After posting a comment on Facebook an individual and I began a debate. Below I will post:
(#1) The Original Comment
(#2) The Position
(#3) My Rebuttal
As I am new to debate what I am looking for is a review/critique of (#3) My Rebuttal.
Are there points that I got incorrect? Are there points that I did not bring up that I should have? Did I misrepresent and/or fail to address any of the issues presented in (#2) The Position? Do you see points that should have been made more clear or that needed further elaboration? Are there any weaknesses in (#3) My Rebuttal? etc. etc. etc.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to your review/critique.
-Michael
(#1) The Original Comment
Until you can supply evidence or give us a reliable demonstration that this "god" you mentioned even exists, you are forcing your make believe religious moral standard on a nation that was established on secular values.
There is no god and it's society that will hold you accountable for your moral behavior. You will be counted among the individuals equally to those who opposed interracial marriage.
You will be on the wrong side of history as every religion has always been.
(#2) The Position
You're really bringing up two separate issues:
1. What proof do you have God exists?
2. To what authority should we appeal for our ethics and morality?
I'll address the first point very briefly because this is not per se a post about evidence for God. But since you asked, I'll take it as a sincere challenge and provide you the most compelling answer, in my view. I will, however, remain very skeptical it will prove persuasive to you in any significant way because you, like all humans, have an intense bias against rationally considering any evidence for God's existence. In other words, we all emotionally reject the truth about God's existence already readily available to every one of us.
Why?
Because we don't want to be held accountable to anyone but ourselves. We want to be captains of our own destiny, even if that destiny ends in obliteration after our physical death. That's a far less terrifying concept than having to stand in judgement before holy God, who we've spent out entire lives rebelling against.
The evidence for God is simple and anyone who will give this five minutes of careful analysis will be able to reach a reasonable conclusion: If there ever was a time when there was absolutely nothing, what could there possibly be now? The ONLY answer to that question is: NOTHING. Ex nihilo, nihil fit (out of nothing nothing comes) is the oldest idea in science.
Something, somewhere outside of the material universe has to have the power of existence in an of itself to provide a rational answer for anything else. We know the universe had a beginning. Something had to begin it and that something has to exist outside of the material universe (unless you want to resort to the absurd argument of self-creation).
Really, when you consider the existence of the universe you have only three options:
1. The universe if self-created (an absurd idea because it would have to exist before it existed to create itself)
2. The universe is eternal, meaning it has the power of being in and of itself (science has dismissed this idea by providing ample evidence the universe had a beginning).
3. The universe is created by something that is eternal and has the power of being in and of itself.
So option 3 is our best rational explanation for how the universe came into existence. But, we don't like this idea at all because it logically leads to a personal, intelligent being. And that sounds like God.
Why does option 3 lead to the idea of a personal intelligence? Well, whatever created the universe had to do so intentionally. Intentionality is the hallmark of intelligence. Impersonal forces don't intend to do anything. They don't plan to do anything. This aspect of intentionality allows us to infer that whatever created the universe is intelligent. We can also infer it is personal because it is absurd to believe that beings like us, with personalities, could emerge from a impersonal, unintelligent force. And again, it intended to bring the universe into existence or it wouldn't exist.
So, there's your evidence for the existence of God. If you're like most intelligent, reasonable people I've discussed this with, you'll come to the point where, even if you don't like the conclusion, you'll agree that something, somewhere had to start everything and yes, that something had to create intentionally and therefore it must be intelligent and personal. This description could be called the god of the philosophers because the Greeks 2000 years before Christ came up with these conclusions.
It is coincidental that this intelligent, personal God that possesses the power of being in and of itself sounds a lot like Yahweh, the God who revealed Himself to the ancient Israelites?
Let's move on to your second point. Let's say that even though our nation was founded on theistic principles (not Christian per se) we have now advanced to the point where we don't need silly religions of the ancient world providing guidance for our morality or ethics.
