my CA is attacked

Dialogue with AndyF2 aka"you" https://oncreationism.blogspot.com/2020/06/hinmans-cosmological-argument.html


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.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Joe: 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.

Show me an example of anything that has existed for ever! 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 that God is eternal.

Joe: 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,

And nowhere in science do we find a principle of something existing eternally.

The simple fact is that your objections to something from nothing apply equally to something eternal. You just do not see it because you start from the assumption God exists. You are taking God as a precedent, and using that to support your claim God exists.



Joe: His second attack "something eternal."
Me: --This is proven in the logic of the argument, you have not even addressed the argument,


What is proven? That you will worship anything that it is eternal, even if they are only the laws of nature?

You admitted in a discussion of here that that was not the case!

Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: 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.

Skepie:Show me an example of anything that has existed for ever! 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 that God is eternal.


foolish. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. The universe itself has to be eternal These two questions are mutually exclusive; if existence can't pop out of nothing then it has to be eternal. Or the product of an eternal process.

Joe: 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,

Skepie:And nowhere in science do we find a principle of something existing eternally.

false: energy,the universe.

Skepie:The simple fact is that your objections to something from nothing apply equally to something eternal. You just do not see it because you start from the assumption God exists. You are taking God as a precedent, and using that to support your claim God exists.

they are clearly not on a par.

Joe: His second attack "something eternal."
Me: --This is proven in the logic of the argument, you have not even addressed the argument,

Skepie:What is proven? That you will worship anything that it is eternal, even if they are only the laws of nature?

n just those that die for my sins; since the universe can't pop from nothing there must be some aspect that is eternal. Eternitlyty is not a contradiction to logic


Anonymous said…
I am not Skepie. What do you mean by energy/universe?

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: foolish. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Actually it can - below a certain amount. As long as it is within the Heisenburg uncertainly limit.

More relevant, the sum total of the universe may well be zero. The universe may have been created with no net increase in energy.

Joe: false: energy,the universe.

Energy is not a thing, it is a quantity that can be converted from one thing to another.

Why should I believe the universe is eternal?

Joe: they are clearly not on a par.

Of course not. One is your faith position, the other is not.

Joe: n just those that die for my sins; since the universe can't pop from nothing there must be some aspect that is eternal. Eternitlyty is not a contradiction to logic

You assume the universe cannot pop from nothing, because that is your faith position.

I agree eternity is not a contradiction to logic, neither is a spontaneously appearing universe with no net change in energy.

Pix
I am headed for hospital septis
This comment has been removed by the author.
It's not "Energy/universe" but "energy, the universe;" two things, they answer statement "And nowhere in science do we find a principle of something existing eternally."

Anonymous said...
Joe: foolish. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Actually it can - below a certain amount. As long as it is within the Heisenburg uncertainly limit.

back up a bit you are arguing that because we can't find an example of nature then God can't be eternal. That is illogical and ludicrous. Nature is not devise and God is not a product of nature. There is no reason to look to nature to understand God.


More relevant, the sum total of the universe may well be zero. The universe may have been created with no net increase in energy.

that still doesn't mean something could pop out of nothing, if there is nothing to cause it then there's no cause.


Joe: false: energy,the universe.

Energy is not a thing, it is a quantity that can be converted from one thing to another.

God is not a product of nature so he he can't be judged by nature,


Why should I believe the universe is eternal?

it doesn't matter if you believe that or not, besides i made proviso for precious universes. I use universe in the broad sense encompassing all of existence.



Joe: they are clearly not on a par.

Of course not. One is your faith position, the other is not.



Joe: n just those that die for my sins; since the universe can't pop from nothing there must be some aspect that is eternal. Eternity is not a contradiction to logic

You assume the universe cannot pop from nothing, because that is your faith position.

i never accepted that as an atheist, because it makes no sense.

I agree eternity is not a contradiction to logic, neither is a spontaneously appearing universe with no net change in energy.

Pix

yes it is horribly illogical you need to avoid God leads you to cover up the stupidity of that position, but i never did accpet it even as an atheist,
you have nothing to say about this part of the argument:

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

You have to answer to that except your repair to magical thinking, poof there's a universe.
Anonymous said…
Hope you are well again!

