PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Religon Debates
     Logical Arguments on God
       no cop-outs allowed

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Okay, people...

i want to hear people give logic-derived arguments for and against the existence of a God. and for those people too afraid to try, don't wimp out and say faith requires no logical standpoint - not after you've all said so much in the creationism forum.

i'll start with one.

.
1. Theists (maybe not Jews) define God as all-powerful.
2. Therefore, God can lift any size rock.
3. Therefore, there can be no rock too big for God to lift.
4. Therefore, God cannot create a rock too big for him to lift.
5. Therefore, there is something God cannot do.
6. Therefore, God is not all powerful.
7. Therefore God does not exist (per the definition given by its believers).

Who can debunk this argument?


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 08:56 AM on January 4, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you have not studied logic much have you alex? because if you have, then you would know that you are using a fallacy in your logic. in fact this particular fallacy is one of the first things they teach you not to use in a philosophy or logic class.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 12:20 PM on January 4, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Deductive Fallacy:
Premise 1: If Portland is the capital of Maine, then it is in Maine.
Premise 2: Portland is in Maine.
Conclusion: Portland is the capital of Maine.
(Portland is in Maine, but Augusta is the capital. Portland is the largest city in Maine, though.)


THERE, I HAVE DEBUNKED YOUR STUPID AND RETARDED "LOGICAL" ARGUMENT.

next time, give me more of a challenge




-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 12:24 PM on January 4, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

explain how that was a deductive fallacy. I don't see it.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 2:08 PM on January 4, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

did u see how the example i gave was a deductive fallacy? well, it is structured in the same way that alex's was


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 2:18 PM on January 4, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Humans are mammals.
Dogs are mammals.
Humans are dogs.
Then how am I typing this?

This is the logic problem falling is talking about. Clearly not true, nor accurate.


Logical reason for God:
God is defined as the Greatest.
Something that does not exist isn't as great as something that does exist.
God must exist.


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 2:28 PM on January 4, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

where's your proof for assertion #2?

and I still dont see the fallacy in Alex's argument.
He defines God as all powerful. Which seems legitimate. Then he says that if he is all powerful, he can lift any rock (that feat is within his infinite power). Which means that God can't create a rock he CAN'T lift (which would also, presumably, have to be within his infinite power). Thus, b/c there has to be something God can't do, God can't be all powerful.

I think it's pretty solid.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 3:23 PM on January 4, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where is the problem with the dogs/humans thing? According to logic, it makes perfect sense-but clearly isn't true. Going with logic, Alex's makes perfect sense-but that doesn't mean it is true.


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 3:50 PM on January 4, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

no, your logic is flawed, b/c just b/c dogs are mammals and humans are mammals doesn't make them both the same. that is fallacy, but it isnt one alex commits.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 5:57 PM on January 4, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Logically, it is right. Of course, it isn't accurate, but it does show how logic can be flawed.


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 8:18 PM on January 4, 2003 | IP
Maynard

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i realy dont think there are logical arguments for god.  i mean, i cant really explain why i belief in him i just do.


-------
I love my country, but fear my government.

your friendly ultra-conservative patriot.
 


Posts: 270 | Posted: 10:26 PM on January 4, 2003 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

falling and pie...

hahahahahahahahaha

ok, i am done, no wait...
hahahahahahahahahaha

ok, now let's see how well you debunked my logic.

falling...your logical example is easily kicked out. it IS a classic logical mistake. itr doesn't show logic can be wrong, it just shows an illogical statement. yes, the capitol of Maine must be in Maine, but not all cities in Maine have to be the capitol. (and btw, i did study logic...try using the same method to take my logical argument apart...or are u just going to make more bad comparisons because you can't debate the actual one up for debate?)

pie...yours is a classic one, and a classic example of a fine premise with an illogical conclusion. it does not show that logic can be wrong, it just shows your mistake. humans can be mammals and so can dogs, and trhey can both be mammals without being the same. now...are u going to try to actually debunk MY original statement, or are u and falling going to be my cop outs 1 and 2?

basically, all u guys did was try to prove my logic was wrong by showing 2 illogical statements? what are thinking, trhat all logical statements contain the same fallacy and therefore there is no logic? whatr fallacy does my logic contain? show me. take it apart. here is a parting example of bad logic...
1. Alex tried to present logic in an ordered statement
2. we showed him some ordered statements that turned out to be illogical
3. therefore, his ordered statement must also not be logical

make sense? nah. try again, kids



-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 11:07 PM on January 4, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"it does not show that logic can be wrong, it just shows your mistake." How is it innaccurate? It is clearly not true (unless is is, which it isn't), but makes logical sense.