How would you propose the new rules for living be constructed? Majority vote? By what majority? Is it okay if 51% of a society want to impose their views on 49%? Or would you like to see a higher margin of error? Who gets to make the rules now that we've rejected the old fashioned rules of an old fashioned god?
Maybe you'd rather a council of wise individuals make the rules for the rest of us? Maybe that's a better course of action than majority voting. Morality by central planning? Do you have any evidence this works? Can you show ONE culture that has effectively functioned by constructing their own morality in this way? And, what standard are you using to judge whether or not it was successful? How many human rights violations and of what type have to occur in such a society before you think it crosses the line to become immoral?
You see the problem is, when we reject God as the reference point for our norms, we have nothing but ourselves to rely on.
I don't know about you Michael but the record of the 20th Century was enough to frighten me that mankind will never be able to construct a perfect world without God. For all the bitching about the number of people killed by religions and how evil religions are, all I have to do is look at 100 million people slaughtered by atheists regimes in the last 100 years and laugh at the arrogance of such boasting.
Set me straight. Maybe I'm missing some amazing things that have been done for the world in the name of atheism.
(#3) My Rebuttal
I have made a small error. You have not defined your “God” and I did not ask you for a definition. I presumed that you were representing the Christian God based on your comments supporting the current legislation in Mississippi & references you have made in your argument.
For all I know you believe that Allah is the one true God, that Muhammad is the one true prophet and that the Koran is the one true word of God. After all, if you disbelieve these three statements then, by definition, you yourself are an atheist (definition: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or Gods).
In a country that is arguably 80% religious (and a world that has religion in one form or another almost everywhere) I have no idea how you can say “you, like all humans, have an intense bias against rationally considering any evidence for God’s existence”? I can only guess that you discount a majority of Gods/religious believers because they don't follow 'your' God – the God you have yet to define, give evidence for or demonstrate exists.
How exactly did you come to the conclusion that I/humans have a bias against rationally when considering any actual evidence for God's existence? There are many things that I would be more than willing to accept as evidence for God's existence. More importantly, surely an all powerful, all knowing, all present, deity that desires to have a relationship with me knows what would change my mind in a way I could NOT deny. If God has these attributes and wishes to have a relationship with his creation then why am I still unconvinced of Gods existence? Why am I still an unbeliever? Does it make me more powerful than God that I can deny God’s existence and desire to have a relationship with me even after this God has supplied me with evidence that I should NOT have been able to deny? Is this ‘God’ intentionally hiding? Or maybe, this ‘God’ just does not exist!
I have heard the claim that atheists can't rationally consider any evidence for God from ‘believers’ may times and I am always left asking the question... “What would you be willing to accept for God’s NON-existence? What would make your God falsifiable? What would change your mind?” You have no evidence for your God hypothesis, only an argument... so, based on your having no evidence, why would you continue to believe the God hypothesis?
I don’t know what you are even talking about when you say “We don’t want to be held accountable to anyone but ourselves”. What we want in regards to our accountability is irrelevant to what actually happens regarding our accountability. We are always accountable to other people – to our friends, our families, our society, to the rule of law, to history, and yes… to ourselves. I don’t know what kind of world you live in, but I (and the people I share this society and world with) have been, are, and will continue to be accountable to one another. To say otherwise is just a denial of the one and only world that we actually have evidence for and live on.
I found your ‘evidence’ for God rather simplistic. Your entire argument comes down to “If there is no God, where did everything come from? Without God, there is no explanation.”
You have an interesting argument. Unfortunately, that’s all it is -- an argument. Arguments aren’t proof and arguments aren’t a demonstration that your God hypothesis is true or even possible.
There is one absolute true answer to this question for you, for me, for everybody. The simple answer is: we don’t know.
Yes, at times this answer is unsatisfying and we may never know exactly how the universe was formed or what, if anything, came before it, although science does have a few ideas to explore. It’s human nature to be uncomfortable with the unknown and we will never be comfortable with “we don’t know”. However, not knowing the answer does not give us free range to make something up.
