It's funny when Comfort is explaining the painting painter argument how many times he has to look down at his notes to explain such a easy concept (which is false) my five year old could do a better job.
When you say, 'Our observations of laws observed to be true INSIDE the universe and beyond the level of quantum mechanics, therefore these laws apply to everything beyond the universe and to the universe as a whole' is the fallacy of composition. You are taking what is true of some or even all of the individual parts of the universe (doesn't matter the definition of 'parts') and saying it applies to the whole. Fallacy of composition.
@cmadison93 "You are taking what is true of some or even all of the individual parts of the universe (doesn't matter the definition of 'parts') and saying it applies to the whole."
No philosophical theist that I know of argues like that. We don't say "because we see cause and effect everywhere, therefore the universe was caused." But, we do however, abide by the classical laws of logic, and the rule of inference and form a deduction to conclude rationally, the universe was caused.
@cmadison93 I can say that positing quantum mechanics and observing the quantum level of things and applying it to the whole universe, therefore the universe was uncaused, therefore it exists infinitely...I can say that this is the fallacy of composition, where Y is observed, and Y = QM. Then you say X=Y, therefore the universe was uncaused.
burden of proof is irrelevant. One cannot argue that I believe in God therefore he exists and the other person has to prove contrary, nor can you say that I don't believe in God and therefore he does not exist and you have to contrary. We already know what you believe, if you are to be bold and debate it then shifting burden of proof is equivalent to saying, "I defer". Saying that someone used a logic fallacy is great but it does nothing to help your argument that God does or does not exist...
@FLASK904 "burden of proof is irrelevant. One cannot argue that I believe in God therefore he exists and the other person has to prove contrary, nor can you say that I don't believe in God and therefore he does not exist and you have to contrary."
Actually the burden of proof is more relevant than you think. Both claims (theists and atheists) are on polar opposites; both are in contradiction; therefore identifying who shoulders the burden of proof is essential to one's claim.
I hope you realize that none of you are actually arguing the topic itself, you are merely stating in fancy made up equations that I don't want to prove anything. Logic fallacy is great if you're arguing law and studying for an Lsat (they suck..btw), but none of those arguments make sense here. This is science, and its either true or its not. Unless you prescribe to M theory and the multiverse theory, there is only one truth and the other side is wrong...Either God exists, or he doesnt...(cont.)
@FLASK904 "I hope you realize that none of you are actually arguing the topic itself, you are merely stating in fancy made up equations that I don't want to prove anything."
I hope you realize that your comments are as equally irrelevant as you claim the BOP is. These "fancy equations" that we make provides a framework for logic and see if logic does indeed lead to the existence of God, or provide us a logical framework of an arbitrary concept of God.
@FLASK904 "This is science, and its either true or its not."
Science provides us with explanations of the natural world, and science provides us with rational probabilities, or in logistical lingo "inductive" knowledge, science is very useful in determining origins and positing hypothesis and theories to explain the data we have; BUT science can't give us a scientific method on how to conduct ethics, such as we can't put the moral truth "it is wrong to torture babies" in a test tube.
@blastbeatingjerk666 That is a very weak question, if there was a creator of everyone then how would you ever identify the beginning? Or does your perfect scientific explanations explain all of that? It is confirmed that atheists have no absolute purpose except to dash the knowledge and beliefs of those who aren't ignorant to the importance of God. And the point of this challenge is for atheists to be a part of something that is just as meaningless as it is stupid. Success!!
@chica0616 "if you could reason with religous people, there would be no religous people" what fucking explanations did i give??? what were scientific??? you know what i know for sure....that i dont know! and you dont know either, no one knows. what is "confirmed"??? debate settled...christian=retard
@blastbeatingjerk666 Absolutely not, you could never be sure of what I know unless you were in my position, the position of knowing God. God has acted in my life in ways that you probably will reject for the rest of your life. You don't have the courage to believe in God, this is the reason that Atheists hold to the belief that there is no God. Atheists are the only ones that resort to name calling when they don't have an intelligent response. Sound familiar????
@chica0616 my vision is my religion... i dont know why religous people want to argue if god exists are not...who fucking cares... i guess we will see what happens when we die
Both have faults in their own arguments. What Ray team is trying to do is not 'prove there is God' but to assert that there has to be God. Sapient team has a problem on their own (they believe scientism, not sicence. One accepts (or rejects) explanation by science, but science is not what we believe (or not believe). Science has not prove that why matter-energy has been existing all the time. They don't know the beginning of time. Big-bang, multiple universe, blah, blah, blah.
also note the satanic music they are listening to in the car, notice how the girl gestures the devil horns* , their actions (in particular the girl and passengers) speak volumes of what really moves them, SATAN who is the father of lies* I'm not judging but I see the proof, and the proof is not only are they atheists but they clearly show who they follow* SATAN. Do not give in to their lies and confusion,they serve another master
@phirefish ?!?! What in the bloody hell are you talking about? YES , you kinda need to beleive in something to follow it. Please tell me you havent bred. We dont need anymore stupid.
@phirefish Metallica is not satanic. The "Devil Horns" is a metal sign. Atheists do not follow satan, we do not believe he exists. How can we follow a nonexistent being?
Metallica is very satanic their lyrics suggest that clearly. I used to be into them and watched them live many times,my brother in law (dark angel) played with them in their early stages in the 80's and the message is satanic* as far as the devil horns* it's the sign of Baphomet the horned devil of satanism,or hail satan*
Why do atheists who claim not to believe in GOD,spend so much time pleading their case?
what's their platform.....to deny GODS existence* that's all. And all they keep asking is " where is your proof ?" well where is your proof atheist* ...that GOD DOESN'T EXIST? where is your your 100% proof that GOD isn't real? where is your proof that GOD didn't create the world? and why mock kirk* did he mock you? you truly show your true colors and agenda,but why? GOD doesn't exist in your minds*
@phirefish Because we are trying to wake you up from your ignorance. It is not good for the human race to keep attached to ancient writings that were written by people who didn't even know why there was a day and a night...
I used to be just like you same lines same arguments and then gave my life to GOD, I then he lifted the veil from my eyes,that my unbelief and sinful ways were wrong* I found out how arrogant I had been in thinking I knew it all and that GOD was a lie. I was close to death many times following satans way , it almost killed me,GOD offers eternal life and salvation* I'm not perfect just forgiven, and If I die today I know where my soul will rest,in heaven with GOD our creator
I see the earth and how utterly complex it is as well as the human body* i see the stars,the moon,the sun and how were at a perfect distance from it as to not get burned,i see how the solar system revolves in a perfect balance,i see the water and how it's not allowed to spill out, i see flowers/trees and their complex role in allowing us to breath and create oxygen,i see the animals and their part in nature
I see how our DNA is so complex and the miracle of birth,I see the moon and it's purpose in keeping the tides in check....basically I see GODS hand in everything....thus that is proof enough for me. I don't need to see GOD in person to believe in him .Only a divine creator (GOD) could have created such wonders.
@phirefish Atheists do not have the burden of proof. You make the assertion there is a God, I reject that assertion due to a lack of a shred of evidence. I dont have to prove God doesnt exist, you have to prove he does.
LOL it's convenient to be an atheist " Bam !!!! GOD doesn't exist !!!" kinda like if I close my eyes and wish it away it will disappear. Believe what you want it's your choice* you can't prove GOD doesn't exist and we can go back and forth....but really the question is if you die today,and come face to face with GOD what will you tell him? umm I didn't see the evidence so I thought you were fake? .shred of evidence...nah you need to find GOD while he can be found
My name is Andy too, Zeus and odin are not biblical in anyway* When GOd created the heavens and the earth there was neither made. When JESUS walked the a earth,healing,restoring,casting out demons,offering salvation* the multitudes saw and followed him,but then there was the unbelievers who no matter what miracles he performed, they hated and crucified him instead* what bad thing did he do to deserve that?
I've talked to many atheists who say " I don't care if GOD presented himself in front of me, I still wouldn't follow him" then they list a host of other reasons they would deny him* so it's not proof they seek,they flat out have contempt for him,so the issue is way deeper than just proof. GOD is there anytime you decide to call on him,it doesn't matter how bad you've messed up, GOD is not willing that any should perish,but come to repentance
@phirefish Again, I dont need to prove he doesnt exist, im not making any claims, Im simply rejecting yours. And if he magically appears to my corpse and asks me why I didnt suck on his nads, Ill tell him he damn fine job of hiding himself. The tooth fairy called, she wants to see you.
What Ray is saying about the painting is that as humans we are basically always inferring creation, deducing possibilities of spontaneous generation. It is so highly unlikely that the painting came about without intention. It all comes down to the argument for, not "God" or "Christianity," but whether or not something is too complex to rationally believe it was a naturally occuring process. However one could argue that since we are naturally occuring, that all intentions including painting is 2
The problem is that we know a painting is a created thing because we can infer it based on prior knowledge. You cannot do the same thing with the universe.
@biscuithammer00 And of course even that is an assumption, there are many more examples than paintings, sand sculptures, "Mount Rushmore," We are trained and predisposed genetically to find an analyze intent, there is something attractive about high improbability and purpose. It's a hard problem in science.
This is not even a face off or a competition. The RRS completely destroy Kirk & Ray's blatant denial of science & evidence. Tell you what Ray, I can dive to the same depths a Blue Whales, but don't ask to see it, just take it on faith.
I seriously doubt any serious cosmologist or astrophysicist will say that the universe always existed because of the first law of thermodynamics. That's a poor inductive excuse to explain away the finiteness of the universe. Plus that assertion itself contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics where the universe is heading towards a maximum state of entropy, energy that cannot be used to perform work, so we must posit that the universe is an endless chain of recycled energy.
