There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[cottage]

So

A bachelor is an unmarried male entity
Darth Vader is not married
Darth Vader is a bachelor.

This is not a problem even though Darth Vader does not exist. OK.

Yes, you are correct.

So, how do we know that there is always a valley by a mountain if no mountain or Valley exists. How would we know that the mountain i'r a high object that leaves valleys if we have never set eyes on one as none exist?

First consider the “Tom” example, the truth obtains by definition of the valid premises: if a bachelor is an unmarried man, and Tom is an unmarried man then the conclusion follows necessarily that he is a bachelor. That is simple deductive logic, demonstrably true whether or not there is a Tom or married/unmarried males anywhere. This is no different to the triangle example. A triangle’s three angles are not greater than three right angles is true without having to go out in the world in search of triangles armed with a protractor. But now consider the difference in Descartes example. He is not declaring that mountains and valleys do not exist but saying we cannot think of a mountain without a valley, in the sense that the one cannot be separated from the other, regardless of any specific mountain and its valley that may exist or not exist anywhere, but the distinction here is that we can think of there being no mountains and no valleys. And that is because an element of experience is required, which can never be certain. Therefore it includes an empirical premise, derived inductively, i.e. “All mountains have valleys”, from which a conclusion is deduced. So while the “Tom” example is certain and true, the Cartesian example is only a contingent truth.

Well, that is questionable. We can change the meanings of words.

Okay.
A Cogstovian is an unmarried man
Tom is an unmarried man
Therefore Tom is a Cogstovian
The logic remains sound

Read more: Creation and Big Bang Cosmology | Reasonable Faith

I’m quite familiar with Professor Craig’s argument from simultaneous causation, which is an attempt to by-pass objections to the cosmological argument while leaving them in place and unanswered. I have a response to Craig’s argument, which undermines God as the cause, since Craig admits that an atemporal God has to enter time in order to bring about the world’s existence with causality. The fact that this occurs simultaneously with the Big Bang doesn’t alter the fact that an unchanging and unchangeable God has to change the nature of his being in order to create the world. And in any case the premise “Whatever begins to exist has a cause” is not demonstrable either as a fact or as a matter of logical necessity. So he can’t presume to jump the primary premise of the Kalam argument.

That is not true. kalams cosmological argument says "Anything that begins to exist has a cause.

They amount to exactly the same thing. And you have been quoting Professor Craig’s formulation so that is why I’ve been using the term “Whatever”.

So what exactly was Kalam saying when he said that "anything that begins to exist has a cause". What he meant was that anything that has been created has a cause, which is the same as saying "begins to exist"

No, it is not the same! I can create an object out of material matter and therefore I am the cause of the object, but I cannot make matter begin to exist. We don’t see anything in the universe begin to exist (with the exception of quantum particles, which are uncaused). Therefore “the universe is caused to exist” is a patently false inference.

 

[Serenity7855]

No it was part of a lesson plan which you can read part of or in whole as part of physics taught at the university. Your comparison is flawed as I was linking a lecture on physics not one on KCA. It's purpose was to show KCA is unsound according physics which it attempts to use as proof. Thus proving P1 is false.

I said:

1. You linked to a presumed expert blog regarding the existence of quantum sub-automic particles.

2. I linked to WLC regarding KCA, in which he is a expert.

We both linked to sources relevant to our particular argument. Where is the difference. My comparison is sound as in both cases we sought relevant expert opinion relevant to both of our arguments. Do you get it now?

P1 is certainly not false in anyway. It is logical.

1. Anything that Begins to Exist has a cause.
2. The universe can be considered as anything
3. It began to exist ex-materia, where ex-materia is the singularity. It did not come from nothing.
4. The singularity changed its state into a universe in a fraction of a second.
5. Therefore the universe began to exist from the singularity. Ex-materia
6. The universe has therefore been cause to come into existence, even if the cause is uncaused, as uncaused can be considered a cause. The cause of the big bang was uncaused. .

QT and QM counter intuitive so the obvious true is rendering false within this context. Many ideas are counter intuitive until new evidence/date is provided. The geocentric model was intuitive based then then current observations yet proven incorrect with additional data. Now heliocentric model is intuitive to most people. We often take for granted ideas which are accepted by tradition or social environment. However just because an idea seems oblivious does not mean it is true in reality. This is why evidence trumps intuition as demonstrated by QM and QF.

What does counter intuitiveness have to do with KCA? If anything KCA is sagacious. QT and QM are counter intuitive as they defy common sense but what is your point.

Not avoiding the argument, I am refuting the argument as a sound one. Now there could very well be a cause. However the KCA does not prove this within its formal argument. Also as physic states, current model, the universe is uncaused, the BB is just the horizonevent which caused the expansion of the universe. Yes it could be a free lunch.