Your 1st & 2nd options for the existence of the universe are basically just one option -- due to the fact that we have no demonstration of non-existence [that a non-material universe is possible] (2) the universe is eternal in one form or another which would allow it to (1) create and/or re-create itself; meaning it has the power of being in and of itself.
Science only test models that describe our natural universe from a very early state to the present. To say science has dismissed ‘any’ testable/demonstrable idea of what happened prior to our current available viewable window of time & space is just not true. Science only has demonstrated that current time and space have a beginning, prior to the beginning of time and space science has nothing to say because of its current inability to test those hypotheses.
Other than presupposition belief in your God, how did you determine the 3rd option was the best option available? After all, since your are giving an argument without any evidence for or demonstration of your position; and, your solving a mystery with a greater mystery we can solve for “the mystery” with anything.
4. The universe, or multiple universes, could have existed forever in one form or another without the need for a prime mover. After all, if a believer can accept the idea that something could exist without being created – as theists claim for their God(s) – why could this same logic not apply to the universe itself?
When Christian apologists make the claim that “evidence for God is simple” the first question that comes to mind is, “Other than just having an argument (based solely on a presupposition), why hasn’t this ‘simple evidence’ garnered a Nobel Prize in Cosmology?”
Why?
Because all your argument does is make things up based on your presupposition – That a supernatural, all powerful, all knowing sky-daddy, living infinitely, outside of time and space (but has and possibly still tampers in time and space), who created everything for me, and loves me and wants to have a relationship with me; and, when I die will take me to a special place where I can live forever with kittens and cotton candy, can be the only explanation for the universe. This is unprovable, nonsensical, and childish. Wait, wait, wait… I know, I know… Its a conspiracy against religion, right?
[You could also simplistically argue the “complex systems and organisms cannot exist without a creator; so, therefore, God” But, this falls prey to the Special Pleading Fallacy (as does your entire argument). “If we/the universe are a complex system and organism then the God who created it must be even more complex.” “Than what created God?” If you say, “No, God does not have a creator”, then the Special Pleading Fallacy. Basically, there is nothing new about your argument. It has been discredited for centuries.]
You go into a diatribe regarding the rules for our morality setting up potential constructs as to what could be used to determine these rules. Personally I think the constitution for the US (and Democracy worldwide) does a pretty good job of keeping religion out of government and allowing individuals to live free from religious discrimination. The laws established by Mississippi will undoubtedly will go before the Supreme Court and like I said in my Facebook Comment:
“There is no God and it's society [and future generations] that will hold you accountable for your moral behavior. You will be counted among the individuals equally to those who opposed interracial marriage. You will be on the wrong side of history as every religion has always been.”
In addition, Human Well Being is the standard for our morals (with empathy being our best learning tool). And, as we have seen in most Western European Countries (the least religious nations on the earth) by any measurable social standard far exceed more religious countries regarding the beneficial treatment of minorities, women, the elderly, children, homosexuals, individuals facing addiction, the incarcerated, etc.
If God is good and having God in your life is a good thing then why, in places where there is majority of belief in God, are things so shitty? And in places where there is less God things are demonstrably better? For example the Bible belt – higher rates of infant mortality, higher crime rates, higher rates of teen pregnancy, lower education levels [arguably why belief in God is so widespread in these areas], etc.
We know for a fact that regardless of one's belief or non-belief there are good people and bad people (I mean even top christian apologists like William Lane Craig will point this out); and, although I think the – what I like to call – “Tit For Tat Argument” is never a smart way to go, undoubtedly every religious zealot brings it up. Look at all the “atheist regimes” and “all the bad things they have done.” It demonstrates a complete ignorance of what Naziism, Communism, Fascism, and Imperialism (as practiced by Japan where a majority of the population believed that the emperor was an actual living God/demigod) really are.
