is sound
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 8:43:41 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 8:20:45 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/14/2016 8:12:59 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:58:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:51:31 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:42:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
ultimately, everything that exists must have originated from a source that created it out of free will.

So even God originates from something. Great, then we've cleared that out.

"Everything" referring to everything in the universe. A necessary cause doesn't have an origin.

Ah, so we get to exclude God because we defined him as being excluded. Impressive.

No, it's because things that exist necessarily don't have an origin, by definition. This goes for any uncaused source. I should have said everything *with an origin* must have originated from a source that created it out of free will.

I think you misspoke. If things that exist necessarily don't have an origin then the universe doesn't have an origin.

Saying that this goes for any "uncaused" source is just defining terms. This does not help us gain knowledge of reality. Same goes for adding *with an origin*. All you are doing is defining God as the cause of the universe, then arguing that he must be the cause because you defined him that way.

Here's a question for you: Was "existence" originated?

No, existence regresses to God's mind.

Can you demonstrate this?
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 8:47:28 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 8:42:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:
You assume that:
1) The universe began to exist.
AND/OR
2) The Principal of Sufficient Reason is sound

Oh, and:
3) That the universe is not necessary
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 8:56:41 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 8:12:59 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:58:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:51:31 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:42:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
ultimately, everything that exists must have originated from a source that created it out of free will.

So even God originates from something. Great, then we've cleared that out.

"Everything" referring to everything in the universe. A necessary cause doesn't have an origin.

Ah, so we get to exclude God because we defined him as being excluded. Impressive.

Not defined Him "excluded", the definition excludes Him lol. God is defined and understood as eternal, that excludes Him from "cause and origin" because of how eternity operates, that being "circular" and not linear. Note the poster said "doesn't have an origin". Creation refers to "everything in the universe" as the poster noted. God is not defined as being something inside the universe but rather either encompasses it or is "outside" it.

Here's a question for you: Was "existence" originated?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 8:57:42 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 7:42:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
ultimately, everything that exists must have originated from a source that created it out of free will.

Stopped reading here. Was it the free will of the dinosaurs or Gaia that created oil?

Otherwise we run into a problem of infinite regression or a necessary cause with a quantitative beginning (logically absurd).

The only means for action is free will, chance, or physical necessity.

Any action that occurs by chance or physical necessity implicitly had a non-zero chance of occurring. Given an infinite amount of time, any action with a non-zero chance of occurring will inevitably occur. Once an action occurs, we can't count backwards the number of fluctuations or trials that led up to that action. If we can count backwards the number of fluctuations or trials that led up to that action, it has a quantitative beginning. So under atheism, either we have an infinite regression or a necessary cause with a quantitative beginning. The only way to avoid both of these problems is a necessary cause where the action occurred by free will (a necessary cause that doesn't entail a quantitative beginning).
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
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 9:38:08 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 8:56:41 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 2/14/2016 8:12:59 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:58:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:51:31 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:42:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
ultimately, everything that exists must have originated from a source that created it out of free will.

So even God originates from something. Great, then we've cleared that out.

"Everything" referring to everything in the universe. A necessary cause doesn't have an origin.

Ah, so we get to exclude God because we defined him as being excluded. Impressive.

Not defined Him "excluded", the definition excludes Him lol. God is defined and understood as eternal, that excludes Him from "cause and origin" because of how eternity operates, that being "circular" and not linear. Note the poster said "doesn't have an origin". Creation refers to "everything in the universe" as the poster noted. God is not defined as being something inside the universe but rather either encompasses it or is "outside" it.

Yes, God is defined as being excluded from cause and origin. What part of this disagrees with what I just said?
Outplayz
Posts: 1,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 10:50:25 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 9:38:08 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/14/2016 8:56:41 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 2/14/2016 8:12:59 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:58:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:51:31 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:42:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
ultimately, everything that exists must have originated from a source that created it out of free will.

So even God originates from something. Great, then we've cleared that out.

"Everything" referring to everything in the universe. A necessary cause doesn't have an origin.

Ah, so we get to exclude God because we defined him as being excluded. Impressive.