No, you are using fallacious arguments to derail the thread and avoid the errors in your beliefs. The KCA is an argument based on inductive reasoning. It cannot be wrong. Let's look at it.

1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
C. The universe had a cause

Seems logical and sound to me, however, when News at 10 reports that the big bang was just a hoax and there is evidence that proves that the universe was uncaused, then I will take a serious look at it, however, nothing has every come into being in our universe without a cause, and we have never witnessed an uncaused event, therefore, we have no precedents to prove your claim, as it has never happened, so why would it ever happen. In the real world we see ex-materia everywhere we look. It is common place in our world. We never see ex-nihilo, ever. Chances are that the universe was caused and chances are it was Elohim

Also are we reduced to copy/pasting whole paragraphs? At least quote when doing so. This way I know if I am have a dialogue with you or arguing against Craig. Plagiarism and all.. Also since there are references, I see the (1), being able to check the references would be helpful.

Oh, I am well aware of non-believers, like yourself, looking for opportunities to scream "plagiarism" at the Christians, which is why you will find the letters WLC at the bottom of the article which means that you are falsely accusing me of a crime that I have not commited, it is a logical fallacy.

Okay so there is a disagreement. When this disagreement is solved and one theory is taught in physics I will revise my view. However the view I am using as evidence is in fact taught. Bohm's theory is the minority position, among many.

Just because it is being taught does not mean it is true. We once taught that the earth was flat.

KCA says nothing about nothing nor do current cosmological theories. "Nothing" is a strawman used by Craig. Physics concept of nothing, as per my link pages ago, is the quantum vacuum not the absence of something. Eqivocation fallacy, again.

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument. How is this an eqivocation fallacy.

By the examples used like ship hich is not natural by made by a person.

I presume that when you wrote this "By the examples used like ship hich is not natural by made by a person. You meant this "By the examples used like a ship which is not natural but made by a person.

Ships are made by a person using natural materials, a ship is created from natural elements. It begins to exist with the last stroke of the paint brush. I see no reason why a ship cannot begin to exist just because it was build by a person. That is a logical fallacy.

If you believe that the universe was created ex-nihilo, then you have to believe that if ex-nihilo happened once in bringing the universe into being then it is logical for it to happen again, within nature, so, let's keep it natural, trees would come into existence from nothing ex-nihilo, as would animals and humans, just like the universe did. Element would just spring into existence ex-nihilo-nihil-fit.html hopefully gold. Things do not just pop into existence like a rabbit from a magicians hat. It is just not science.

Now, If the universe were created ex-materia then we must use the same premise as ex-nihilo, that is, that it will be common place in nature. Guess what, it is, so, by that logic, If ex-nihilo works to create the universe it has to be common place in nature. Guess what, it is not. Logic dictates that ex-materia causation is the most like method by which the universe came into existence, proving P1 of KCA is accurate and true. Creation via ex-nihilo is a logical fallacy born out of an appeal to ignorance.

A created object implies a creator. This is how the argument wants you to think. However what this view omits is we know ships does not reproduce and are not found in nature. We know it is a constructed object, we can find the shipmaker. Likewise for a watch, hence watchmaker fallacy put forward by William Paley.

Sorry, but so what? "A created object implies a creator" is again a logical fallacy. A creator suggests an intelligent being. A tree does not have a intelligent creator. Therefore, your statement is fallacious.

Secondly, you are saying that only natural objects can be created, yet another fallacy born by your need to be right.

An object does not need to reproduce to be a creation, another logical fallacy.

It is also a logical fallacy to say that only natural objects can be created. A chair is created.

Basically a load of unfounded assumption.

 

[Serenity7855]

CONTINUED

Also it is an error to use the word create as we are merely reordering matter not creating anything. Creating of matter and energy has never been observed so it is the wrong word to use in this example. It is an old argument and refuted by Hume before it was even coined. It is a fault analogy, the coin name of this version is watchmaker.

It most certainly is not a error to use "create" instead of "bring into being". They are synonymous and can be found in the dictionary under their own definitions.

When building a ship all we are doing is reorganising existing matter as well. But that is what create means. To bring into existence. Nothing in our universe is created from nothing, therefore, if created means to bring into existence ex-nihilo then the word has no definition. It is a non-word having no meaning.

I have done this and have shown you your errors.

Create

cre·ate (kr-t)
tr.v. cre·at·ed, cre·at·ing, cre·ates
1. To cause to exist; bring into being.
2. to cause to come into existence

Create

bring (something) into existence."he created a thirty-acre lake"

synonyms: generate, produce, design, make, fabricate, fashion, manufacture, build, construct, erect, do, turn out; bring into being, originate, invent, initiate, engender, devise, frame, develop, shape, form, mould, forge, concoct, hatch; informal knock together, knock up, knock off

Since there is no chaos but rather material of our current universe the entire quote is pointless sophistry using outdated and ignorant views from a non-expert.

