There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Wild assertions. That is not in any way an argument.

Wild, true assertions, and about as good as an argument that you can get.

The intellectually honest response was to ask me what makes the argument unsound. But you are simply cheerleading.

Or, you could have just taken initiative and explained why you think the argument is unsound.

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause for it's existence. "
"The universe began to exist"
This argument uses began to exist to mean rearrangement of existing stuff in the first premise and to poof into existence in the second premise. But Craig pretends to use the poof into existence definition in both cases. It is an equivocation fallacy. In other words, Craig is resorting to punning to fake a conclusion.

Well again, this is just yet another example of someone critiquing WLC while at the same time displaying ignorance of his actual argument.

No one who is familiar with WLC's Kalam argument will attack straw man the way that you just did.

Dr. Craig does not use "began to exist" to mean rearrangement of existing stuff.

In fact, Dr. Craig calls the creation account creation ex nihilo, which means (in Latin) creation out of nothing.

So obviously, there can be no rearrangement of existing stuff, if the stuff was created out of nothing.

Not only that, but Craig is an advocate of an Uncaused Cause (God), so your inaccurate view of Craig's position would actually contradict a position that he has held for 40+ years.

So, you are just simply wrong here, and it is a crying shame as to how people can be confident and smug, but at the same time be so wrong and inaccurate.

It blows my mind.

There are other problems with those promises, but equivocation is a sufficient defeater.

You can't offer a defeater of any premise, if you have no idea what the premises actually are.

I did not say that it is impossible. I said the claim that it is possible is not true.

If your claim is that X is not possible, then you are implying that X is impossible, by default.

Wow. Just...wow.

Meaning that there has been no demonstration of it's possibility, and your claim is unjustified.

Ok, so using your logic; there has been no demonstration of its impossibility either, so if anyone claims that God's existence is impossible, the claim is unjustified.

I can play that game, too.

The above paragraph is actually a trap, lets see if you take the bait hahaha.

Besides that, the title of the thread is "why do you believe", and I simply stated why I believe.

The aim wasn't to present a full-fledge argument, which I am fully prepared to do so and I am not in the slightest bit worried about any refutation that any of you may have, because you cannot rebuttal the truth...as you all will soon find out.

Had I said that the claim was false, then I would have been saying that it is impossible. If you are going to sling around logical arguments you might wish to understand what has been said about them over the centuries. Don't just copy paste and think that is all the thinking that you need to do.

LOL.

The fact that you didn't know that your assertion that God's existence isn't possible implies God's existence as impossible...the fact that you somehow missed such elementary logic tells me that you are the last one who should be lecturing anyone about logical arguments.

Thanks. Seriously. But theists have been throwing these around for centuries. And I have heard them for decades.

You may have heard them for decades, but it is obvious that you haven't been refuting them for decades.

That is an interesting assertion. Totally unjustified. How do you intend to demonstrate that to be true?

Is it false? Yes or no.

I prophecy an argument from ignorance.

Then you are a false prophet. My Bible warns me about people like you.

haha.

 

[ppp]

Wild, true assertions, and about as good as an argument that you can get.

No. And not good enough.

Or, you could have just taken initiative and explained why you think the argument is unsound.

I could. But Until I see you presenting more than idle bloviation, I am not going to invest much work in you.

Well again, this is just yet another example of someone critiquing WLC while at the same time displaying ignorance of his actual argument.

No one who is familiar with WLC's Kalam argument will attack straw man the way that you just did.

Dr. Craig does not use "began to exist" to mean rearrangement of existing stuff.

In fact, Dr. Craig calls the creation account creation ex nihilo, which means (in Latin) creation out of nothing.

You were not listening. And this is why I am not taking you seriously. I told you explicitly that the usage in the creation account (second premise) was a poof into existence (ex nihilo) and that the first premise refers to our common everyday experience (rearrangement). If you are going to complain, then complain about what was said. Don't recite blindly from your script.

If your claim is that X is not possible, then you are implying that X is impossible, by default.

Don't be daft. The evaluation of your claim is not the same thing as the evaluation of actual state of things. You do get that the words that come out of your brain is not the equivalent to the state of reality? Right? Right?!

When you make a claim, the first question is whether or not there is any reason to conclude that you know, or are capable of knowing what you claim. In your case, there is not. This does not make your claim false. But it does make it not true. Go research the difference.

The aim wasn't to present a full-fledge argument, which I am fully prepared to do so

And yet you are wasting all these pixels not doing so. I am going to go out on a very study limb and say those words are hollow and that you are merely posturing.

Is it false? Yes or no.

I don't care. I only care if someone can demonstrate it to be true. Or if someone can demonstrate it to be false. Until someone can do one or the other, it is not true.

Then you are a false prophet.

Year ain't over yet.

Ho ho.

 

[samtonga43]

To contact the author? Sounds like diving deeper.

Contacting an offer does not necessarily mean diving deeper.

