Total Posts:111|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

An eternal being must exist

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 4:37:30 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Here's why.

Actions occur in one of three ways: (1) By natural law, (2) By chance, or (3) by free will.

If an action occurs by natural law or by chance, then there was necessarily an implicit chance that that action could occur. Anything that has no implicit chance of occurring would never occur even over an infinite amount of time. So, any action that has an implicit chance of occurring >0 will inevitably occur given an infinite amount of time. Once an action inevitably occurs, we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to that action. This gives the action a quantifiable beginning. Anything that has a quantifiable beginning cannot be eternal. The only means for action under naturalism is implicit chance, meaning that either an implicit chance within "nothingness" or "something" caused the universe to come into being. Either way, this source couldn't have had free will because 'will' only exists within the mind. This means that if naturalism is true, we necessarily have an eternal but quantifiable beginning. This poses a logical absurdity and means that naturalism is therefore false. The only means for action that wouldn't quantify the beginning of an eternally existent thing is if the action occurred via free will. Since free will requires mind, only an eternal being with free will could've brought the universe into being.
Face-of-the-deep
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 4:45:54 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/25/2016 4:37:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's why.

Actions occur in one of three ways: (1) By natural law, (2) By chance, or (3) by free will.

If an action occurs by natural law or by chance, then there was necessarily an implicit chance that that action could occur. Anything that has no implicit chance of occurring would never occur even over an infinite amount of time. So, any action that has an implicit chance of occurring >0 will inevitably occur given an infinite amount of time. Once an action inevitably occurs, we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to that action. This gives the action a quantifiable beginning. Anything that has a quantifiable beginning cannot be eternal. The only means for action under naturalism is implicit chance, meaning that either an implicit chance within "nothingness" or "something" caused the universe to come into being. Either way, this source couldn't have had free will because 'will' only exists within the mind. This means that if naturalism is true, we necessarily have an eternal but quantifiable beginning. This poses a logical absurdity and means that naturalism is therefore false. The only means for action that wouldn't quantify the beginning of an eternally existent thing is if the action occurred via free will. Since free will requires mind, only an eternal being with free will could've brought the universe into being.

We are all eternal. There never was a first time. Everybody lives forever. We, are those eternal creatures we seek.
Happy tears of joy. Amen.
Skeptical1
Posts: 675
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 6:04:37 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/25/2016 4:37:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's why.

Actions occur in one of three ways: (1) By natural law, (2) By chance, or (3) by free will.

If an action occurs by natural law or by chance, then there was necessarily an implicit chance that that action could occur. Anything that has no implicit chance of occurring would never occur even over an infinite amount of time. So, any action that has an implicit chance of occurring >0 will inevitably occur given an infinite amount of time. Once an action inevitably occurs, we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to that action. This gives the action a quantifiable beginning. Anything that has a quantifiable beginning cannot be eternal. The only means for action under naturalism is implicit chance, meaning that either an implicit chance within "nothingness" or "something" caused the universe to come into being. Either way, this source couldn't have had free will because 'will' only exists within the mind. This means that if naturalism is true, we necessarily have an eternal but quantifiable beginning. This poses a logical absurdity and means that naturalism is therefore false. The only means for action that wouldn't quantify the beginning of an eternally existent thing is if the action occurred via free will. Since free will requires mind, only an eternal being with free will could've brought the universe into being.

I believe this argument to be logically flawed. Essentially, what you have proposed boils down to this:

1. A has no chance of occurring.
2. Therefore, A will never happen.
3. B may occur.
4. Therefore, B must certainly happen.

I suggest that even in an infinite universe, (4) may not be inferred from the preceding.

If we take the argument that an infinite universe of possibilities exists, then consider the following:

Toss a coin. It will come down either heads or tails. Repeat for eternity.

You might argue that since there is a probability > 0 of the coin at some time in an infinite future showing "heads", then eventually this *must* happen. That would be false. Because, in a universe of all possible results, one of those results is tail... tail... tail... ad inifinitum.

It is not logically correct to infer that because something can happen, it must.

A further point of interest would be to describe what you mean all three terms - natural law, chance and free will. Do any of these have a definable meaning? But, one thing at a time.
Skeptical1
Posts: 675
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 6:37:24 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/25/2016 6:04:37 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/25/2016 4:37:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's why.

Actions occur in one of three ways: (1) By natural law, (2) By chance, or (3) by free will.

If an action occurs by natural law or by chance, then there was necessarily an implicit chance that that action could occur. Anything that has no implicit chance of occurring would never occur even over an infinite amount of time. So, any action that has an implicit chance of occurring >0 will inevitably occur given an infinite amount of time. Once an action inevitably occurs, we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to that action. This gives the action a quantifiable beginning. Anything that has a quantifiable beginning cannot be eternal. The only means for action under naturalism is implicit chance, meaning that either an implicit chance within "nothingness" or "something" caused the universe to come into being. Either way, this source couldn't have had free will because 'will' only exists within the mind. This means that if naturalism is true, we necessarily have an eternal but quantifiable beginning. This poses a logical absurdity and means that naturalism is therefore false. The only means for action that wouldn't quantify the beginning of an eternally existent thing is if the action occurred via free will. Since free will requires mind, only an eternal being with free will could've brought the universe into being.


Additionally, your argument can equally be used to disprove the existence of your "eternal being". Let's be honest, and call it God. Either something caused God, or nothing caused God. If something caused God, then God is not the first cause, and by definition isn't God. If nothing caused God, then he doesn't exist.

Not the same? It's exactly the same, and adding "ness" to the end of "nothing", doesn't alter anything. Your only possible objection to the above would be that God was not created, which is exactly what non-theists say about the universe. The difference is that there is evidence the universe exists.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,865
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 7:07:25 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/25/2016 6:37:24 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/25/2016 6:04:37 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/25/2016 4:37:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's why.

Actions occur in one of three ways: (1) By natural law, (2) By chance, or (3) by free will.

