Hrmm.... perhaps a 'logical fallacy' drinking game. Perhaps not, come to think of it, my liver is not up to that. Ah well, onwards and upwards!
Michael wrote: .........But hang on, time is going forwards, and so we must pass all the previous 't's before this one. So before we can hit up time 't', we must hit up time 't' -1. And before that 't' -2. Start counting folks, cause for every number you can think of, I can think of one higher. And the wisdom of old mate Aristotle begins to make sense. If the universe stretches back into infinity, then the passage of time could not have traversed all those 't's before this current 't', and we wouldn't be having this conversation now, now would we? So, the universe began, at some point.
But hang on, time is going forwards, and so we must pass all the previous 't's before this one. So before we can hit up time 't', we must hit up time 't' -1. And before that 't' -2. Start counting folks, cause for every number you can think of, I can think of one higher.
And the wisdom of old mate Aristotle begins to make sense. If the universe stretches back into infinity, then the passage of time could not have traversed all those 't's before this current 't', and we wouldn't be having this conversation now, now would we?
So, the universe began, at some point.
Strictly speaking this is an argument for time having a beginning, not the universe having a beginning. If the author is going to admit timelessness then the universe could have existed in a timeless state before time began. Space could exist in a timeless state. Energy could exist in a timeless state. (To say that time has a beginning and the universe has time therefore the universe has a beginning is the fallacy of composition.)
On that, most scientists agree,
No, this is basically a straw man. It is an out of date view that some theists latched on to when the big bang idea was new. If one asks cosmologists they will say that any talk about before the big bang is hypothetical at this time.
Now then, we have two possibilities. A conscious cause, existing outside of time and space, which I shall refer to as a 'mind', and an unconscious cause, existing outside of time and space, which I shall refer to as a 'mechanism'. Ten points for guessing what that is.... Bingo, another dichotomy!
A conscious mind outside of time? What a leap. The only minds that have ever been shown to exist have been in living physical bodies on Earth in the later part of Earth's history. Positing a mind outside of a body much less outside of time is some mighty special pleading.The use of the term 'mechanism' without further elaboration is question begging. Could the laws of nature be 'mechanism' or part of 'mechanism'? Are Newtonian mechanics 'mechanism'?Other possibilities have been neglected. It could be that multiple causes are required. It could be that a committee of minds caused the universe. It could be that conscious and unconscious causes are required to act together. It could be that a series of three causes in sequence are necessary. So what has been raised is not a dichotomy but a false dichotomy.
So, conscious or unconscious, mind or mechanism, that is the question. At this point, we have to play a game of probability, or perhaps try applying our understanding of logic to something outside our universe. Well, I don't know any other system, so let's forge ahead regardless.
So the author is applying a type of logic where he doesn't have reason that it would apply. His forging ahead may be properly disregarded.
Let's look at the options now: Behind door number one, we have a universe creating machine. For every time you press the big red button on top,
So now 'mechanism' has a red button. The author's use of the term 'mechanism' was and is a straw man and question begging.
So, just for kicks and giggles, let's say the two decide to have a competition to create a universe. It doesn't matter how many they make, or how long they spend (because time, outside of time? Forgeddaboutit!)
Fuhgeddaboudit is right. This is a looney tunes scenario. The author insists on certain rules and then demands they be selectively ignored.
With baited anticipation, they turn their attention to the mechanism, waiting to behold the wonders of this number crunching behemoth, and they find.... that button, still waiting to be pressed.
In case you missed the moral of this little fable, let me break it down for you, street style. A machine is incapable of self initiating a process, where as a mind isn't.
No, the moral of this fable is that when one uses special pleading, question begging, straw men, and false dichotomies one ends up with simply a fable.
Who says the unconscious cause has to have a button on it? If one can have a bodyless mind that wills outside of time one can have buttonless unconscious cause that is autonomous and outside of time.
But which God is it? Yahweh? Allah? Vishnu, or one of the Polynesian microgods? I've got thirteen hundred words left, so let's break it down as quick as we can.
Let's do away with all the pantheons and tribal gods straight away, with a quick flick of a razor by a little monk by the name of William of Ockham.
So let's, for simplicity sake, say we're left with the three big monotheistic religions,
For fallacy sake, more like it. For no rational reason the author has excluded alternatives.