Not defined Him "excluded", the definition excludes Him lol. God is defined and understood as eternal, that excludes Him from "cause and origin" because of how eternity operates, that being "circular" and not linear. Note the poster said "doesn't have an origin". Creation refers to "everything in the universe" as the poster noted. God is not defined as being something inside the universe but rather either encompasses it or is "outside" it.

Yes, God is defined as being excluded from cause and origin. What part of this disagrees with what I just said?

I agree with you that it should be defined and not just asserted. The only way i can see defining god is by understanding what it is. Then, what are we? Can we get an idea of what god is by observing us? I think so. One: It would have to be a higher power to us, assuming the fact that it made us. If so, our combined knowledge could still lack the absolute knowledge god could have. However, i don't think "god" has absolute knowledge... or, is in any way superior. It can be superior to some, but not all.

The way i look at it is that intelligence (or what we are) evolved first in the platform of immortality. I think mortality is a creation of this immortal "source." By my definition, god doesn't need a cause... it just needs to be. What is god? Higher power to us, intelligence by observation of us. To me, "intelligence, sentience, imagination, knowledge, etc" is one entity called a source. But, we are pieces of this source. For instance, god is the beginning of this source, which would actually make it pretty primitive. But, god is also the oldest making it ... well, intelligent to whatever capacity it is, and from age. Everything in between is just creation. If thought was formless... it would just create by thought... by become aware of the next level.

So... god is basically awareness. Or sentience, or any other semantic you'd put on it... but, in the bigger picture, we are all a 'god' to our own capacity. We are pieces of an infinite progression of "intelligence." Which is finite to the point of its awareness. If it goes to the next level... then, it creates something more. The observation would be similar to how we have progressed... actually, i think for this source to manifest in any reality... all levels will be played. The primitive to the present. Why? Bc each of the players is an entity. Once thought up... you cannot undo it.

In this type of platform, God would make sense in my opinion. Plus, there is the vague fact of us evolving that i can sorta use as proof, or one thereof, to the similarity of its evolution. However, i am sure you are aware that i am not defining god as all knowing, and the "Omnies" ... it is just another character along the line of characters. It just happens to be both the most primitive and the oldest. It is no more powerful then the next... but, "God" to me is defined by the source definition. Immortality evolving before mortality. It's logical imho.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 11:04:51 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 9:38:08 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/14/2016 8:56:41 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 2/14/2016 8:12:59 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:58:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:51:31 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:42:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
ultimately, everything that exists must have originated from a source that created it out of free will.

So even God originates from something. Great, then we've cleared that out.

"Everything" referring to everything in the universe. A necessary cause doesn't have an origin.

Ah, so we get to exclude God because we defined him as being excluded. Impressive.

Not defined Him "excluded", the definition excludes Him lol. God is defined and understood as eternal, that excludes Him from "cause and origin" because of how eternity operates, that being "circular" and not linear. Note the poster said "doesn't have an origin". Creation refers to "everything in the universe" as the poster noted. God is not defined as being something inside the universe but rather either encompasses it or is "outside" it.

Yes, God is defined as being excluded from cause and origin. What part of this disagrees with what I just said?

You know exactly what I meant, God is not defined as being excluded, the understanding of God excludes Him from origin. The way you phrased it sounded like an excuse to pin Theists for excluding God to dodge problems.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 11:05:02 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 8:42:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:
You assume that:
1) The universe began to exist.
AND/OR
2) The Principal of Sufficient Reason is sound

Would you mind explaining this further?
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
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 11:06:56 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 10:50:25 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 2/14/2016 9:38:08 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/14/2016 8:56:41 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 2/14/2016 8:12:59 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:58:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:51:31 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:42:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
ultimately, everything that exists must have originated from a source that created it out of free will.

So even God originates from something. Great, then we've cleared that out.

"Everything" referring to everything in the universe. A necessary cause doesn't have an origin.

Ah, so we get to exclude God because we defined him as being excluded. Impressive.

Not defined Him "excluded", the definition excludes Him lol. God is defined and understood as eternal, that excludes Him from "cause and origin" because of how eternity operates, that being "circular" and not linear. Note the poster said "doesn't have an origin". Creation refers to "everything in the universe" as the poster noted. God is not defined as being something inside the universe but rather either encompasses it or is "outside" it.