If an action occurs by natural law or by chance, then there was necessarily an implicit chance that that action could occur. Anything that has no implicit chance of occurring would never occur even over an infinite amount of time. So, any action that has an implicit chance of occurring >0 will inevitably occur given an infinite amount of time. Once an action inevitably occurs, we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to that action. This gives the action a quantifiable beginning. Anything that has a quantifiable beginning cannot be eternal. The only means for action under naturalism is implicit chance, meaning that either an implicit chance within "nothingness" or "something" caused the universe to come into being. Either way, this source couldn't have had free will because 'will' only exists within the mind. This means that if naturalism is true, we necessarily have an eternal but quantifiable beginning. This poses a logical absurdity and means that naturalism is therefore false. The only means for action that wouldn't quantify the beginning of an eternally existent thing is if the action occurred via free will. Since free will requires mind, only an eternal being with free will could've brought the universe into being.


Additionally, your argument can equally be used to disprove the existence of your "eternal being". Let's be honest, and call it God. Either something caused God, or nothing caused God. If something caused God, then God is not the first cause, and by definition isn't God. If nothing caused God, then he doesn't exist.
Your reasoning is laughable. If nothing caused God then that means the eternal being is God not that there is no God. Nice try though.
Not the same? It's exactly the same, and adding "ness" to the end of "nothing", doesn't alter anything. Your only possible objection to the above would be that God was not created, which is exactly what non-theists say about the universe. The difference is that there is evidence the universe exists.

fallacy of omniscience. The claim there is no evidence for a god isn't logically defensible. You would have to prove you're an authority on validating the evidence, an authority on describing what environments have been investigated and that the list of environments is all the ones we would expect to find evidence.
The claim there is no evidence of a God is a rudimentary flaw in reasoning that is easily exposed as fallacious. You simply do not possess all knowledge of all evidence in regards to all things that are or have been claimed as existing.
Skeptical1
Posts: 675
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 7:15:58 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/25/2016 7:07:25 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/25/2016 6:37:24 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/25/2016 6:04:37 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/25/2016 4:37:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's why.

Actions occur in one of three ways: (1) By natural law, (2) By chance, or (3) by free will.

If an action occurs by natural law or by chance, then there was necessarily an implicit chance that that action could occur. Anything that has no implicit chance of occurring would never occur even over an infinite amount of time. So, any action that has an implicit chance of occurring >0 will inevitably occur given an infinite amount of time. Once an action inevitably occurs, we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to that action. This gives the action a quantifiable beginning. Anything that has a quantifiable beginning cannot be eternal. The only means for action under naturalism is implicit chance, meaning that either an implicit chance within "nothingness" or "something" caused the universe to come into being. Either way, this source couldn't have had free will because 'will' only exists within the mind. This means that if naturalism is true, we necessarily have an eternal but quantifiable beginning. This poses a logical absurdity and means that naturalism is therefore false. The only means for action that wouldn't quantify the beginning of an eternally existent thing is if the action occurred via free will. Since free will requires mind, only an eternal being with free will could've brought the universe into being.


Additionally, your argument can equally be used to disprove the existence of your "eternal being". Let's be honest, and call it God. Either something caused God, or nothing caused God. If something caused God, then God is not the first cause, and by definition isn't God. If nothing caused God, then he doesn't exist.
Your reasoning is laughable. If nothing caused God then that means the eternal being is God not that there is no God. Nice try though.

You really should read an entire post before you answer. It's not that long.

Not the same? It's exactly the same, and adding "ness" to the end of "nothing", doesn't alter anything. Your only possible objection to the above would be that God was not created, which is exactly what non-theists say about the universe. The difference is that there is evidence the universe exists.

fallacy of omniscience. The claim there is no evidence for a god isn't logically defensible. You would have to prove you're an authority on validating the evidence, an authority on describing what environments have been investigated and that the list of environments is all the ones we would expect to find evidence.

No, all I have to do is require of you that you present me with the evidence for your claim that God exists. As Ben did. It wasn't good evidence, but it was more of an attempt than you've made thus far.

The claim there is no evidence of a God is a rudimentary flaw in reasoning that is easily exposed as fallacious. You simply do not possess all knowledge of all evidence in regards to all things that are or have been claimed as existing.

The purple nosed flying wombat that lives in my garage told me that God doesn't exist. It's omniscient, so it must know. I therefore have perfect evidence that God doesn't exist. The "reasoning flaw" is yours, in assuming the need to disprove the existence of something.
Willows
Posts: 2,053
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 10:43:49 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/25/2016 4:37:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's why.

Actions occur in one of three ways: (1) By natural law, (2) By chance, or (3) by free will.

If an action occurs by natural law or by chance, then there was necessarily an implicit chance that that action could occur. Anything that has no implicit chance of occurring would never occur even over an infinite amount of time. So, any action that has an implicit chance of occurring >0 will inevitably occur given an infinite amount of time. Once an action inevitably occurs, we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to that action. This gives the action a quantifiable beginning. Anything that has a quantifiable beginning cannot be eternal. The only means for action under naturalism is implicit chance, meaning that either an implicit chance within "nothingness" or "something" caused the universe to come into being. Either way, this source couldn't have had free will because 'will' only exists within the mind. This means that if naturalism is true, we necessarily have an eternal but quantifiable beginning. This poses a logical absurdity and means that naturalism is therefore false. The only means for action that wouldn't quantify the beginning of an eternally existent thing is if the action occurred via free will. Since free will requires mind, only an eternal being with free will could've brought the universe into being.

The very first word of your post is "if" and from then on every statement is conditional. So, really, the last words of your post, being your conclusion is unqualified speculation.
KwLm
Posts: 483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 10:47:53 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/25/2016 6:37:24 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/25/2016 6:04:37 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/25/2016 4:37:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's why.

Actions occur in one of three ways: (1) By natural law, (2) By chance, or (3) by free will.

If an action occurs by natural law or by chance, then there was necessarily an implicit chance that that action could occur. Anything that has no implicit chance of occurring would never occur even over an infinite amount of time. So, any action that has an implicit chance of occurring >0 will inevitably occur given an infinite amount of time. Once an action inevitably occurs, we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to that action. This gives the action a quantifiable beginning. Anything that has a quantifiable beginning cannot be eternal. The only means for action under naturalism is implicit chance, meaning that either an implicit chance within "nothingness" or "something" caused the universe to come into being. Either way, this source couldn't have had free will because 'will' only exists within the mind. This means that if naturalism is true, we necessarily have an eternal but quantifiable beginning. This poses a logical absurdity and means that naturalism is therefore false. The only means for action that wouldn't quantify the beginning of an eternally existent thing is if the action occurred via free will. Since free will requires mind, only an eternal being with free will could've brought the universe into being.