But, since this is where you decided to go with the conversation. Just for fun, let’s take Hitler. Born a christian. Never renounced his Christianity. Had “God Is With Us” inscribed on the belt buckle of every member of the German Army. First Treaty signed with the Vatican [a christian organization]. Insisted that members of the SS (the military unit responsible for running the Concentration Camps) prove pure German Lineage and that they were Christians {willing to concede this one as it is still under debate}. Hitler's birthday celebrated in Churches across the Reich. The holy crèche displayed in the center of Berlin – resplendent with Mary, Joseph, and the Baby Jesus, all nicely under the tree with the Nazi Swastika displayed proudly on top. Hitler Quoted with the following:
“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian, I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.” --- Adolf Hitler
So exactly who gets Hitler? Seems christian to me! Or are we now going to get the “No True Scotsman Fallacy”? [Said in a loud blustering voice by the Christian apologetic... “Of course, Hitler wasn’t a TRUE Christian!”]
When zealots bring this “Tit For Tat Argument” up, I ask them to supply one reliable piece of documentation where the leaders of these oppressive/immoral regimes claim that the sole/primary purpose they were doing what they did was because of their atheism. The only thing atheism tells you about a person is that they have not been given sufficient evidence to believe your claim that a God exists. Nothing more. When a dictator is attempting total control of a people, of course they try and stamp out anything that could give them competition or organize against them. So, yes, you can have people who are bad that just happen to be Atheists. Just as you can have people who “absolutely know” a God exists that do bad things.
Lets look at the opposite viewpoint. Can we find documentation where the disgusting/immoral actions of an individual or group were directly attributed to the Bible, or religious interpretation, or even direct command from God himself? I wonder? Can you think of any? All I need to do is point to Leviticus and I think we can find one or two direct examples of immorality from God himself. And this is the problem, you, the believer, face. If I, an average man, can be more moral than God… then what use is God? Other than to have a fantasy that makes you feel more important than you really are.
As an adult, you should know better than to use this type of argument. You don't get to just sit back and claim only the good religion has done. If your going to accept the good you have to accept the bad as well. A serious individual would know this.
And your final sentence “Set me straight. Maybe I'm missing some amazing things that have been done for the world in the name of atheism” demonstrates a complete ignorance of atheism itself. The atheist's only position is only this… Those claiming to know there is a ‘God’ have yet to supply any evidence for this claim or demonstrate that their claim is worth believing!
Atheism is not a group. It’s not an organization. It has no dogma or by-laws. It's just an individual who is waiting for someone to give reasonable evidence or a reasonable demonstration of the God hypothesis.
Although... there are some amazing people who just happen to be atheists. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg come to mind. Are you by any chance using a product they may have been involved with? They are/were also amazing philanthropists. A majority of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are atheist's, they seem to be doing quite a bit to help mankind and advance our understanding of the universe (an understanding based on facts, rather than the nonsensical fairy tail belief in a magical sky-daddy that will give you kittens and cotton candy after you die). Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF) is a religiously UN-Affiliated (non-proselytizing) organization that seems to do much good in the world.
Without actual evidence for a claim, what other decisions would you be willing to take based just on an argument? Financial Decisions, Medical Decisions, Relationship Decisions? And do you think that would be a good idea? Without actual evidence to back up your argument, skepticism and disbelief are the only reasonable conclusion an individual should have when faced with a mystery that is only solved with a greater mystery.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
The Position - "How would you propose the new rules for living be constructed? Majority vote? By what majority? Is it okay if 51% of a society want to impose their views on 49%? Or would you like to see a higher margin of error? Who gets to make the rules now that we've rejected the old fashioned rules of an old fashioned god?"
Here he is implying that societies rules come from religion. They don't. If they did we would still have slavery and all that other non-sense the bible endorses (which I probably don't need to go into here). Since everyone (even the believers!) are already "making it up as we go", it is hardly a criticism of atheism.
Worse still; even if we all believed god was real, we will still have this problem since the next question is what does god want, and even the believers can't agree on that, so we are right back where we started.
Nyarlathotep: thank you for the constructive comments. Very helpful! I think I missed his implication on that point. Really appreciate your help!