Joe: back up a bit you are arguing that because we can't find an example of nature then God can't be eternal. That is illogical and ludicrous. Nature is not devise and God is not a product of nature. There is no reason to look to nature to understand God.

No, I am not arguing that. Quite the reverse; I agree that that is illogical and ludicrous.

What I am doing is pointing out that your rejection of a spontaneous creation is illogical and ludicrous for exactly the reasons you give above. Nature is contained within the universe; there is no reason to look to nature to understand the creation of the universe however it may be.

Joe: that still doesn't mean something could pop out of nothing,

It was responding to your point about conservation of energy. A spontaneous universe is perfectly compatible with the first law of thermodynamics.

Joe: if there is nothing to cause it then there's no cause.

Hence, it was spontaneous.

Joe: God is not a product of nature so he he can't be judged by nature,

What had that to do with my point?

Joe: it doesn't matter if you believe that or not

I thought you were trying to persuade people. My bad.

Joe: besides i made proviso for precious universes. I use universe in the broad sense encompassing all of existence.

Okay. Usually people use it to mean everything except God. I thought it was odd you were arguing for an eternal universe.

Joe: i never accepted that as an atheist, because it makes no sense.

Nor does quantum mechanics. That does not mean it is not true.

Joe: you have nothing to say about this part of the argument:
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


The conclusion is true only if the statement is true, and that is exactly what we are arguing about, so how you can pretend I have said nothing about it is beyond me.

Pix


Anonymous said...
Hope you are well again!

Joe: back up a bit you are arguing that because we can't find an example of nature then God can't be eternal. That is illogical and ludicrous. Nature is not devise and God is not a product of nature. There is no reason to look to nature to understand God.

pix:No, I am not arguing that. Quite the reverse; I agree that that is illogical and ludicrous.

What I am doing is pointing out that your rejection of a spontaneous creation is illogical and ludicrous for exactly the reasons you give above. Nature is contained within the universe; there is no reason to look to nature to understand the creation of the universe however it may be.

no its not. There's a huge difference. The idea of an eternal existant is not at all on par with the idea of magic.creation from no cause. These are mutually exclusive you cannot have them both. Eternity is the default made necessary the impossibility of no cause.


Joe: that still doesn't mean something could pop out of nothing,

pix:It was responding to your point about conservation of energy. A spontaneous universe is perfectly compatible with the first law of thermodynamics.

That's no reason to assert it. pigs have wings and fly is not contradictory to that law either.

Joe: if there is nothing to cause it then there's no cause.

pix:Hence, it was spontaneous.

There's just no reason to credit it. The most probable thing to assume is that nothing could come to be under such conditions. Therefore, something must always existed.

Joe: God is not a product of nature so he he can't be judged by nature,

pix:What had that to do with my point?

your reason for nixing eternality is false. it's based upon the assumption that God must conform to perimeters of nature.

Joe: it doesn't matter if you believe that or not

pix:I thought you were trying to persuade people. My bad.

my aim is to teach Christians how to defend the faith intellectually. i let the Holy Spirit do the persuasion,


Joe: besides i made proviso for precious universes. I use universe in the broad sense encompassing all of existence.



Joe: i never accepted that as an atheist, because it makes no sense.

pix:Nor does quantum mechanics. That does not mean it is not true.

Even Qm fails to prove something from nothing.

Joe: you have nothing to say about this part of the argument:
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

pix:The conclusion is true only if the statement is true, and that is exactly what we are arguing about, so how you can pretend I have said nothing about it is beyond me.

there is no warrant to assume something from nothing. That mandates eternal cause.


Anonymous said…
Joe: no its not. There's a huge difference. The idea of an eternal existant is not at all on par with the idea of magic.creation from no cause. These are mutually exclusive you cannot have them both. Eternity is the default made necessary the impossibility of no cause.

It is a huge difference; one you have labelled "magic" and the other you have not.

Joe: That's no reason to assert it. pigs have wings and fly is not contradictory to that law either.

So what is the basis for your claim "that still doesn't mean something could pop out of nothing,"? You seem to concede there is no law of nature preventing it.