What quote are you referring to?

Truth, can never become outdated, and knowledgeable views do not require an expert to voice them, that is snobbery and elitism.

In which you strawmaned the argument as chaos in my response was a material used to create the universe pre-BB not post-BB.

You said that material existed pre big bang therefore material could be greater then God. I replied by telling you that you are wrong, material came post big bang and God existed pre big bang so material could not be greater then God.

Since P1 is false KCA fails as a sound argument. The argument fails to prove it's conclusion Now that does not mean there was no cause, just that the argument is unsound. Also it says nothing about what the cause is. The cause could be rooted in QM interaction, which is what is taught. Occam's razor states unnecessary hypothesis, God, are not required. We have an answer which is acceptable and requires not further assumptions.

But P1 is demonstrably corrected and sound. The argument is therefore sound as it reaches its conclusion. The identity of what the cause was is another argument. What is taught is not always what should be taught. By you saying that it "could be" rooted in QM interaction means you are speculating, just like when I say it could be God. Occam's razor would, of course, include God. God may not be required to you but he is to me. There is no acceptable answer as it cannot be proved.

Yes I agree my pointing out of fallacies does stifle a debate. When one points out errors in an argument which are based on fallacies it stops the argument dead. This happens in philosophy and is used to scrutinize ideas and arguments. It is how we deduce if an argument is valid and sound.

There are sites on the internet showing atheists how to use fallacies to stifle the debate against creationists. Logical Fallacies and How to Spot Them is one such site. The technique is dishonest and contentious

 

[Serenity7855]

Er not quite..
Dawkins says- "It is not difficult then for rudimentary lens-like objects to come into existence spontaneously.
Any old lump of halfway transparent jelly need only assume a curved shape" ('Climbing Mount Improbable', page146)

You see, that's what I meant by evolutionsts using a broad brush to try to gloss over the fine details. What does he mean exactly when he says a lump of jelly came into existence "spontaneously"?
Doesn't spontaneously in this context mean "out of nowhere"?
Haha he'll have to do better than that..

I am finding reading your post on this subject quite fascinating. I am not a creationist but I have no aversion to them either I particularly like the irreversible complexity hypothesis and keep a close eye on it, no pun intended. To those of us with open minds ready to learn and not to be protectors and close minded to the current theories, we can see that the complexity of the eye could not have come into being by pure chance. No, there had to be a designer who put together a code, or, workshop manual, in the form of DNA, that created that level of complexity. Unfortunately, many non-believers are so married to their church and it's beliefs that they will come up with the smallest of discrepancies or pseudo science to obfuscate the obvious. Please, keep it going as I really do find it intriguing.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I am finding reading your post on this subject quite fascinating. I am not a creationist but I have no aversion to them either I particularly like the irreversible complexity hypothesis and keep a close eye on it, no pun intended.

Irreducible complexity has already been debunked:

The Flagellum Unspun

To those of us with open minds ready to learn and not to be protectors and close minded to the current theories, we can see that the complexity of the eye could not have come into being by pure chance.

Evolution is not "pure chance", and I have already provided multiple links that go into detail explaining exactly how the eye could have evolved.

 

[outhouse]

Lets get back to reality.


There is not a single piece of credible evidence towards any deity existing at anytime anywhere.

 

[Serenity7855]

<scratches head> I’m pointing out to you that St Anselm, a former Archbishop of Canterbury, and the author of what became known as the Ontological Argument, described God as “a being than which no greater can be thought”. And that is traditionally how God is understood. But I’ve shown that we can conceive of a greater possible being, one that does not have anthropomorphic qualities and craves adoration from his creation. And since the conception is clearly possible for the imagination it can never imply a contradiction.

I am bewildered as to why you are scratching your head. Church ecclesiastical leaders of that time were unscrupulous and gave religion a bad name. I am not interested in who he was or what he was. I am not a lover of any faiths. They are man made and therefore corrupted by man's interpretation. He is right in saying God as “a being than which no greater can be thought”, however, I see no value in mentioning him.

I do not know what point you are making when saying that you can think of a greater being then God, that is, a Supreme Being. It is a contradiction as the definition of God is a Supreme Being, and visa versa. You are saying that a Supreme Being is greater then God when he is God, a logical fallacy. If you believe that there is something greater then God then that is your right. I do not believe that and see no mileage it discussing opinions as if they are facts.

I’m not defining something that exists in reality but demonstrating the logical impossibility what you describe.

I can only repeat what I said. I suppose that to a non-believer my belief would seem like fantasy. To a realist and pragmatist it would be uncanny how perfectly all the bits fall into place as a perfect plan. To a Christian, it is what it is, the plan of Salvation. But Christians define a Supreme Being as God, and all of its ramifications, you define him as something completely different, as cold as a computer program.