Yes, God is defined as being excluded from cause and origin. What part of this disagrees with what I just said?

I agree with you that it should be defined and not just asserted. The only way i can see defining god is by understanding what it is. Then, what are we? Can we get an idea of what god is by observing us? I think so. One: It would have to be a higher power to us, assuming the fact that it made us. If so, our combined knowledge could still lack the absolute knowledge god could have. However, i don't think "god" has absolute knowledge... or, is in any way superior. It can be superior to some, but not all.

So then God is not "eternal"? when did this become an assertion rather than a fact by definition? so then my next question is what is it that I said you disagree with by definition?

The way i look at it is that intelligence (or what we are) evolved first in the platform of immortality. I think mortality is a creation of this immortal "source." By my definition, god doesn't need a cause... it just needs to be. What is god? Higher power to us, intelligence by observation of us. To me, "intelligence, sentience, imagination, knowledge, etc" is one entity called a source. But, we are pieces of this source. For instance, god is the beginning of this source, which would actually make it pretty primitive. But, god is also the oldest making it ... well, intelligent to whatever capacity it is, and from age. Everything in between is just creation. If thought was formless... it would just create by thought... by become aware of the next level.

So... god is basically awareness. Or sentience, or any other semantic you'd put on it... but, in the bigger picture, we are all a 'god' to our own capacity. We are pieces of an infinite progression of "intelligence." Which is finite to the point of its awareness. If it goes to the next level... then, it creates something more. The observation would be similar to how we have progressed... actually, i think for this source to manifest in any reality... all levels will be played. The primitive to the present. Why? Bc each of the players is an entity. Once thought up... you cannot undo it.

In this type of platform, God would make sense in my opinion. Plus, there is the vague fact of us evolving that i can sorta use as proof, or one thereof, to the similarity of its evolution. However, i am sure you are aware that i am not defining god as all knowing, and the "Omnies" ... it is just another character along the line of characters. It just happens to be both the most primitive and the oldest. It is no more powerful then the next... but, "God" to me is defined by the source definition. Immortality evolving before mortality. It's logical imho.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 11:15:32 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 11:06:56 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 2/14/2016 10:50:25 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 2/14/2016 9:38:08 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/14/2016 8:56:41 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 2/14/2016 8:12:59 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:58:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:51:31 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:42:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
ultimately, everything that exists must have originated from a source that created it out of free will.

So even God originates from something. Great, then we've cleared that out.

"Everything" referring to everything in the universe. A necessary cause doesn't have an origin.

Ah, so we get to exclude God because we defined him as being excluded. Impressive.

Not defined Him "excluded", the definition excludes Him lol. God is defined and understood as eternal, that excludes Him from "cause and origin" because of how eternity operates, that being "circular" and not linear. Note the poster said "doesn't have an origin". Creation refers to "everything in the universe" as the poster noted. God is not defined as being something inside the universe but rather either encompasses it or is "outside" it.

Yes, God is defined as being excluded from cause and origin. What part of this disagrees with what I just said?

I agree with you that it should be defined and not just asserted. The only way i can see defining god is by understanding what it is. Then, what are we? Can we get an idea of what god is by observing us? I think so. One: It would have to be a higher power to us, assuming the fact that it made us. If so, our combined knowledge could still lack the absolute knowledge god could have. However, i don't think "god" has absolute knowledge... or, is in any way superior. It can be superior to some, but not all.

So then God is not "eternal"? when did this become an assertion rather than a fact by definition? so then my next question is what is it that I said you disagree with by definition?

Firstly: I wasn't addressing you in the question. Second: I never said "god" is not eternal... i believe in a sort of dualism. But, when it comes to god... i define it the same as everyone else... being immortal and mortal. I am a bit confused to what you are asking.

The way i look at it is that intelligence (or what we are) evolved first in the platform of immortality. I think mortality is a creation of this immortal "source." By my definition, god doesn't need a cause... it just needs to be. What is god? Higher power to us, intelligence by observation of us. To me, "intelligence, sentience, imagination, knowledge, etc" is one entity called a source. But, we are pieces of this source. For instance, god is the beginning of this source, which would actually make it pretty primitive. But, god is also the oldest making it ... well, intelligent to whatever capacity it is, and from age. Everything in between is just creation. If thought was formless... it would just create by thought... by become aware of the next level.