The argument that a finite universe must have been created by an eternal source is an old one. Lawrence Krauss is debating this matter recently after releasing his book "A Universe from Nothing". The multi-verse is a hypothesis physicists have been driven to by the mathematics of quantum mechanics. Brain Greene explained in his book "The Fabric of the Cosmos" how twenty pounds of matter undergoing superinflation can become all the matter in the universe today. Your response to that claim was excellent.
Thank you 'chimp3', I appreciate that!
The Position - "all I have to do is look at 100 million people slaughtered by atheists regimes in the last 100 years and laugh at the arrogance of such boasting"
While this idea has been repeated so many times it seems almost a truism, I am skeptical. I would point out:
1. Hitler was not an atheist.
2. Stalin was not an atheist.
3. Pol Pot was not an atheist.
4. People dying from food shortages---while extremely tragic---does not seem consistent with his usage of the word 'slaughter'.
5. Non 'atheist nations' such as the US have racked up a staggering death toll themselves during the same time period.
I suspect quite a bit of cherry picking is behind that 100 million number.
Hitler was not an atheist and The US cannot be defined as a "non-atheist nation."
First, let me say "Thank you for all your feedback. Some really good stuff that I did not originally consider."
Second, I got a (#4) REPLY to my Rebuttal. Here it is. Take a moment to notice that he did NOT answer a single question that I proposed to him.
I am working on a response. Feel free to let me know if there is anything important I should not miss.
(#4) REPLY::
You're bringing up a lot of tangential issues and it's really difficult to deal with all of them in a post format with the inherent back and forths. I'd like to just focus this response to the issues you raised in response to my evidence for God's existence.
You didn't really provide a response to my main point which was, "Why is there anything instead of nothing?". Reality demands a cause. You didn't furnish an alternative or really offer an effective critique of this premise.
Let me put it another way to maybe sharpen the focus of what I'm proposing:
1. That which has a beginning must have a cause outside of itself.
2. The universe had a beginning
3. Therefore, something outside the universe has to be responsible for causing the universe.
Can you at least consider these three points for a couple minutes and let me know if you agree this premise is a logical, rational claim or if you find it absurd and illogical?
If we can agree on this basic premise, we can advance the dialogue. If we can't agree on this statement, then there's no further need to have a back and forth discussion because you're only alternative for explaining the existence of the universe is irrational. And, that's basically a position no one will ever be able to comprehend or understand.
If we can agree on this, then we can have a rational discussion about what outside of the universe could have been it's cause.
The person you are debating with is ignoring fact and interjecting pure fantasy. The 3 premises are invalid as they don't actually cover every option. They are just the options that he/she allows, therefore turning the argument in their favor forcing YOU to adhere to the rules that they set.
Stephen Hawking proves in his book 'The Grand Design' that something can come from nothing. It is a mathematical and physical fact.
Also he/she is jumping to a conclusion without evidence. To say that the universe can't create itself, therefore a god must have created it is a nonstarter. You have to first prove that there is a god and that that god created the universe. The onus is to prove a god, which they (he/she) did not do.
The rest of the debate is moot and just a mad rambling.
Response 4 - "Reality demands a cause"
Does it? That sounds like an opinion at best. I see no reason to assume that as a postulate, and I'm quite sure that is all it is. Furthermore---depending on what someone considers a cause---I can think of exceptions to this hand-waving postulate. The devil is always in the details, and the details of this postulate are vague at best.
----------------------
Response 4 - "That which has a beginning must have a cause outside of itself"
Another postulate I see no reason to assume.
----------------------
mykckob4 - "They are just the options that he/she allows, therefore turning the argument in their favor forcing YOU to adhere to the rules that they set"
This is exactly what I outlined above. These postulates have been specifically crafted as a trap. I often joking say the only thing I learned in all those philosophy classes is to hide the weakness of an argument in the postulates, which is exactly what is happening here.
Hmm. quite a lot of topics where touched, this will take some effort.