So if you’re going to invoke physics in that statement to support what you’ve asserted then you are going to have to prove, scientifically, that consciousness pre-exists the birth of the individual human person.

No, I do not have to prove anything. My proof lays within the Holy Bible but you do not believe in that and I am not trying to prove it's authenticity to you. I am not trying to convert anyone, I am answering challenges to my faith, with logical reasoning. I am not trying to convert anyone. If you want proof of the pre-mortal existence then all you have to do is follow the epistle of James 1:5-6 and I promise you that the truth will be revealed to you by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Second, you failed to address the second part of that passage. I said: “And to propose that I was made to forget my previous existence simply compounds the problem for such a ploy means I was brought into being to serve the needs of a selfish entity.”

This mortal existence is conclusive evidence that all who receive it kept their first estate. In our former, or spirit existence, we walked by sight. We were in the presence of both the Father and the Son, and were instructed by them and under their personal presence. In this mortal life, or second estate, the Lord willed that we should walk by faith and not by sight, that we might, with the great gift of free agency, be proved to see if we would do all things whatsoever the Lord our God commanded us. Therefore, he took away from us all knowledge of our spiritual existence and started us out afresh in the form of helpless infants, to grow and learn day by day. In consequence of this we received no former knowledge and wisdom at birth, and, as it is written of the Son of God, who in the beginning made all things, we "received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace." (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:60)

Third, if we have always existed and God was always in a relationship with us, as you said in an earlier post, then why did he want us to return to him?

Because he loves us.

 

[Serenity7855]

Irreducible complexity has already been debunked:

No, there are claims that it has been debunked and there are counter claims that say it has not been debunked.

Everyone uses the failed hypothesis of the flagellum. There could be a 1000 successes but the flagellum will never be forgotten.

The Flagellum Unspun

Evolution is not "pure chance", and I have already provided multiple links that go into detail explaining exactly how the eye could have evolved.

Evolution is a series of mutations based on selective breeding. Mutations come by chance and not design, therefore, evolution is based on pure chance. . It is all speculation born out by your own words. You said " eye could have evolved." could have indicates scepticism.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, there are claims that it has been debunked and there are counter claims that say it has not been debunked.

Did you read the article I posted? They literally took apart a bacterial flagellum, and it still functioned as a type-3 secretory system. That's not a claim, that's an experiment. An experiment which demonstrated that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex.

Everyone uses the failed hypothesis of the flagellum. There could be a 1000 successes but the flagellum will never be forgotten.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. Can you give me a single example of a system which is demonstrably irreducibly complex?

Evolution is a series of mutations based on selective breeding. Mutations come by chance and not design, therefore, evolution is based on pure chance.

You have literally just contradicted yourself. How can evolution be "based on pure chance", when you yourself admit that part of evolution is "selective breeding" (or, more accurately, selective environmental pressures)?

It is all speculation born out by your own words. You said " eye could have evolved." could have indicates scepticism.

Because you're claiming that the eye COULD NOT have evolved by "random chance", and I am explaining that, according to the current understanding, it COULD have. We actually do possess an explanation. It's only a tentative explanation, but then all explanations are tentative in science. It's called honesty.

 

[Serenity7855]

Yes, you are correct.

No, it is not the same! I can create an object out of material matter and therefore I am the cause of the object, but I cannot make matter begin to exist. We don’t see anything in the universe begin to exist (with the exception of quantum particles, which are uncaused). Therefore “the universe is caused to exist” is a patently false inference.

No one can cause matter to exist from nothing, ex-nihilo. If you believe that the universe was created ex-nihilo then you have to believe that if ex-nihilo happened once in bringing the universe into being then it is logical to assume it will happen again within nature, so, let's keep it natural, trees would come into existence from nothing ex-nihilo, as would animals and humans. Element would just spring into existence ex-nihilo. Things do not just pop into existence, like a rabbit from a magicians hat. It is just not science. If the universe were created ex-materia then we must use the same premise as ex-nihilo, that is, that it will be common place in nature. Guess what, it is, so, by that logic If ex-nihilo works with the universe it has to be common place in nature. Guess what, it is not. Logic dictates that ex-materia causation is the most likely method by which the universe came into existence, proving P1 of KCA is accurate and true. Creation via ex-nihilo is a logical fallacy born out of an appeal to ignorance.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No one can cause matter to exist from nothing, ex-nihilo. If you believe that the universe was created ex-nihilo then you have to believe that if ex-nihilo happened once in bringing the universe into being then it is logical to assume it will happen again within nature, so, let's keep it natural, trees would come into existence from nothing ex-nihilo, as would animals and humans. Element would just spring into existence ex-nihilo. Things do not just pop into existence, like a rabbit from a magicians hat. It is just not science. If the universe were created ex-materia then we must use the same premise as ex-nihilo, that is, that it will be common place in nature. Guess what, it is, so, by that logic If ex-nihilo works with the universe it has to be common place in nature. Guess what, it is not. Logic dictates that ex-materia causation is the most likely method by which the universe came into existence, proving P1 of KCA is accurate and true. Creation via ex-nihilo is a logical fallacy born out of an appeal to ignorance.