Additionally, your argument can equally be used to disprove the existence of your "eternal being". Let's be honest, and call it God. Either something caused God, or nothing caused God. If something caused God, then God is not the first cause, and by definition isn't God. If nothing caused God, then he doesn't exist.

Not the same? It's exactly the same, and adding "ness" to the end of "nothing", doesn't alter anything. Your only possible objection to the above would be that God was not created, which is exactly what non-theists say about the universe. The difference is that there is evidence the universe exists.

+1
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 11:45:33 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/25/2016 4:37:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's why.

Actions occur in one of three ways: (1) By natural law, (2) By chance, or (3) by free will.

You ever going to try to prove this trichotimy? Gl doing that without resorting to incredulity/shifting BoP/argument from ignorance.

Without that the rest of your argument is unsound, not that it is remotely sound even if this premise was actually true.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 2:10:38 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/25/2016 6:04:37 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/25/2016 4:37:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's why.

Actions occur in one of three ways: (1) By natural law, (2) By chance, or (3) by free will.

If an action occurs by natural law or by chance, then there was necessarily an implicit chance that that action could occur. Anything that has no implicit chance of occurring would never occur even over an infinite amount of time. So, any action that has an implicit chance of occurring >0 will inevitably occur given an infinite amount of time. Once an action inevitably occurs, we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to that action. This gives the action a quantifiable beginning. Anything that has a quantifiable beginning cannot be eternal. The only means for action under naturalism is implicit chance, meaning that either an implicit chance within "nothingness" or "something" caused the universe to come into being. Either way, this source couldn't have had free will because 'will' only exists within the mind. This means that if naturalism is true, we necessarily have an eternal but quantifiable beginning. This poses a logical absurdity and means that naturalism is therefore false. The only means for action that wouldn't quantify the beginning of an eternally existent thing is if the action occurred via free will. Since free will requires mind, only an eternal being with free will could've brought the universe into being.

I believe this argument to be logically flawed. Essentially, what you have proposed boils down to this:

1. A has no implicit chance of ever occurring.
2. Therefore, A will never occur.
3. B has an implicit chance of occurring
4. Therefore, given an infinite amount of time, B will certainly occur.

I modified it a bit.

I suggest that even in an infinite universe, (4) may not be inferred from the preceding.

If we take the argument that an infinite universe of possibilities exists, then consider the following:

If there are an infinite number of parallel universes in which all possibilites actually occur? Or do you mean one, infinite universe in which all possibilities actually occur?

Toss a coin. It will come down either heads or tails. Repeat for eternity.

You might argue that since there is a probability > 0 of the coin at some time in an infinite future showing "heads", then eventually this *must* happen. That would be false. Because, in a universe of all possible results, one of those results is tail... tail... tail... ad inifinitum.

Not according to the law of averages. Also, if the universe turned up "tails" at point "A" then at point "A" there was necessarily no "heads". If this universe is bound by the law of non-contradiction, then by definition a universe where all possibilities occur doesn't exist (because at point A it was tails instead of heads). You would need to argue for an infinite number of parallel universes where all possibilities are actualized. So in universe 1 at point "A" it came up as heads rather than tails and in universe 2 at point "A" it came up as tails but at point "B" it came up as heads and in universe 3 . . . ad inifinitum.

It is not logically correct to infer that because something can happen, it must.

Over an infinite amount of time it must but let's assume you're correct. If an action didn't happen, our universe wouldn't exist. Our universe exists. Therefore an action happened. This brings us back to the quantification dilemma.

A further point of interest would be to describe what you mean all three terms - natural law, chance and free will. Do any of these have a definable meaning? But, one thing at a time.

Natural law: the action occurs by physical laws (physics, chemistry, etc.)

Chance: the action occurs as an undetermined possibility

Free will: the action occurs by will (intent or motive).
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 2:24:23 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/25/2016 6:37:24 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/25/2016 6:04:37 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/25/2016 4:37:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's why.

Actions occur in one of three ways: (1) By natural law, (2) By chance, or (3) by free will.

If an action occurs by natural law or by chance, then there was necessarily an implicit chance that that action could occur. Anything that has no implicit chance of occurring would never occur even over an infinite amount of time. So, any action that has an implicit chance of occurring >0 will inevitably occur given an infinite amount of time. Once an action inevitably occurs, we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to that action. This gives the action a quantifiable beginning. Anything that has a quantifiable beginning cannot be eternal. The only means for action under naturalism is implicit chance, meaning that either an implicit chance within "nothingness" or "something" caused the universe to come into being. Either way, this source couldn't have had free will because 'will' only exists within the mind. This means that if naturalism is true, we necessarily have an eternal but quantifiable beginning. This poses a logical absurdity and means that naturalism is therefore false. The only means for action that wouldn't quantify the beginning of an eternally existent thing is if the action occurred via free will. Since free will requires mind, only an eternal being with free will could've brought the universe into being.


Additionally, your argument can equally be used to disprove the existence of your "eternal being". Let's be honest, and call it God. Either something caused God, or nothing caused God. If something caused God, then God is not the first cause, and by definition isn't God. If nothing caused God, then he doesn't exist.

Not the same? It's exactly the same, and adding "ness" to the end of "nothing", doesn't alter anything. Your only possible objection to the above would be that God was not created, which is exactly what non-theists say about the universe. The difference is that there is evidence the universe exists.

If something is eternally existent then it always existed and nothing caused it to exist. If the chain of events that led to the creation of our universe was the product of implicit chance, then by counting backwards the number of trials that led to our universe gives this eternal thing a quantifiable beginning. The only way around that is if the action occurred by free will, which wouldn't quantify that action's occurrence.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 2:29:54 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/25/2016 11:45:33 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/25/2016 4:37:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's why.

Actions occur in one of three ways: (1) By natural law, (2) By chance, or (3) by free will.

You ever going to try to prove this trichotimy? Gl doing that without resorting to incredulity/shifting BoP/argument from ignorance.

We only observe actions that are possibly 1, 2, a combination of 1&2, or 3. If 3, in any combination is true, then we've already shown that a mind exists and the argument stands. Basically actions occur by implicit chance or they don't via law of excluded middle.