"Alex tried to present logic in an ordered statement" I didn't try, I did.

"we showed him some ordered statements that turned out to be illogical" Both were perfectly logical, but innaccurate.

"therefore, his ordered statement must also not be logical" It is the same type of logic as the innacurate form. Doesn't mean it is illogical, the point of Pie's post was to show how logic can be wrong when presented in certain contexts.






-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 11:28 PM on January 4, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No no, Alex is right. Your examples aren't logical, they're logical fallacies. Alex's example is not a logical fallacy.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 12:14 AM on January 5, 2003 | IP
madbilly

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

people make mistakes
mistakes are wrong
alex is a person
alex is wrong

if that is how it works, ill try another


-------
my name is madbilly....what did you expect me to be happy when my name says Mad in it...
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 01:09 AM on January 5, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i personally like madbilly's logical argument over all of ours

you see my friend, it is very very easy to commit the deductive fallacy. you have just commited it here alex. once again, present with more of a challenge than the one you gave us


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 01:13 AM on January 5, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Madbilly....nicely said.


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 01:25 AM on January 5, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OK, madbilly's one was funny (not a proper syllogism, but funny). But I STILL don't see any deductive fallacy!!!


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 01:30 AM on January 5, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I still don't see any deductive fallacy.

What?



-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 01:37 AM on January 5, 2003 | IP
madbilly

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i just made that one up....it wasnt just intended for alex, but i wanted to use his name to fight fire with fire (bc he is all about logic) it is really said for us all i guess.

ill try another

1.men have a penis
2. women have a vagina
3. opposites attract to each other (like magnets)
4. women and men should attract to each other

now i dont know if that is without a fallacy but if it is then logically your logic about being gay is wrong. (i personally dont care, but for you to go against christian beliefs is the same for someone to go against gay beliefs...right)

(Edited by madbilly 1/5/2003 at 02:13 AM).


-------
my name is madbilly....what did you expect me to be happy when my name says Mad in it...
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 02:09 AM on January 5, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hitler was Anti-Semite
Hitler was human
Rabbis are human
Rabbis are anti-semite

I could have fun with this all night.


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 02:11 AM on January 5, 2003 | IP
madbilly

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

we live bc of air
we cannot see air
we cannot see god
we must live bc of god


-------
my name is madbilly....what did you expect me to be happy when my name says Mad in it...
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 02:15 AM on January 5, 2003 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

this is so frustrating. you keep saying your examples arte inaccurate butr logical. how are they logical? just because you can line statements up in a certain numbered order doesn't make them flow logically. here is how a logical line of thinking works:
A=B.
B=C
Therefore, A=C.
That is logical.
Let's see if your example works along this line.
Hitler was an Anti-Semite
ok, right here you are not saying A (Hitler) = B (Anti-Semite). you are saying A is something in the category of B. Get it? You are saying A is an Anti-Semite, but are not logical necessitating that all Anti-Semites are Hitler. So, you are not equating the two.
Hitler was human.
Okay, again, not an equation. You are categorizing something. You are saying A (Hitler) is something in the category of C (humanity). You are not saying all humans are Hitler, and you are not saying all humans are Anti-Semites.
Rabbis are human
ok, let's make rabbis D. D (rabbis) are also something in the category of C (humanity). A and D both belong in the category of C, but logically this does not mean A=D.
rabbis are Anti-Semites.
okay, just as A=D does not logically follow, neither does the statement D (rabbis)=B (Anti-Semites) logically follow from the steps that came before.
here's what u did:
A is a member of group B.
A is a member of group C.
D is a member of group C.
Therefore, D is a member of group B.
all i did was rewrite what u said in a different, but equivalent way. u just wrote it in a way that deceptively looked logical. but when u see this u must realize that it is not only inaccurate but also illogical (not flowing logical from step 1 to step 4). this is why YOUR example is a classic example in logic and philosophy classes of how students can mistakenly make an illogical statements, because in that form it looks logical, but if u rephrase it, u realize the problem.
try to do the same to my original statement. if u can't, u must see that it lacks that deductive fallacy. try, instead of just giving more examples of illogic.

if i can do it to yours, why can't u do it to mine?


