This is an argument I recently had on a atheist web site, Here"You" is the atheist AndyF2.
Dialogue with AndyF2 aka"you" https://oncreationism.blogspot.com/2020/06/hinmans-cosmological-argument.html
my argument
1. Something exists.
2. Whatever exists does so either because it exists eternally or because it's existence is dependent upon some prior cause or set of circumstances.
3.If all things that exist are dependent for their existnece there is no actual explanation of causes
4. Therefore, there exists at least one eternal thing
5. The one eternal thing is the logical explanation for all causally dependent things
6.Any eternally existing cause of all things is worthy of the appellation "God."
7. Therefore God exists.
The False Dichotomy:
YOU: "The first issue is that 2 is a false dichotomy. For example, it may be that the universe appeared spontaneous. Joe objects to this because there is no precedence for things appearing spontaneously. However, the same is also true of something existing eternally."
ME: Show me an example of anything that pops into existence out of nothing! This is a contradiction to everything we know and suspect, That we have no example of it just underscores the logic of the case that it is a contradiction to reality; Your answer to my argument is based upon the assumption tat all of science is wrong. all logic is wrong, and we everything we observe in reality is wrong, You basically relay on magic to oppose God.
YOU: "Of course, in Joe's head, that is quite different, because he starts from the assumption that God exists - but of course that is exactly what he is trying to prove."
ME:--No I started from the assumption that things need causes a notion you apparently have yet to grasp. But it's an assumption made by all of science as nowhere in science do we find a principle of something from nothing,
You: "The simple fact is that we have no precedents for the start of the universe; going on common experience is a bad guide here."
ME:--that doesn't mean magic is a beter guide
His second attack "something eternal."
YOU: "Joe claims anything that is eternal should be called God. but this is just Joe injecting his own idea of how the universe started. If the laws of nature are eternal, would Joe worship them? Of course not!"
Me: --This is proven in the logic of the argument, you have not even addressed the argument,
YOU: "Okay, Albert's object is valid - depending on what Krauss meant by nothing. But so what? This does not prove the universe could not appear spontaneously, only that Krauss' theory is not that, so Joe's objection fails.
Me:--You have yet to give a reason why we should believe in something from nothing Apparently your only reason is to avoid belief in God. We never see causal popping into existence,why should we accept it? No scientist does, No theory in science proposes the universe just popped up out of nothing. There's always the assumption of a prior structure, yet i;ts never accounted for.
YOU:"Furthermore, if we allow Krauss' theory, but acknowledge the framework within which quantum mechanics might work was eternal, then we have a very real possibility for how the university began.
Me: So you drop something from nothing? Where did the frame work come from?
YOU"Sure, we cannot explain the framework within which quantum mechanics, but Joe cannot explain God. And the framework within which quantum mechanics is FAR more parsimonious. Joe's objection fails again."
Me: Sure we both work from unknowns but God is a more logical assumption than acausal popping. Notice you never acutely addressed the logic of the argument which proves that there must be one logical eternal necessary origin and thus this is worthy of being thought God.
Dialogue with AndyF2 aka"you" https://oncreationism.blogspot.com/2020/06/hinmans-cosmological-argument.html
my argument
1. Something exists.
2. Whatever exists does so either because it exists eternally or because it's existence is dependent upon some prior cause or set of circumstances.
3.If all things that exist are dependent for their existnece there is no actual explanation of causes
4. Therefore, there exists at least one eternal thing
5. The one eternal thing is the logical explanation for all causally dependent things
6.Any eternally existing cause of all things is worthy of the appellation "God."
7. Therefore God exists.
The False Dichotomy:
YOU: "The first issue is that 2 is a false dichotomy. For example, it may be that the universe appeared spontaneous. Joe objects to this because there is no precedence for things appearing spontaneously. However, the same is also true of something existing eternally."