My critique:Sapient says that Occam's Razor means "simplest solution" means no God, but he doesn't expound on what "simplest solution" is. To say that the universe always existed because of the 1st law of thermodynamics is special pleading, then we must also posit that WE always existed since we are contained in the universe, therefore causation is an infinite endless chain? Occam's Razor states the simplest "entity," not solution. What kind of solution to what? It's a slippery slope fallacy. :)
You are engaging in the fallacy of composition: You are assuming that what holds to be true *inside* of our universe (at least the small portion of the universe that we can observe) applies to the universe as a whole and to the formation of the universe.
Also, do you know what happens when something reaches a maximum state of entropy? Thought not. Trying to make a wild guess on what will happen is not wise.
@cmadison93 "You are assuming that what holds to be true *inside* of our universe (at least the small portion of the universe that we can observe) applies to the universe as a whole and to the formation of the universe."
Actually, the proponents of an "eternal universe" is applying this fallacy.
Premise 1: What ever has a beginning to its existence has a cause
Prem. 2: The universe had a beginning to its existence
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe always existed.
Wrong, once again. People who say the universe needed to have a cause/creator/etc. are applying this fallacy.
You are assuming that this premise applies to something outside of the universe. You are assuming that since it is true from what we can directly observe and experience, that it is true of ALL things. Then going on to say, "therefore there needs to be a creator" is a fallacy. This is the fallacy of composition. Not to mention the fallacy of special pleading (who created god?)
@cmadison93 Lay out your premises "syllogistically" via deduction, then we'll see where the fallacy lies. I don't see where the fallacy lies, nor where you're saying "special pleading" is; but I think you're misapplying the fallacy, in fact I KNOW you're misapplying the fallacy of composition.
@cmadison93 "You are assuming that since it is true from what we can directly observe and experience, that it is true of ALL things"
Wrong, you are assuming since "nothing comes into existence" then this must be true of the whole universe. When we say "the universe began to exist" we are not implementing a "creator" in any of the premises. Either the universe began to exist, or it didn't, thus always existed. Your premise is committing the fallacy of composition.
@4IDHero maybe i am not understanding your argument, last time i checked according to science, the universe (space and time)began to exist in a point, so on what scientific evidence you base an eternal physical universe???? if this is not what you are proposing, will you be kind to clarify?
@luima23 "the universe (space and time)began to exist in a point, so on what scientific evidence you base an eternal physical universe???? if this is not what you are proposing, will you be kind to clarify?"
True, and I'm arguing for "a universe that began to exist." I was just showing that the proponents of the brute existence of the universe (always existed) that their premises are questionable.
@cmadison93 thanks for replying... how old is the universe? why scientist talks again and again of an 13 billion years old universe? does time and space have always existed??? if yes, how can we prove that??? can you point out for me the fallacy on the hypothesis/argument/assumption "the universe begin to exist"??
we cant prove SCIENTIFICALLY neither of the premises when it come to the "beginning" "or not beginning" of the universe, if we could we wouldnt be discussing it now.
@luima23 Premise: I don't know science. Claim: Science, which I know nothing about, must be wrong! This is a terrible argument. You need to try harder.
@7j8i9m i never claimed i dont know science, before posting stupidities, try to read what i repliead below, i am a visual effect supervisor, 3d modeler,and programmer, i work at the visual effect field, and i have developed several tools for the cinema production, i have also studied practical ornithology on the past 10 years, and have knowledge of computational physics.
I think it is important to insert an addendum to when you ask, "How old is the universe?" A more accurate question is, "How old is the universe as we know it?" Or, "How old does the universe appear to be, as we know it?"
You are assuming that there was a beginning to the universe and have failed to support this supposition.
When you take principles that have been shown to be true INSIDE of the universe AS WE KNOW IT and apply that to EVERYTHING, that is called a logical fallacy (fallacy of composition, see my earlier comment),
I have NEVER claimed that the universe 'began to exist' or 'did not begin to exist'. I have merely pointed out the fallacious nature of YOUR argument, and you have failed to meet your burden of proof.
@cmadison93 "to support this supposition" please support your with scientific demonstration, is the only thing i ask, this should be very easy for you i suppose, if not the burden of proof now is in your hands, i am NOT talking philosophically, instead scientifically ,please illuminate us with DEMONSTRATION not fallacies assumptions. i will wait for it in my seat...
What claim did I make regarding the beginning/non-beginning of the universe?
Answer: I have made NO claim about the beginning/non-beginning of the universe.
I have been criticizing the assumption that the universe began to exist because the burden of proof to support this claim has not been met with some child in the comments.
@Bleumange no, i am not a ridiculously incredulous, i am a visual effect supervisor, 3d modeler,and programmer, i work at the visual effect field, and i have developed several tools for the cinema production, i have also studied practical ornithology on the past 10 years, and have knowledge of computational physics. where the fuck did i denied that science is an evolving concept? read again what i write before insulting.
Where did I ever say that the universe has always existed? Guess what - I didn't! I was criticizing YOUR claim. And you completely dodged the point, brought up a straw man and told me to defend that straw man (shifting the burden of proof)!
Seriously, go learn a damn thing about logic before you make an utter fool of yourself.
@cmadison93 "Seriously, go learn a damn thing about logic before you make an utter fool of yourself."
Seriously? Lets see who the real fool is. I did say "lay out your premises syllogisticslly via deduction." But you dodged that completely. If you don't know what deductive logic or a syllogism is, then obviously you need to learn some logic.
"There is yet another possibility - that the universe doesn't exist."
Really? The universe doesn't exist? Do I have to insult your intelligence? LOL
YOU are the one making the claim that the universe had a beginning - I NEVER made ANY claim about the beginning or non-beginning of the universe. I am criticizing YOUR argument. YOU have to meet YOUR burden of proof, not bring up straw men and try to make me defend those straw men. Do you understand this?
I see you are an amateur at logic. You really should look into the concept of the universe not existing before you want to 'insult my intelligence'
And once again, this is yet another fallacy of composition. You are taking the observations inside of the universe, of a small part of the universe and assuming it is true of EVERYTHING, including the universe as a whole.
And also, a 'beginning of the universe' is not the same as a 'beginning of the universe AS WE KNOW IT'. These two concepts are very different.
@cmadison93 let me ask you this, in order to have a productive argumentation, what premise you sustain about the universeon its begining/existence/nonexistence/not-begining? cause whatever your answer is, you must prove it scientifically not with philosophical-fallacius babbling.
luima23, you do not seem to understand what it is this conversation is about. I criticized the claim of someone else here on YouTube. They have failed to defend their claim.
I do not make any claims regarding the beginning/non-beginning of the universe. Nor do I need to. I am criticizing YOUR arguments. Trying to shift the burden of proof onto me is a logical fallacy.
@cmadison93 Do I have to give you a lesson on "Possible Worlds Semantics" too? The claim that the "universe possibly didn't exist" cannot be a part of a dichotomy of logical possibilities for the simple fact that the universe already exists. To say "the universe possibly didn't exist," which is true in it's possible sense, it only means that. Even if you wanna throw in a 3rd, then that third is STILL "NOT A" because A already exists. Yes, your false dichotomy is true, but by your admission.
"Either the universe began to exist, or it didn't, thus always existed."
A. Universe began to exist
or
B. Universe always existed.
These are the two choices you presented. No where in there does it include the possibility that the universe doesn't exist. Why don't you simply admit your mistake? Why are you in denial?
Also, I'm still waiting for the logical argument to support the claim that the universe began to exist. Remember, the person who makes the claim has to meet their burden of proof. In this discussion we are having, you made the claim that the universe began to exist. I made no claim regarding the beginning/non-beginning of the universe. I am criticizing your 'arguments' and all you have shown is an extensive amount of dogmatism. Please, at least try to understand the burden of proof.
@cmadison93 "I am criticizing your 'arguments' and all you have shown is an extensive amount of dogmatism."
All you've shown us is your ignorance. There is NO dogmatism here. I pity your intelligence because you elevate yourself so high as to know so much, but make a total fool out of yourself. Any serious truth seeker can see how idiotic your comments are, it's really amusing. Don't you have video games to go play or something, instead of engaging in topics too smart for you to understand? lol
I sincerely appreciate your 'logical' responses. I suggest learning about a little thing called the ad hominem fallacy as well as humility. Also, I loved your special pleading fallacy at the end. Your arguments are so childish I can just sit here and point out the fallacies and your 'argument' crumbles.
@cmadison93 "I suggest learning about a little thing called the ad hominem fallacy as well as humility."
I know very well what an ad hominem is, but in order for it to be a fallacy, it needs to be in a logic chain. If I called you out on your lack of intelligence, don't take it personal. It's my way of saying "wake up!"
Ad Hominem Fallacy:
Premise 1: God doesn't exist, evolution is a fact
P 2: Religious people don't understand evolution, and are delusional
Once you get past the fact that you have presented a false dichotomy (the universe began to exist or always existed) let's examine the possibility that the universe does not not exist, did not begin to exist and has not always existed (aka none of the above). This is a totally valid 4th option, which you have also failed to account for in your false dichotomy.
The problem is, in your comment you did not account for the extra possibilities outside of the universe began to exist or the universe has always existed.
Once again, I direct you to the quote from your deleted comment.
"Either the universe began to exist, or it didn't, thus always existed."
Had you left off the, 'thus always existed' at the end, it would have been a true dichotomy but by adding that phrase at the end you made it a false dichotomy.
@cmadison93 "Had you left off the, 'thus always existed' at the end, it would have been a true dichotomy but by adding that phrase at the end you made it a false dichotomy."
If you leave out "thus always existed" then you would have STILL proven that the universe began to exist. Obviously, it exists. LOL, beating around the bush much?
When you say that the universe had a beginning, you fail to consider how that relates to time. A 'beginning' is defined in terms of time, always existed is defined in terms of time. So, what about time? Has time always existed? Did time have a 'beginning'? Does time not exist? What?
The universe could have 'existed' before 'time'. How would that factor into your 'arguments'?
Also, what about the unknown unknowns that you have failed to take into account?
@cmadison93 "Also, I'm still waiting for the logical argument to support the claim that the universe began to exist."
Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause (this is true of all physical things because "cause and effect" is a universal principle, anyone who denies cause and effect shoulders the burden of proof to show it doesn't hold at the universal level)
P 2: The universe began to exist. (in conjunction with premise 1, big bang, etc.)
The Big Bang does not mean the universe began to exist. The Big Bang was the start of the universe *as we know it*. The *as we know it* is key since the universe could have existed long before the Big Bang.
Back to my original criticism that applying a principle that appears to be true inside of the universe doesn't mean that it is true of absolutely everything, including the beginning/non-beginning or outside of the universe.
@cmadison93 "The Big Bang does not mean the universe began to exist. The Big Bang was the start of the universe *as we know it*. The *as we know it* is key since the universe could have existed..."
The problem with someone claiming that "the BB doesn't mean the universe began to exist" is dubious, because matter, space and time (general relativity) began at the Big Bang. Another problem with that claim is that it would have traversed an infinite causal chain, which is impossible.
How does time 'begin' at the Big Bang? Can you support this claim?
Can you support the claim that matter and space 'began' at the Big Bang?
You are still failing to account for the observation that the Big Bang marks the beginning of the universe *as we know it*. The *as we know it* is key. How can you make ANY claims about the existence/non-existence/beginning/non-beginning of the universe as a whole (not just as we know it) when we only know about the universe as we know it?
Comment continued: Which is once again using the fallacy of composition: Assuming what is true of the universe (as we know it) is true of the universe (as we know it AND what it was or was not 'before' or 'outside' the 'as we know it')
This also relates back to the cause-and-effect fallacy of composition you keep engaging in.
@cmadison93 Sorry for the insults, don't take it personal. I see that your comments are much more productive and thought provoking now, so I thought I'd apologize. Now we're getting somewhere. :)
Key to understanding - "universal principles" are principles that are true for the inside of the universe. Even if cause and effect were true for everything inside of the universe, that still does not mean it is true of the universe as a whole. This assumption is based on the fallacy of composition. (I suggest a quick Google search for clarification on the fallacy of composition.)
@cmadison93 "Even if cause and effect were true for everything inside of the universe, that still does not mean it is true of the universe as a whole. This assumption is based on the fallacy of composition."
What is the whole universe? Everything that is contained in the universe. If everything is contained in the universe, then obviously, cause and effect governs everything that is contained in the universe. Cause and effect: A "universal" (hint, hint) principle.
Your 'logic' is beyond amateur. I suggest a Philosophy 101 class.
You are saying what is true inside of the universe applies to everything outside of the universe (i.e. that the universe had to have a cause as well). You have failed to support that cause and effect governs anything beyond the inside of the universe.
"What is the whole universe? Everything that is contained in the universe. If everything is contained in the universe, then obviously, cause and effect governs everything that is contained in the universe."
Thank you for validating my previous points in this post =)
cause and effect governs everything that is *CONTAINED IN* the universe. To assume it applies to things that are not contained in the universe (such as the universe) or to the universe as a whole = fallacy of composition
@cmadison93 "To assume it applies to things that are not contained in the universe (such as the universe) / or to the universe as a whole = fallacy of composition"
Then where does the law of causality withheld? Neither outside nor inside the universe? Then if you deny the law of causality, then it doesn't apply to the outside nor inside? You're committing the fallacy of composition. lol
I don't have to prove the 'non-universal' law of non cause and effect because I never made a claim regarding that. I am merely criticizing YOUR argument, YOUR burden of proof.
I don't know nor do I care where the law of causality is withheld. It could be outside the universe, or in the quantum level, or both or neither. This is completely irrelevant to my criticism, though.
@cmadison93 "I don't have to prove the 'non-universal' law of non cause and effect because I never made a claim regarding that. I am merely criticizing YOUR argument, YOUR burden of proof."
u don't have to, but does that make you automatically correct? So if I'm arguing the universal law of cause and effect, then you're arguing for a "I don't have to prove" argument? You don't have to prove doesn't prove the "negation" of the law of cause and effect; thus the burden falls back on u
I never made a claim regarding cause-and-effect and whether it's a universal law that extends beyond the universe or not.
I am merely criticizing your argument you use to claim that cause-and-effect is a universal law that extends beyond the universe. If you fail to meet YOUR burden of proof to support your original claim, your claim can be dismissed until further notice.
@cmadison93 "I am merely criticizing your argument you use to claim that cause-and-effect is a universal law that extends beyond the universe."
May I ask "how" are you criticizing it besides just stating that u'r criticizing the universal law of cause and effect. I can come back with a counter-criticism and say that what criterias can you provide to reject the law of cause-and-effect? By deductive logic, i.e. Kalam via modus ponens logic, the universe was caused. U shoulder the BOP
Fallacy of composition : a+a+a+a=x. Therefore, a, a, a and a have all the properties of x. and x has all the properties of a. (fallacy of division and composition displayed here.)
This is what you are saying, that since the components that make up (a, a, a, a) the universe appear to follow this concept of cause-and-effect, that the whole universe (x) must also follow this law. Fallacy of composition.
@cmadison93 "This is what you are saying, that since the components that make up (a, a, a, a) the universe appear to follow this concept of cause-and-effect, that the whole universe (x) must also follow this law. Fallacy of composition."
Actually, this is your assumption. All I'm arguing for is a = b = c = d, each letter corresponds to it's cause, the equal sign means it causes the effects of the next letter. Your (a+a+a+a = X) doesn't make sense. Clarify that arbitrary equation.
a=component of the universe, with the only thing in common being property of cause-and-effect. When you add all of these components together, you get the universe as a whole (x).
That doesn't mean that the universe as a whole has the property of cause-and-effect, the property of each individual component..
@cmadison93 "That doesn't mean that the universe as a whole has the property of cause-and-effect, the property of each individual component.."
There are major logical-inferential problems with a non-first-causal universe. One, there's the regress problem, which through thought experiment an actual infinite collection of things, such as objects, which the universe is comprised of, would have traversed an infinite. 2. You don't really "unpack" what "a=component" of the universe means
@cmadison93 "That doesn't mean that the universe as a whole has the property of cause-and-effect, the property of each individual component.."
What does the universe comprise of? Lets say property A is a cause and property B is it's effect. State of affairs A causes state of affairs B to exist, i.e. your parents caused you to exist. Universe is X. Therefore X should equal A = B = C = D = E and so forth...(in some chronological order, in this case alphabets)
2 does not necessarily have the same properties as 1, to say so is simply the fallacy of composition.."
If X comprises of ALL states of affairs, and all states of affairs has property Y=cause-and-effect, then wouldn't the X=Y? What is 2? In other words, the numbers represent? If X doesn't have the same characteristics as A,B,C; then X must be the negation of A,B,and C; which reads - X = A,B,C,...etc.; which is a contradiction.
This is the fallacy of composition. To assume that because these states of affairs has property Y doesn't mean X also has property Y. X=A,B,C, but x(property of X) does not necessarily equal Y,Y,Y.
The universe must be the negation of these? No.
If X doesn't have the same characteristics, then the characteristics of X=/=characteristics of A,B,C
@cmadison93 "To assume that because these states of affairs has property Y doesn't mean X also has property Y. X=A,B,C, but x(property of X) does not necessarily equal Y,Y,Y."
To assume X does not have properties that A,B,C has, which is property Y; then there is a logical contradiction; thus you are forced to conclude - Y = A(Y), B(Y), C(Y); the universe MUST be the negation of Y. From now on, lets use X=universe, Y=cause and effect, and letters (A,B,C...etc) as states of affairs.
Another problem arises, the infinite regress (∞). Lets say state of affair A is the big bang, and B,C,D and so forth are it's effects of other causes over 13.7 billion years. Lets say state of affair "S" is the present moment, the present state of the universe. If the universe is uncaused, we are forced to accept X(-Y) = ∞ A(Y),B(Y),C(Y),D(Y),.....S(Y) ∞ A logical impossibility of traversing an infinite.
I think you're confusing an unwarranted inductive inference with the fallacy of composition. The fallacy of composition goes something like this:
Premise 1: people, plants, animals come from pre-existing material
Premise 2: The universe came from pre-existing material
Therefore, the universe always existed...and you're forced to also accept the universe is eternal, for it is the logical negation of a finite, first-caused universe.
@cmadison93 Cont. from A=B=C=D comment. Are you saying, if not clarify further, that X = the universe, therefore X = -A = -B = -C = -D? The negative signs (-) equals to the negation of cause and effect, or it's denial, so therefore X =∞A where ∞ equals infinite existence of properties and states of affairs due to the non-universal, non-causal universe ( -A) where A is the law of cause and effect?
Watch, I can see it already, you're probably gonna say something like "that's dogma, that's not a very good argument, you haven't met your burden of proof, I am criticizing, blah blah blah..." Well, if we apply the "true dichotomy" then the denial, or negation of the premises is what atheism needs in order for atheism to be plausible. Watch I can see it already, you're gonna say "I didn't claim either, you still haven't met your burden." or something stupid like that. LOL
I don't quite understand how you are relating atheism or theism to the beginning/non-beginning of the universe.
I guess since you hold so tightly to the cause and effect relationship, then there must be a cause for this deity. But you would probably just dodge the point via special pleading and say God exists outside of time and space, always existed, blah blah blah.
@cmadison93 "But you would probably just dodge the point via special pleading and say God exists outside of time and space, always existed, blah blah blah."
No, but I am gonna argue that "God" is the concept that is the necessary and sufficient condition for the beginning of the universe, which can be argued for by the cosmological argument called the Leibnizian Argument, for the sufficient cause. To say that God needs a cause, is presupposing that God is a physical entity within the universe.
To say that the universe needs a cause, is presupposing that the universe is a physical entity within the universe.
See, I can say the same thing as you!
Also, I HIGHLY recommend further research into the cosmological argument because philosophers (even kids on YouTube have ripped it apart) have utterly obliterated that argument, and the cosmological argument has failed to meet its burden of proof. If you cannot grasp this, you are just in denial.