Joe: There's just no reason to credit it. The most probable thing to assume is that nothing could come to be under such conditions. Therefore, something must always existed.

There's just no reason to credit an eternal God. The most probable thing to assume is that nothing is eternal. Therefore, something must have appeared spontaneously.

Why should we think your claim is true, and mine is not? Besides your faith.

Joe: your reason for nixing eternality is false. it's based upon the assumption that God must conform to perimeters of nature.

To be clear, when I flip your arguments, the point is not that an eternal God or universe is impossible, it is that your argument is fallacious, and can be applied - just as badly - to argue for the reverse.

Joe: Even Qm fails to prove something from nothing.

And it fails to prove something is eternal.

See, again and again I can flip your arguments, and they are just as valid - or invalid - as when you say them.

And the point about QM is that nature is often counter-intuitive.

Joe: there is no warrant to assume something from nothing. That mandates eternal cause.

And again:

There is no warrant to assume something eternal. That mandates spontaneous creation.

Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: no its not. There's a huge difference. The idea of an eternal existant is not at all on par with the idea of magic.creation from no cause. These are mutually exclusive you cannot have them both. Eternity is the default made necessary the impossibility of no cause.

It is a huge difference; one you have labelled "magic" and the other you have not.

things popping into existence with cause out of nothing is magical thinking there is no example you have no answer,you hot answered my argumemts

Joe: That's no reason to assert it. pigs have wings and fly is not contradictory to that law either.

PixSo what is the basis for your claim "that still doesn't mean something could pop out of nothing,"? You seem to concede there is no law of nature preventing it.

I have shown several times how it violates natural law. Even if that were not the case there is no reason to accept it since there's no example.



Joe: There's just no reason to credit it. The most probable thing to assume is that nothing could come to be under such conditions. Therefore, something must always existed.

There's just no reason to credit an eternal God. The most probable thing to assume is that nothing is eternal. Therefore, something must have appeared spontaneously.

stop pretending that you have answered this you have not.You have offered no reason why an eternally existing thing is impossible. It only requires being outside time. Something must exist eternally since it can't come to be from nothing, you lose. you cannot overcome that point,you have not. Pit another say Being itself is eternal.Any observation of something existing is an example of eternal existence.

Why should we think your claim is true, and mine is not? Besides your faith.

Because you have not answered the logic to any thing I;ve said,you repeetted something I;ve answered five times, you You have dogged the logic of my arguments. Being itself has to be eternal since it can't pop out of nothing

Joe: your reason for nixing eternality is false. it's based upon the assumption that God must conform to perimeters of nature.

To be clear, when I flip your arguments, the point is not that an eternal God or universe is impossible, it is that your argument is fallacious, and can be applied - just as badly - to argue for the reverse.

You are full of shit. you are dodging my logic every time, You have not answered the logic that says if popping is impossible then there must be an eternal form of being. show me why that is not logical and use logic don't repeat your BS.

Joe: Even Qm fails to prove something from nothing.

And it fails to prove something is eternal.

irrelevant it doesn't prove it can't be either.


PixSee, again and again I can flip your arguments, and they are just as valid - or invalid - as when you say them.

I am reverse flipping them back..

(1) Popping is impossible because something from nothing is impossible.
(2) since the universe cannot pop out of nothing it must be served from some from of eternal existence.
(3) all we need to know eternal being is necessary thus it is proven




PixAnd the point about QM is that nature is often counter-intuitive.

that irrelevant. it doesn't prove your point it does not disprove mine.



Joe: there is no warrant to assume something from nothing. That mandates eternal cause.

And again:

There is no warrant to assume something eternal. That mandates spontaneous creation.

yup sure as hell is i've proven several

the main one:the impossibility of popping out of nothing mandates the necessity of eternal forms of existence.

(1) Popping is impossible because something from nothing is impossible.
(2) since the universe cannot pop out of nothing it must be served from some from of eternal existence.
(3) all we need to know eternal being is necessary thus it is proven

Popular posts from this blog

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

The Genre of the Gospel of John (Part 1)

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

The Meaning of the Manger

Luke, the Census, and Quirinius: A Matter of Translation

Scientifically Documented Miracles

Morriston refutes Craig over deriving Personal God from Kalam