So... god is basically awareness. Or sentience, or any other semantic you'd put on it... but, in the bigger picture, we are all a 'god' to our own capacity. We are pieces of an infinite progression of "intelligence." Which is finite to the point of its awareness. If it goes to the next level... then, it creates something more. The observation would be similar to how we have progressed... actually, i think for this source to manifest in any reality... all levels will be played. The primitive to the present. Why? Bc each of the players is an entity. Once thought up... you cannot undo it.

In this type of platform, God would make sense in my opinion. Plus, there is the vague fact of us evolving that i can sorta use as proof, or one thereof, to the similarity of its evolution. However, i am sure you are aware that i am not defining god as all knowing, and the "Omnies" ... it is just another character along the line of characters. It just happens to be both the most primitive and the oldest. It is no more powerful then the next... but, "God" to me is defined by the source definition. Immortality evolving before mortality. It's logical imho.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 11:25:15 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 11:05:02 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/14/2016 8:42:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:
You assume that:
1) The universe began to exist.
AND/OR
2) The Principal of Sufficient Reason is sound

Would you mind explaining this further?

There are TWO types of ways one can say the universe has a cause.
1) If the universe began to exist (TCA vs KCA)
2) If the universe is both contingent AND the Principal of Sufficient Reason is sound.

I am sure that you would agree with the TCA or the similar argument from eternalism.
That eliminates the universe having began to exist, and thus leaves only 1 type of causality left.

Now, there are a few ways one can argue against the PSR being sound.
I will present 2 arguments against the PSR, my own and Van Inwagen's.

Mine:
A1) The universe need an explanation for their existence which is, ultimately, God (a version of the PSR that includes the "God" entailment).
P1) God"s properties are necessary.
P2) Any actions God makes is due to the properties God has.
C1) All actions of God are necessary.
P3) God causes the universe to exist in some possible world.
P4) All actions of God are necessary.
C2) God caused the universe to exist in all possible worlds.
C3) The universe exists in all possible worlds.
P5) That which exists in all possible worlds is necessary.
P6) The universe exists in all possible worlds.
C4) The universe is necessary.
P7) That which is necessary cannot have outside causes.
P8) The universe is necessary.
C5) God cannot be the cause of the Universe.
P9) A1 entails a paradox.
C6) A1 is false.

Van Inwagen's:
P1) There are some contingent propositions.
P2) Some propositions are true in some worlds and false in others.
C1) There are possible worlds.
P3) Suppose there are four possible worlds one of which is actual.
P4) Arbitrarily, let Possible World 2 be the actual world.
P5) If the Principle of Sufficient Reason is correct, there is a sufficient reason for the fact that Possible World Two is the actual world; that is, this fact has an explanation.
P6) Let S stand for the explanation sufficient to identify or describe Possible World Two as the actual world [the true proposition "Possible World Two is the actual world.].
P7) S cannot be true in any other Possible World save for Possible World Two.
C2) S must be true in Possible World Two and in no other possible world. What propositions have this feature? Only one: the proposition that Possible World Two is the actual world.
P8) But the fact that Possible World Two is the actual world cannot serve as an explanation of the fact that Possible World Two is the actual world. "Because Possible World Two is the actual world" is not an answer to the question "Why is Possible World Two the actual world?"
C3) Thus, there can be no answer to the question "Why is Possible World Two the actual world?

If a contingent fact CANNOT have an explanation (and cannot be necessary), then the PSR is refuted.

So, this means that even if the universe is contingent (which is just an assumption theists make), it does not follow that the universe needs an explanation for its existence (as the PSR is refuted).
Furthermore, if the universe never began to exist (a tenseless universe), then it has no cause for its existence.
Thus, the universe not only doesn't have a cause but does not need one.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 11:28:57 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 11:04:51 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 2/14/2016 9:38:08 PM, Double_R wrote:
Yes, God is defined as being excluded from cause and origin. What part of this disagrees with what I just said?

You know exactly what I meant, God is not defined as being excluded, the understanding of God excludes Him from origin.