@cmadison93 "Also, I HIGHLY recommend further research into the cosmological argument because philosophers (even kids on YouTube have ripped it apart) have utterly obliterated that argument, and the cosmological argument has failed to meet its burden of proof."
LOL, that's a LIE. There's a difference between sincere truth seeking, and just flat out lying. Arguing with you is like blowing up rubble and not the building. LOL
If you think the Cosmological argument is valid, I suggest further research into philosophy.
There are several things that must be proven in the cosmological argument, 1. that god exists, 2. that this god created the universe, 3. that cause and effect is really a concept that applies to everything (which has been contradicted by observations within quantum mechanics and by the fallacy of composition when applying it to the universe as a whole)
@cmadison93 "Does the universe having a beginning somehow negate atheism?"
Yes, because atheism presupposes the non beginning of the universe. If a universe began to exist, than this is devastating to atheism because the universe and everything within the universe would essentially come from NOTHING, it's worst than magic, because with magic you still have the magician and the hat as to cause his act.
Atheism is simply the absence of belief in God. There is nothing in atheism that presupposes the beginning/non-beginning of the universe.
Also, how would the beginning of the universe, to an atheist, mean that it came from nothing? That's a rather bold claim - a claim I have never heard ANY atheist support.
Please lay out your premises in your claim that a beginning of the universe contradicts atheism, if you can,
Premise 1: Matter can neither be created nor destroyed (1st law of thermodynamics)
P 2: The universe contains matter
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe always existed (even before the Big Bang)
Premise 1 doesn't stand, matter can't be created nor destroyed by entities within itself, i.e. people, scientists, etc. And the problem of traversing an infinite causal chain still stands.
Premise 2 is obvious
Conclusion begs the question, it reassumes premise 1.
With what that syllogism says, therefore atheism and the RRS (should be irrational response squad, or IRS (coincidently)) claims that since matter can't be created nor destroyed, then this must be true of the whole universe, thus commits the fallacy of composition; rather than providing the denied premises of the same deductive syllogisms that I have been putting on here. So YOU, my friend, are committing ignorance of the fallacy of composition.
You are assuming that atheists are assuming that the laws of thermodynamics are eternal and extend beyond the universe (remember, atheism is only the absence of belief in a God).
I have not committed the fallacy of composition because I made no claims regarding the beginning/non-beginning of the universe. This straw man you keep throwing out is getting rather old.
You keep criticizing a straw man you keep saying I support. Why are you doing this? Can you try and defend your own claim (that the universe began to exist)? Why do you have to try and shift the burden of proof?
And once again, I bring up the fallacy of composition in regards to how YOU reach YOUR conclusion (assuming the cause and effect relationship extends beyond the universe). Also, YOUR conclusion leads to a series of infinite regress of cause-and-effect. How does that work?
Actually, this entire 'argument' you have brought up criticizing what you believe atheism entails is completely irrelevant to my criticisms of your argument. We are not debating some straw man you came up with. We should be debating YOUR argument to support YOUR conclusion. You keep shifting the burden of proof onto people who don't support that straw man. Do you understand?
You keep bringing up this red herring (also a fallacy - specifically an irrelevant conclusion) to try and distract the conversation away from your claim/your argument/your burden of proof (shifting the burden of proof). On top of this, this completely irrelevant argument you come up with is a straw man.
@cmadison93 "You keep bringing up this red herring (also a fallacy - specifically an irrelevant conclusion) to try and distract the conversation away from your claim/your argument/your burden of proof (shifting the burden of proof). On top of this, this completely irrelevant argument you come up with is a straw man."
May I ask how you came up with this? Looks like you need to read up on those fallacies you mentioned a lot more instead of just claiming that I commit them without showing how.
I have read up on them. I suggest you go through and review your comments which you have deleted. You keep bringing up how saying the universe always existed via the laws of physics is the fallacy of composition - this is a red herring. this is a completely irrelevant conclusion in regards to YOUR argument.
On top of that, you then try to make me defend this straw man which you have thrown up (where you have said I was the one who claimed the universe always existed) . (shifting the burden of proof)
I suggest looking over what you have said via the comments. If you do not remember what you have said (due to you deleting the comments), that is fine, since I can provide that information for you if you wish.
I wonder if Ray and Kurt felt like they needed to hug Kelly and Brian
mzyzer19 3 days ago
First god lived on the top of a mountain then in the sky and know outside of space and time. outside of space and time by definition is nonexistant.
mzyzer19 3 days ago
It's funny when Comfort is explaining the painting painter argument how many times he has to look down at his notes to explain such a easy concept (which is false) my five year old could do a better job.
mzyzer19 3 days ago
When you say, 'Our observations of laws observed to be true INSIDE the universe and beyond the level of quantum mechanics, therefore these laws apply to everything beyond the universe and to the universe as a whole' is the fallacy of composition. You are taking what is true of some or even all of the individual parts of the universe (doesn't matter the definition of 'parts') and saying it applies to the whole. Fallacy of composition.
cmadison93 1 week ago
@cmadison93 "You are taking what is true of some or even all of the individual parts of the universe (doesn't matter the definition of 'parts') and saying it applies to the whole."
No philosophical theist that I know of argues like that. We don't say "because we see cause and effect everywhere, therefore the universe was caused." But, we do however, abide by the classical laws of logic, and the rule of inference and form a deduction to conclude rationally, the universe was caused.
4IDHero 6 days ago
@cmadison93 I can say that positing quantum mechanics and observing the quantum level of things and applying it to the whole universe, therefore the universe was uncaused, therefore it exists infinitely...I can say that this is the fallacy of composition, where Y is observed, and Y = QM. Then you say X=Y, therefore the universe was uncaused.
4IDHero 6 days ago
When one sees a spot created by a oil drop in a carpet, does that mean that someone has to have painted the carpet?
VitoPossilipo 1 week ago
burden of proof is irrelevant. One cannot argue that I believe in God therefore he exists and the other person has to prove contrary, nor can you say that I don't believe in God and therefore he does not exist and you have to contrary. We already know what you believe, if you are to be bold and debate it then shifting burden of proof is equivalent to saying, "I defer". Saying that someone used a logic fallacy is great but it does nothing to help your argument that God does or does not exist...
FLASK904 2 weeks ago
@FLASK904 "burden of proof is irrelevant. One cannot argue that I believe in God therefore he exists and the other person has to prove contrary, nor can you say that I don't believe in God and therefore he does not exist and you have to contrary."
Actually the burden of proof is more relevant than you think. Both claims (theists and atheists) are on polar opposites; both are in contradiction; therefore identifying who shoulders the burden of proof is essential to one's claim.
4IDHero 6 days ago
I hope you realize that none of you are actually arguing the topic itself, you are merely stating in fancy made up equations that I don't want to prove anything. Logic fallacy is great if you're arguing law and studying for an Lsat (they suck..btw), but none of those arguments make sense here. This is science, and its either true or its not. Unless you prescribe to M theory and the multiverse theory, there is only one truth and the other side is wrong...Either God exists, or he doesnt...(cont.)
FLASK904 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FLASK904 "I hope you realize that none of you are actually arguing the topic itself, you are merely stating in fancy made up equations that I don't want to prove anything."
I hope you realize that your comments are as equally irrelevant as you claim the BOP is. These "fancy equations" that we make provides a framework for logic and see if logic does indeed lead to the existence of God, or provide us a logical framework of an arbitrary concept of God.
4IDHero 6 days ago
@FLASK904 "This is science, and its either true or its not."
Science provides us with explanations of the natural world, and science provides us with rational probabilities, or in logistical lingo "inductive" knowledge, science is very useful in determining origins and positing hypothesis and theories to explain the data we have; BUT science can't give us a scientific method on how to conduct ethics, such as we can't put the moral truth "it is wrong to torture babies" in a test tube.
4IDHero 6 days ago
Blech....its always easy to question a religion.......its hard to follow one....:D
hbjrockzz 2 weeks ago
@discountninjuh
Enlighten us.
recalibration 2 weeks ago
also if there has to be a creater...who created THE creator?
blastbeatingjerk666 3 weeks ago
@blastbeatingjerk666 That is a very weak question, if there was a creator of everyone then how would you ever identify the beginning? Or does your perfect scientific explanations explain all of that? It is confirmed that atheists have no absolute purpose except to dash the knowledge and beliefs of those who aren't ignorant to the importance of God. And the point of this challenge is for atheists to be a part of something that is just as meaningless as it is stupid. Success!!
chica0616 3 weeks ago
@chica0616 "if you could reason with religous people, there would be no religous people" what fucking explanations did i give??? what were scientific??? you know what i know for sure....that i dont know! and you dont know either, no one knows. what is "confirmed"??? debate settled...christian=retard
blastbeatingjerk666 3 weeks ago
@blastbeatingjerk666 Absolutely not, you could never be sure of what I know unless you were in my position, the position of knowing God. God has acted in my life in ways that you probably will reject for the rest of your life. You don't have the courage to believe in God, this is the reason that Atheists hold to the belief that there is no God. Atheists are the only ones that resort to name calling when they don't have an intelligent response. Sound familiar????
chica0616 14 hours ago
@chica0616 my vision is my religion... i dont know why religous people want to argue if god exists are not...who fucking cares... i guess we will see what happens when we die
blastbeatingjerk666 11 hours ago
debate settled...religous people are not smart!
blastbeatingjerk666 3 weeks ago
Faith in a painter. Wait. . . is that Mona Lisa a print? Yeah. . . that's how different religions started I think.
joemantex 1 month ago
Pantera! I bet Ray and Kirk weren't listening to anything nearly that good on the way up.
joemantex 1 month ago
Zeus would be proud :)
AdamRS614 1 month ago
@AdamRS614
You & your pantheon will burn as the heretics you are.
HAIL XENU!
