This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

using the "different plain of existence" argument is just ignorant

#21KNessJMPosted 7/16/2011 8:01:12 AM
So, no opposing arguments then? Just immature jokes?

Generally when I make silly jokes in a topic, it's because I'm not interested in the subject matter and just found something that made me giggle.

That being said, when my main argument is "There is no God", that's kind of a conversation stopper. There's no point in arguing over what qualities a God may have, or what humans can know about him, or the nature of God's existence, when I don't accept the notion of there being a God in the first place. I doubt you're especially interested in discussing manifestations of the Tao, so there's really nowhere to go.
---
Quote of the Week: "He who is attached to things will suffer much."
#22actarusPosted 7/17/2011 1:25:22 AM
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/02/can_you_get_something_for_noth.php
Quantum mechanics is not going to save the atheist here. In QM, virtual particles come into being in a vacuum. The vacuum is sparked by a scientist. The particles exist for a period of time inversely proportional to their mass. But in the case of the big bang, there is no vacuum – there’s nothing. There is no scientist – there’s nothing. And the universe is far too massive to last 14 billion years as a virtual particle.
the indeterministic origination of virtual particles in the quantum vacuum is not true creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing) since the vacuum contains a sea of fluctuating energy, empty space, and is governed by physical laws; none of which are "nothing." Craig points out that the interpretations to which Stenger appeals are indeterministic interpretations which are one of many interpretations, some of which are wholly deterministic and none of which are actually known to be true.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

S1 = a state of affairs in which the Universe did not exist, and S2 = a state of affairs in which the Universe did exist. Are in contradiction with each other.
By logical syllogism must BOTH premises be true.
"The Universe never existed" is also not sound.

Circularity
The Problem is not God (He is absent in Kalam argument) but the discussion that the Universe needs a beginning
Special pleading (who made God) and Equivocation
Don’t treat God as a natural object
http://www.wa4dsy.net/skeptic/firstcause.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html

False dichotomy
The Kalam argument does not prove that the cause was a supernatural cause, or not a natural cause.
Correct, but the combination with the first Law of thermodynamics and Kalam argument does.

It is also not "begging the question" because Kalam argument is a modus ponens .
Why only one cause? There may be a large amount and wide variety of materials
Not in the time of the Singularity
"Comparing apples and oranges"
Do you want to discuss the logic between “Begin to exist” and “has a cause”?

Everything that did not begin to exist has no cause
The Evil did not began to exist.
Therefore, Evil does not have a cause.

This a bad syllogism ; there are only 15 Valid Syllogisms
---
Even the smallest star twinkles in the dark
#23NsM ComatosisPosted 7/17/2011 1:35:59 AM
Everything that did not begin to exist has no cause
The Evil did not began to exist.
Therefore, Evil does not have a cause.
This a bad syllogism ; there are only 15 Valid Syllogisms


Uh, that's a perfectly valid argument.

All dogs are mammals.
Chihuahuas are dogs.
Therefore, chihuahuas are mammals.
---
Pun is top 10 of all time. You can tell he ate a lot of mc's. -- Moogle Hunter
#24actarusPosted 7/17/2011 4:13:10 AM(edited)
NsM Comatosis posted...
Everything that did not begin to exist has no cause
The Evil did not began to exist.
Therefore, Evil does not have a cause.
This a bad syllogism ; there are only 15 Valid Syllogisms

Uh, that's a perfectly valid argument.


All dogs are mammals.(A)
(all) Chihuahuas are dogs.(A)
Therefore, chihuahuas are mammals(A).


All M are P
All S are M
Therefore, All S are P
Your example is a valid Barbara AAA

However this is a Exclusive Premisses: v

Everything that did not begin to exist has no cause
The Evil did not began to exist.
Therefore, Evil does not have a cause.

Everything that isn't green is not red
The Evil isn't green
Therefore, Evil is not red

At least one premiss of a valid categorical syllogism is affirmative.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/exclprem.html

---
Even the smallest star twinkles in the dark
#25XjphPosted 7/17/2011 5:13:00 AM
The Kalam argument sounds to me like the explanation every religion has ever given for anything that wasn't yet understood: "I can't see/don't understand what is causing lightning/earthquakes/the sun. It must be God."
---
"I think the gene pool needs some chlorine..."
#26NsM ComatosisPosted 7/17/2011 10:43:30 AM
actarus posted...
NsM Comatosis posted...
Everything that did not begin to exist has no cause
The Evil did not began to exist.
Therefore, Evil does not have a cause.
This a bad syllogism ; there are only 15 Valid Syllogisms

Uh, that's a perfectly valid argument.


All dogs are mammals.(A)
(all) Chihuahuas are dogs.(A)
Therefore, chihuahuas are mammals(A).

All M are P
All S are M
Therefore, All S are P
Your example is a valid Barbara AAA

However this is a Exclusive Premisses: v

Everything that did not begin to exist has no cause
The Evil did not began to exist.
Therefore, Evil does not have a cause.

Everything that isn't green is not red
The Evil isn't green
Therefore, Evil is not red

At least one premiss of a valid categorical syllogism is affirmative.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/exclprem.html


B = Things that did not begin to exist
C = Things that have no cause
E = Evil

All B are C
E is a subset/member of B
Therefore, E is a subset/member of C.

All people who were not born in France were not born in Paris
John was not born in France
Therefore, John was not born in Paris

Once again, this is a perfectly valid argument form.
---
Pun is top 10 of all time. You can tell he ate a lot of mc's. -- Moogle Hunter
#27fudrickPosted 7/17/2011 10:50:43 AM
actarus posted...
NsM Comatosis posted...
Everything that did not begin to exist has no cause
The Evil did not began to exist.
Therefore, Evil does not have a cause.
This a bad syllogism ; there are only 15 Valid Syllogisms

Uh, that's a perfectly valid argument.


All dogs are mammals.(A)
(all) Chihuahuas are dogs.(A)
Therefore, chihuahuas are mammals(A).

All M are P
All S are M
Therefore, All S are P
Your example is a valid Barbara AAA

However this is a Exclusive Premisses: v

Everything that did not begin to exist has no cause
The Evil did not began to exist.
Therefore, Evil does not have a cause.

Everything that isn't green is not red
The Evil isn't green
Therefore, Evil is not red

At least one premiss of a valid categorical syllogism is affirmative.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/exclprem.html


You can say "Everything that did not begin to exist is uncaused" then.
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#28BladeKnifePosted 7/17/2011 10:58:22 AM
There is no scientist – there’s nothing. And the universe is far too massive to last 14 billion years as a virtual particle.

That makes no freaking difference, and that's not how it works. Go and learn some quantum mechanics if you actually care about the validity of this. Or like I said before, read Stephen Hawking's book.

the vacuum contains a sea of fluctuating energy,

THIS IS CAUSED BY THE VIRTUAL PARTICLES.
---
Disclaimer: you must be 16 years or older to have meaningful conversations on the internet.