This argument makes no sense. Positing that something happened once, or CAN happen, does not imply that the occurrence is common, or that it can happen any more or in any other specific situations than that one occurrence.

 

[Serenity7855]

This argument makes no sense. Positing that something happened once, or CAN happen, does not imply that the occurrence is common, or that it can happen any more or in any other specific situations than that one occurrence.

I am sorry that you cannot understand it. I made it as simple as I could.

Ah, you cannot win with people like you. I say that the universe was created ex-nihilo and you say that it cannot be because there is no other precedent for it. I then gain additional knowledge that convinces me that the universe was created ex-materia and that it is not possible to create something out of nothing, ex-nihilo, and you say why not, just because there is no precedent doesn't mean it cannot happen. You contradict yourselves rather then accept that which is true. Weird and delusional.

 

[Bunyip]

I am sorry that you cannot understand it. I made it as simple as I could.

Ah, you cannot win with people like you. I say that the universe was created ex-nihilo and you say that it cannot be because there is no other precedent for it. I then gain additional knowledge that convinces me that the universe was created ex-materia and that it is not possible to create something out of nothing, ex-nihilo, and you say why not, just because there is no precedent doesn't mean it cannot happen. You contradict yourselves rather then accept that which is true. Weird and delusional.

But he is correct - that there is no precedent doesn't mean that it cannot happen.

 

[adi2d]

I am sorry that you cannot understand it. I made it as simple as I could.

Ah, you cannot win with people like you. I say that the universe was created ex-nihilo and you say that it cannot be because there is no other precedent for it. I then gain additional knowledge that convinces me that the universe was created ex-materia and that it is not possible to create something out of nothing, ex-nihilo, and you say why not, just because there is no precedent doesn't mean it cannot happen. You contradict yourselves rather then accept that which is true. Weird and delusional.

I thought your knowledge was from God. Why do you change your argument with ideas from the minds of man?

 

[Shad]

I said:

1. You linked to a presumed expert blog regarding the existence of quantum sub-automic particles.

Nope I linked a 1 chapter of a lecture from a collection of lectures which are part of a physics lesson plan of a physics department at a university. Now you have firmly established that you are in fact a liar.

2. I linked to WLC regarding KCA, in which he is a expert.

Yes he is "expert" which seems to know nothing about physics. So he is an expert on omitting information and fool people which are ignorant of not just physics but philosophy. He is an expert is sophistry.

We both linked to sources relevant to our particular argument. Where is the difference. My comparison is sound as in both cases we sought relevant expert opinion relevant to both of our arguments. Do you get it now?

Empirical evidence trumps logic. Evidence is used to prove if a premise is true or not. My sources prove that your expert used a false premise, thus the argument is unsound.

What does counter intuitiveness have to do with KCA? If anything KCA is sagacious. QT and QM are counter intuitive as they defy common sense but what is your point.

Many idea are counter intuitive to how we see the world. Using our own sense the Earth appears flat and it appears as if the sun orbits the Earth. Yet using tools such telescopes along with math we can prove that both these ideas are false. So 1 seems intuitive but in fact is not due to QM.

No, you are using fallacious arguments to derail the thread and avoid the errors in your beliefs. The KCA is an argument based on inductive reasoning. It cannot be wrong. Let's look at it.

Yes it is based on inductive reasoning. As per my example pages ago it fails as P1 is false. This is happens when taking a general statement and make it a universal statement. For example the Sun rose this morning ad previous morning does not make it a universal truth that the Sun will raise tomorrow or the next day and so on. We have external information that in fact the Sun is a finite object which will one day become a object which is not the Sun. For that matter we can not make a universal statement that there will be an Earth or planet for the raising of the Sun to be observed. Inductive logic can be wrong and has been wrong before. It is deductive logic, if not ridden with fallacies, which can not be wrong. Duductive logic take a generalization to form a specific. Induction take observations and applies this to a generalized law to objects unobserved aka BB singularity. However induction can not guarantee the truth of the premises do not guarantee the truth of it's conclusions. Inductive reasoning is about probability. You are completely confuse these two methods of logic providing another justification that you in fact have no idea what you are talking about

David Hume wrote about inductive reasoning and it's flaws. Most of his work and work built upon it is free to access at various free university databases.