"As I am new to debate what I am looking for is a review/critique of (#3) My Rebuttal."
It is good to see people that appreciate critique.
I will try to answer your questions in short as much as possible while keeping in mind that whatever I skip, it means that I either missed it or I think you did it well.
Also I will just mention the things without offering solutions for the sake of length, so you should ask later which point you wish to expand on.
(#1) The Original Comment
"There is no god and it's society that will hold you accountable for your moral behavior. You will be counted among the individuals equally to those who opposed interracial marriage."
Here there is a slight misstep since before you were just rejecting a claim but here you are making one.
Before the burden of proof was only on them but now it is also on you.
"You will be on the wrong side of history as every religion has always been."
Another claim which could be considered a generalization fallacy since no one knows all the religions that ever existed.
One should avoid making claims when debating, it only tempts the other person to change the subject instead of supporting the claim they are debating on.
(#2) The Position
"spent out entire lives rebelling against."
One could point out that you do not rebel against god but you simply do not believe that the god he is proposing is real because he failed to explain a believable god to you.
"So option 3 is our best rational explanation"
1 and 2 can happen if you consider the cycle hypothesis alone.
The 1,2,3 mentioned are a very naive take on what could have happened.
There are much more possibilities then just those 3 and it is important to point it out.
"Why does option 3 lead to the idea of a personal intelligence?"
It doesn't, but his excuses are pathetic to say the least lol.
"that something had to create intentionally and therefore it must be intelligent and personal."
This is Affirming the Consequent Fallacy.
(The error it makes is in assuming that if the consequent is true, then the antecedent must also be true, which in reality need not be the case.)
Here its important to point out that the extinction of 99% of all species on earth alone does not seem intentional, nor intelligent but wasteful and incompetent.
Even if we accept the intentional and therefor incompetent, how does the personal sneak in?
How do you know that this intentional comes from 1 guy instead of 1 thing or many things?(the matrix)
"majority voting"
One could ask him who claimed that"majority voting" has anything to do with morality?(maybe mixed up with democracy?)
"You see the problem is, when we reject God as the reference point for our norms, we have nothing but ourselves to rely on."
That is a blessing :P, since you do things because you understand morality and not because you blindly follow the commandments of someone.
"mankind will never be able to construct a perfect world without God."
One could point out that according to his religion, god failed every time in creating a perfect world even after flooding it.
It is about time we fire him and try something new :P
(#3) My Rebuttal
"Your entire argument comes down to “If there is no God, where did everything come from? Without God, there is no explanation.”
Not exactly
His argument is that the conditions he is assuming as facts point in the general idea of a creator.
He is not just saying we must have an explanation for this probem but that the most reasonable explanation after aplying his assumptios is what he is proposing.
A False Dilemma Fallacy
Point out that his assumptions are flawed(they are on every level) and his argument falls instantly.
"You have an interesting argument."
No he doesn't, it is pathetic and intelligence insulting to think that a False Dilemma Fallacy could even pass as a decent argument.
"A false dilemma is an argument that presents a set of two possible categories and assumes that everything in the scope of that which is being discussed must be an element of that set. If one of those categories is rejected, then one has to accept the other."
https://bookofbadarguments.com/
"If God is good and having God in your life is a good thing then why, in places where there is majority of belief in God, are things so shitty?"
This is an easy question, since according to the theistic religion, we are all sinners and the religion is for sinners.
It ties well with the concept; the more you suffer in this world, the more you will be rewarded in the next life.
72 virgins baby!! :P
Religion does bring misery but the truth is that it spreads faster where there is misery already, because of it's false hope message.
So your question seems not valid/strong enough to contradict the point about "If God is good".
It is hard to show that there is a relation with amount of shit in an area and its religious concentration.
When debating religious people one should try to stick to things which are obvious, rather then things which could be debatable.
That took some time.
As you can see I skipped a lot of points which means you replied well to them in my opinion.
I need to point out that you made a very mature and thoughtful reply.