Without that the rest of your argument is unsound, not that it is remotely sound even if this premise was actually true.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 2:32:51 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/25/2016 10:43:49 AM, Willows wrote:
At 10/25/2016 4:37:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's why.

Actions occur in one of three ways: (1) By natural law, (2) By chance, or (3) by free will.

If an action occurs by natural law or by chance, then there was necessarily an implicit chance that that action could occur. Anything that has no implicit chance of occurring would never occur even over an infinite amount of time. So, any action that has an implicit chance of occurring >0 will inevitably occur given an infinite amount of time. Once an action inevitably occurs, we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to that action. This gives the action a quantifiable beginning. Anything that has a quantifiable beginning cannot be eternal. The only means for action under naturalism is implicit chance, meaning that either an implicit chance within "nothingness" or "something" caused the universe to come into being. Either way, this source couldn't have had free will because 'will' only exists within the mind. This means that if naturalism is true, we necessarily have an eternal but quantifiable beginning. This poses a logical absurdity and means that naturalism is therefore false. The only means for action that wouldn't quantify the beginning of an eternally existent thing is if the action occurred via free will. Since free will requires mind, only an eternal being with free will could've brought the universe into being.

The very first word of your post is "if" and from then on every statement is conditional. So, really, the last words of your post, being your conclusion is unqualified speculation.

That "if" needs to be true if naturalism is true since actions under naturalism can only occur by implicit chance.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 2:36:55 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/25/2016 2:32:51 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/25/2016 10:43:49 AM, Willows wrote:
At 10/25/2016 4:37:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's why.

Actions occur in one of three ways: (1) By natural law, (2) By chance, or (3) by free will.

If an action occurs by natural law or by chance, then there was necessarily an implicit chance that that action could occur. Anything that has no implicit chance of occurring would never occur even over an infinite amount of time. So, any action that has an implicit chance of occurring >0 will inevitably occur given an infinite amount of time. Once an action inevitably occurs, we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to that action. This gives the action a quantifiable beginning. Anything that has a quantifiable beginning cannot be eternal. The only means for action under naturalism is implicit chance, meaning that either an implicit chance within "nothingness" or "something" caused the universe to come into being. Either way, this source couldn't have had free will because 'will' only exists within the mind. This means that if naturalism is true, we necessarily have an eternal but quantifiable beginning. This poses a logical absurdity and means that naturalism is therefore false. The only means for action that wouldn't quantify the beginning of an eternally existent thing is if the action occurred via free will. Since free will requires mind, only an eternal being with free will could've brought the universe into being.

The very first word of your post is "if" and from then on every statement is conditional. So, really, the last words of your post, being your conclusion is unqualified speculation.

Scratch that. Any way you look at it, if my reasoning is correct, then the conclusion follows. You need to read the whole post.
mrsatan
Posts: 425
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 4:40:36 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/25/2016 4:37:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's why.

Actions occur in one of three ways: (1) By natural law, (2) By chance, or (3) by free will.

If an action occurs by natural law or by chance, then there was necessarily an implicit chance that that action could occur. Anything that has no implicit chance of occurring would never occur even over an infinite amount of time. So, any action that has an implicit chance of occurring >0 will inevitably occur given an infinite amount of time. Once an action inevitably occurs, we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to that action. This gives the action a quantifiable beginning. Anything that has a quantifiable beginning cannot be eternal. The only means for action under naturalism is implicit chance, meaning that either an implicit chance within "nothingness" or "something" caused the universe to come into being. Either way, this source couldn't have had free will because 'will' only exists within the mind. This means that if naturalism is true, we necessarily have an eternal but quantifiable beginning. This poses a logical absurdity and means that naturalism is therefore false. The only means for action that wouldn't quantify the beginning of an eternally existent thing is if the action occurred via free will. Since free will requires mind, only an eternal being with free will could've brought the universe into being.

One major flaw in your reasoning is that you assume an eternal existence operates in the same fashion as the temporary existence we find ourselves in. You assume a linear timeline in said eternal existence, but that existence, by definition, has no beginning or end. Without a point for a linear timeline to begin, there is no timeline to trace back. As such, it is necessary that an eternal existence operates in a fundamentally different fashion than the existence we find ourselves in.

An eternal existence is beyond human comprehension, because we have absolutely no starting point, no foundation, upon which to develop that comprehension.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
bulproof
Posts: 25,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 4:46:20 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/25/2016 4:37:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's why.

Actions occur in one of three ways: (1) By natural law, (2) By chance, or (3) by free will.

If an action occurs by natural law or by chance, then there was necessarily an implicit chance that that action could occur. Anything that has no implicit chance of occurring would never occur even over an infinite amount of time. So, any action that has an implicit chance of occurring >0 will inevitably occur given an infinite amount of time. Once an action inevitably occurs, we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to that action. This gives the action a quantifiable beginning. Anything that has a quantifiable beginning cannot be eternal. The only means for action under naturalism is implicit chance, meaning that either an implicit chance within "nothingness" or "something" caused the universe to come into being. Either way, this source couldn't have had free will because 'will' only exists within the mind. This means that if naturalism is true, we necessarily have an eternal but quantifiable beginning. This poses a logical absurdity and means that naturalism is therefore false. The only means for action that wouldn't quantify the beginning of an eternally existent thing is if the action occurred via free will. Since free will requires mind, only an eternal being with free will could've brought the universe into being.
Your abject fear of death is such a horrible thing to observe Benny. Death is inevitable dear thing, embrace that knowledge and accept it.
Your life will be far better for the knowledge.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 4:55:55 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/25/2016 4:40:36 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 10/25/2016 4:37:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's why.

Actions occur in one of three ways: (1) By natural law, (2) By chance, or (3) by free will.

If an action occurs by natural law or by chance, then there was necessarily an implicit chance that that action could occur. Anything that has no implicit chance of occurring would never occur even over an infinite amount of time. So, any action that has an implicit chance of occurring >0 will inevitably occur given an infinite amount of time. Once an action inevitably occurs, we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to that action. This gives the action a quantifiable beginning. Anything that has a quantifiable beginning cannot be eternal. The only means for action under naturalism is implicit chance, meaning that either an implicit chance within "nothingness" or "something" caused the universe to come into being. Either way, this source couldn't have had free will because 'will' only exists within the mind. This means that if naturalism is true, we necessarily have an eternal but quantifiable beginning. This poses a logical absurdity and means that naturalism is therefore false. The only means for action that wouldn't quantify the beginning of an eternally existent thing is if the action occurred via free will. Since free will requires mind, only an eternal being with free will could've brought the universe into being.