Seems logical and sound to me, however, when News at 10 reports that the big bang was just a hoax and there is evidence that proves that the universe was uncaused, then I will take a serious look at it, however, nothing has every come into being in our universe without a cause, and we have never witnessed an uncaused event, therefore, we have no precedents to prove your claim, as it has never happened, so why would it ever happen. In the real world we see ex-materia everywhere we look. It is common place in our world. We never see ex-nihilo, ever. Chances are that the universe was caused and chances are it was Elohim

Virtual particles and atom decay are uncaused. So we have two examples which prove P1 is wrong. Also you have admitted that you do not understand logic or philosophy by extension. So it is easy to see you think this, it is an argument from ignorance, your own ignorance.

Oh, I am well aware of non-believers, like yourself, looking for opportunities to scream "plagiarism" at the Christians, which is why you will find the letters WLC at the bottom of the article which means that you are falsely accusing me of a crime that I have not commited, it is a logical fallacy.

Craig only debates people with a flashy position. I need not debate Craig as I have shown his argument to be unsound. It has been unsound for centuries for that matter.

My accusation is accurate as you have made mistakes in logic as has Craig. It is your inability to see a fallacious argument. It is you repeating the argument here. It is your defending the argument here.

If the shoe fits...

Just because it is being taught does not mean it is true. We once taught that the earth was flat.

Absolutely right. Until knowledge changes it is completely acceptable to follow the consensus of physicists and what is taught in physics classes. Do you practice say voodoo medicine or do you go to a doctor taught at a university when sick? Do you go to educated experts or find fringe hedge doctors?

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument. How is this an eqivocation fallacy.

No as "nothing" in physics is still something, there is no example of nothing, it is a unless term in physics. Now by saying nothing but not providing the information that this "nothing" is in fact something Craig is misleading people with his argument.

Ships are made by a person using natural materials, a ship is created from natural elements. It begins to exist with the last stroke of the paint brush. I see no reason why a ship cannot begin to exist just because it was build by a person. That is a logical fallacy.

There is no natural process in which a ship is assembled in nature. Also a ship does not begin to exist as all the material of the ship already existed. This is word games used by your, or where ever you copy your arguments from. To compare a constructed object to a natural occuring object is exactly the fallacy I said it was.

If you believe that the universe was created ex-nihilo, then you have to believe that if ex-nihilo happened once in bringing the universe into being then it is logical for it to happen again, within nature, so, let's keep it natural, trees would come into existence from nothing ex-nihilo, as would animals and humans, just like the universe did. Element would just spring into existence ex-nihilo-nihil-fit.html hopefully gold. Things do not just pop into existence like a rabbit from a magicians hat. It is just not science.

Never said ex-nihilo, this a strawman and red herring to distract away from your flawed arguments. See reference above about "nothing". Also ex-nihilo is your argument, God created the universe from nothing. It is not my argument. You are trying to apply your argument as mine and completely fail to realize this concept is core to your doctrine. Ex-nihilo is firmly rooted in Greek's Prime Mover which now adapted by Christianity as well as Judaism and Islam.

Now, If the universe were created ex-materia then we must use the same premise as ex-nihilo, that is, that it will be common place in nature. Guess what, it is, so, by that logic, If ex-nihilo works to create the universe it has to be common place in nature. Guess what, it is not. Logic dictates that ex-materia causation is the most like method by which the universe came into existence, proving P1 of KCA is accurate and true. Creation via ex-nihilo is a logical fallacy born out of an appeal to ignorance.

More strawmans as I never said from nothing, also the same could be applied to God. Also since causality is a principle of objects within the Universe this principle does not apply to a state before the universe. The answer of God is special pleading as KCA establishes infinite regress then stops, breaks it's own argument's rules by placing God, unproven assertion, outside of the argument. So not olny is God an unproven assertion by the nature of God is an assertion itself. You are using an assertion to prove and assertion.

Sorry, but so what? "A created object implies a creator" is again a logical fallacy. A creator suggests an intelligent being. A tree does not have a intelligent creator. Therefore, your statement is fallacious.

Negative as no one physics says the universe was created. You are using another assertion to prove an assertion.

Secondly, you are saying that only natural objects can be created, yet another fallacy born by your need to be right.

An physical object is not created by a reorganization of existing matter. We do not even know how matter started to exist.

An object does not need to reproduce to be a creation, another logical fallacy.

Negative. Natural object occur in nature in the case of living organism which can reproduce. Rivers form due to our understand of descriptive laws of natural. There is no process in nature in which a ship is assembled by wind, gravity, etc. You skipped over the fact that ships are not found in nature but instead forced on reproduction. Find me a ship which was assembled by natural laws without any interference from a human. Simple request.

Basically a load of unfounded assumption.

Negative, it how natural objects within nature operation within nature. It is a well founded principle.

