Premise 1: everything that begins to exist has a cause
Premise 2: the universe began to exist
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Now what characteristics must that cause have?
1. Outside time and space. By definition the cause had to originate outside time and space since time and space did not exist prior to the cause.
2. Eternal. Infinite regressions are illogical/irrational
3. Creative power. This is self evident due to the fact that the cause created the universe.
>inb4 fedora tipping
Pizzagate has been debunked multiple times already
Nod really
You already have a thread open.
>inb4 fedora tipping
I need a disclaimer
Too much tipping
You abandoned a thread posing the same statements. Why
I'm an atheist, and I don't hate him. His argument is weak and doesn't change my opinion in any way.
I lost it on my browser
Also too much tipping
The argument is incredibly strong.
The universe could just be a simulation running on some computer in a higher dimension beyond our understanding. The simulation it self could have been designed to simulate dark matter and such, as that accounts for the bulk of the mass of our universe. We might be an unwanted byproduct.
What I am saying is that 90% of our own planet's surface is inhospitable for life, and 99.999999999999999999999999% of the volume of the observable universe is inhospitable for life.
There is no reason to believe that whatever thing that created the universe had any interest in creating it FOR us. Doesn't matter if whatever caused the universe to exist was "timeless, spaceless, eternal, powerful" blah blah bullshit. It is obvious that we exist despite the fact that the universe was not made specially for us. Sorry godfags, you lose.
*tips fedora*
Well i linked it, feel free to continue the discussion whenever.
haha I remember this old codger. Religious nut and yet still financially raped millions and drove them to suicide. He know sucks cock in Hell with Hitler and Stalin and a host of other demons.
I am continuing it
Ken Lay was fucking retard that lied to investors and fucked the economy
He was defiantly not /ourguy/
he was also hardcore religious some baptist or evangelical nutcase. he raped millions financially.
correction
I should say 90% of the planet surface is inhospitable to HUMAN life. That's just a rough estimate as 70% is ocean, and some other percent are permafrost and desert. Sure some animals are adapted to survive in those environments, but I mean those are difficult places for humans to survive.
A flawless and watertight argument *tips mitre*
The universe is eternal. It doesn't need creative power because it always existed. Since it is time and space, the idea of being outside of it is nonsensical and unnecessary.
There, conditions of the teleological argument satisfied, without invoking a divine creator. That's why the argument is such dogshit.
>reason to believe
There’s no reason to believe in the laws of logic, fag
>Call it what you will
I'm calling it what it is exactly. I've demonstrated why it is repeatedly, but I'm not trying to get you to do anything but ditch these fallacies and make a better argument.
>The creator of the universe HAD to have those traits if my premises are true
You keep saying this, but we dont know enough about the universe to make this determination of these attributes being a necessity.
>It’s a deductive argument
This is a deductive argument:
>In mathematics, If A = B and B = C, then A = C
What you've provided is not. its based on premises and if the premises are true, then the reasoning will be valid. Again, your proof doesnt contain god anywhere. It doesnt demonstrate the conclusion at all, it's just asserted in the conclusion.
>Premise 1: everything that begins to exist has a cause
Didn't quantum mechanics debunk causation?
Except modern cosmology has demonstrated that the universe had a beginning
Disprove my traits.
See above.
Let’s start with #1: it had to be outside time and space by definition.
Respond cuck
Quantum fields began to exist
No, it has determined that the most likely explanation for the apparent movement of matter in the universe is from a dense concentration of matter exploding outward. Whether that was the beginning is completely unknown.
Quantum fields are eternal.
What's your argument?
This shouldn't juat be a bannable offense, this is execution tier levels of stupid cuntery.
Quantum fields began to exist along with the universe.
Any universe in a state of expansion has a cause irrespective of expanding and collapsing periods
this argument is literally what you discuss on day 1 of your philosophy 101 course. it's literally like a reduction of descartes.
its entire existence assumes there is an infallible rationality which humans can perceive, i.e., a rationality that is beyond human or that justifies human rationality, which by definition is inhuman, and therefore we cannot know whether it exists or not. We have no real conception of "eternal" or "outside time and space," these are permanently outside of human rationality, so his argument is flawed from the beginning.
Every premise is entirely flawed and rides on numerous assumptions which are beyond human logic. Sorry buddy, but your cheap little "syllogism" does nothing to my fedora's power.
But it has been theorized that quantum fields have always existed and a quantum fluctuation could have possibly caused the big bang.
It's still a theory, but certainly more logical than some skydaddy.
We do have a conception of outside time and space. Ever heard of the laws of logic?
*tips trilby*
I dont need to disprove something that hasn't been proven. You keep making this error, even if I couldnt disprove it doesnt mean its true. Its unknown.