One major flaw in your reasoning is that you assume an eternal existence operates in the same fashion as the temporary existence we find ourselves in. You assume a linear timeline in said eternal existence, but that existence, by definition, has no beginning or end. Without a point for a linear timeline to begin, there is no timeline to trace back. As such, it is necessary that an eternal existence operates in a fundamentally different fashion than the existence we find ourselves in.

If the action that brought the universe into being was a function of implicit chance, then it has a quantifiable beginning and therefore the action couldn't have arisen from something eternally existent.

If the action that brought the universe into being was not a function of implicit chance, then it does not have a quantifiable beginning and therefore the action could've arisen from something eternally existent

The only way we can bridge the eternal to the finite is if the bridge was unquantifiable (brought into being by free will).

An eternal existence is beyond human comprehension, because we have absolutely no starting point, no foundation, upon which to develop that comprehension.

We don't fully comprehend it, but we understand what it means for something to be eternal. It means always existing and without origin.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 5:20:25 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/25/2016 4:37:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's why.

Actions occur in one of three ways: (1) By natural law, (2) By chance, or (3) by free will.

The first two seem to me to be the same and I question the coherence of the 3rd as anything more than a subset of the first.

Once an action inevitably occurs, we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to that action.

Like many people, you've tripped up your own argument by invoking infinity. It may be that there are an infinite number of steps before it happens. Which, according to your framework, means the point at which it occurs is never reached, nor is the 'first' event if you count back.

This means that if naturalism is true, we necessarily have an eternal but quantifiable beginning.

Not necessarily, no. You are trying to extend causality and logic to beyond the realm of causality and logic. The conclusion is inevitably nonsense. This even before infinity comes into play, which absolutely allows for an infinitely distant yet unquantifiable beginning.

The only means for action that wouldn't quantify the beginning of an eternally existent thing is if the action occurred via free will. Since free will requires mind, only an eternal being with free will could've brought the universe into being.

This is utter nonsense. You've arbitrarily made "free will" mean "magic". Free will requires mind, which in every which instance we've observed itself requires body. So only an eternal being with a body could have created physical reality. Which is the sum total of physical things. Leading to the paradox of it preceding its own medium.

All of which assumes free will is anything more than a description of certain types of physical process. Which, frankly, I'm yet to see evidence of. Even if I did, it still wouldn't detach it from the physical world. And even if it did that as well, it wouldn't extend our frame of reference beyond itself. Which it never could because that itself would invalidate our frame of reference and its use for reaching such a conclusion in the first place.

So no, basically. As an argument it falls into the category of Not Even Wrong.
mrsatan
Posts: 425
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 5:41:16 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/25/2016 4:55:55 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/25/2016 4:40:36 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 10/25/2016 4:37:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's why.

Actions occur in one of three ways: (1) By natural law, (2) By chance, or (3) by free will.

If an action occurs by natural law or by chance, then there was necessarily an implicit chance that that action could occur. Anything that has no implicit chance of occurring would never occur even over an infinite amount of time. So, any action that has an implicit chance of occurring >0 will inevitably occur given an infinite amount of time. Once an action inevitably occurs, we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to that action. This gives the action a quantifiable beginning. Anything that has a quantifiable beginning cannot be eternal. The only means for action under naturalism is implicit chance, meaning that either an implicit chance within "nothingness" or "something" caused the universe to come into being. Either way, this source couldn't have had free will because 'will' only exists within the mind. This means that if naturalism is true, we necessarily have an eternal but quantifiable beginning. This poses a logical absurdity and means that naturalism is therefore false. The only means for action that wouldn't quantify the beginning of an eternally existent thing is if the action occurred via free will. Since free will requires mind, only an eternal being with free will could've brought the universe into being.

One major flaw in your reasoning is that you assume an eternal existence operates in the same fashion as the temporary existence we find ourselves in. You assume a linear timeline in said eternal existence, but that existence, by definition, has no beginning or end. Without a point for a linear timeline to begin, there is no timeline to trace back. As such, it is necessary that an eternal existence operates in a fundamentally different fashion than the existence we find ourselves in.

If the action that brought the universe into being was a function of implicit chance, then it has a quantifiable beginning and therefore the action couldn't have arisen from something eternally existent.

If the action that brought the universe into being was not a function of implicit chance, then it does not have a quantifiable beginning and therefore the action could've arisen from something eternally existent

The only way we can bridge the eternal to the finite is if the bridge was unquantifiable (brought into being by free will).

This is another major issue within your reasoning. The issue I raise applies both to chance action and willful action. You argue against the possibility of chance/natural action, and use that to assert the other half of your dichotomy. However, you don't provide any support for that dichotomy (my issue with that lies in there necessarily being a fundamental difference), nor do you argue for a relevant difference in favor of that half of the dichotomy.

In what way is the willful decision to perform an action any less quantifiable than an action occurring by happenstance?


An eternal existence is beyond human comprehension, because we have absolutely no starting point, no foundation, upon which to develop that comprehension.

We don't fully comprehend it, but we understand what it means for something to be eternal. It means always existing and without origin.

We understand that it means always existing and without origin. We don't understand what it means for something to be always existing and without origin.

In other words, we understand the word, but we don't have the slightest idea what it implies.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 6:08:00 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/25/2016 2:29:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/25/2016 11:45:33 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/25/2016 4:37:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's why.

Actions occur in one of three ways: (1) By natural law, (2) By chance, or (3) by free will.

You ever going to try to prove this trichotimy? Gl doing that without resorting to incredulity/shifting BoP/argument from ignorance.

We only observe actions that are possibly 1, 2, a combination of 1&2, or 3.

Objections:
A) You haven't demonstrated those 3 are the only things we see, you only asserted.
B) Natural/physical laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. Ergo every condition you havhave made following "1" is conjecture.
C) Fallacy of hasty generalisation. You are attempting to generalise observations within the universe, which itself is describable by natural laws, to everything that outside or not the universe. Ergo, even if that induction applies within the universe, and an argumn t could be made to strongly assume that some of them do hold everywhere inside (e.g. Natural laws), we have literally no reason to assume that other options exist outside the universe.
D) Most importantly, you haven't even demonstrated that free will "3" is even a thing within the universe, and that everything doesn't follow exclusively via physical laws. You just assume it does.