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 02:48 AM on January 5, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

here is a logical argument for God. it is not a deductive argument but is philosophically sound.

first of all, God is the best explanation for the universe. let me explain why. obviously, if the universe had a beginning then there are only two possible options. the first is that the it emerged from nothing. this premise is really absurd. to say that an effect can exist without a cause it to deny the whole basis of scientific investigation and rational thought. no one would seriously maintain that a house, planet, star or galaxy simply popped into existence without a cause. philosophy confirms this. it has always been a fundamental first principle of philosophy that whatever begins to exist, must have a cause. since the universe had a beginning it must have had a cause. The only sufficient cause is an eternal being.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 11:49 AM on January 5, 2003 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok...

let me try to rephrase what u said:
1. the universe had a beginning
2. everything has a cause
3. an eternal being must be the universe's  cause

i will attack your logic in several places.
first, why are u assuming the universe had a beginning? why couldn't it be eternal, just as you say God is eternal?  
second, don't u see an inherent contradiction in your statement? your point is based on the assertion that everything has a cause (in this case the entire universe), and yet your conclusion is that there is something that does not have a cause (the eternal being). which is it - does everything have a cause or not?
so maybe this argument should be rephrased as:
1.  Nothing happens without a cause.
2.  There is no first cause.  
3.  There is no God.  

ok, third, if you really believe, as you say, that "to say that an effect can exist without a cause it to deny the whole basis of scientific investigation and rational thought", then how do u believe in free will? aren't our actions then just cogs in the wheel of an endless cycle of cause and effect going back infinitely in time? perhaps to elucidate you should affirm what definition of "free will" you are working with. what i am saying is this: if CHOICE is an effect of a previous CAUSE, then how is that FREE? it seems more like an automaton to me.

ok, i went through your whole argument and gave solid rebuttals. why can't u give me the same respect? are u just going to ignore my posts? if so, why are u posting at all? just to preach? if i respond directly to what u say and show why i think it is wrong, it seems only fair to also show how and why what i say is wrong. if i am wrong, i would like to know why. now, i showed the logical difference between the examples u and pie gave. do you understand the difference now? what now do u have to say about my original post? SHOW ME how it wrong/illogical/inaccurate.


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 12:47 PM on January 5, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Firstly, Hitler was A human. Not the entire human race, which is the point you seemed to be getting at. Secondly, a Rabbi is A human. Not three, or four, one. There are different rabbis, but each is an individual unto himself. Hitler was an individual unto himself. If Hitler was anti semite, it means that this single being is anti semite. It being a comparisan of individual beings, it would go together if another one was put on, as there is no "gap". Now, if this rabbi is anto semite, we can assume that the others all are, as they are the same thing in what they learn and profess to people, and they must have an interest in doing, or else they would cease to be rabbis. It is clearly not true that all rabbis are anti semites-or else, that would be an extremely problematic religion- and my argument goes to show that sound logic can be false.


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 1:35 PM on January 5, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Pie its not sound logic!!!

Hitler is a human. True. A Rabbi is a human. also true. But it does not logically follow that all humans think/act the same simply by virtue of being of humans, nor does it follow that all rabbis think the same simply by virtue of being rabbis. There is no logical connection there.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 2:25 PM on January 5, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But they are both human beings! Hitler was A human! A rabbi is A human! Biologically, chemically and physically, they are the same with some varying characteristics. Any two humans can be the same, with the exception of those differences in the way they look and think. Hitler and a rabbi are both human, both essentially the same through biological, chemical, and physical details, and an connection can thus be made between them!

I have a feeling we're getting no where quickly.



