DEBATE: Difficulty arguing with my opponent

[DiogenesOfSinope]

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?

[igr]

You do realise that the Cosmological Arguments are incapable of proving anything?  In each Cosmological Argument there is pre-supposed at least one untested assumption, so any conclusion is necessarily conditional.  So whatever view of Reality you each posit can be expressed prior to the premise - you can run through the argument separately for each different view of Reality.

[lucious]

It's the abject and disingenuous skepticism I've drawn attention to in the past. Very typical tactic --they usually wind up in this abject skepticism and not even care, just doing anything to resist religion.

[Jabberwock]

Ask her to borrow you $100 for ten minutes. When she demands it back, tell her it is as real as the rest of the universe it is part of. If she denies reality of it, you get to keep $100 (although you might lose a friend, but she does not believe you are real anyway).

[bskeptic]

In the strict sense that's probably correct that you can't "know" such a premise.

But then, if you are just arguing for the *reasonableness* of theism, and not theism being 100% proved without any doubt, then I don't see a problem.

[kurros]

She's just going nuclear because she senses that there is something fishy about this premise but she can't pinpoint what. I agree with her on this, but she's taking the skepticism much further than she needs to or has any reason to.

[DiogenesOfSinope]

She's just going nuclear because she senses that there is something fishy about this premise but she can't pinpoint what. I agree with her on this, but she's taking the skepticism much further than she needs to or has any reason to.

She actually admitted to this. She admitted that due to the very nature of the debate topic, she has subscribed to some form of solipsism. That is to say, a subscription to a philosophy of thought that believes in only one's consciousness and not the objective world.

[lucious]

She's just going nuclear because she senses that there is something fishy about this premise but she can't pinpoint what. I agree with her on this, but she's taking the skepticism much further than she needs to or has any reason to.

She actually admitted to this. She admitted that due to the very nature of the debate topic, she has subscribed to some form of solipsism. That is to say, a subscription to a philosophy of thought that believes in only one's consciousness and not the objective world.

Take this as a sign of victory--she has essentially become so threatened by your argument that she's prepared to detonate a doomsday device and destroy reality before ceding.

[Sanoy]

She doesn't actually believe the world is an illusion she just doesn't want the argument to lead where it does. I don't think pressing the argument would be best thing to do right now.

Instead talk to here about who God is, give her your testimony. She is afraid, give reasons why she should be excited and hopeful instead. The argument has already done what it's supposed to do. The argument doesn't turn people into Christians, it just opens the door for you to tell them about God.

[Rostos]

She doesn't actually believe the world is an illusion she just doesn't want the argument to lead where it does. I don't think pressing the argument would be best thing to do right now.

Instead talk to here about who God is, give her your testimony. She is afraid, give reasons why she should be excited and hopeful instead. The argument has already done what it's supposed to do. The argument doesn't turn people into Christians, it just opens the door for you to tell them about God.

I dont get this....why would someone not want God to exist?

Do these people prefer death, no justice, never seeing loved ones again to eternal paradise, justice, seeing there loved ones again etc etc?

Now watch atheists here bring up hell. I mean, if you are worried about hell then accept Jesus as your saviour in your heart and pray daily.

[Brian_G]

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?

I'm pretty sure this is the correct lecture (I don't have time to check right now).  But, Feser explains how you can defend a version of the cosmological argument even if the person is skeptical about the external world.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAIHs5TJRqQ&t=2736s

[Gordon Tubbs]

I think the fact that an objective external reality is indistinguishable from a simulated virtual reality is no mere inference that cannot be understated. Often, this inference is used to prop up skepticism of an external reality, but in fact, this inference gives way to an esoteric argument that needs to be brought to light:

Premise 1. If reality is a simulation, then it has a simulator.
Premise 2. If reality is a simulation, then it has a logical foundation to explain its existence.
Premise 3. If reality is a simulation, then it is grounded by an absolute reality which is logical.
Premise 4. If our objective external reality is indistinguishable from a simulation, then by the Law of Identity, our objective external reality must also have a simulator, a logical foundation for its existence, and is also grounded by an absolute reality which is logical.
Conclusion. That absolute reality is God.

I wrote an essay to flesh out this argument, if you're interested. I think it's a fairly strong argument for the existence of God vis-a-vis philosophy (not theism), because you can't knock down the first three premises without making other metaphysical claims.

[Sanoy]

She doesn't actually believe the world is an illusion she just doesn't want the argument to lead where it does. I don't think pressing the argument would be best thing to do right now.

Instead talk to here about who God is, give her your testimony. She is afraid, give reasons why she should be excited and hopeful instead. The argument has already done what it's supposed to do. The argument doesn't turn people into Christians, it just opens the door for you to tell them about God.

I dont get this....why would someone not want God to exist?

Do these people prefer death, no justice, never seeing loved ones again to eternal paradise, justice, seeing there loved ones again etc etc?

Now watch atheists here bring up hell. I mean, if you are worried about hell then accept Jesus as your saviour in your heart and pray daily.

In some cases it is a shifting of who is in control, in others it is a shifting of what their new identity might entail, in others like huxley it was sexual liberation. She knows her parents exist and that she is not past eternal, she knows if she had a son she would not doubt his existence. She is willing to throw the whole world away rather than look down that road because she is afraid. She doesn't understand what's down that road because it hasn't been explained to her, all she knows is what she must leave behind.

______
These arguments of Dr Criags are not evangelism in themselves, they are tools to remove the roadblocks that are holding someone back. But she isn't restrained by a roadblock, she is fleeing from the argument to a world without existence.

[Soren]

She doesn't actually believe the world is an illusion she just doesn't want the argument to lead where it does. I don't think pressing the argument would be best thing to do right now.

Instead talk to here about who God is, give her your testimony. She is afraid, give reasons why she should be excited and hopeful instead. The argument has already done what it's supposed to do. The argument doesn't turn people into Christians, it just opens the door for you to tell them about God.

I dont get this....why would someone not want God to exist?

Do these people prefer death, no justice, never seeing loved ones again to eternal paradise, justice, seeing there loved ones again etc etc?

Now watch atheists here bring up hell. I mean, if you are worried about hell then accept Jesus as your saviour in your heart and pray daily.

Despite your attempt to preempt the argument, if you believe in a traditional Christian God who eternally damns those who don't believe in him, or who annihilates them, even if they ascertain truth as best they can and even if they do exactly what the are destined to do because of the way God creates them, then you believe in a moral monster that I fervently hope does not exist. I don't want someone telling me to enjoy eternal life with God while my Jewish wife, the best person I know, is eternally damned, and I sure don't want God to slip me something that stops me from mourning her fate while I enjoy heaven, as some here have suggested would happen.

Now, if universalism is true, or if being as good as one can and seeking the truth as best one can is sufficient for eternal life, then we're talking a different ball game.

[Crash Test]

Now, if universalism is true, or if being as good as one can and seeking the truth as best one can is sufficient for eternal life, then we're talking a different ball game.

Meh.  We're still talking about a being who let's children die by the millions in horrible ways of its own invention.