Author Topic: DEBATE: Difficulty arguing with my opponent  (Read 472 times)


  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
DEBATE: Difficulty arguing with my opponent
« on: February 26, 2017, 12:36:14 AM »
So I've been debating on the cosmological arguments for the existence of God with an opponent/friend of mine.

We've recently hit a roadblock that neither of us can move away from. I have presented her with the typical 'Premise 1' of the cosmological argument (specifically, Leibniz's):

1. Whatever exists has an explanation for its existence, either through a cause or by its own necessity

Whilst debating 'Reality' (despite this entire debate actually being a debate on cosmology), my debate opponent does not accept my logical lines of argument or even citations are enough to accurately prove the nature of reality as we know it. She is claiming that she may or may not be hallucinating (be in a simulation or unknown other experience), therefore,  there is a chance that she is not experiencing reality in its true form. She postulates that reality outside of her consciousness is probably ultimately unknowable, and that therefore, Leibniz's first premise is unknowable since existence itself is unknowable.

Another example is me pointing out to her that an object in her room exists, to which she replied "But how do I know it does?" - it's from this debate tactic she employs that I find myself struggling to move on in the debate, befuddled by her logic.

Any others here experienced this or have advice on how we can both agree to the first premise of the cosmological argument?


  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: DEBATE: Difficulty arguing with my opponent
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2017, 12:41:17 PM »
If it is an illusion then where did the illusion come from? Thats where I would go with it. Dont let them use illusion as an out. For more on this see R.C. Sproul in Classical Apologetics. His cosmological argument is more layman than others so it fits me.

My first post.

Im Steve, by the way.


  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Re: DEBATE: Difficulty arguing with my opponent
« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2017, 09:59:10 PM »
welcome Steve. Indeed the question about the origin of the illusion is a valid point.
Considering that science if founded on the premise that everything is causal and that the ultimate cause and that the consequences of that cause are bound by rules / laws that must also have an ultimate cause.

If one denies causality one has no chance to have a rational interaction with reality and might as well get a tin foil head and believe to be a helicopter.