It's an interrobang.

Sorry, but no, it’s really not. An interrrobang is ‽ and can also be written !?, ?!, or ?!? It is not ?
And you did say you used his work. #4426

I posted this paper, that's it.

Did you have permission from the author to post his paper without citation?

As I already said it was just an example of a common discussion.

Stop with the excuses. You were plagiarizing.

Provide the post # where I say I've "used his work".

#4426

Nope it's 4 interrobang. But really, punctuation is your best argument this time?

LOL! That’s not an argument, joelr; that is an observation. Learn from it…….. or don’t. And as I said above, you have no idea what an interrobang is.

Oh this is what all the fuss is about. I knew you were working some angle. Yeah it was pretty clear it was a paper I got online.

The author of the paper deserves credit for his work. His name had to be dragged out of you. You really should not have to be told this, you know.

First I have never posted a paper, have made it clear I follow scholarship rather than write papers for scholarship and if it were my paper it would be made known that HERE IS MY PAPER I WROTE ON THE SUBJECT.

It should be made known that HERE IS A PAPER WRITTEN BY RV GHERMAN and here is the appropriate link.

Wow look at that, you jump in on another debate just to sling attacks now your entire angle is to look for more ways to say "gotcha". It's almost like it's a pattern. Once again, it must be said... Weak.

Correct. So do something about it. Man up.

to which I provided a link? Well good luck with your contact.

Are you asking me if you provided a link? Or telling me?
But thanks for eventually providing a link. RV and I have mutual friends.

right, with contact information as well?

Not necessarily. Just cite your sources, young man. It’s the right thing to do, if you do not wish to be accused of plagiarism.

 

[joelr]

Contacting an offer does not necessarily mean diving deeper.

I think you mean "author?

Sorry, but no, it’s really not. An interrrobang is ‽ and can also be written !?, ?!, or ?!? It is not ?

Yes, it was. I don't have the symbol and it worked fine. You can go stress about it as much as needed.

And you did say you used his work. #4426

No, I did not say I used his work. Clearly I used the paper I copied? You need confirmation for that? Uh, how about the fact that I pasted his paper?

Did you have permission from the author to post his paper without citation?

Did not.

Stop with the excuses. You were plagiarizing.

I did not say it was my work. You are the one who mentioned I post parades of material.

#4426

Oh yeah, that's where I posted the paper that you already know I posted. Brilliant.

LOL! That’s not an argument, joelr; that is an observation. Learn from it…….. or don’t. And as I said above, you have no idea what an interrobang is.

Wow, we can add a new work. Petty. That was my interrobang. You don't like it? You can go cry as much as needed. Do you have any actual arguments?

The author of the paper deserves credit for his work. His name had to be dragged out of you. You really should not have to be told this, you know

.

Says insult boy. Sorry, you've zero cred with me. I don't care what you want. Maybe another debate will arise between me and Shundragon and you can make random insults.

It should be made known that HERE IS A PAPER WRITTEN BY RV GHERMAN and here is the appropriate link.

says weak insult boy

Correct. So do something about it. Man up.

HA HA HA man up. That's funny. Says the child who needs to hijack a thread to hurl insults because he lost every debate with me.

Are you asking me if you provided a link? Or telling me?
But thanks for eventually providing a link. RV and I have mutual friends.

I'm sure that's true (shaking head)

Not necessarily. Just cite your sources, young man. It’s the right thing to do, if you do not wish to be accused of plagiarism.

I do not care.

Wait, that's it? Substance?No? Nothing?

 

[Muffled]

I believe Platos point was that it is not logical to discount a person's experience simply because you haven't had that experience.

 

[Sheldon]

Wild, true assertions, and about as good as an argument that you can get.

If your goal is to ignore all facts and debate, and keep reasserting your beliefs loudly in the face of compelling objective evidence to the contrary, then yes, I imagine unevidenced and erroneous wild assertions seem tickety-boo. They're not though.

 

[Sheldon]

In fact, Dr. Craig calls the creation account creation ex nihilo, which means (in Latin) creation out of nothing.

So he believes something can come from nothing, but only when it involves inexplicable unevidenced magic. Obviously no deity existed to create this universe, or it is not ex-nihilo is it.

Lane Craig's rehash of the KLM first cause argument is risible. Even before he makes the unevidenced assumption at the end that this cause was a deity, then a further unevidenced assumption that it was his deity.

I can't be too unkind, just repeating that part has made me laugh, so thanks for that for anyway.

 

[Sheldon]

So obviously, there can be no rearrangement of existing stuff, if the stuff was created out of nothing.

So he's not imagining an omnipotent deity then? How much "nothing" did WLC manage to procure, in order to test his assertions?

 

[samtonga43]

So he believes something can come from nothing, but only when it involves inexplicable unevidenced magic. Obviously no deity existed to create this universe, or it is not ex-nihilo is it.