-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 2:39 PM on January 5, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

true, but the connection you are trying to make isn't based on biological, chemical, or physical attributes. It's based on their thoughts, which is an area you agree they differ. So the logic still falls.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 3:58 PM on January 5, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is based on what Hitler did think, and what a rabbi may think. A rabbi may think this because they are a human, like Hitler. In the regards I mentioned, they are the same, which is the basis for the connection. That they are both people.



-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 4:29 PM on January 5, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Logic isn't based of "may" it is based off "will" and "is." A Rabbi IS not necessarily the same person as Hitler and a Rabbi WILL not necessarily think the same way.

Alex is right. You are mistaking a statement that is in a nice order and repeats certain facts for logic.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 7:49 PM on January 5, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A rabbi is a human, Hitler is a human, and for all we know, Hitler may have been a rabbi. No...Joking. A rabbi is a person, as was Hitler, and thus the connection is sound. I cannot see how this is wrong.


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 8:47 PM on January 5, 2003 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

pie...

did u even read my post. all these are in the same categories but are not the same. read it again. if a dog and cat are both members of the animal kingdom, does it logically follow that they both make barking sounds? no. it means they are related but not equal in all respects. likewise, Hitrle and a random a\rtabbi arte both members of the human race but arte not botrh anti-semites. they are relatred but notr equal in all respects. honestly, if u don't get it by now u are justr being strubbortn.




-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 9:07 PM on January 5, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A dog and a cat are two different species of animal, and make different sounds. Hitler and a random rabbi are both human, making the same sounds in different fashions. Any one human human is the same as any other human, with some variations in looks, muscle to fat ratio, personality, ect, but they are basically the same. Humans all generally look the same (like dogs of the same species...if we were all butt naked standing in a line, an alien would only be able to tell us apart after getting to know our individual traits). Therefore, if they are both human, the same species, same biology, chemistry, with some mental and physical differences, the comparisan is valid. Mammals are a wide catagory with different species. Humans are a species, with minor variations within the same.


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 9:25 PM on January 5, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok alex, i'll make you happy and respond to your post. i'm going to challenge your claim that the universe is eternal by using both scientific and philosophical arguments.

first the scientific:

1. The Big Bang Model: according to the Big Bang theory, space, time, matter, and energy all came into existence simultaneously around 15 billion years ago. this obviously means that the universe had a beginning.

2. the second law of thermodynamics: according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, given enough time, the universe will eventually reach a state of equilibrium, with all matter and energy distributed evenly throughout space. clearly, if the universe is without a beginning, then there has been an infinite length of time preceding this moment. if this is the case, then the universe should already be in a state of equilibrium. all the particles in the universe should be spread out evenly and there should be no galaxies, solar systems, stars or planets, not to mention living organisms. since we obviously are not in a state of equilibrium, the past must be finite. the universe had a beginning.


now for the philosopical argument:

if the universe has always existed, then that means that it is infinitely old. yet the idea of infinity does not exist anywhere in the real world. it is merely an abstract, mathematical concept. to explain this, we need to understand the difference between a potential infinite and an actual infinite.

a potential infinite is a collection whose members are increasing. infinity is merely the limit towards which the process is progressing. at all times the collection is finite. hence, a potential infinite is not really infinite, it’s just indefinite.

An actual infinite, however, is a collection which is complete - that is, it’s not adding any new members, and yet the number of members is infinite! If the past were beginningless, then it would be an actual infinite, since all past events have already taken place, yet the number of past events is infinite.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 10:46 PM on January 5, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Falling, that may have been the smartest thing I have seen you say. No offense or anything...


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 11:18 PM on January 5, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

that was quite clever falling. i'll do what i can with it.
Big bang problem: Big bang theory doesn't state all matter came into existance at a certain time. It was that all matter was EXTREMELY densly compacted and then exploded outward. That doesn't imply a beginning it implies achange.

2nd law problem: My knowledge of law2 is that it is a trend. There can be things that counteract the trend. But what the law actually says is that energy always has a tendancy to be lost as heat (increase of entropy). Certain things can turn heat back into usable energy, a modern example being solar power. So the 2nd law problem falls too.