>
>Let’s start with #1
You havent addressed my points yet. Why would I bother posting at all if nothing is going to even be acknowledged?
>Any universe in a state of expansion has a cause irrespective of expanding and collapsing periods
On what basis can you make this claim?
Well I'm convinced, your ancient collection of impossible stories cobbled together by dirt worshipers is probably true.
If my premises are true, my conclusions follow because this is a deductive argument.
You have a problem with the conclusions, I’m trying to make this easy for you.
mental illness isnt real, its fake news propagated by the Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex you Satanic glow in the dark CIA nigger jew faggot
>implying time and space are real
>If my premises are true
Which, again, do not reference a god.
>my conclusions follow because this is a deductive argument.
This is not a deductive argument. Again, deductive arguments are based on premises and if the premises are true, then the reasoning will be valid. Your reasoning isnt in the premises. It's as deductive as saying
>If A = B and B = C, then God exists.
Its nonsensical.
Valenkin’s theory
You do not even know what a deductive argument is. Holy shit.
This is a deductive argument. IF the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows.
Why the fuck do you think I’ve been pressing you on the premises??
>atheist blogger detected
Also I didn’t mention God ITT
Nice strawman
>You do not even know what a deductive argument is
I just told you what's required for a deductive argument. You arent making a case for God when it's not in the proof to begin with. I dont know why i have to keep explaining this.
>strawman
You've been asserting god for hours. You arent going to pretend it's a strawman.
Who mentioned God? Not me.
And I am making a deductive argument. My conclusions must follow.
You refuse to address any of it, you merely harp about the form of the argument, which has been around for thousands of years, along with the same or similar conclusions.
But I guess you’re so enlightened that you’re able to attack the form of the argument without addressing any of the points
And if you truly knew what a deductive argument is then you’d know the form of one when you see it.
Infinite regress. Raising more questions. Exponentially more. Doesn't that frustrate you? How ruminating about what ought to be the simplest questions like, 'what is the purpose of life'? sends your mind in circles at velocities comparably to the particles fired at CERN's Large Hadron Collider in Geneva? We might as well discard morality entirely.
>my conclusion must follow
No, and I've explained why fallacious arguments arent required after a proof that doesnt reference the topic of your conclusion.
>You refuse to address any of it
Correct or not has no bearing on your conclusion. You have to assert the attributes you've posed for a God, which is special pleading aside from the unverifiable claims being made.
...but you’re wrong. That’s the whole point.
You have to actually demonstrate why my conclusion is incorrect OR that the premises are wrong.
You’re merely stating that the form is incorrect which itself is an incorrect statement. The form is that of a deductive argument.
If A and B are true, C is necessarily true.
You’re untrained and it shows
An unfalsifiable assertion by some random physicist, very compelling.
>everything that begins to exist has a cause
You mean to tell me that things with causes have causes? Ya dont say. Next ypu tell me everything that ceases to exist has an end.
>the universe began to exist
Prove it.
>A tautology followed by a meaningless statement is a strong argument.
Imagine being this dumb. Im not even a fedora and I can see that youre embarrassing yourself.
Not an argument
>...but you’re wrong
Instead of telling me I'm wrong about something, show me where I'm wrong specifically and why
>You have to actually demonstrate why my conclusion is incorrect OR that the premises are wrong.
I've been demonstrating why your conclusion is incorrect for hours, and just touched on it for the billionth time. Fallacious, no evidence to suggest the traits are actually contributed to a god, even though we we dont know enough about the universe to make this determination of these attributes being a necessity in the first place. Its assumptions and fallacies that are riddled in this conclusion.
>If A and B are true
Both havent been demonstrated to be true.
Valenkin’s theory
I made the form of a deductive argument, you said I didn’t, and you were wrong.
You have not specifically refuted any of my conclusions.
And both of my premises are strongly supported by modern science.
See? That’s how it’s done
*tips trilby*
Premise 1 is a tautology and premise 2 is not obviously true. What does beginning even mean in the absence of time?
Also, your post is essentially
>If A and B are true, C is necessarily true.
>because I think it is true, characteristics for a God will be asserted and special pleading for this unverifiable entity will also be made to fit the assertion of what i assume would be necessary, even though we dont have all of the required information to make a determination like this.
>Eternal
What if the cause "sacrifised" itself to create the universe.
4th time you made this thread
Ehh, he's got that right on the cause bit.
Now all you need to do is identify which creator god did it.
>I made the form of a deductive argument, you said I didn’t, and you were wrong.
The proof is in deductive format, you shoehorning a "conclusion" into it doesnt fit into the deductive argument. See >You have not specifically refuted any of my conclusions.
I have.
>And both of my premises are strongly supported by modern science.