XD
recalibration 1 month ago
PWNED! The banana twins
AdamRS614 1 month ago
Both have faults in their own arguments. What Ray team is trying to do is not 'prove there is God' but to assert that there has to be God. Sapient team has a problem on their own (they believe scientism, not sicence. One accepts (or rejects) explanation by science, but science is not what we believe (or not believe). Science has not prove that why matter-energy has been existing all the time. They don't know the beginning of time. Big-bang, multiple universe, blah, blah, blah.
kwonbbl 1 month ago
becomming fuck yeah! :D
loknar86 1 month ago
Kelly is a porn star :P
coolair00 1 month ago
Wow, Ray & Kirk are pretty pathetic
justjulie37 1 month ago
Pantera..... yes.
FleshFarmZombie 1 month ago
also note the satanic music they are listening to in the car, notice how the girl gestures the devil horns* , their actions (in particular the girl and passengers) speak volumes of what really moves them, SATAN who is the father of lies* I'm not judging but I see the proof, and the proof is not only are they atheists but they clearly show who they follow* SATAN. Do not give in to their lies and confusion,they serve another master
phirefish 1 month ago
@phirefish Hate to break it to ya, atheists dont beleive in any devils either :P
coolair00 1 month ago
@coolair00
They don't have to believe in satan to follow him* rejecting GOD and denying him their lives points to the path of satan himself and his hate for GOD
phirefish 1 month ago
@phirefish ?!?! What in the bloody hell are you talking about? YES , you kinda need to beleive in something to follow it. Please tell me you havent bred. We dont need anymore stupid.
coolair00 1 month ago
@phirefish Metallica is not satanic. The "Devil Horns" is a metal sign. Atheists do not follow satan, we do not believe he exists. How can we follow a nonexistent being?
Andy97009814 1 month ago
@Andy97009814
Metallica is very satanic their lyrics suggest that clearly. I used to be into them and watched them live many times,my brother in law (dark angel) played with them in their early stages in the 80's and the message is satanic* as far as the devil horns* it's the sign of Baphomet the horned devil of satanism,or hail satan*
phirefish 1 month ago
Why do atheists who claim not to believe in GOD,spend so much time pleading their case?
what's their platform.....to deny GODS existence* that's all. And all they keep asking is " where is your proof ?" well where is your proof atheist* ...that GOD DOESN'T EXIST? where is your your 100% proof that GOD isn't real? where is your proof that GOD didn't create the world? and why mock kirk* did he mock you? you truly show your true colors and agenda,but why? GOD doesn't exist in your minds*
phirefish 1 month ago
@phirefish Because we are trying to wake you up from your ignorance. It is not good for the human race to keep attached to ancient writings that were written by people who didn't even know why there was a day and a night...
mano4451 1 month ago
@mano4451
I used to be just like you same lines same arguments and then gave my life to GOD, I then he lifted the veil from my eyes,that my unbelief and sinful ways were wrong* I found out how arrogant I had been in thinking I knew it all and that GOD was a lie. I was close to death many times following satans way , it almost killed me,GOD offers eternal life and salvation* I'm not perfect just forgiven, and If I die today I know where my soul will rest,in heaven with GOD our creator
phirefish 1 month ago
@phirefish so can you prove that god is real right now? and I mean proof, not bible verses.
julzshin 1 month ago
@julzshin Your existence will prove that God is real.
Maxim0Bularan 1 month ago
@Maxim0Bularan how?
julzshin 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Maxim0Bularan how?
julzshin 1 month ago
@julzshin
I see the earth and how utterly complex it is as well as the human body* i see the stars,the moon,the sun and how were at a perfect distance from it as to not get burned,i see how the solar system revolves in a perfect balance,i see the water and how it's not allowed to spill out, i see flowers/trees and their complex role in allowing us to breath and create oxygen,i see the animals and their part in nature
phirefish 1 month ago
@phirefish
Ignorance is not a logical justification for belief in God.
Yawn. Next theist, please.
cmadison93 1 month ago
@cmadison93
" professing themselves to be wise,they became fools" ROMANS 1:22
double yawn, next atheist who will burn in hell,please
phirefish 1 month ago
@julzshin (cont.)
I see how our DNA is so complex and the miracle of birth,I see the moon and it's purpose in keeping the tides in check....basically I see GODS hand in everything....thus that is proof enough for me. I don't need to see GOD in person to believe in him .Only a divine creator (GOD) could have created such wonders.
phirefish 1 month ago
@phirefish Atheists do not have the burden of proof. You make the assertion there is a God, I reject that assertion due to a lack of a shred of evidence. I dont have to prove God doesnt exist, you have to prove he does.
coolair00 1 month ago
@coolair00
LOL it's convenient to be an atheist " Bam !!!! GOD doesn't exist !!!" kinda like if I close my eyes and wish it away it will disappear. Believe what you want it's your choice* you can't prove GOD doesn't exist and we can go back and forth....but really the question is if you die today,and come face to face with GOD what will you tell him? umm I didn't see the evidence so I thought you were fake? .shred of evidence...nah you need to find GOD while he can be found
phirefish 1 month ago
@phirefish Can you prove Zeus doesn't exist? Can you prove Odin doesn't exist? If not, why don't you believe in them?
If I meet god when I die, I will ask the same Bertrand Russel would: "Sir, why did you take such pains to hide yourself?"
Andy97009814 1 month ago
@Andy97009814
My name is Andy too, Zeus and odin are not biblical in anyway* When GOd created the heavens and the earth there was neither made. When JESUS walked the a earth,healing,restoring,casting out demons,offering salvation* the multitudes saw and followed him,but then there was the unbelievers who no matter what miracles he performed, they hated and crucified him instead* what bad thing did he do to deserve that?
phirefish 1 month ago
@Andy97009814 (cont.)
I've talked to many atheists who say " I don't care if GOD presented himself in front of me, I still wouldn't follow him" then they list a host of other reasons they would deny him* so it's not proof they seek,they flat out have contempt for him,so the issue is way deeper than just proof. GOD is there anytime you decide to call on him,it doesn't matter how bad you've messed up, GOD is not willing that any should perish,but come to repentance
phirefish 1 month ago
@phirefish Again, I dont need to prove he doesnt exist, im not making any claims, Im simply rejecting yours. And if he magically appears to my corpse and asks me why I didnt suck on his nads, Ill tell him he damn fine job of hiding himself. The tooth fairy called, she wants to see you.
coolair00 1 month ago
@coolair00
Dude GOD is not mocked* as to you comments of him magically appearing to you.
I wont be responding to your questions. GOD bless you. I'll pray for you
phirefish 1 month ago
What Ray is saying about the painting is that as humans we are basically always inferring creation, deducing possibilities of spontaneous generation. It is so highly unlikely that the painting came about without intention. It all comes down to the argument for, not "God" or "Christianity," but whether or not something is too complex to rationally believe it was a naturally occuring process. However one could argue that since we are naturally occuring, that all intentions including painting is 2
halfcab1234 2 months ago
@halfcab1234
The problem is that we know a painting is a created thing because we can infer it based on prior knowledge. You cannot do the same thing with the universe.
biscuithammer00 2 months ago
@biscuithammer00 And of course even that is an assumption, there are many more examples than paintings, sand sculptures, "Mount Rushmore," We are trained and predisposed genetically to find an analyze intent, there is something attractive about high improbability and purpose. It's a hard problem in science.
halfcab123 2 months ago
Intelligent design or blind chance.Why a default position?
pestmanpat 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I Wrote A Song To Atheists Check It Out
/watch?v=qt0WT-VN8Ck
NsiteAkaJoshuaMC 2 months ago
This bastard denied evolution. HE IS A LIAR.
ArkanumFour 2 months ago
The "world on the tortoises back" thing is an Iroquois myth and a Hindu belief. Totally science, right?
Chris73194 2 months ago
Just plenty of question begging on your part. It's rather old.
cmadison93 3 months ago
Comment removed
luima23 3 months ago
This is not even a face off or a competition. The RRS completely destroy Kirk & Ray's blatant denial of science & evidence. Tell you what Ray, I can dive to the same depths a Blue Whales, but don't ask to see it, just take it on faith.
mjmunn1903 3 months ago
7:20 - Entering hypocrisy mode.
Bleumange 3 months ago
Grandma... you look like shit <- am i now a good christian! wooo lol
yegmeshjwp 3 months ago
Did they really say that the universe is infinite? Even science will disagree with you on that one, RRS.
pcgamerjoe 3 months ago
They were asked to provide proof of the existence of a god and instead glossed over it by questioning moral laws without a god
This is why the theistic argument always fails; it's devoid of logic and relies on emotional manipulation
LadyAmaltheaUnicorn 3 months ago
I actually feel sorry fro kirk. his side kick is a piece a shite and their arguments are brutally sad, and i'm an atheist
bobby3321 3 months ago
Cont.>
I seriously doubt any serious cosmologist or astrophysicist will say that the universe always existed because of the first law of thermodynamics. That's a poor inductive excuse to explain away the finiteness of the universe. Plus that assertion itself contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics where the universe is heading towards a maximum state of entropy, energy that cannot be used to perform work, so we must posit that the universe is an endless chain of recycled energy.
4IDHero 3 months ago
My critique:Sapient says that Occam's Razor means "simplest solution" means no God, but he doesn't expound on what "simplest solution" is. To say that the universe always existed because of the 1st law of thermodynamics is special pleading, then we must also posit that WE always existed since we are contained in the universe, therefore causation is an infinite endless chain? Occam's Razor states the simplest "entity," not solution. What kind of solution to what? It's a slippery slope fallacy. :)
4IDHero 3 months ago
@4IDHero
You are engaging in the fallacy of composition: You are assuming that what holds to be true *inside* of our universe (at least the small portion of the universe that we can observe) applies to the universe as a whole and to the formation of the universe.
Also, do you know what happens when something reaches a maximum state of entropy? Thought not. Trying to make a wild guess on what will happen is not wise.
cmadison93 3 months ago
@cmadison93 "You are assuming that what holds to be true *inside* of our universe (at least the small portion of the universe that we can observe) applies to the universe as a whole and to the formation of the universe."