Same thing.

The way you phrased it sounded like an excuse to pin Theists for excluding God to dodge problems.

That is exactly what I am implying.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 11:40:48 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 7:42:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
ultimately, everything that exists must have originated from a source that created it out of free will. Otherwise we run into a problem of infinite regression or a necessary cause with a quantitative beginning (logically absurd).

The only means for action is free will, chance, or physical necessity.

Any action that occurs by chance or physical necessity implicitly had a non-zero chance of occurring. Given an infinite amount of time, any action with a non-zero chance of occurring will inevitably occur. Once an action occurs, we can't count backwards the number of fluctuations or trials that led up to that action. If we can count backwards the number of fluctuations or trials that led up to that action, it has a quantitative beginning. So under atheism, either we have an infinite regression or a necessary cause with a quantitative beginning. The only way to avoid both of these problems is a necessary cause where the action occurred by free will (a necessary cause that doesn't entail a quantitative beginning).

There is a key flaw in your argument. You claim a god is necessary to create the universe but how did this god come into existence? To me it's like asking where did the chicken come from? And answering the egg. It's an unsatisfactory answer in my view.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 12:04:56 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 11:25:15 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/14/2016 11:05:02 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/14/2016 8:42:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:
You assume that:
1) The universe began to exist.
AND/OR
2) The Principal of Sufficient Reason is sound

Would you mind explaining this further?

There are TWO types of ways one can say the universe has a cause.
1) If the universe began to exist (TCA vs KCA)
2) If the universe is both contingent AND the Principal of Sufficient Reason is sound.

I am sure that you would agree with the TCA or the similar argument from eternalism.
That eliminates the universe having began to exist, and thus leaves only 1 type of causality left.

Now, there are a few ways one can argue against the PSR being sound.
I will present 2 arguments against the PSR, my own and Van Inwagen's.

Mine:
A1) The universe need an explanation for their existence which is, ultimately, God (a version of the PSR that includes the "God" entailment).
P1) God"s properties are necessary.
P2) Any actions God makes is due to the properties God has.
C1) All actions of God are necessary.
P3) God causes the universe to exist in some possible world.
P4) All actions of God are necessary.
C2) God caused the universe to exist in all possible worlds.
C3) The universe exists in all possible worlds.
P5) That which exists in all possible worlds is necessary.
P6) The universe exists in all possible worlds.
C4) The universe is necessary.
P7) That which is necessary cannot have outside causes.
P8) The universe is necessary.
C5) God cannot be the cause of the Universe.
P9) A1 entails a paradox.
C6) A1 is false.

Van Inwagen's:
P1) There are some contingent propositions.
P2) Some propositions are true in some worlds and false in others.
C1) There are possible worlds.
P3) Suppose there are four possible worlds one of which is actual.
P4) Arbitrarily, let Possible World 2 be the actual world.
P5) If the Principle of Sufficient Reason is correct, there is a sufficient reason for the fact that Possible World Two is the actual world; that is, this fact has an explanation.
P6) Let S stand for the explanation sufficient to identify or describe Possible World Two as the actual world [the true proposition "Possible World Two is the actual world.].
P7) S cannot be true in any other Possible World save for Possible World Two.
C2) S must be true in Possible World Two and in no other possible world. What propositions have this feature? Only one: the proposition that Possible World Two is the actual world.
P8) But the fact that Possible World Two is the actual world cannot serve as an explanation of the fact that Possible World Two is the actual world. "Because Possible World Two is the actual world" is not an answer to the question "Why is Possible World Two the actual world?"
C3) Thus, there can be no answer to the question "Why is Possible World Two the actual world?

If a contingent fact CANNOT have an explanation (and cannot be necessary), then the PSR is refuted.

So, this means that even if the universe is contingent (which is just an assumption theists make), it does not follow that the universe needs an explanation for its existence (as the PSR is refuted).
Furthermore, if the universe never began to exist (a tenseless universe), then it has no cause for its existence
Thus, the universe not only doesn't have a cause but does not need one.

Oh so to deny the assumptions the OP makes you invent and assume a tensless universe in which the words the OP uses have no meaning. Well with that kind of empirical scientific data we all should be atheist.