I mostly agreed with what you said and the way you put it.
Well done.
Since I missed this post in my reply I am going to reply here to it:
"Second, I got a (#4) REPLY to my Rebuttal. Here it is. Take a moment to notice that he did NOT answer a single question that I proposed to him."
Whoever knows that his argument is weak/wrong never does, it is the main indication that the person is unreasonable, and is not interested in what you are saying but has some other objective.
Most people do not realize that this behavior exposes their intent and it is not something only theists do, I have debated atheists that do the same exact thing on other subjects.
They let their bias cloud their judgement even on trying to critique their own claims.
When in fact they should thank anybody that tries to do critique their own claims for them.
"You didn't really provide a response"
Yea, as I pointed out, you did not really address the False Dilemma Fallacy.
So he is right in that regard.
"Why is there anything instead of nothing?"
He is assuming creation = nothing before.
Another flawed assumption.
"Empty space" is not nothing and we do not really know if before the big bang there was even "Empty space" instead of something else.
"If we can agree on this basic premise, we can advance the dialogue."
Yea seems obvious that he wants you to agree to an illogical conclusion so he could show the illogical implications, a god.
This happens when one starts from the conclusion to build an argument.
"If we can't agree on this statement, then there's no further need to have a back and forth discussion because you're only alternative for explaining the existence of the universe is irrational."
So if you prove that his assumptions are wrong then your explanation is irrational according to him.
It seems you found his objective.
He wants people to agree with this premise and is not really interested if his premise is logical or not.
In fact he is ready to end the discussion if you disagree and show why because a False Dilemma Fallacy is all he has and he is in denial.
By definition, "logical debate" and "theist" are incompatible concepts. Even the pretense of having a logical debate with them, is a form of giving their views credence, and a platform, and validity. Theistic arguments don't qualify for that, really.
Jeff Vella Leone -- thank you VERY much for your analysis of my work. It was exactly what I was looking for and I really appreciate you finding the flaws in my logic. Thanks!
Yes, I was a little snippy that he did not answer any of my questions. Let me know what I got wrong...
(#5) COUNTER REPLY
I took the time to address each and every single subject you brought up; and, I did so in great detail, especially when you asked specific questions or made specific statements.
And what did I receive in return? Nothing! You failed to answer a single question I posed to you.
I went through your position - paragraph by paragraph, subject by subject, and in some instances, literally, directly quoting you sentence by sentence - and you feel I have been “bringing up a lot of tangential issues”. I addressed every single issue you proposed and elaborated on all of them.
I can only surmise that you had no choice but to concede every rebuttal that I presented and have now moved on to “okay, my first attempt was completely impotent and an utter failure, let's try something else”.
I love this about religious apologists - they can't run fast enough, they can't run far enough from the ‘god’ they believe in.
And, yes… you still have NOT defined your ‘god’ so I will work under the premise that you believe Allah is the one true God, that Muhammad is the one true prophet and that the Koran is the one true word of God.
I’ll try, once again, addressing your issues by quoting you directly. I hope this will not be too ‘tangential’ for you.
1.) "Why is there anything instead of nothing?" This is an absolutely irrelevant question as we have no demonstration that ‘nothing’ is even a possibility. The only people who need an answer to this question are religious apologists. Because without the answer, ‘god’, you don't get to live forever with kittens and cotton candy, and see your nana when you die.
2.) “Reality demands a cause.” (1). Does it? At best this is nothing more than your opinion. (2) Is your ‘god’ real? If your ‘god’ is real (and has ever acted within/upon reality) then your ‘god’ must have a cause, your ‘god’ must have a creator. If you suddenly don't apply this logic equally you are just ‘Special Pleading’ your position.
