15 May 14
Originally posted by FabianFnasI will say it again slowly......
Perhaps you have an answer to the question: "What is the cause of god?"
Because if you don't then also your religion is based upon paradoxes and has no values.
The qualification to be God among many other qualifications is that God must not have a cause thus being causeless.
Because God has no cause and is causeless he qualifies to be God.
There is no other ""thing" that is causeless other than God.
If you search and find God and he has a cause, then he is a counterfeit God and you can begin your search again.
The qualification for God to be God is causlessness.
So you cannot ask the true god what caused him..............because it would mean you are simply being argumentative and insincere..
15 May 14
Originally posted by DasaI would rather that my God have a cause. A god without a cause is no god to me.
I will say it again slowly......
The qualification to be God among many other qualifications is that God must not have a cause thus being causeless.
Because God has no cause and is causeless he qualifies to be God.
There is no other ""thing" that is causeless other than God.
If you search and find God and he has a cause, then he is a counterfeit God ...[text shortened]... caused him..............because it would mean you are simply being argumentative and insincere..
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat faulty logic?! There is nothing wrong with the logic
You mean you did not use that faulty logic on purpose?
You can disagree with the two premises but that does not mean that the logic is faulty. The conclusion does follow from the premises so if the premises are true then the conclusion will also be true. If they are false then the conclusion does not follow and might be false.
I don't believe your issue is with the logic. I think it is with one of the premises. I am guessing it is with the first one but you need to say that and then explain why you think the premise is false.
--- Penguin.
15 May 14
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com
log·ic [loj-ik]
noun
1.
the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2.
a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3.
the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4.
reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.
5.
convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.
You guys think YOU know what logic is, but you sure don't know how to use it! You followed a form of logic in the opening post, but it demonstrates faulty reasoning, therefore it is void of meaning and not logical at all. imo
Originally posted by wolfgang59Only if your meaning for cause is purpose. But we both know that was not your meaning. I already demonstrated it by restating it correctly like this:
The LOGIC is not faulty - if you think it is then demonstrate it.
First, it should be that everything that came to exist has a cause.
Second, God did not come to exist, but always existed.
Third, therefore God was uncaused.
16 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsYou can't even get that right!
Only if your meaning for cause is purpose. But we both know that was not your meaning. I already demonstrated it by restating it correctly like this:
First, it should be that everything that came to exist has a cause.
Second, God did not come to exist, but always existed.
Third, therefore God was uncaused.
Spot the LOGICAL flaw in your argument?
16 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsRight, so your problem, as we have been saying, not with the logic but with the truth of the two premises (or rather the first premise).
Only if your meaning for cause is purpose. But we both know that was not your meaning. I already demonstrated it by restating it correctly like this:
First, it should be that everything that came to exist has a cause.
Second, God did not come to exist, but always existed.
Third, therefore God was uncaused.
You assert that it is not true that 'everything that exists has a cause'. I agree with that since there are at least two things that we are not aware of causes for: the appearance of particles in a vacuum, the universe, and possibly God (if he exists).
You agree with premise two: 'God exists' but if premise one is false then premise two is irrelevant.
Your re-phrasing of the argument unfortunately has a flaw.
Your premise 1 is fine:
Everything that comes to exist has a cause although I don't think it is actually true. See 'quantum fluctuations'.
Your premise 2 is also fine:
God did not come to exist, but always existed although again I don't think it is actually true.
Unfortunately your conclusion:
therefore God was uncaused
does not logically follow from your two premises. You cannot say for certain that God was uncaused purely based on (1) and (2) since (1) does not say anything about whether things which did not 'come to exist' have a cause.
There is nothing logically wrong with the OP but there is with your version.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by josephwThe use of the word in this thread is definition 1.
1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
You guys think YOU know what logic is, but you sure don't know how to use it! You followed a form of logic in the opening post, but it demonstrates faulty reasoning, therefore it is void of meaning and not logical at all. imo
The OP, does contain correct and reliable inference.
inference
noun
a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.
You may however dispute the evidence. If so, please take the time to do so, instead of incorrectly attaching the logic.
16 May 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadLooks like they have given up (of course they would not actually admit they made a mistake and attacked the wrong aspect of the argument, they just stop posting and hope we don't notice)
The use of the word in this thread is definition 1.
The OP, does contain correct and reliable inference.
inference
noun
a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.
You may however dispute the evidence. If so, please take the time to do so, instead of incorrectly attaching the logic.
I find it odd that even though the premises have obvious flaws that can be argued, they never explicitly do so, always claiming that the logic is at fault. Even when they finally give valid arguments against the premises, they still claim that the problem is a logical one.
Most peculiar.
--- Penguin.