Tell me in your tenseless universe how can water run down hill?
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 12:19:19 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 12:04:56 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Oh so to deny the assumptions the OP makes you invent and assume a tensless universe

I have pointed out the evidence for a tenseless universe enough to Ben that he ought to understand by now (and this last comment was addressed to Skeptic, who I have talked to about this as well).
It isn't "assuming a tenseless universe", it is assuming he/they remembers our previous discussions about it so I don't have to go in depth here.

But since you seem to like to act like some sort of big shot, here is some evidence:
Special and General Relativity.
Retrocausality interpretation of Delayed Wait in Quantum Mechanics.
Quantum Entanglement via retrocausality.
Time emergent via Quantum Entanglement.

There are papers on all of this, all of which support the B-Theory of Time, thus a tenseless universe.
Oh, wait, WE have discussed this previously as well, making your objections questionable.

in which the words the OP uses have no meaning. Well with that kind of empirical scientific data we all should be atheist.

Tell me in your tenseless universe how can water run down hill?

There are different physical states at different temporal points (as "linear time" is just another axis, like space is). A water molecule at a "later" point on the "linear time" axis is further down the hill.

And thus, one can interpret that as "water run down hill".

Furthermore, physics does not require for there to be a flow of time, just for different physical states at different points on the "linear time" axis (this is why many physicists are B-Theorists). And so, all scientific theories work under a tenseless universe model as well, so I could also answer with gravity.

But, I know you know this as you have said in the past that you accept the B-Theory of Time (which is a tenseless universe theory). Whether you still do or not is irrelevant as you should have at least understood this when you did accept it.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 12:30:04 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 12:19:19 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 12:04:56 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Oh so to deny the assumptions the OP makes you invent and assume a tensless universe

I have pointed out the evidence for a tenseless universe enough to Ben that he ought to understand by now (and this last comment was addressed to Skeptic, who I have talked to about this as well).
It isn't "assuming a tenseless universe", it is assuming he/they remembers our previous discussions about it so I don't have to go in depth here.

But since you seem to like to act like some sort of big shot, here is some evidence:
Special and General Relativity.
Retrocausality interpretation of Delayed Wait in Quantum Mechanics.
Quantum Entanglement via retrocausality.
Time emergent via Quantum Entanglement.

There are papers on all of this, all of which support the B-Theory of Time, thus a tenseless universe.
Oh, wait, WE have discussed this previously as well, making your objections questionable.

in which the words the OP uses have no meaning. Well with that kind of empirical scientific data we all should be atheist.

Tell me in your tenseless universe how can water run down hill?

There are different physical states at different temporal points (as "linear time" is just another axis, like space is). A water molecule at a "later" point on the "linear time" axis is further down the hill.

And thus, one can interpret that as "water run down hill".

Furthermore, physics does not require for there to be a flow of time, just for different physical states at different points on the "linear time" axis (this is why many physicists are B-Theorists). And so, all scientific theories work under a tenseless universe model as well, so I could also answer with gravity.

But, I know you know this as you have said in the past that you accept the B-Theory of Time (which is a tenseless universe theory). Whether you still do or not is irrelevant as you should have at least understood this when you did accept it.

Okay so in a tenseless universe it is incorrect to say gravity causes water to run down hill. check

In a tenselss universe is a water molecule being in a different place in a different frame along this "linear time" effected by gravity or by nearby masses?

And while you say all science works in a tenseless universe is this true for entropy?
Outplayz
Posts: 1,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 12:37:11 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 12:19:19 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 12:04:56 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

But since you seem to like to act like some sort of big shot, here is some evidence:
Special and General Relativity.
Retrocausality interpretation of Delayed Wait in Quantum Mechanics.
Quantum Entanglement via retrocausality.
Time emergent via Quantum Entanglement.