 

[Shad]

CONTINUED

It most certainly is not a error to use "create" instead of "bring into being". They are synonymous and can be found in the dictionary under their own definitions.

1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.

Looks like you never looked up the word at all as the first definitional clearly shows to create is not a natural process. Beside this we are taking existing matter and merely reorganizing it, we are not creating new matter, just using what is there. A painting is not natural.

Truth, can never become outdated, and knowledgeable views do not require an expert to voice them, that is snobbery and elitism.

Expertise grants authority to speak on a matter. If someone is not an authority in a field their opinion is useless. I do not see my doctor if I have car issues, I do not see my mechanic if I have the flu. This is how academy in fact works.

You said that material existed pre big bang therefore material could be greater then God. I replied by telling you that you are wrong, material came post big bang and God existed pre big bang so material could not be greater then God.

No I was under the impression you put forward that chaos material existed before the big bang. You pointed out my impression was wrong. However by continuing down this line of argument in which I acknowledged I did not understand it properly you are creating a strawman.

But P1 is demonstrably corrected and sound. The argument is therefore sound as it reaches its conclusion. The identity of what the cause was is another argument. What is taught is not always what should be taught. By you saying that it "could be" rooted in QM interaction means you are speculating, just like when I say it could be God. Occam's razor would, of course, include God. God may not be required to you but he is to me. There is no acceptable answer as it cannot be proved.

P1 is unsound as prove by me pages ago. Yes I am speculating how the KCA is not speculation. It is supposed to be proof of a cause, you name this cause as God. I acknowledge my speculation, you take yours as fact. Now if QM is the root of the universe beginning God is not requires. God is an unnecessary hypothesis as QM would be accepted as an answer. Just because God is required by you does not mean this is fact. This is an appeal to emotion. You beleive in God, have invested emotional and probably financially into the God system. You need God. Such appeals must be left at the door not excess baggage one drags into a conversation.

There are sites on the internet showing atheists how to use fallacies to stifle the debate against creationists. Logical Fallacies and How to Spot Them is one such site. The technique is dishonest and contentious

Someone's own illogical arguments causing a backlash. If you want to form logical arguments using proper methods of logic, you do not get to pick and choose which rules you follow. Which rules should be applied especially when said rules are used to refute your arguments. If you do not want to "play by the rules of the game" do not play. In other logic based argument these rules are always applied. However since KCA and God is personal to you, you feel that you should not play by said rules.

The exposure of fallacies within an argument is complete valid method to refute an argue. A fallacies by definition are errors in a logic based argument. It is one of the methods used to identify sound arguments from unsound arguments. Fallacies are fake or deceptive arguments. Arguments which do not prove anything. Fallacies appear to be sound and very convincing even after being shown to be false arguments. This is a basic principle of logic, philosophy, scholarship and science. All are valid methods of refuting arguments in all 4 fields. This is basic logic 101. It is an honest method only controversial due to appeals to emotions which you have clear shown by your requirement of God. You hold to a presupposition and must prove it. It is all or nothing. I on the other hand accept God as well as other views are possible. However all lack sound arguments. I clearly stated this while my comment about problems of inductive logic.

 

[serp777]

No one can cause matter to exist from nothing, ex-nihilo. If you believe that the universe was created ex-nihilo then you have to believe that if ex-nihilo happened once in bringing the universe into being then it is logical to assume it will happen again within nature, so, let's keep it natural, trees would come into existence from nothing ex-nihilo, as would animals and humans. Element would just spring into existence ex-nihilo. Things do not just pop into existence, like a rabbit from a magicians hat. It is just not science. If the universe were created ex-materia then we must use the same premise as ex-nihilo, that is, that it will be common place in nature. Guess what, it is, so, by that logic If ex-nihilo works with the universe it has to be common place in nature. Guess what, it is not. Logic dictates that ex-materia causation is the most likely method by which the universe came into existence, proving P1 of KCA is accurate and true. Creation via ex-nihilo is a logical fallacy born out of an appeal to ignorance.

Well clearly you don't understand the multiverse concept. In the multiverse all possible combinations of universes occur.

There is a subset of universes that behave logically and follow laws of conservation, such that things cannot just pop into existence in our particular area. We live in that subset of universes. However, given an infinite amount of time, everything you mentioned would spontaneously pop into existence; you just don't have the lifespan or the correct dimension to see it happen.

Someone asking why there is something rather than nothing has to answer the question of why there would be nothing rather than something. There is no fallacy going on here. But im curious as to how a universe out of nothing is an appeal to ignorance while a universe from God is not. Double standards ftw.

 

[cottage]

I am bewildered as to why you are scratching your head. Church ecclesiastical leaders of that time were unscrupulous and gave religion a bad name. I am not interested in who he was or what he was. I am not a lover of any faiths. They are man made and therefore corrupted by man's interpretation. He is right in saying God as “a being than which no greater can be thought”, however, I see no value in mentioning him.