Actually, the proponents of an "eternal universe" is applying this fallacy.
Premise 1: What ever has a beginning to its existence has a cause
Prem. 2: The universe had a beginning to its existence
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe always existed.
Hmm...something wrong here?
4IDHero 3 months ago
@4IDHero
Wrong, once again. People who say the universe needed to have a cause/creator/etc. are applying this fallacy.
You are assuming that this premise applies to something outside of the universe. You are assuming that since it is true from what we can directly observe and experience, that it is true of ALL things. Then going on to say, "therefore there needs to be a creator" is a fallacy. This is the fallacy of composition. Not to mention the fallacy of special pleading (who created god?)
cmadison93 3 months ago
@cmadison93 Lay out your premises "syllogistically" via deduction, then we'll see where the fallacy lies. I don't see where the fallacy lies, nor where you're saying "special pleading" is; but I think you're misapplying the fallacy, in fact I KNOW you're misapplying the fallacy of composition.
4IDHero 3 months ago
@cmadison93 "You are assuming that since it is true from what we can directly observe and experience, that it is true of ALL things"
Wrong, you are assuming since "nothing comes into existence" then this must be true of the whole universe. When we say "the universe began to exist" we are not implementing a "creator" in any of the premises. Either the universe began to exist, or it didn't, thus always existed. Your premise is committing the fallacy of composition.
4IDHero 3 months ago
@4IDHero maybe i am not understanding your argument, last time i checked according to science, the universe (space and time)began to exist in a point, so on what scientific evidence you base an eternal physical universe???? if this is not what you are proposing, will you be kind to clarify?
thanks in advance.
luima23 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@luima23 "the universe (space and time)began to exist in a point, so on what scientific evidence you base an eternal physical universe???? if this is not what you are proposing, will you be kind to clarify?"
True, and I'm arguing for "a universe that began to exist." I was just showing that the proponents of the brute existence of the universe (always existed) that their premises are questionable.
4IDHero 3 months ago
@luima23
The assumption that the universe began to exist is fallacious.
cmadison93 3 months ago
@cmadison93 thanks for replying... how old is the universe? why scientist talks again and again of an 13 billion years old universe? does time and space have always existed??? if yes, how can we prove that??? can you point out for me the fallacy on the hypothesis/argument/assumption "the universe begin to exist"??
we cant prove SCIENTIFICALLY neither of the premises when it come to the "beginning" "or not beginning" of the universe, if we could we wouldnt be discussing it now.
luima23 3 months ago
@luima23 Premise: I don't know science. Claim: Science, which I know nothing about, must be wrong! This is a terrible argument. You need to try harder.
7j8i9m 3 months ago
Comment removed
luima23 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7j8i9m i never claimed i dont know science, before posting stupidities, try to read what i repliead below, i am a visual effect supervisor, 3d modeler,and programmer, i work at the visual effect field, and i have developed several tools for the cinema production, i have also studied practical ornithology on the past 10 years, and have knowledge of computational physics.
luima23 3 months ago
@luima23
I think it is important to insert an addendum to when you ask, "How old is the universe?" A more accurate question is, "How old is the universe as we know it?" Or, "How old does the universe appear to be, as we know it?"
You are assuming that there was a beginning to the universe and have failed to support this supposition.
cmadison93 3 months ago
@luima23
The, "as we know it," is key.
When you take principles that have been shown to be true INSIDE of the universe AS WE KNOW IT and apply that to EVERYTHING, that is called a logical fallacy (fallacy of composition, see my earlier comment),
I have NEVER claimed that the universe 'began to exist' or 'did not begin to exist'. I have merely pointed out the fallacious nature of YOUR argument, and you have failed to meet your burden of proof.
cmadison93 3 months ago
@cmadison93 "to support this supposition" please support your with scientific demonstration, is the only thing i ask, this should be very easy for you i suppose, if not the burden of proof now is in your hands, i am NOT talking philosophically, instead scientifically ,please illuminate us with DEMONSTRATION not fallacies assumptions. i will wait for it in my seat...
luima23 3 months ago
@luima23
What claim did I make regarding the beginning/non-beginning of the universe?
Answer: I have made NO claim about the beginning/non-beginning of the universe.
I have been criticizing the assumption that the universe began to exist because the burden of proof to support this claim has not been met with some child in the comments.
cmadison93 3 months ago
@luima23 You must be ridiculously incredulous to think that science isn't an evolving concept.
Bleumange 3 months ago
@Bleumange no, i am not a ridiculously incredulous, i am a visual effect supervisor, 3d modeler,and programmer, i work at the visual effect field, and i have developed several tools for the cinema production, i have also studied practical ornithology on the past 10 years, and have knowledge of computational physics. where the fuck did i denied that science is an evolving concept? read again what i write before insulting.
luima23 3 months ago
@luima23 I do not know.
Bleumange 3 months ago
@4IDHero
Where did I ever say that the universe has always existed? Guess what - I didn't! I was criticizing YOUR claim. And you completely dodged the point, brought up a straw man and told me to defend that straw man (shifting the burden of proof)!
Seriously, go learn a damn thing about logic before you make an utter fool of yourself.
cmadison93 3 months ago
@cmadison93 "Seriously, go learn a damn thing about logic before you make an utter fool of yourself."
Seriously? Lets see who the real fool is. I did say "lay out your premises syllogisticslly via deduction." But you dodged that completely. If you don't know what deductive logic or a syllogism is, then obviously you need to learn some logic.
"There is yet another possibility - that the universe doesn't exist."
Really? The universe doesn't exist? Do I have to insult your intelligence? LOL
4IDHero 3 months ago
@4IDHero
YOU are the one making the claim that the universe had a beginning - I NEVER made ANY claim about the beginning or non-beginning of the universe. I am criticizing YOUR argument. YOU have to meet YOUR burden of proof, not bring up straw men and try to make me defend those straw men. Do you understand this?
I see you are an amateur at logic. You really should look into the concept of the universe not existing before you want to 'insult my intelligence'
cmadison93 3 months ago
@cmadison93 By the way, the entropy is a ponting of a begining in the universe have you read the papaers of Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross ???
luima23 3 months ago
@luima23
Yes, I have.
And once again, this is yet another fallacy of composition. You are taking the observations inside of the universe, of a small part of the universe and assuming it is true of EVERYTHING, including the universe as a whole.
And also, a 'beginning of the universe' is not the same as a 'beginning of the universe AS WE KNOW IT'. These two concepts are very different.
cmadison93 3 months ago
@cmadison93
Potentially very different*
cmadison93 3 months ago
@cmadison93 let me ask you this, in order to have a productive argumentation, what premise you sustain about the universeon its begining/existence/nonexistence/not-begining? cause whatever your answer is, you must prove it scientifically not with philosophical-fallacius babbling.
luima23 3 months ago
@luima23
luima23, you do not seem to understand what it is this conversation is about. I criticized the claim of someone else here on YouTube. They have failed to defend their claim.
I do not make any claims regarding the beginning/non-beginning of the universe. Nor do I need to. I am criticizing YOUR arguments. Trying to shift the burden of proof onto me is a logical fallacy.
cmadison93 3 months ago
@cmadison93 Do I have to give you a lesson on "Possible Worlds Semantics" too? The claim that the "universe possibly didn't exist" cannot be a part of a dichotomy of logical possibilities for the simple fact that the universe already exists. To say "the universe possibly didn't exist," which is true in it's possible sense, it only means that. Even if you wanna throw in a 3rd, then that third is STILL "NOT A" because A already exists. Yes, your false dichotomy is true, but by your admission.
4IDHero 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@4IDHero
Once again, I refer you back to your comment.
"Either the universe began to exist, or it didn't, thus always existed."
A. Universe began to exist
or
B. Universe always existed.
These are the two choices you presented. No where in there does it include the possibility that the universe doesn't exist. Why don't you simply admit your mistake? Why are you in denial?
cmadison93 3 months ago
@4IDHero
Also, I'm still waiting for the logical argument to support the claim that the universe began to exist. Remember, the person who makes the claim has to meet their burden of proof. In this discussion we are having, you made the claim that the universe began to exist. I made no claim regarding the beginning/non-beginning of the universe. I am criticizing your 'arguments' and all you have shown is an extensive amount of dogmatism. Please, at least try to understand the burden of proof.
cmadison93 3 months ago
@cmadison93 "I am criticizing your 'arguments' and all you have shown is an extensive amount of dogmatism."
All you've shown us is your ignorance. There is NO dogmatism here. I pity your intelligence because you elevate yourself so high as to know so much, but make a total fool out of yourself. Any serious truth seeker can see how idiotic your comments are, it's really amusing. Don't you have video games to go play or something, instead of engaging in topics too smart for you to understand? lol
4IDHero 3 months ago
@4IDHero
I sincerely appreciate your 'logical' responses. I suggest learning about a little thing called the ad hominem fallacy as well as humility. Also, I loved your special pleading fallacy at the end. Your arguments are so childish I can just sit here and point out the fallacies and your 'argument' crumbles.
cmadison93 3 months ago
@cmadison93 "I suggest learning about a little thing called the ad hominem fallacy as well as humility."
I know very well what an ad hominem is, but in order for it to be a fallacy, it needs to be in a logic chain. If I called you out on your lack of intelligence, don't take it personal. It's my way of saying "wake up!"
Ad Hominem Fallacy:
Premise 1: God doesn't exist, evolution is a fact
P 2: Religious people don't understand evolution, and are delusional
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
4IDHero 3 months ago
@4IDHero
I have never heard ANY atheist use that argument. Please indicate where this has occurred.
cmadison93 3 months ago
@4IDHero
Once you get past the fact that you have presented a false dichotomy (the universe began to exist or always existed) let's examine the possibility that the universe does not not exist, did not begin to exist and has not always existed (aka none of the above). This is a totally valid 4th option, which you have also failed to account for in your false dichotomy.
cmadison93 3 months ago
@cmadison93 "This is a totally valid 4th option, which you have also failed to account for in your false dichotomy."