If 3, in any combination is true, then we've already shown that a mind exists and the argument stands. Basically actions occur by implicit chance or they don't via law of excluded middle.

Eve

Without that the rest of your argument is unsound, not that it is remotely sound even if this premise was actually true.
PureX
Posts: 1,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 6:55:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/25/2016 6:37:24 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/25/2016 6:04:37 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/25/2016 4:37:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's why.

Actions occur in one of three ways: (1) By natural law, (2) By chance, or (3) by free will.

If an action occurs by natural law or by chance, then there was necessarily an implicit chance that that action could occur. Anything that has no implicit chance of occurring would never occur even over an infinite amount of time. So, any action that has an implicit chance of occurring >0 will inevitably occur given an infinite amount of time. Once an action inevitably occurs, we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to that action. This gives the action a quantifiable beginning. Anything that has a quantifiable beginning cannot be eternal. The only means for action under naturalism is implicit chance, meaning that either an implicit chance within "nothingness" or "something" caused the universe to come into being. Either way, this source couldn't have had free will because 'will' only exists within the mind. This means that if naturalism is true, we necessarily have an eternal but quantifiable beginning. This poses a logical absurdity and means that naturalism is therefore false. The only means for action that wouldn't quantify the beginning of an eternally existent thing is if the action occurred via free will. Since free will requires mind, only an eternal being with free will could've brought the universe into being.


Additionally, your argument can equally be used to disprove the existence of your "eternal being". Let's be honest, and call it God. Either something caused God, or nothing caused God. If something caused God, then God is not the first cause, and by definition isn't God. If nothing caused God, then he doesn't exist.

Not the same? It's exactly the same, and adding "ness" to the end of "nothing", doesn't alter anything. Your only possible objection to the above would be that God was not created, which is exactly what non-theists say about the universe. The difference is that there is evidence the universe exists.

But that which is capable of causing existence to exist, logically then, transcends the parameters of existence. And is therefor not subject to existentially derived logic. This is why we cannot grasp or define the state of the universe prior to the 'big bang'. We label it a "quantum singularity" but this is just a tautological term for an incomprehensible state. We could just as easily have labeled this incomprehensible state, "God".
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 7:31:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/25/2016 6:08:00 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/25/2016 2:29:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/25/2016 11:45:33 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/25/2016 4:37:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's why.

Actions occur in one of three ways: (1) By natural law, (2) By chance, or (3) by free will.

You ever going to try to prove this trichotimy? Gl doing that without resorting to incredulity/shifting BoP/argument from ignorance.

We only observe actions that are possibly 1, 2, a combination of 1&2, or 3.

Objections:
A) You haven't demonstrated those 3 are the only things we see, you only asserted.
B) Natural/physical laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. Ergo every condition you havhave made following "1" is conjecture.
C) Fallacy of hasty generalisation. You are attempting to generalise observations within the universe, which itself is describable by natural laws, to everything that outside or not the universe. Ergo, even if that induction applies within the universe, and an argumn t could be made to strongly assume that some of them do hold everywhere inside (e.g. Natural laws), we have literally no reason to assume that other options exist outside the universe.
D) Most importantly, you haven't even demonstrated that free will "3" is even a thing within the universe, and that everything doesn't follow exclusively via physical laws. You just assume it does.

If 3, in any combination is true, then we've already shown that a mind exists and the argument stands. Basically actions occur by implicit chance or they don't via law of excluded middle.

Eve

Without that the rest of your argument is unsound, not that it is remotely sound even if this premise was actually true.

Based on the law of excluded middle, either actions occur as a function of implicit chance or they don't.

Those are the only two options.

Agree so far?
Skeptical1
Posts: 675
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 8:05:45 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/25/2016 6:55:11 PM, PureX wrote:
At 10/25/2016 6:37:24 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/25/2016 6:04:37 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/25/2016 4:37:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's why.

Actions occur in one of three ways: (1) By natural law, (2) By chance, or (3) by free will.

If an action occurs by natural law or by chance, then there was necessarily an implicit chance that that action could occur. Anything that has no implicit chance of occurring would never occur even over an infinite amount of time. So, any action that has an implicit chance of occurring >0 will inevitably occur given an infinite amount of time. Once an action inevitably occurs, we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to that action. This gives the action a quantifiable beginning. Anything that has a quantifiable beginning cannot be eternal. The only means for action under naturalism is implicit chance, meaning that either an implicit chance within "nothingness" or "something" caused the universe to come into being. Either way, this source couldn't have had free will because 'will' only exists within the mind. This means that if naturalism is true, we necessarily have an eternal but quantifiable beginning. This poses a logical absurdity and means that naturalism is therefore false. The only means for action that wouldn't quantify the beginning of an eternally existent thing is if the action occurred via free will. Since free will requires mind, only an eternal being with free will could've brought the universe into being.


Additionally, your argument can equally be used to disprove the existence of your "eternal being". Let's be honest, and call it God. Either something caused God, or nothing caused God. If something caused God, then God is not the first cause, and by definition isn't God. If nothing caused God, then he doesn't exist.

Not the same? It's exactly the same, and adding "ness" to the end of "nothing", doesn't alter anything. Your only possible objection to the above would be that God was not created, which is exactly what non-theists say about the universe. The difference is that there is evidence the universe exists.


But that which is capable of causing existence to exist, logically then, transcends the parameters of existence. And is therefor not subject to existentially derived logic. This is why we cannot grasp or define the state of the universe prior to the 'big bang'. We label it a "quantum singularity" but this is just a tautological term for an incomprehensible state. We could just as easily have labeled this incomprehensible state, "God".

If you wish to label a superdense singularity which has no intelligence "God", then no one can stop you. But I doubt atheists will buy it, and theists won't thank you for it either.
Skeptical1
Posts: 675
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 8:39:24 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/25/2016 2:10:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/25/2016 6:04:37 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/25/2016 4:37:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's why.

Actions occur in one of three ways: (1) By natural law, (2) By chance, or (3) by free will.