Please demonstrate this claim.
I never mentioned God In this thread
But you have made many straw man arguments
What is a straw hat argument?
who is that semen demon?
>I never mentioned God In this thread
So you're not arguing for a God existing anymore? Great, then this has nothing to do with atheism and we can move on.
It does, atheism is dumb because they deny the existence of any deity or cause where there simply must be one. Atheism is an ideology.
>he finally admits that he isn't arguing for the existance of god anymore, and that his argument cant distinguish between an actual god and a random unconscious event creating the universe
TOP FUCKING KEK
pic related in this
disbelief is not the same thing as asserting something's non-existence
Let’s take #1: the cause has to be outside of time and space.
I made a strong case for that in my post, let’s see you refute it.
But that's a good thing, hes making more arguments that could lead to being sound than previous. As combative as he is, and as long as it takes to get points across, at least hes not using the same argument.
meant this id
It hasn't been demonstrated, I cant refute something that has no evidence to suggest is the case. We have no way to determine if anything is outside of space and time. The claim requires more information.
and i agree with your statement, but it is pretty hilarious going from "that cause was god" to, "that cause must have creative power", which could be literally anything, sentient or not
Ken Ley the Enron guy>?
Nah, I just removed the word God but kept the attributes
*tips trilby*
You idiots were getting too hung up on a word
Doesn't necessarily have to be outside of time and space. A circle doesn't have a beginning and an end. I'm still a theist though.
It can’t be scientifically demonstrated. Philosophically and logically it does appear to be the case.
So you had no real objection to #1. Shall we move on to #2?
This is a really awful simplification of the cosmological argument. There are much better ones that exist. Like Aquinas' five ways.
Nailed it. Many of the best meditators have experienced the eternal source of all creation which is outside time and space. And guess what? It’s YOU!
Welcome to your own personal playground where you are everything experiencing everything. As individuals. But also as the singular source of all, for nothing that is created can be separate from he ultimate source which created it. PURE MAGIC.
Tip ur fedora at that lol edgelords
I merely removed the word God because it was short circuiting your NPC motherboard
good to hear that you aren't arguing for the existence of a god anymore
you are inside time and space
I merely removed the word but kept the attributes. Your NPC programming was short circuiting
Pol btfo
Wasn't there some recent evidence saying this is less likely? I'm a brainlet and don't remember what it was.
>Philosophically and logically it does appear to be the case.
It doesnt. Stating "the cause has to be outside of time and space." Only leads to more questions. What is this cause made of, if anything since matter and energy exist in our system? And how does anything exist outside of time and space? But to say it seems to be the case in any field of understanding isnt true. We just have no information to suggest any of the properties exist.
That's fine, it doesnt help the argument though.
No scientific information
That’s what you mean.
But science is restricted to the material world of space/time, so we need to seek out other information.
Such as what logic can tell us
You feelin btfo yet?
My argument doesn’t need help. But you badly need help.
You’re trying to make a scientific argument for that which is beyond the reach of science. Very low energy. SUPER low energy
Have you ever spoken with a schizophrenic?
Atheist vs agnostic. Anyone who is an atheist is just as positively militant as the average theist. Any atheist who disagrees and says there's just no proof rather than "God doesn't exist" should stop calling themselves an atheist and start correctly calling themselves an agnoatic. Or at least an agnostic-atheist, if you're not into the whole brevity thing.
>But science is restricted to the material world of space/time
Correct.
>so we need to seek out other information.
To attempt to make a claim true? Why not just wait until we have actual evidence?
>Such as what logic can tell us
Definition:
>Logic is a method of reasoning that involves a series of statements, each of which must be true if the statement before it is true.
Look up truth tables.
That’s your definition.
There are only 3 laws of logic, and by the way, your answer to what I’m positing is literally “have faith in science.”
Congrats, you’re a theist. Your god is science. Love it, you played yourself
>You’re trying to make a scientific argument for that which is beyond the reach of science
No, I'm making the distinction that we have nothing to suggest a cause exists outside of space and time. I didnt clarify the type of study/information because it's not just science that has this issue.
We do have something to suggest that, we have the laws of logic.
If my two premises are true, then the conclusion follows. And actually, my premises simply have to be more likely true than false!
>That’s your definition.
Can we make logically sound outputs using premises that we have no clue if they are true or false?
>and by the way, your answer to what I’m positing is literally “have faith in science.”
False, I stated what we have evidence for. I didnt say blindly follow science.
>Congrats, you’re a theist. Your god is science. Love it, you played yourself
You dont need to keep doing this. It's not necessary, and quite silly.
Sure, we don’t know if the laws of logic are true or false.
And you’ve only stated scientific evidence, sad cuck