By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Do you believe in God? Why/Why not?

 

Do you believe in any god?

Yes 63 36.21%
 
No 111 63.79%
 
Total:174
WolfpackN64 on 23 August 2018
palou said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Again, because contingent causes can't cause themselves, they need to be caused. You need an efficient first cause so you can start the chain. Once started, your cause can advance infinitly.

I'm not talking about anything causing itself, I simply mean that I don't see a reason for there not to be an infinite number of events. there's an infinite number of events between our two replies, for example.

Do you mean an infinite number of events? Because that there is. I'm specifically about an infinite regress not being possible. If it was an infinite contingent chain, the chain would simply not exist.



Around the Network
WolfpackN64 on 23 August 2018
setsunatenshi said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Epistemology 101: because you want something to be true or false dosn't make it so. The premise is legitimate.

state the premise please and I will demonstrate why it's false. I don't want to put words in your mouth or assume you're going to present the same tired old argument I heard a million times

state the argument and I will point out every single logical fallacy.

I'm not going to make it easy for you, I'm curious which premise of the cosmological argument you found faulty since you stated it first.



palou on 23 August 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
palou said:

I'm not talking about anything causing itself, I simply mean that I don't see a reason for there not to be an infinite number of events. there's an infinite number of events between our two replies, for example.

Do you mean an infinite number of events? Because that there is. I'm specifically about an infinite regress not being possible. If it was an infinite contingent chain, the chain would simply not exist.

"If it was an infinite contingent chain, the chain would simply not exist."

 

 

? why?



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

JWeinCom on 23 August 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
JWeinCom said:

In that case I fail to see how that addresses my initial point at all.  

I'm sorry, what was your initial point. Got a bit confused responding to different people.

The Kalam cosmological argument is not an argument for god.  It's an argument for a cause, but cannot demonstrate any particular qualities for that cause even if you grant that the premises are valid (which I don't think they are).



WolfpackN64 on 23 August 2018
JWeinCom said:
WolfpackN64 said:

I'm sorry, what was your initial point. Got a bit confused responding to different people.

The Kalam cosmological argument is not an argument for god.  It's an argument for a cause, but cannot demonstrate any particular qualities for that cause even if you grant that the premises are valid (which I don't think they are).

That's just because of the nature of the argument. They're trying only to prove the existance of a God, not what the qualities of that God are. For that, Thomas Aquinas' arguments are of more use.



Around the Network
WolfpackN64 on 23 August 2018
palou said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Do you mean an infinite number of events? Because that there is. I'm specifically about an infinite regress not being possible. If it was an infinite contingent chain, the chain would simply not exist.

"If it was an infinite contingent chain, the chain would simply not exist."

 

 

? why?

Contingent events and beings can't cause themselves. They cause and are caused. Going backwards in the chain, there needs to be an efficient first cause (a necessary cause). If this wasn't the case, since contingent events can't cause themself, the chain would't have sprung into existance in the first place.



JWeinCom on 23 August 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
JWeinCom said:

The Kalam cosmological argument is not an argument for god.  It's an argument for a cause, but cannot demonstrate any particular qualities for that cause even if you grant that the premises are valid (which I don't think they are).

That's just because of the nature of the argument. They're trying only to prove the existance of a God, not what the qualities of that God are. For that, Thomas Aquinas' arguments are of more use.

But, they don't prove the existence of a god.  Again, if you accept the premises, which I do not, they prove a cause.  There is no real justification for calling that cause god.

If you have an argument that actually does prove god I'd be open to it.  To my knowledge there has yet to be a sound one.

https://youtu.be/zYFUP_vZUCU

Also, if you're interested there's a good video of a PHD in philosophy discussing the Cosmological argument.



palou on 23 August 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
palou said:

"If it was an infinite contingent chain, the chain would simply not exist."

 

 

? why?

Contingent events and beings can't cause themselves. They cause and are caused. Going backwards in the chain, there needs to be an efficient first cause (a necessary cause). If this wasn't the case, since contingent events can't cause themself, the chain would't have sprung into existance in the first place.

that's assuming there is a "first place", which I don't see as necessary.

 

I also fail to see how introducing a god would solve the issue, if you would say that there is one. Does God suddenly not need a causal explanation? I find that rather cheap. 



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

setsunatenshi on 23 August 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
setsunatenshi said:

state the premise please and I will demonstrate why it's false. I don't want to put words in your mouth or assume you're going to present the same tired old argument I heard a million times

state the argument and I will point out every single logical fallacy.

I'm not going to make it easy for you, I'm curious which premise of the cosmological argument you found faulty since you stated it first.

interesting why you think you would make it "easy" for me by stating your own argument, but ok I'll humor you this time:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause;

The universe began to exist;

Therefore:

The universe has a cause.

 

I'm assuming this is your argument since you didn't want to state it for some weird reason (perhaps to move goalposts later on). 

 

1st premise stating that whatever begins to exist has a cause is not even true to the best of our knowledge. 

 

without even going to quantum physics where observations show particles popping into existence from non existence, you would have no basis to support the first claim that whatever begins to exist has a cause. 

 

another premise that needs some backing is the one claiming the universe began to exist. what can you show me to support that claim? as far as we know time is a property of the universe, if there was no time outside the universe, then by necessity the universe always was. it never "began to exist" 

 

is it enough for now? 

 

better state your own argument because this one is dead already



WolfpackN64 on 23 August 2018
JWeinCom said:
WolfpackN64 said:

That's just because of the nature of the argument. They're trying only to prove the existance of a God, not what the qualities of that God are. For that, Thomas Aquinas' arguments are of more use.

But, they don't prove the existence of a god.  Again, if you accept the premises, which I do not, they prove a cause.  There is no real justification for calling that cause god.

If you have an argument that actually does prove god I'd be open to it.  To my knowledge there has yet to be a sound one.

https://youtu.be/zYFUP_vZUCU

Also, if you're interested there's a good video of a PHD in philosophy discussing the Cosmological argument.

I do not expect these arguments to be accept as definitive arguments to God's existance by most people. At the very least, I hope people understand the subject matter is more complicated then "God doesn't exist because no proof".

And if you want to hear a very good inconclusive debate by two gentleman on the subject: (Copleston vs Bertrand Russel)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXPdpEJk78E