If an action occurs by natural law or by chance, then there was necessarily an implicit chance that that action could occur. Anything that has no implicit chance of occurring would never occur even over an infinite amount of time. So, any action that has an implicit chance of occurring >0 will inevitably occur given an infinite amount of time. Once an action inevitably occurs, we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to that action. This gives the action a quantifiable beginning. Anything that has a quantifiable beginning cannot be eternal. The only means for action under naturalism is implicit chance, meaning that either an implicit chance within "nothingness" or "something" caused the universe to come into being. Either way, this source couldn't have had free will because 'will' only exists within the mind. This means that if naturalism is true, we necessarily have an eternal but quantifiable beginning. This poses a logical absurdity and means that naturalism is therefore false. The only means for action that wouldn't quantify the beginning of an eternally existent thing is if the action occurred via free will. Since free will requires mind, only an eternal being with free will could've brought the universe into being.

I believe this argument to be logically flawed. Essentially, what you have proposed boils down to this:

1. A has no implicit chance of ever occurring.
2. Therefore, A will never occur.
3. B has an implicit chance of occurring
4. Therefore, given an infinite amount of time, B will certainly occur.

I modified it a bit.

To me, the phrases "has an implicit chance of occurring" and "may occur" are functionally identical. You appear to be trying to imply that the former somehow means "must occur". Unless you can explain the difference between the two, I'm afraid nothing has changed.

I suggest that even in an infinite universe, (4) may not be inferred from the preceding.

If we take the argument that an infinite universe of possibilities exists, then consider the following:

If there are an infinite number of parallel universes in which all possibilites actually occur? Or do you mean one, infinite universe in which all possibilities actually occur?

I meant it in the sense of the set of all possible outcomes which could ever occur, unbounded by time; not a physical universe. I don't think the physical structure of the universe in which the events occur is important.

Toss a coin. It will come down either heads or tails. Repeat for eternity.

You might argue that since there is a probability > 0 of the coin at some time in an infinite future showing "heads", then eventually this *must* happen. That would be false. Because, in a universe of all possible results, one of those results is tail... tail... tail... ad inifinitum.

Not according to the law of averages.

The law of averages is an erroneous interpretation of the law of large numbers, and in any case doesn't refer to, or remove the possibility of, any particular result.

Also, if the universe turned up "tails" at point "A" then at point "A" there was necessarily no "heads". If this universe is bound by the law of non-contradiction, then by definition a universe where all possibilities occur doesn't exist (because at point A it was tails instead of heads). You would need to argue for an infinite number of parallel universes where all possibilities are actualized. So in universe 1 at point "A" it came up as heads rather than tails and in universe 2 at point "A" it came up as tails but at point "B" it came up as heads and in universe 3 . . . ad inifinitum.

I'm afraid you've lost me here. Where did we say that all possibilities had to occur simultaneously?

It is not logically correct to infer that because something can happen, it must.

Over an infinite amount of time it must but let's assume you're correct. If an action didn't happen, our universe wouldn't exist. Our universe exists. Therefore an action happened. This brings us back to the quantification dilemma.

According to my interpretation of the big bang (and I think it's fairly common), our universe has existed as long as time has existed. Not in its present form, but everything in it was present when time began. In a sense, it's not meaningful to ask what happened before the big bang, as there was no "before".

A further point of interest would be to describe what you mean all three terms - natural law, chance and free will. Do any of these have a definable meaning? But, one thing at a time.

Natural law: the action occurs by physical laws (physics, chemistry, etc.)

Chance: the action occurs as an undetermined possibility

Free will: the action occurs by will (intent or motive).

I'll leave this for now, as there's already more than enough to grapple with going on in the discussion.
Skeptical1
Posts: 675
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 8:47:14 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/25/2016 2:24:23 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/25/2016 6:37:24 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/25/2016 6:04:37 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/25/2016 4:37:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's why.

Actions occur in one of three ways: (1) By natural law, (2) By chance, or (3) by free will.

If an action occurs by natural law or by chance, then there was necessarily an implicit chance that that action could occur. Anything that has no implicit chance of occurring would never occur even over an infinite amount of time. So, any action that has an implicit chance of occurring >0 will inevitably occur given an infinite amount of time. Once an action inevitably occurs, we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to that action. This gives the action a quantifiable beginning. Anything that has a quantifiable beginning cannot be eternal. The only means for action under naturalism is implicit chance, meaning that either an implicit chance within "nothingness" or "something" caused the universe to come into being. Either way, this source couldn't have had free will because 'will' only exists within the mind. This means that if naturalism is true, we necessarily have an eternal but quantifiable beginning. This poses a logical absurdity and means that naturalism is therefore false. The only means for action that wouldn't quantify the beginning of an eternally existent thing is if the action occurred via free will. Since free will requires mind, only an eternal being with free will could've brought the universe into being.


Additionally, your argument can equally be used to disprove the existence of your "eternal being". Let's be honest, and call it God. Either something caused God, or nothing caused God. If something caused God, then God is not the first cause, and by definition isn't God. If nothing caused God, then he doesn't exist.

Not the same? It's exactly the same, and adding "ness" to the end of "nothing", doesn't alter anything. Your only possible objection to the above would be that God was not created, which is exactly what non-theists say about the universe. The difference is that there is evidence the universe exists.

If something is eternally existent then it always existed and nothing caused it to exist. If the chain of events that led to the creation of our universe was the product of implicit chance, then by counting backwards the number of trials that led to our universe gives this eternal thing a quantifiable beginning. The only way around that is if the action occurred by free will, which wouldn't quantify that action's occurrence.

I've answered this in another post, before seeing you had raised it here. My understanding is that our universe has always existed, probably in pretty much the same sense you claim God has always existed - in the sense that there was never a "time" when it wasn't there. Somewhere around 13.7 billion years ago, an immense change took place, which we call for want of a better term "the big bang", and which redistributed all the matter and energy from a singularity into something almost immeasurably big, and still growing. But there is nothing present in the universe today which hasn't always been present.
Willows
Posts: 2,053
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 9:04:47 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/25/2016 2:36:55 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/25/2016 2:32:51 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/25/2016 10:43:49 AM, Willows wrote:
At 10/25/2016 4:37:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's why.

Actions occur in one of three ways: (1) By natural law, (2) By chance, or (3) by free will.