ME: Show me an example of anything that pops into existence out of nothing! This is a contradiction to everything we know and suspect, That we have no example of it just underscores the logic of the case that it is a contradiction to reality; Your answer to my argument is based upon the assumption tat all of science is wrong. all logic is wrong, and we everything we observe in reality is wrong, You basically relay on magic to oppose God.
YOU: "Of course, in Joe's head, that is quite different, because he starts from the assumption that God exists - but of course that is exactly what he is trying to prove."
ME:--No I started from the assumption that things need causes a notion you apparently have yet to grasp. But it's an assumption made by all of science as nowhere in science do we find a principle of something from nothing,
You: "The simple fact is that we have no precedents for the start of the universe; going on common experience is a bad guide here."
ME:--that doesn't mean magic is a beter guide
His second attack "something eternal."
YOU: "Joe claims anything that is eternal should be called God. but this is just Joe injecting his own idea of how the universe started. If the laws of nature are eternal, would Joe worship them? Of course not!"
Me: --This is proven in the logic of the argument, you have not even addressed the argument,
YOU: "Okay, Albert's object is valid - depending on what Krauss meant by nothing. But so what? This does not prove the universe could not appear spontaneously, only that Krauss' theory is not that, so Joe's objection fails.
Me:--You have yet to give a reason why we should believe in something from nothing Apparently your only reason is to avoid belief in God. We never see causal popping into existence,why should we accept it? No scientist does, No theory in science proposes the universe just popped up out of nothing. There's always the assumption of a prior structure, yet i;ts never accounted for.
YOU:"Furthermore, if we allow Krauss' theory, but acknowledge the framework within which quantum mechanics might work was eternal, then we have a very real possibility for how the university began.
Me: So you drop something from nothing? Where did the frame work come from?
YOU"Sure, we cannot explain the framework within which quantum mechanics, but Joe cannot explain God. And the framework within which quantum mechanics is FAR more parsimonious. Joe's objection fails again."
Me: Sure we both work from unknowns but God is a more logical assumption than acausal popping. Notice you never acutely addressed the logic of the argument which proves that there must be one logical eternal necessary origin and thus this is worthy of being thought God.
13 comments:
How long have you known this guy? How did you guys come across each other?
someone left a URL to his page on this sight and I went over there and picked a fight,.This was this summer.
That "F2Andy" guy is the same as "The Pixie." I wonder if you two personally know each other.
How do you know he's the same guy? I've known Pix several years. I think I met him when he showed up on my message boards.
How do I know the two profiles are the same person? He has attacked me before:
https://oncreationism.blogspot.com/2020/02/is-7q5-fragment-of-mark.html
I do not like this guy because he is an arrogant jerk.
I only know him as Pixie/ He and I square off on this site all the time or we used to. WE had a huge 1x1 argument every day for years I liked him but that is all I knew of him.
Jesse: I do not like this guy because he is an arrogant jerk.
Not sure how you can characterise "[i]Thanks for pointing that out Jesse; I have updated the post.[/i]" as an attack on you, or as a basis for thinking I am "an arrogant jerk", but I guess it takes all sorts.
But you are right that I am F2Andy; I use that name on my blog.
Pix
"Arrogant" and "jerk" refers to the time when you mocked the title of my blog for that citation contained in your article (which was on my website). I deleted the comment. And judging by the nature of some of your posts, you probably would pick on somebody you perceive as ignorant!
What one says and does leaves impressions on other people.
3.If all things that exist are dependent for their existence there is no actual explanation of causes
What does this mean? That because there was never a first cause then there is no such thing as "cause"?
3.If all things that exist are dependent for their existence there is no actual explanation of causes
What does this mean? That because there was never a first cause then there is no such thing as "cause"?
If course. An infinite series of causes is impossible. There must be a starting point
If course. An infinite series of causes is impossible. There must be a starting point,
Says who? I know it seems to us that there must be a starting point but how do we know that this is so.
how do you know anything? ho do you know you are you?You cannot give me a rational reason to think otherwise; the fact of cause means there must be a cause,an infinite series has no cause.
Post a Comment