Well, it was one actually, and no prizes for guessing who. Jesus said it firstly in the temple, and people began to pick up rocks to stone him for blasphemy. The second time was after his arrest, when he was speaking to the Sanhedrin. He said "I AM", they said "I see what you did there, kthnxbai, now you die" (I mentioned that to some Jehovah Witnesses, by the by, they agreed with what I said without realising the implications, they ran out the door about forty seconds later).
So the dude obviously thought he was,
This reminds me of the Woody Allen joke:A: My brother thinks he is a chicken.B: Why don't you take him to a psychiatrist?A: We need the eggs.
so let's do away with any 'just a great teacher' nonsense before it begins. But what if he was just a liar, or a lunatic?
False dichotomy. The author has left out 'legend' among other possibilities.
Well, if we tally the number of manuscripts found, and then factor in the year difference between when the manuscripts were dated, and when the originals would have been written, we have a fairly high standard of verification here.
We have acurate manuscripts of Shakespeare's plays. Does that mean Romeo and Juliet were real?
So if Mr Sparkling wishes to have readers of this debate entertain the notion that the case for the Christian God is simply not there, then he will have to do any number of the following:
Firstly, he must undermine the case for theism in general. If he can do this, then he can relegate the problem of the historical resurrection to future sciences, by claiming no reason to accept the supernatural as an explanation in a purely naturalistic universe.
Because the case for theism is based on a dichotomy, he will need to demonstrate not only why the case for a conscious mind as a creator fails, but then demonstrate why it is more likely that an unconscious mechanism, unassisted or activated, self initiated the process that begun the universe and time and space as we know it.
Done. The case made for theism fails from multiple faults.
Sparkling might protest that he simply needs to show why my argument fails, but because my argument is based upon the reasoning that an unconscious mechanism is incapable of self initiating (essentially a claim towards a negative), in order to show how my argument fails, then he must show how that claim towards a negative is illogical, by building a positive case.
Or he could demand actual reasoning rather than just an assertion that an unconscious mechanism is incapable of self initiating.
On the occasion that Sparkling fails to undermine the causational argument, and therefore concedes theism as a probably explanation for life as we know it, he will then need to demonstrate that my argument for Christianity, based on a process of elimination of the other monotheistic religions, fails.
The "process of elimination" was nothing but a hand wave.
saibomb wrote: Archsage you would be a really great event organizer or a manager of some company or something. You ooz responsibility.
[Originally posted by Sparkling]...
Michael wrote: "When nothing happens, nothing happens".It's simple, it's self proving, it's a tautology, it's yours now for twenty nine ninety five if you call in the next ten minutes.Simply put, if there's been no action, there's been no cause. And, if we spin that on its head, if there's no cause, there's no action. Thus, we can say that if something changes, begins, or ends, there's been a cause for that change because, if nothing happens, nothing happens.
It's simple, it's self proving, it's a tautology, it's yours now for twenty nine ninety five if you call in the next ten minutes.
Simply put, if there's been no action, there's been no cause. And, if we spin that on its head, if there's no cause, there's no action. Thus, we can say that if something changes, begins, or ends, there's been a cause for that change because, if nothing happens, nothing happens.
If there's been no action, there's been no cause really isn't an accurate rephrasing of the original tautology and is equivocating on the word "cause". In the restatement, by "cause" it is really meant "effect". When nothing happens, nothing happens means that when nothing happens, no effect happens. Also, an action isn't the only type of thing that can happen, so we may change "action" to "event". Now the proper restatement is, "if there's been no event, then there's been no effect".
Now when you "spin that on its head", what you did was take the converse, when what you should have taken is the contrapositive. The truth of the original proposition only guarantees the truth of its contrapositive, not its converse. So taking the contrapositive of the new proposition we get:
"If there's been an effect, then there's been an event."
And that is just obviously trivially true. Because the effect is itself an event. What this shows is that you can't get anything out of a tautology that you didn't put in yourself. And even if you had just taken the contrapositive of the original formulation you had, you get:
"If there's been a cause, then there's been an action."
Again trivially true. And so I don't think you established the causal premise of your argument.
choux wrote: Also, If God is timeless and doesn't change then He cannot change and take on human flesh and enter time. Neither can he change again by leaving this spacetime world back into a timeless spaceless existence with a physical body.
Also, If God is timeless and doesn't change then He cannot change and take on human flesh and enter time. Neither can he change again by leaving this spacetime world back into a timeless spaceless existence with a physical body.
So your putting limitations on God?