If god then ...

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Hi, Penguin. question: Isn't "1. Everything that exists has a cause" an argument from Ancient Saudi Arabia or Islam?

Dunno. I have no knowledge or even much interest in the source of the argument in the OP. I am just looking at it on its own merits, which I don't think stand up very well since neither premise has good solid evidence. Without solid premises, the conclusion is very shaky indeed.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Are you familiar with logic?

Originally posted by josephw
Not yours' apparently. 😕

I do not own logic.
I gave two premises and a logical conclusion.
If you do not believe in the conclusion then show that;
premise 1 is false
or
premise 2 is false
or
the logic is faulty (which it isn't)

You see that is the beauty of logic - it is infallible - it works.
THAT IS WHY YOUY ARE HAVING TROUBLE WITH IT

Originally posted by josephw
...and then loop it around in your mind causing circular reasoning. Get past it!

Show circular reasoning (if you know what that is) in any of my posts.

I will take your lack of response as
"I cannot because I am a fool and do not know what I am talking about"

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Show circular reasoning (if you know what that is) in any of my posts.

I will take your lack of response as
"I cannot because I am a fool and do not know what I am talking about"

You haven't shown any reasoning.

Originally posted by Penguin
So essentially, as I suggested a while ago, you reject premise 1:
1. Everything that exists has a cause

and so the conclusion
3. Therefore God has a cause

is not logically valid in your view.

Is that correct (and if so, why didn't you just say so)?

--- Penguin

That's correct. The first premise is false.

I couldn't just say so. That would have spoiled all the fun I was having? 😉

Originally posted by josephw
That's correct. The first premise is false.

I couldn't just say so. That would have spoiled all the fun I was having? 😉

THANK YOU .... I'm exhausted.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I do not own logic.
I gave two premises and a logical conclusion.
If you do not believe in the conclusion then show that;
premise 1 is false
or
premise 2 is false
or
the logic is faulty (which it isn't)

You see that is the beauty of logic - it is infallible - it works.
THAT IS WHY YOUY ARE HAVING TROUBLE WITH IT

No trouble at all wolfy.

You see, you are boringly transparent. You generate a fallacious argument based on a model of so called "logic", and expect me to bite the hook. I gave you sound reasons to reject your own argument, but just like the proudly arrogant and closed minded individual you are, since you came here with preconceived notions of what is true, you fell for your own idea, which really isn't your own, but something you picked up along the way and cemented in your mind.

Therefore, your mind is not your own, since all you know came out of another's darkened mind, because they reject the light of men, who is Jesus Christ.

But like I told you before, what I know about God comes from God, because God is the cause of all creation.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Show circular reasoning (if you know what that is) in any of my posts.

I will take your lack of response as
"I cannot because I am a fool and do not know what I am talking about"

I do to know what I'm talking about. 🙂

Originally posted by josephw
That's correct. The first premise is false.

I couldn't just say so. That would have spoiled all the fun I was having? 😉

Hurrah, we are getting somewhere.

I agree with you: premise 1 is false (or cannot be asserted as true). There are things which we know exist but for which which we do not know of any cause:sub-atomic particles popping in and out of existence in a quantum vacuum, the universe.

I also maintain that premise 2 is false since we have no evidence at all for the existence of a deity at all, let alone one with specific attributes.

Therefore the conclusion cannot be asserted.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
Hurrah, we are getting somewhere.

I agree with you: premise 1 is false (or cannot be asserted as true). There are things which we know exist but for which which we do not know of any cause:sub-atomic particles popping in and out of existence in a quantum vacuum, the universe.

I also maintain that premise 2 is false since we have no evidence at all for ...[text shortened]... ne one with specific attributes.

Therefore the conclusion cannot be asserted.

--- Penguin.

As you say, except for your assertion that there is no evidence for the existence of God.

Just because you can not identify any evidence for the existence of God, not only doesn't mean there isn't any evidence, but it isn't evidence for the non existence of God either.

There's your paradox. Except it isn't a paradox! If there is evidence for the existence of a Creator God, that evidence is creation itself. It's the only truly logical expression and argument for God's existence. What exists, the existence of all that exists, leaves no other logical conclusion to the question;
"what is the cause of all that exists"?

The Creator, God.

All other answers are speculative, and without substance.

Originally posted by josephw
As you say, except for your assertion that there is no evidence for the existence of God.

Just because you can not identify any evidence for the existence of God, not only doesn't mean there isn't any evidence, but it isn't evidence for the non existence of God either.

There's your paradox. Except it isn't a paradox! If there is evidence for the existe ...[text shortened]... that exists"?

The Creator, God.

All other answers are speculative, and without substance.

Except that the universe as we find it is also perfectly consistent with how we would expect it to look if there were no God.

The only honest answer to the question "what is the cause of all that exists?" is "We don't yet know. We don't even know if it had a cause". All other answers, including "GodDunnit" are, as you say, purely speculative and without substance.

--- Penguin

Originally posted by josephw
No trouble at all wolfy.

You see, you are boringly transparent. .... I gave you sound reasons to reject your own argument, ..t
he proudly arrogant and closed minded individual you are,
since you came here with preconceived notions of what is true,
you fell for your own idea,
which really isn't your own,
but something you picked up along the way ...[text shortened]... told you before, what I know about God comes from God, because God is the cause of all creation.

I aim to be transparent.
The problem is the opacity of your own mitherings.

I set out the question as simply as possible so that even the most ignorant could understand it - and how many posts did it take you? 😞

And what is this "idea" that isn't my own? What "idea"

And don't keep using "because" to connect random statements - it makes
you look even more foolish than you are.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I aim to be transparent.
The problem is the opacity of your own mitherings.

I set out the question as simply as possible so that even the most ignorant could understand it - and how many posts did it take you? 😞

And what is this "idea" that isn't my own? What "idea"

And don't keep using "because" to connect random statements - it makes
you look even more foolish than you are.

You did know that your opening post was based in faulty logic didn't you?

Because, after insulting me, I hope you feel better about yourself. You know, because. 😵

Originally posted by josephw
You did know that your opening post was based in faulty logic didn't you?

Because, after insulting me, I hope you feel better about yourself. You know, because. 😵

Where was the problem with the logic in the OP? You may disagree with one or more of the premises (I personally disagree with both and have explained why) but the logic itself was fine.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by josephw
You did know that your opening post was based in faulty logic didn't you?

Because, after insulting me, I hope you feel better about yourself. You know, because. 😵

OMG
After all that and you still don't understand!!!



You are just inviting insults!