Pie, your argument was somewhat less clever.  You state that your analysis holds b/c while dogs and cats have significant biological differences, humans only have minor differences in personality, thinking etc.. Fine. That would make this statement logically legitimate:
Humans have noses
Josh is a human
Josh has a nose.
B/c it is predicated on the similarities all humans have. Your statement, however is based on an ideologically position, a thought, which is a way humans are acknowledgly different. So your logic doesn't hold there.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 12:02 AM on January 6, 2003 | IP
Nova

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Alex this is for you…

The kalam argument:

1. What ever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause for coming into being.

So all I have to do is prove that the second is true and you will all believe in God right ok good.

1. Clearly true don’t even try and disprove it.
2. Fun one… well the only other possibility is if the universe is infinitely old (Alex’s idea.). This in itself is a logical fallacy, even beyond the big bang (which gives much evidence for God), because… is it possible to complete an infinite task? No it is not possible to complete something that is indefinite. But what about the step just prior to the end could you get there? No once again this is impossible too. For a task to be infinite there must also be an infinity of steps that come before it. Thus you could never get tot the step right before the end or any of the steps before that either. This is because an infinity of steps must always precede any other step. So the universe is infinitely old and then an infinite amount of time must have elapsed before today. Each day added on to the next to day would be a specific time in history, it would actually be the end of history. For any present point all of history would have already happened. but an infinite sequence of events could never reach this point or any point before it. Thus it is either not today or the universe/existence is not infinite.
3. Thus 3 is clearly true.




-------
One God; One Truth; One Way
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 7:15 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Interesting. Makes me feel so hopelessly outclassed...


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 7:31 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
Nova

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

don't worry pie it is not like i came up with it, but it was my atempt to explain it while still making sense.


-------
One God; One Truth; One Way
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 8:04 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"1.  What ever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being."
"1.  Clearly true don't even try and desprove it."

If we take both your statments as true, which you insist we must, then what caused God to come into being?  Don't try and say God has always been, or that proves your statement that what ever begins has a cause is false.  If it possible to believe that god has been forever, then it is possible to believe the earth has been forever also.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:56 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

obviously, you have not read my earlier posts or you would know that i already answered that question. but i'll answer it again:

i have already given scientific and philosophical reasons for why the universe had a beginning, so a very natural response for that would be to say "what caused God to come into being?"

since the universe had a beginning it must have had a cause. the only sufficient cause is an eternal being, someone or something that has always existed. otherwise, we run into the problem of infinite regression, with the question, "who caused God?" this question is only valid if God had a beginning. but what we’re saying is that God is eternal. He had no beginning of existence. therefore, he had no cause.

for years Scientists got around the God cause by saying that the universe itself has eternally existed. but as we’ve already shown, the evidence shows the exact opposite. the universe had a beginning. therefore, the best explanation for the cause of the universe must be an eternal being - God


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 12:12 AM on January 7, 2003 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

thank you nova for like everyone else posting your own random ideas without a lick to say about anyone else's.

you too, falling. thanks for never trying to take apart my argument. (that means more than just providing bad counter-examples - itr means doing whatr i did: going through and showing how it is wrong - u never did that with mine)

nova, i completely agree with your 3 part statement - whatever begins must have a cause.

but your point about it being impossible for time to go back infinitely is nonsensical. how then can God be infinite and eternal? in his infinite existence how could there be a sequence of events - one event being his creation of us - if he could never reach each new step along this infinite chain of events? your logic also seems to disprove the existence of God.

now, fallingupwards - as for yourt 2nd law of thermodynamics, i mustr confess i don't know science that well - but it seems to me that whatr you see as the beginning of the univertse (absolute concentration of energy trhen exploding outwards) is the just the beginning of a strage in a endless cycle of explosion and implosion. energy explodes, expands, and then collapses upon itself over and over. if you look at trhe phenomenon in a holistic way, i don't see how it is more inconcievable than an eternal God.

do u think you could hazard a try at my perfectr god statementr, or has this thread i created degenerated into you saying anything off the top of your head and me just listening?


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 01:02 AM on January 7, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"What we're saying is that God is eternal.  He had no beginning of existence.  Therefore, he had no cause."