True dichotomy: (A) or it's negation (Not A)
(A = The universe exists) (Not A = The universe doesn't exist) (A is self-evident)
(A=universe began to exist) (Not A = The universe didn't begin to exist)
(A = The universe was caused) (Not A=The universe has no cause)
All "Not A's" put together in conjunction with one another entails an infinite "always existing" universe.
4IDHero 3 months ago
@4IDHero
The problem is, in your comment you did not account for the extra possibilities outside of the universe began to exist or the universe has always existed.
Once again, I direct you to the quote from your deleted comment.
"Either the universe began to exist, or it didn't, thus always existed."
Had you left off the, 'thus always existed' at the end, it would have been a true dichotomy but by adding that phrase at the end you made it a false dichotomy.
cmadison93 3 months ago
@cmadison93 "Had you left off the, 'thus always existed' at the end, it would have been a true dichotomy but by adding that phrase at the end you made it a false dichotomy."
If you leave out "thus always existed" then you would have STILL proven that the universe began to exist. Obviously, it exists. LOL, beating around the bush much?
4IDHero 3 months ago
@4IDHero
No, I am not beating around the bush. You provided two options: The universe began to exist or it has always existed.
You left out other options: A third option is the universe does not exist. A fourth option is none of the above.
Can you prove the universe exists? (your burden of proof)
cmadison93 3 months ago
@4IDHero
@4IDHero
When you say that the universe had a beginning, you fail to consider how that relates to time. A 'beginning' is defined in terms of time, always existed is defined in terms of time. So, what about time? Has time always existed? Did time have a 'beginning'? Does time not exist? What?
The universe could have 'existed' before 'time'. How would that factor into your 'arguments'?
Also, what about the unknown unknowns that you have failed to take into account?
cmadison93 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cmadison93 "Please, at least try to understand the burden of proof."
which I do get at, but you don't understand a thing, so how can the burden ever be met? LOL.
4IDHero 3 months ago
Comment removed
4IDHero 3 months ago
@cmadison93 "Also, I'm still waiting for the logical argument to support the claim that the universe began to exist."
Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause (this is true of all physical things because "cause and effect" is a universal principle, anyone who denies cause and effect shoulders the burden of proof to show it doesn't hold at the universal level)
P 2: The universe began to exist. (in conjunction with premise 1, big bang, etc.)
Conclusion: Therefore the universe has a cause.
4IDHero 3 months ago
@4IDHero
The Big Bang does not mean the universe began to exist. The Big Bang was the start of the universe *as we know it*. The *as we know it* is key since the universe could have existed long before the Big Bang.
Back to my original criticism that applying a principle that appears to be true inside of the universe doesn't mean that it is true of absolutely everything, including the beginning/non-beginning or outside of the universe.
cmadison93 3 months ago
@cmadison93 "The Big Bang does not mean the universe began to exist. The Big Bang was the start of the universe *as we know it*. The *as we know it* is key since the universe could have existed..."
The problem with someone claiming that "the BB doesn't mean the universe began to exist" is dubious, because matter, space and time (general relativity) began at the Big Bang. Another problem with that claim is that it would have traversed an infinite causal chain, which is impossible.
4IDHero 3 months ago
@4IDHero
How does time 'begin' at the Big Bang? Can you support this claim?
Can you support the claim that matter and space 'began' at the Big Bang?
You are still failing to account for the observation that the Big Bang marks the beginning of the universe *as we know it*. The *as we know it* is key. How can you make ANY claims about the existence/non-existence/beginning/non-beginning of the universe as a whole (not just as we know it) when we only know about the universe as we know it?
cmadison93 3 months ago
@4IDHero
Comment continued: Which is once again using the fallacy of composition: Assuming what is true of the universe (as we know it) is true of the universe (as we know it AND what it was or was not 'before' or 'outside' the 'as we know it')
This also relates back to the cause-and-effect fallacy of composition you keep engaging in.
cmadison93 3 months ago
@cmadison93 Sorry for the insults, don't take it personal. I see that your comments are much more productive and thought provoking now, so I thought I'd apologize. Now we're getting somewhere. :)
4IDHero 3 months ago
@4IDHero
Key to understanding - "universal principles" are principles that are true for the inside of the universe. Even if cause and effect were true for everything inside of the universe, that still does not mean it is true of the universe as a whole. This assumption is based on the fallacy of composition. (I suggest a quick Google search for clarification on the fallacy of composition.)
cmadison93 3 months ago
@cmadison93 "Even if cause and effect were true for everything inside of the universe, that still does not mean it is true of the universe as a whole. This assumption is based on the fallacy of composition."
What is the whole universe? Everything that is contained in the universe. If everything is contained in the universe, then obviously, cause and effect governs everything that is contained in the universe. Cause and effect: A "universal" (hint, hint) principle.
4IDHero 3 months ago
@4IDHero
Your 'logic' is beyond amateur. I suggest a Philosophy 101 class.
You are saying what is true inside of the universe applies to everything outside of the universe (i.e. that the universe had to have a cause as well). You have failed to support that cause and effect governs anything beyond the inside of the universe.
cmadison93 3 months ago
@4IDHero
"What is the whole universe? Everything that is contained in the universe. If everything is contained in the universe, then obviously, cause and effect governs everything that is contained in the universe."
Thank you for validating my previous points in this post =)
cause and effect governs everything that is *CONTAINED IN* the universe. To assume it applies to things that are not contained in the universe (such as the universe) or to the universe as a whole = fallacy of composition
cmadison93 3 months ago
@cmadison93 "To assume it applies to things that are not contained in the universe (such as the universe) / or to the universe as a whole = fallacy of composition"
Then where does the law of causality withheld? Neither outside nor inside the universe? Then if you deny the law of causality, then it doesn't apply to the outside nor inside? You're committing the fallacy of composition. lol
4IDHero 2 weeks ago
@4IDHero
I don't have to prove the 'non-universal' law of non cause and effect because I never made a claim regarding that. I am merely criticizing YOUR argument, YOUR burden of proof.
I don't know nor do I care where the law of causality is withheld. It could be outside the universe, or in the quantum level, or both or neither. This is completely irrelevant to my criticism, though.
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
@cmadison93 "I don't have to prove the 'non-universal' law of non cause and effect because I never made a claim regarding that. I am merely criticizing YOUR argument, YOUR burden of proof."
u don't have to, but does that make you automatically correct? So if I'm arguing the universal law of cause and effect, then you're arguing for a "I don't have to prove" argument? You don't have to prove doesn't prove the "negation" of the law of cause and effect; thus the burden falls back on u
4IDHero 2 weeks ago
@4IDHero
I never made a claim regarding cause-and-effect and whether it's a universal law that extends beyond the universe or not.
I am merely criticizing your argument you use to claim that cause-and-effect is a universal law that extends beyond the universe. If you fail to meet YOUR burden of proof to support your original claim, your claim can be dismissed until further notice.
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
@cmadison93 "I am merely criticizing your argument you use to claim that cause-and-effect is a universal law that extends beyond the universe."
May I ask "how" are you criticizing it besides just stating that u'r criticizing the universal law of cause and effect. I can come back with a counter-criticism and say that what criterias can you provide to reject the law of cause-and-effect? By deductive logic, i.e. Kalam via modus ponens logic, the universe was caused. U shoulder the BOP
4IDHero 1 week ago
@4IDHero
Fallacy of composition : a+a+a+a=x. Therefore, a, a, a and a have all the properties of x. and x has all the properties of a. (fallacy of division and composition displayed here.)
This is what you are saying, that since the components that make up (a, a, a, a) the universe appear to follow this concept of cause-and-effect, that the whole universe (x) must also follow this law. Fallacy of composition.
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
@cmadison93 "This is what you are saying, that since the components that make up (a, a, a, a) the universe appear to follow this concept of cause-and-effect, that the whole universe (x) must also follow this law. Fallacy of composition."
Actually, this is your assumption. All I'm arguing for is a = b = c = d, each letter corresponds to it's cause, the equal sign means it causes the effects of the next letter. Your (a+a+a+a = X) doesn't make sense. Clarify that arbitrary equation.
4IDHero 2 weeks ago
@4IDHero
a=component of the universe, with the only thing in common being property of cause-and-effect. When you add all of these components together, you get the universe as a whole (x).
That doesn't mean that the universe as a whole has the property of cause-and-effect, the property of each individual component..
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
@cmadison93 "That doesn't mean that the universe as a whole has the property of cause-and-effect, the property of each individual component.."
There are major logical-inferential problems with a non-first-causal universe. One, there's the regress problem, which through thought experiment an actual infinite collection of things, such as objects, which the universe is comprised of, would have traversed an infinite. 2. You don't really "unpack" what "a=component" of the universe means
4IDHero 1 week ago
@cmadison93 "That doesn't mean that the universe as a whole has the property of cause-and-effect, the property of each individual component.."
What does the universe comprise of? Lets say property A is a cause and property B is it's effect. State of affairs A causes state of affairs B to exist, i.e. your parents caused you to exist. Universe is X. Therefore X should equal A = B = C = D = E and so forth...(in some chronological order, in this case alphabets)
4IDHero 1 week ago
@4IDHero
X is compromised of all 'states of affair', A,B,C, etc.
X does not necessarily have the same characteristics or properties of A,B,C
i.e.
2=1+1
2 does not necessarily have the same properties as 1, to say so is simply the fallacy of composition..
cmadison93 1 week ago
@cmadison93 "2=1+1
2 does not necessarily have the same properties as 1, to say so is simply the fallacy of composition.."
If X comprises of ALL states of affairs, and all states of affairs has property Y=cause-and-effect, then wouldn't the X=Y? What is 2? In other words, the numbers represent? If X doesn't have the same characteristics as A,B,C; then X must be the negation of A,B,and C; which reads - X = A,B,C,...etc.; which is a contradiction.
4IDHero 6 days ago
@4IDHero
Thank you.