If an action occurs by natural law or by chance, then there was necessarily an implicit chance that that action could occur. Anything that has no implicit chance of occurring would never occur even over an infinite amount of time. So, any action that has an implicit chance of occurring >0 will inevitably occur given an infinite amount of time. Once an action inevitably occurs, we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to that action. This gives the action a quantifiable beginning. Anything that has a quantifiable beginning cannot be eternal. The only means for action under naturalism is implicit chance, meaning that either an implicit chance within "nothingness" or "something" caused the universe to come into being. Either way, this source couldn't have had free will because 'will' only exists within the mind. This means that if naturalism is true, we necessarily have an eternal but quantifiable beginning. This poses a logical absurdity and means that naturalism is therefore false. The only means for action that wouldn't quantify the beginning of an eternally existent thing is if the action occurred via free will. Since free will requires mind, only an eternal being with free will could've brought the universe into being.

The very first word of your post is "if" and from then on every statement is conditional. So, really, the last words of your post, being your conclusion is unqualified speculation.

Scratch that. Any way you look at it, if my reasoning is correct, then the conclusion follows. You need to read the whole post.

If
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 11:14:18 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/25/2016 4:37:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's why.

Actions occur in one of three ways: (1) By natural law, (2) By chance, or (3) by free will.

If an action occurs by natural law or by chance, then there was necessarily an implicit chance that that action could occur. Anything that has no implicit chance of occurring would never occur even over an infinite amount of time. So, any action that has an implicit chance of occurring >0 will inevitably occur given an infinite amount of time. Once an action inevitably occurs, we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to that action. This gives the action a quantifiable beginning. Anything that has a quantifiable beginning cannot be eternal. The only means for action under naturalism is implicit chance, meaning that either an implicit chance within "nothingness" or "something" caused the universe to come into being. Either way, this source couldn't have had free will because 'will' only exists within the mind. This means that if naturalism is true, we necessarily have an eternal but quantifiable beginning. This poses a logical absurdity and means that naturalism is therefore false. The only means for action that wouldn't quantify the beginning of an eternally existent thing is if the action occurred via free will. Since free will requires mind, only an eternal being with free will could've brought the universe into being.

Why must the being be eternal?

What did said being exist in if it created existence?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 2:07:39 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/26/2016 9:04:47 AM, Willows wrote:
At 10/25/2016 2:36:55 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/25/2016 2:32:51 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/25/2016 10:43:49 AM, Willows wrote:
At 10/25/2016 4:37:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's why.

Actions occur in one of three ways: (1) By natural law, (2) By chance, or (3) by free will.

If an action occurs by natural law or by chance, then there was necessarily an implicit chance that that action could occur. Anything that has no implicit chance of occurring would never occur even over an infinite amount of time. So, any action that has an implicit chance of occurring >0 will inevitably occur given an infinite amount of time. Once an action inevitably occurs, we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to that action. This gives the action a quantifiable beginning. Anything that has a quantifiable beginning cannot be eternal. The only means for action under naturalism is implicit chance, meaning that either an implicit chance within "nothingness" or "something" caused the universe to come into being. Either way, this source couldn't have had free will because 'will' only exists within the mind. This means that if naturalism is true, we necessarily have an eternal but quantifiable beginning. This poses a logical absurdity and means that naturalism is therefore false. The only means for action that wouldn't quantify the beginning of an eternally existent thing is if the action occurred via free will. Since free will requires mind, only an eternal being with free will could've brought the universe into being.

The very first word of your post is "if" and from then on every statement is conditional. So, really, the last words of your post, being your conclusion is unqualified speculation.

Scratch that. Any way you look at it, if my reasoning is correct, then the conclusion follows. You need to read the whole post.

If

If the laws of logic are true, a square can't simultaneously be a triangle.
PureX
Posts: 1,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 2:32:27 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/25/2016 8:05:45 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/25/2016 6:55:11 PM, PureX wrote:
At 10/25/2016 6:37:24 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/25/2016 6:04:37 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/25/2016 4:37:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's why.

Actions occur in one of three ways: (1) By natural law, (2) By chance, or (3) by free will.

If an action occurs by natural law or by chance, then there was necessarily an implicit chance that that action could occur. Anything that has no implicit chance of occurring would never occur even over an infinite amount of time. So, any action that has an implicit chance of occurring >0 will inevitably occur given an infinite amount of time. Once an action inevitably occurs, we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to that action. This gives the action a quantifiable beginning. Anything that has a quantifiable beginning cannot be eternal. The only means for action under naturalism is implicit chance, meaning that either an implicit chance within "nothingness" or "something" caused the universe to come into being. Either way, this source couldn't have had free will because 'will' only exists within the mind. This means that if naturalism is true, we necessarily have an eternal but quantifiable beginning. This poses a logical absurdity and means that naturalism is therefore false. The only means for action that wouldn't quantify the beginning of an eternally existent thing is if the action occurred via free will. Since free will requires mind, only an eternal being with free will could've brought the universe into being.


Additionally, your argument can equally be used to disprove the existence of your "eternal being". Let's be honest, and call it God. Either something caused God, or nothing caused God. If something caused God, then God is not the first cause, and by definition isn't God. If nothing caused God, then he doesn't exist.

Not the same? It's exactly the same, and adding "ness" to the end of "nothing", doesn't alter anything. Your only possible objection to the above would be that God was not created, which is exactly what non-theists say about the universe. The difference is that there is evidence the universe exists.


But that which is capable of causing existence to exist, logically then, transcends the parameters of existence. And is therefor not subject to existentially derived logic. This is why we cannot grasp or define the state of the universe prior to the 'big bang'. We label it a "quantum singularity" but this is just a tautological term for an incomprehensible state. We could just as easily have labeled this incomprehensible state, "God".

If you wish to label a superdense singularity which has no intelligence "God", then no one can stop you. But I doubt atheists will buy it, and theists won't thank you for it either.

But that "super dense singularity" managed to suddenly decide to explode into a massive expression of organized energy. And that exactly ordered energy managed to create a universe so complex that we may never fully comprehend it. And to the degree to which we do manage to understand it, we consider ourselves "intelligent". So your blind, dumb assertion that this "super dense singularity" possessed no will or intelligence is unfounded. And in fact, the evidence suggests exactly the opposite.