But God does not exist as matter. He is not a ‘thing’.

Lane Craig's rehash of the KLM first cause argument is risible. Even before he makes the unevidenced assumption at the end that this cause was a deity, then a further unevidenced assumption that it was his deity. I can't be too unkind, just repeating that part has made me laugh, so thanks for that for anyway.

Re-hash? Where is the re-hash?
Here is what Al-Ghazali (the Muslim philosopher who was the first to put forth this argument) said:
“Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning.”
You say that Craig has ‘rehashed’ this argument. Can you explain how?[/QUOTE]

 

[Subduction Zone]

But God does not exist as matter. He is not a ‘thing’.

Re-hash? Where is the re-hash?
Here is what Al-Ghazali (the Muslim philosopher who was the first to put forth this argument) said:
“Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning.”
You say that Craig has ‘rehashed’ this argument. Can you explain how?

[/QUOTE]
Any explanation would be just as long as the whole thing. Why not go to YouTube and search for WLC Kalam. I am sure that you will find him spouting it there.

 

[Sheldon]

But God does not exist as matter. He is not a ‘thing’.

You can't prop up an irrational argument with an unevidenced assumption.

 

[Sheldon]

But God does not exist as matter. He is not a ‘thing’.

Re-hash? Where is the re-hash?
Here is what Al-Ghazali (the Muslim philosopher who was the first to put forth this argument) said:
“Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning.”
You say that Craig has ‘rehashed’ this argument. Can you explain how?

[/QUOTE]

He's added assumptions about a deity he imagines is real.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He's added assumptions about a deity he imagines is real.[/QUOTE]
But it is a powerful argument because WLC has a powerful imagination

 

[samtonga43]

He's added assumptions about a deity he imagines is real.

What are these assumptions?

 

[samtonga43]

You can't prop up an irrational argument with an unevidenced assumption.

Here is the argument:
Al-Ghazali --- Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning.
Craig ---- Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Where is the unevidenced assumption?

 

[ppp]

Here is the argument:
Al-Ghazali --- Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning.
Craig ---- Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Where is the unevidenced assumption?

Both forms of the argument fail to due an equivocation fallacy.
Craig uses "begins to exist" in two different and mutually exclusive ways:

What the argument actually says is this:
Everything that we have experience of starting to exist is just the rearrangement of things that already exist as a result of physical interactions..
The universe came into existence ex nihilo; from ultimately non-physical interactions, and was not from a rearrangement of already existing things.
Therefore the universe has a cause.

Even if the premises were true, the conclusion does not follow from the premises

 

[samtonga43]

Both forms of the argument fail to due an equivocation fallacy. Craig uses "begins to exist" in two different and mutually exclusive ways:

Equivocation, aka “calling two different things by the same name,” is the logical fallacy of using a word or phrase in an argument either: In an ambiguous way or to mean two or more things.

What the argument actually says is this:
Everything that we have experience of starting to exist is just the rearrangement of things that already exist as a result of physical interactions.

You’re saying that ‘starting to exist’ ≠ ‘begin to exist’?

The universe came into existence ex nihilo; from ultimately non-physical interactions, and was not from a rearrangement of already existing things.
Therefore the universe has a cause. Even if the premises were true, the conclusion does not follow from the premises

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

 

[Sheldon]

What are these assumptions?

That a first cause must be a deity, that it is likely the one he imagines is real from the thousands humans have imagined are real, that this is because the deity he imagines is real is omniscient and impotent and transcendent, and that these are necessary for a universe to exist.

Those are all unevidenced assumptions he has added, and since they are about the thing he is arguing for, they are also begging the question fallacies.

 

[Sheldon]

Here is the argument:
Al-Ghazali --- Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning.
Craig ---- Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Where is the unevidenced assumption?

Off the top of my head.

1. That cause is a universal, rather a well evidenced and entirely natural condition of the physical temporal universe.
2. That natural causes with a temporal physical universe justify the unevidenced assumption the universe need a cause outside of this condition, or that this is even possible, and a supernatural cause to boot. Despite there being no objective evidence supernatural causes are even possible.
3. That this cause must necessarily be a deity.
4. That this deity possesses attributes or characteristic that he (WLC) assumes are necessary for the creation of or existence of a universe.
5. That this deity is the specific version of the Christian deity he imagines is real.
6. Oh, and that something can have a beginning, in the absence of the temporal universe, when time is an integral characteristic of it.

 

[ppp]

Equivocation, aka “calling two different things by the same name,” is the logical fallacy of using a word or phrase in an argument either: In an ambiguous way or to mean two or more things.

Correct. In this case that phrase is "begin to exist".

You’re saying that ‘starting to exist’ ≠ ‘begin to exist’?

Nope. I just slipped. I am using start and begin interchangeably. I did not intend that to be confusing.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Begins to exist' means rearrangement of existing stuff in the first premise. And 'began to exist' means coming into existence ex nihilo the second premise. Equivocation.