This is the fallacy of composition. To assume that because these states of affairs has property Y doesn't mean X also has property Y. X=A,B,C, but x(property of X) does not necessarily equal Y,Y,Y.
The universe must be the negation of these? No.
If X doesn't have the same characteristics, then the characteristics of X=/=characteristics of A,B,C
cmadison93 3 days ago
@cmadison93
X=ABC
x does not necessarily = YYY
X=universe, ABC=states of affairs, components of universe, parts, etc.
x=properties of universe, Y=property of ABC (cause and effect in this case)
cmadison93 3 days ago
Comment removed
4IDHero 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cmadison93 "x does not necessarily = YYY"
Why? Seems arbitrary to me to exclude X. If we formulate deductively, then we are forced to conclude a contradiction.
Premise 1: Whatever has a beginning to its existence has a cause (Y)
Premise 2: The universe has a beginning to its existence (A,B,C)
Conclusion, the universe has no cause X(-Y) = A(Y), B(Y), C(Y),...etc.
If the universe comprises of all states of affairs, then premise one blatantly contradicts your conclusion.
4IDHero 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cmadison93 "To assume that because these states of affairs has property Y doesn't mean X also has property Y. X=A,B,C, but x(property of X) does not necessarily equal Y,Y,Y."
To assume X does not have properties that A,B,C has, which is property Y; then there is a logical contradiction; thus you are forced to conclude - Y = A(Y), B(Y), C(Y); the universe MUST be the negation of Y. From now on, lets use X=universe, Y=cause and effect, and letters (A,B,C...etc) as states of affairs.
4IDHero 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cmadison93 Cont.>
Another problem arises, the infinite regress (∞). Lets say state of affair A is the big bang, and B,C,D and so forth are it's effects of other causes over 13.7 billion years. Lets say state of affair "S" is the present moment, the present state of the universe. If the universe is uncaused, we are forced to accept X(-Y) = ∞ A(Y),B(Y),C(Y),D(Y),.....S(Y) ∞ A logical impossibility of traversing an infinite.
4IDHero 2 days ago
@cmadison93
I think you're confusing an unwarranted inductive inference with the fallacy of composition. The fallacy of composition goes something like this:
Premise 1: people, plants, animals come from pre-existing material
Premise 2: The universe came from pre-existing material
Therefore, the universe always existed...and you're forced to also accept the universe is eternal, for it is the logical negation of a finite, first-caused universe.
4IDHero 9 hours ago
@4IDHero
No, I'm not.
Here is the fallacious argument laid out in full, again.
Premise 1. Some parts of the universe follows the law of cause and effect
Premise 2. Therefore, the universe follows the law of cause and effect.
The third premise is completely irrelevant and unrelated.
Try again.
cmadison93 40 minutes ago
@cmadison93 Cont. from A=B=C=D comment. Are you saying, if not clarify further, that X = the universe, therefore X = -A = -B = -C = -D? The negative signs (-) equals to the negation of cause and effect, or it's denial, so therefore X =∞A where ∞ equals infinite existence of properties and states of affairs due to the non-universal, non-causal universe ( -A) where A is the law of cause and effect?
4IDHero 1 week ago
@cmadison93 Cont. >
Watch, I can see it already, you're probably gonna say something like "that's dogma, that's not a very good argument, you haven't met your burden of proof, I am criticizing, blah blah blah..." Well, if we apply the "true dichotomy" then the denial, or negation of the premises is what atheism needs in order for atheism to be plausible. Watch I can see it already, you're gonna say "I didn't claim either, you still haven't met your burden." or something stupid like that. LOL
4IDHero 3 months ago
@4IDHero
I don't quite understand how you are relating atheism or theism to the beginning/non-beginning of the universe.
I guess since you hold so tightly to the cause and effect relationship, then there must be a cause for this deity. But you would probably just dodge the point via special pleading and say God exists outside of time and space, always existed, blah blah blah.
cmadison93 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cmadison93 "But you would probably just dodge the point via special pleading and say God exists outside of time and space, always existed, blah blah blah."
No, but I am gonna argue that "God" is the concept that is the necessary and sufficient condition for the beginning of the universe, which can be argued for by the cosmological argument called the Leibnizian Argument, for the sufficient cause. To say that God needs a cause, is presupposing that God is a physical entity within the universe.
4IDHero 3 months ago
@4IDHero
To say that the universe needs a cause, is presupposing that the universe is a physical entity within the universe.
See, I can say the same thing as you!
Also, I HIGHLY recommend further research into the cosmological argument because philosophers (even kids on YouTube have ripped it apart) have utterly obliterated that argument, and the cosmological argument has failed to meet its burden of proof. If you cannot grasp this, you are just in denial.
cmadison93 3 months ago
Comment removed
4IDHero 3 months ago
@cmadison93 "Also, I HIGHLY recommend further research into the cosmological argument because philosophers (even kids on YouTube have ripped it apart) have utterly obliterated that argument, and the cosmological argument has failed to meet its burden of proof."
LOL, that's a LIE. There's a difference between sincere truth seeking, and just flat out lying. Arguing with you is like blowing up rubble and not the building. LOL
4IDHero 3 months ago
@4IDHero
If you think the Cosmological argument is valid, I suggest further research into philosophy.
There are several things that must be proven in the cosmological argument, 1. that god exists, 2. that this god created the universe, 3. that cause and effect is really a concept that applies to everything (which has been contradicted by observations within quantum mechanics and by the fallacy of composition when applying it to the universe as a whole)
cmadison93 3 months ago
@4IDHero
Even the rather unprofessional wiki of iron chariots rips it apart.
cmadison93 3 months ago
Does the universe having a beginning somehow negate atheism?
cmadison93 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cmadison93 "Does the universe having a beginning somehow negate atheism?"
Yes, because atheism presupposes the non beginning of the universe. If a universe began to exist, than this is devastating to atheism because the universe and everything within the universe would essentially come from NOTHING, it's worst than magic, because with magic you still have the magician and the hat as to cause his act.
4IDHero 3 months ago
@4IDHero
Atheism is simply the absence of belief in God. There is nothing in atheism that presupposes the beginning/non-beginning of the universe.
Also, how would the beginning of the universe, to an atheist, mean that it came from nothing? That's a rather bold claim - a claim I have never heard ANY atheist support.
Please lay out your premises in your claim that a beginning of the universe contradicts atheism, if you can,
cmadison93 3 months ago
Comment removed
4IDHero 3 months ago
@cmadison93 ""This is a totally valid 4th option, which you have also failed to account for in your false dichotomy."
Cont.> Nope, I don't see where you're saying the "false dichotomy" is. Maybe it's your imagination.
4IDHero 3 months ago
@cmadison93
Fallacy of Composition:
Premise 1: Matter can neither be created nor destroyed (1st law of thermodynamics)
P 2: The universe contains matter
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe always existed (even before the Big Bang)
Premise 1 doesn't stand, matter can't be created nor destroyed by entities within itself, i.e. people, scientists, etc. And the problem of traversing an infinite causal chain still stands.
Premise 2 is obvious
Conclusion begs the question, it reassumes premise 1.
4IDHero 3 months ago
Comment removed
4IDHero 3 months ago
@cmadison93 Fallacy of composition continue:
With what that syllogism says, therefore atheism and the RRS (should be irrational response squad, or IRS (coincidently)) claims that since matter can't be created nor destroyed, then this must be true of the whole universe, thus commits the fallacy of composition; rather than providing the denied premises of the same deductive syllogisms that I have been putting on here. So YOU, my friend, are committing ignorance of the fallacy of composition.
4IDHero 3 months ago
@4IDHero
You are assuming that atheists are assuming that the laws of thermodynamics are eternal and extend beyond the universe (remember, atheism is only the absence of belief in a God).
I have not committed the fallacy of composition because I made no claims regarding the beginning/non-beginning of the universe. This straw man you keep throwing out is getting rather old.
cmadison93 3 months ago
@4IDHero
You keep criticizing a straw man you keep saying I support. Why are you doing this? Can you try and defend your own claim (that the universe began to exist)? Why do you have to try and shift the burden of proof?
And once again, I bring up the fallacy of composition in regards to how YOU reach YOUR conclusion (assuming the cause and effect relationship extends beyond the universe). Also, YOUR conclusion leads to a series of infinite regress of cause-and-effect. How does that work?
cmadison93 3 months ago
@4IDHero
Actually, this entire 'argument' you have brought up criticizing what you believe atheism entails is completely irrelevant to my criticisms of your argument. We are not debating some straw man you came up with. We should be debating YOUR argument to support YOUR conclusion. You keep shifting the burden of proof onto people who don't support that straw man. Do you understand?
cmadison93 3 months ago
@4IDHero
You keep bringing up this red herring (also a fallacy - specifically an irrelevant conclusion) to try and distract the conversation away from your claim/your argument/your burden of proof (shifting the burden of proof). On top of this, this completely irrelevant argument you come up with is a straw man.
Unfamiliar with the terms? Google them.
cmadison93 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cmadison93 "You keep bringing up this red herring (also a fallacy - specifically an irrelevant conclusion) to try and distract the conversation away from your claim/your argument/your burden of proof (shifting the burden of proof). On top of this, this completely irrelevant argument you come up with is a straw man."
May I ask how you came up with this? Looks like you need to read up on those fallacies you mentioned a lot more instead of just claiming that I commit them without showing how.
4IDHero 3 months ago
@4IDHero
I have read up on them. I suggest you go through and review your comments which you have deleted. You keep bringing up how saying the universe always existed via the laws of physics is the fallacy of composition - this is a red herring. this is a completely irrelevant conclusion in regards to YOUR argument.
cmadison93 3 months ago
@4IDHero
On top of that, you then try to make me defend this straw man which you have thrown up (where you have said I was the one who claimed the universe always existed) . (shifting the burden of proof)
I suggest looking over what you have said via the comments. If you do not remember what you have said (due to you deleting the comments), that is fine, since I can provide that information for you if you wish.
cmadison93 3 months ago