How do you know this to be true?  Can you logically prove that God is eternal or is it just faith on your part?  Give me the logical proof that God is eternal.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 02:11 AM on January 7, 2003 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i trhink falling's proof would be as follows:

1. the universe had a beginning (shown by the 2nd law of thermodynamics)
2. if it had a beginning it must have a cause
3. that cause must itself be eternal (by that i assume does not obey same 2nd law of thermodynamics), because otherwise it iself would need a cause and we are stuck in the same infinite train back looking for a firstr cause...

waitaminute...i thought of something...

let's assume for a moment that falling is rightr and this perceived universe is subject to the 2nd law and trhus had a beginning. let us also accept trhe description of God given by religious people as an entity which exists outrside trhis universe. right? God is eternal. That doesn’t mean that God lasts forever.  To last forever is to be sempiternal. When theologians say God is eternal they mean that God is outside of time.  Time does not pass for God. but if this is true, it is just as likely to imagine a larger system (a more holistic "universe") that has an infinite past. like God, it is notr subject to trhe 2nd law. and its total energy rtemains trhe same, butr its component parts shiftr as one mini-universe collapses and another begins. so the totality is strable and infinite, and it is self-sustaining, and has no intelligence and no purpose or design. so exactly what falling logically points tro, except envisioned as an automaton that has been turned on instread of an entity with no birthday.

that aside, i must say i have a hard time arguing the veracity of trhe 2nd law, because i am a science-dunce. i can reason, as i did above, but i cannot artgue the factrs of thermodynamics. but lemme offer one point of what i believe is common sense. there are two possibilities. religious people who interpret 2nd law as proof of God are correct, or scientists who do not interpret that way are correct. i believe the majority of scientists do not agree itr is proof for God. this is either because they are 1. right, 2. part of a conspirtacy tro hide trhe truth, or 3. biased so much they cannot accept the truth.
let's consider #2. it's pretty absurd. i find in history people have a hard time keeping small conspiracies undiscovered, i find it hard to believe there is already a scientific proof for God that is being hidden from 95% of the population that would love to hear about it. we ae privy to the same facts trhe scientists are. #3. hmmm. when it comes to a potential for bias, i have to say i think people who want to have their religious beliefs confirmed. by science have a lot more to lose out on emotionally if the 2nd law interpretation is wrong than the scientists. now, u may say that the scientists have a stake in upholding their secular view of trhe cosmos, but the fact is their are SO MANY scientists who ARE religious who do not consider the 2nd law to point to a Creator (instead, they see science and faith as separate). now, "scientism" is different. adherents to this are devoted to explaining EVERYTHING through science, but most scientists are not believers in scientism. i offer myself as an example: i am an agnostic (athiest depending on my mood) but if someone could convince me there is a God i would be much happier, so i do not feel i am fanatically devoted to disproving God. i just flow with what i understand so far.

does ANYONE have anything to say specifically about my perfect god proof???


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 08:35 AM on January 7, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The "eternal god" argument is a logical fallacy of Petitio principii/Begging the question.  By saying god is eternal you are assuming a god exist to be eternal.  The premise of the argument implicitly assumes the result which the argument purports to prove, ie. that there is a god to be eternal.  This fallacy occurs because the premise is at least as questionable as the conclusion reached.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:15 AM on January 7, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i did not mean to offend you alex . i will analyze your perfect God proof:

in case anyone has forgotten, this is alex's proof:

1. Theists (maybe not Jews) define God as all-powerful.
2. Therefore, God can lift any size rock.
3. Therefore, there can be no rock too big for God to lift.
4. Therefore, God cannot create a rock too big for him to lift.
5. Therefore, there is something God cannot do.
6. Therefore, God is not all powerful.
7. Therefore God does not exist (per the definition given by its believers).