I do not know what point you are making when saying that you can think of a greater being then God, that is, a Supreme Being. It is a contradiction as the definition of God is a Supreme Being, and visa versa. You are saying that a Supreme Being is greater then God when he is God, a logical fallacy. If you believe that there is something greater then God then that is your right. I do not believe that and see no mileage it discussing opinions as if they are facts.

Actually I am bewildered twice over, first because I was speaking of “St Anselm”, but for some reason you responded talking about “St Austell”, and second here you are talking about “faith” when that has nothing at all to do with what I was explaining to you. St Anselm presented an a priori ontological argument for the existence of God, which though it might have failed to demonstrate God’s actual existence, it is however self-evidently true that one cannot exceed the concept in thought, which is to say that God, whether he exists or not, must by definition be the greatest possible being. Now the Supreme Being and God can certainly be taken as synonymous, but what I’m saying to you is that Anselm’s definition, “that which none greater can be thought” is clearly the concept of Supreme Being, but since the “God” that you expound and worship has needs and, by your own admission, is not the supreme creator of all things, then plainly he is not “that which none greater can be thought”. And that is because we can conceive of a being that is the supreme creator of all things existent and without anthropomorphic needs and desires (quite regardless of whether any such entity exists in reality).

No, I do not have to prove anything. My proof lays within the Holy Bible but you do not believe in that and I am not trying to prove it's authenticity to you. I am not trying to convert anyone, I am answering challenges to my faith, with logical reasoning. I am not trying to convert anyone. If you want proof of the pre-mortal existence then all you have to do is follow the epistle of James 1:5-6 and I promise you that the truth will be revealed to you by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Well, if you don’t have to prove what you asserted then the argument you gave me is utterly worthless. You can’t just make statements and then back out by resorting to faith when your claims are exposed as incoherent or illogical.

Because he loves us.

So did he not love us as the conscious beings you claimed existed prior to our manifestation in human form?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I am sorry that you cannot understand it. I made it as simple as I could.

No, I understand it perfectly. It's just a really nonsensical argument. Do you or do you not agree that the statement "if it happened once - or is capable of happening - then it MUST happen constantly and in almost any situation" is nonsensical?

Ah, you cannot win with people like you. I say that the universe was created ex-nihilo and you say that it cannot be because there is no other precedent for it.

That's not what I've said, and I'm pretty sure nobody here has said that either.

I then gain additional knowledge that convinces me that the universe was created ex-materia and that it is not possible to create something out of nothing, ex-nihilo, and you say why not, just because there is no precedent doesn't mean it cannot happen. You contradict yourselves rather then accept that which is true. Weird and delusional.

And you appear to make-up arguments rather than actually dealing with the arguments put in front of you. That's even more weird and even more delusional.

 

[cottage]

No one can cause matter to exist from nothing, ex-nihilo. If you believe that the universe was created ex-nihilo then you have to believe that if ex-nihilo happened once in bringing the universe into being then it is logical to assume it will happen again within nature, so, let's keep it natural, trees would come into existence from nothing ex-nihilo, as would animals and humans.

First of all nobody, not physicists, not cosmologists, not philosophers, are saying something came from nothing, since “nothing” has no causal or productive properties. What is being said is that something can exist where before there was nothing, as several eminent cosmologists have said. Quantum particles in a vacuum have been shown to come into existence uncaused, and while a vacuum is not “nothing” nobody as far as I’m aware is asserting that the vacuum was the cause. And further to that, from a philosophical aspect there is no logical impediment in the notion of an uncaused cause, whereas there are many contradictions evident in an external cause. Also you are guilty of the Fallacy of Division by asserting that what is true of the whole must also be true of its parts.

Element would just spring into existence ex-nihilo. Things do not just pop into existence, like a rabbit from a magicians hat. It is just not science. If the universe were created ex-materia then we must use the same premise as ex-nihilo, that is, that it will be common place in nature. Guess what, it is, so, by that logic If ex-nihilo works with the universe it has to be common place in nature. Guess what, it is not. Logic dictates that ex-materia causation is the most likely method by which the universe came into existence, proving P1 of KCA is accurate and true. Creation via ex-nihilo is a logical fallacy born out of an appeal to ignorance.

I think you’re just having a laugh, surely? If the above were true then you’ve debunked every advocate of the Kalam argument. But of course you haven’t because if the universe was caused by a material cause then there is an infinite regress of causes. And as William Lane Craig never tires of telling us such a thing is impossible. The problem of a material cause and infinite regress is classically the stumbling block to many atheistic objections where an eternal explanation is sought in the form of physical matter. I think you've found yourself on the wrong side of the argument! <chuckles>