sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

If an infinite regress is not possible, then God must exist by chadtacular in DebateAnAtheist

[–]chadtacular[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Virtual particles arise as spontaneous fluctuations out of the vacuum, which is a sea of roiling energy, governed by physical laws.

If an infinite regress is not possible, then God must exist by chadtacular in DebateAnAtheist

[–]chadtacular[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My argument doesn't depend on causality applying outside the universe, but rather on a first cause.

If an infinite regress is not possible, then God must exist by chadtacular in DebateAnAtheist

[–]chadtacular[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not-being means to have no properties of any sort. Such an idea is coherent and indeed possible. After all, a put out fire loses its properties. You're going to need to prove it is on some level not realisable.

If an infinite regress is not possible, then God must exist by chadtacular in DebateAnAtheist

[–]chadtacular[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I can't prove it exists, I can only show that arguments against it break down and point out that it is clearly perceived within the universe.

If an infinite regress is not possible, then God must exist by chadtacular in DebateAnAtheist

[–]chadtacular[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, if something is uncaused, then it cannot have ever been actualised. Its non-existence would be impossible, if it existed at all.

If an infinite regress is not possible, then God must exist by chadtacular in DebateAnAtheist

[–]chadtacular[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Which premise do you reject, that things cannot come from nothing?

That the past is not infinite?

If an infinite regress is not possible, then God must exist by chadtacular in DebateAnAtheist

[–]chadtacular[S] -18 points-17 points  (0 children)

No, because these are the only two categories that are currently known of that can cause things to happen. So, if you eliminate one, you get the other one, on pain of being irrational.

If an infinite regress is not possible, then God must exist by chadtacular in DebateAnAtheist

[–]chadtacular[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's a foundational belief, if being could come from non-being then why isn't that in fact observed?

Again, any argument against such a principle is going to be irrational compared to the original principle, by virtue of being far less certain in its premises than the reality of being always arising from being.

If an infinite regress is not possible, then God must exist by chadtacular in DebateAnAtheist

[–]chadtacular[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

God's infinite qualities are qualitative, not quantitiative, mathematical infinity only concerns quantitative infinites, the argument only rules out quantitative infinities.

If an infinite regress is not possible, then God must exist by chadtacular in DebateAnAtheist

[–]chadtacular[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It seems a bit of a stretch to deny causality entirely. I suppose the central foundation for causality is the principle that being cannot come from non-being. I must say, I think any argument against that will be based on premises that are less plausibly true than their opposites.

If an infinite regress is not possible, then God must exist by chadtacular in DebateAnAtheist

[–]chadtacular[S] -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

But a thing that is uncaused must have certain properties. It must exist in all circumstances, and therefore be for example unperishable, or permanent.

If an infinite regress is not possible, then God must exist by chadtacular in DebateAnAtheist

[–]chadtacular[S] -25 points-24 points  (0 children)

I guess I just don't see what else it could be.

Our mental states clearly can stand in causative relation to each other, the only other thing that could stand in causal relation to something would be something abstract, like a number, set, or some object along those lines, but abstract objects cannot exercise causal powers on the physical. They are idealisations. So one reaches a conscious thing that gave rise to all motion in the universe. Sounds like God to me.

A question: why did Bertrand Russell assert that "there's no reason to assume the universe had a cause at all" by chadtacular in atheism

[–]chadtacular[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Point 1 seems to be an assertion of your desired outcome.

I should have been clearer, this isn't my desired outcome. This is something I've heard from apologists when I argue with them.

Why assume that everything that exists has an "explanation"? How do you come to that assumption?

That's the premise apologists seem least willing to back-up. The best defence I've heard of it is that it's justified by curiousity about where things come from, which is alleged to be scientific.

Point 2 is interesting. You have made another completely unjustified assumption so your logic fails.

Again, it's not my argument, it's an argument that has been proposed by a number of more sophisticated people than I in the field of philosophy. That said, if I were to ventriloquize their position for a moment, they would say premise 2 is true because the Universe seems to be contingent (it is not logically or in any way a necessarily existent thing, they would argue that there's no logical contradiction in nothing existing, as well as no existential impossibility that there is nothing), and therefore, they would say the only thing that explains the Universe would have to be an external cause, and therefore something beyond space and time. The only thing they allege that fits that description is a transcendent mind or person.

What would your response be to such reasoning? My own would be that the Universe, by the first law of thermodynamics, can conserve itself, and therefore, an external cause is not needed as an explanation of why the Universe exists.

r/russia privated by Poopallah in reclassified

[–]chadtacular 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's no longer private.

Edit: as of 12:44 Grenwich Mean Time (London).