3.) “You didn't furnish an alternative or really offer an effective critique of this premise.” (1) It's not my responsibility to furnish an alternative; but, the critique of your premise was handled in three simple words… “we don't know” (because we don’t know does not give us the right to make stuff up); and, I expounded on this as well. (2) Regardless, I did offer an effective alternative by demonstrating that your first two premises were actually one premise: “due to the fact that we have no demonstration of non-existence [that a non-material universe is even possible] the universe is eternal in one form or another which would allow it to create and/or re-create itself; meaning it has the power of being in and of itself”. (3) For you say “You didn't furnish an alternative or really offer an effective critique of this premise" makes me wonder if you took the time to even read my response.
If your ‘god’ does not require a creator, why must everything else? If you can accept the idea that something could exist without being created, why could this same logic not apply to the universe itself?
Let's take a look at your attempt to “sharpen the focus of what (you) are proposing”:
“1. That which has a beginning must have a cause outside of itself.” Other than your opinion, how did you determine that your ‘god’ did not have a beginning? If everything has a cause or a creator, then who created God? Falls prey to Infinite Causality (as-well-as Special Pleading if you then say, “Well, ‘god’ [something we have no demonstration of] is the one thing that did not have a cause/beginning”).
“2. The universe had a beginning.” Time and Space had a beginning. Prior to that.... we don’t know! This does not give you license to make things up.
“3. Therefore, something outside the universe has to be responsible for causing the universe.” We have no evidence or demonstration that ‘outside the universe’ is in any way, shape, or form a possibility.
All three of your attempts to “sharpen the focus” fall prey to “infinite causality”, “special pleading” and “no evidence or demonstration of possibility”.
Once again, I have to ask… If your ‘god’ does not require a creator, why must everything else? If you can accept the idea that something could exist without being created, why could this same logic not apply to the universe itself?
You can NOT solve a mystery by using a bigger mystery as the answer!!
“If we can't agree on this statement, then there's no further need to have a back and forth discussion because you're only alternative for explaining the existence of the universe is irrational. And, that's basically a position no one will ever be able to comprehend or understand.” This one really amazed me. I know children that can understand the position, “We don’t know, and we can’t just make up foolish stories to make ourselves feel better. That would be dishonest!”.
“If we can agree on this, then we can have a rational discussion about what outside of the universe could have been its cause”. This is the “begging the question” fallacy, a logical fallacy in which one assumes the statement under examination to be true. In other words, begging the question involves using a premise to support itself.
Your entire position is one logical fallacy, followed by another logical fallacy, by another logical fallacy (ad nauseam) and still lacks any evidence or demonstration of possibility.
Having a one sided conversation (where you only make unsubstantiated claims [giving no proof or demonstration of your claims] and only ask questions without responding to ANY of the questions that have been asked of you) demonstrates to me an individual who lacks any intellectual honesty and was never really interested in having an actual discussion.
But, feel free to reply… I really am beginning to enjoy pointing out your “irrational” beliefs.
I see nothing wrong with your reply, since he ignored most of what you said.
Basically unless he decides to defend one aspect instead of making new claims, there is no discussion.
Jeff Vella Leone et al.... This is the response I got. Is he being vague or did I miss something?! Did my argument fly in the face of one of the logical absolutes?
(#6) RESPONSE TO COUNTER REPLY
You fail logic 101. You're entire argument is based on a complete denial of the law of non-contradiction and the law of causality, which is simply an extension of the law of non-contradiction. And you do this because of your feelings. Look it up. Learn. And then let's talk.
Ask him to explain where did you fail such laws.
He cannot accuse you of something without specifying and quoting where you did it, without appearing evasive.
"And you do this because of your feelings."
Ask him:
What feelings could you(mac19406) have, to make him not answer your questions?
"Having a one sided conversation" is basically what you have here.
You could even leave it, at that, anybody reading the topic can see that a post which addresses everything cannot be replied with just 3 lines of text.
Everybody knows he lost the debate, even he himself, that is why he is running in a definition he himself does not know the meaning.
It happens a lot.
When a person knows he lost the debate, he starts to skip all the questions and just accuses me of something to change subject.
One only has to convince the intelligent, the rest are compelled to follow. I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince everyone. The majority is usually the best that can be achieved.