alex has attempted to disprove God through deductive reasoning. in philosophy, a valid argument is any argument that logically makes perfect sense. but it is not a requirement for a valid argument to be necessarily correct, it can be wrong too. an argument is sound when it is not only valid, but correct. a valid argument that is not sound includes a premise that is either incorrect or does not fit with the rest of the premises to arrive at the conclusion. the reason why alex's valid argument is not sound, is because you cannot have a first premise and a conclusion contradict each other. let me explain it in this way: if the first premise is absolutly true, then that means that God is all-powerful and therefore it is impossible for the conclusion to be true because the conclusion states that God is not all-powerful. or the other way, if God is in fact not all-powerful, then that means that your first premise is not sound evidence because it says that God is all-powerful. you cant have it both ways alex. God cant be both all-powerful and not all-powerful at the same time. yet in your argument you assume so. if God is not all-powerful, then your first premise is incorrect and false and therefore your perfect God proof is not a sound argument



-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 10:57 AM on January 7, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ooops, i'm sorry. i made a tiny mistake. the conclusion does not state that God is not all powerful, the 6th premise does. but nevertheless, the same philosphical rules apply. you cannot have two premises contradict each other. one has to be true and one has to be false. if even just one of the premises is false, then it is not a sound argument (even if it is valid)


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 11:03 AM on January 7, 2003 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i think u misunderstand the process. i took your premise (you do believe God is all powerful right?) and followed it to a conclusion. my premise was not that God is all-powerful. my premise was "Theists (maybe not Jews) define God as all-powerful." you copied it and didn't even read it apparently. so my premise is that, according to YOUR definition, God is all-powerful. then i go about seeing what that definition entails.

yes, that conclusion does contradict the definition. that's my point. it demonstrates that by definition a being which is all-powerful is self-contradictory. the part that is unsound is the idea that an all-powerful being can exist. the proof demonstrates that it cannot.
the premise is that the religious conception of God is all-powerful. the conclusion is that no such being can logically exist. how do my premise and conclusion contradict each other?

ok, maybe i made this more complicated then it had to be by making the statement into the form of a proof. just answer these questions:
1. do you agree most monotheistic religions, including yours, conceive of God as all-powerful?
2. do you think if God is all-powerful he can lift any size rock? why or why not? how could it be that an all-powerful God could not lift a certain size rock?
3. could there be any size rock He could not lift?
4. if there can exist no rock too big, doesn't that mean He cannot create a rock too big?
5. if he cannot create a rock too big, does that constitute a limitation on his power (something he can't do)?
6. if there is something he cannot do, doesn't that mean he is not all-powerful?
7. wouldn't you agree then that, either God is not all-powerful, or He doesn't exist at all?


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 11:35 AM on January 7, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

yes alex, i do believe that God is all-powerful.

first of all, a premise has to be an undeniable fact. it cannot be "Theists define God as all-powerful". an example of a good premise would be "Germany lost World War II" or "John Adams was the second President of the United States". these are undeniable facts. "Theists define God ass all-powerful" is not. but even if a premise did not have to be a fact, all the premises in a logical argument MUST agree with eachother in order to come up with a valid conclusion. but your premises do not. premises cannot contradict eachother in order to prove your conclusion. and btw, i made a mistake when i said your premise and conclusion contradict eachother. it is the first premise (which really isnt even a valid premise at all) and your sixth premise.

now i will answer your question:

1. yes, most monotheistic religions, including mine, conceive of God as all-powerful.

2. i believe that since God is all-powerful, he can lift any size rock simply because the definition of all-powerful is that you have no limits. therefore, since i believe God is all-powerful, i also believe he can lift any size rock.

3. no, there is not a rock too big for God to lift, since He is all-powerful

4. ok alex, this is the premise that is supposed to stump the believer in God. it is possible for God to create a rock too big. but how, can he if there is not a rock too big for him to lift? YOU ARE GOING TO ABSOLUTLY HATE ME for saying this, but this is something that requires faith and is too complex for the human mind to comprehend. God is much more intelligent than we will ever be, and there are certain things that we cannot understand. there, go ahead and bash me for using faith in a "logic" debate. i know that i shouldnt, but in this case it is very necessary. i know that you're going to totally undermine what i have said because i mentioned the EVIL EVIL word "faith", but that is fine.

because i didnt agree with your 4th premise, i cant really answer your other ones.

but your argument is still unsound due to the reasons that i cited in the beginning of this message.

thank you, and have a fantastic day


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 1:03 PM on January 7, 2003 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.