Wow. You calling out someone with perfect projection "big shot." Now, i am not going to say my lack of understanding all of these "words" you throw out is your fault... but, wtf are you saying? Tense-less or not doesn't matter ... my definition of god still stands. You are here. Your eyes are open. Throw out as many definitions or theories as you want... it won't defeat the fact you are just a mad scientist stuck in a world that is giving you a challenge... hey, you like this challenge. It feels good. Isn't living great? My fellow... immortal.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 12:39:15 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 12:37:11 AM, Outplayz wrote:

Sorry, but I have a history of talking with this guy where he strawmans almost everything that gets said. I get sick of it and thus he no longer gets my respect.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 12:43:35 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 8:12:59 PM, Double_R wrote:

Ah, so we get to exclude God because we defined him as being excluded. Impressive.

Rather, we define some entity or thing as transcendental, and we just happen to call it God - not that we believe in something called God, then just happen to conveniently define God in such a way that allows our belief to continue existing.

It's kind of like someone trying to argue that the 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves evolution. When you point out the fact that evolution did not occur in a closed system, they say:

"Ah, so we get to exclude evolution from the law because we defined it to be excluded. Only closed systems apply. Impressive."

Further rebuttals typically involve the very important mathematical definition of entropy in order to clear misconceptions of what entropy is. I suppose this is also "impressive," since we're conveniently defining it in a way that doesn't allow their argument to exist.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 12:44:40 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 7:42:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
ultimately, everything that exists must have originated from a source that created it out of free will. Otherwise we run into a problem of infinite regression or a necessary cause with a quantitative beginning (logically absurd).

The only means for action is free will, chance, or physical necessity.

Any action that occurs by chance or physical necessity implicitly had a non-zero chance of occurring. Given an infinite amount of time, any action with a non-zero chance of occurring will inevitably occur. Once an action occurs, we can't count backwards the number of fluctuations or trials that led up to that action. If we can count backwards the number of fluctuations or trials that led up to that action, it has a quantitative beginning. So under atheism, either we have an infinite regression or a necessary cause with a quantitative beginning. The only way to avoid both of these problems is a necessary cause where the action occurred by free will (a necessary cause that doesn't entail a quantitative beginning).

If you insist that there has to be something outside of our universe which exists necessarily to be the cause of our universe, why does it have to have free will ?

I don't really get what you mean by quantitative beginnings and how this get you to necessarily existence with free will.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 12:45:23 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 12:39:15 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 12:37:11 AM, Outplayz wrote:

Sorry, but I have a history of talking with this guy where he strawmans almost everything that gets said. I get sick of it and thus he no longer gets my respect.

You and pretty much every atheist. If you notice the guy seems incapable of carrying out a discussion with any atheist about their personal views, and instead makes every substantive disagreement to be about the absurdity of atheism itself.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 12:46:24 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 12:39:15 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 12:37:11 AM, Outplayz wrote:

Sorry, but I have a history of talking with this guy where he strawmans almost everything that gets said. I get sick of it and thus he no longer gets my respect.

I respect that. I just wish you would talk a little more in the layman's side. You seem to be giving interesting arguments... but, i don't have the time to go back to school and take the classes that would help me define your words.

I am just confident that in the end. Your premises and conclusions can't disprove immortality in the light of it being the first force in the "universe(s)." In that case, every definition or thought we have has already been played out. That is why when you talk about the B-theory (which i took some time to read about) i can see that working in a universe were "intelligence" was the first force... creating everything through definition and awareness.

If i could understand your arguments better, i may be able to address them more specific... but, i did my best. I just understand my view can stand in either A-B theory... so i don't understand how you reach some of your conclusions so definitely.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 12:52:35 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 12:45:23 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/15/2016 12:39:15 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 12:37:11 AM, Outplayz wrote:

Sorry, but I have a history of talking with this guy where he strawmans almost everything that gets said. I get sick of it and thus he no longer gets my respect.

You and pretty much every atheist. If you notice the guy seems incapable of carrying out a discussion with any atheist about their personal views, and instead makes every substantive disagreement to be about the absurdity of atheism itself.

I am not even sure if I should even bother addressing his latest response to me.
He seems to be bashing a tenseless universe, but the last time I talked with him he said he believed the universe was tenseless.

It either means he is now just bashing a tenseless universe because I, as an atheist, am using it in my argument (despite him bashing something he accepts) OR he lied last time when he said he believed the universe was tenseless (or somehow forgot all about what a tenseless universe is). In either case, it makes me really not want to talk to the guy.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO