When the Soap Opera Star beat WLC in debate

[boatsnguitars]

What do you think? Did Scott win the day? Kinda like Rocky, he didn't need to win, just make a good show of it. Personally, I think he won, but i'd like to know your impression.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #18]

I think we follow the science but let's not throw out whole belief systems too fast.

It is absurd on the grounds you don't live that way. Oh the toast popped out of the toaster.

Well how can we follow the argument when you are deliberately choosing an absurdity?

Because the whole question of cosmic origins seems absurd. Half of what we are told about what cosmic physics tells us sounds absurd. Indeterminacy sounds absurd. We can't say anything for sure, and the result is not 'God' but "we don't know". Applying how toast pops out of the toaster here on earth clearly isn't answering the question, and neither does a Belief - system. An intelligent crating critter with no origin of its' own is as absurd as anything Cosmology has come up with. And again, even if you could make a case for a god, it doesn't tell us which one. You really have nothing but faithclaims to offer.

[TRANSPONDER]

The thing is: rationality requires a cause.

So the god you are proposing is irrational? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

That's the thing.This god -claim is apparently exempt from the rule they insist on. And as evidence they quote the Bible.That validates nothing as it is really the claim they are using to validate the claim.

[Wootah]

The thing is: rationality requires a cause.

So the god you are proposing is irrational? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

That's the thing.This god -claim is apparently exempt from the rule they insist on. And as evidence they quote the Bible.That validates nothing as it is really the claim they are using to validate the claim.

The thing is: rationality requires a first cause.

Let's see if that stands.

[benchwarmer]

The thing is: rationality requires a cause.

So the god you are proposing is irrational? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

That's the thing.This god -claim is apparently exempt from the rule they insist on. And as evidence they quote the Bible.That validates nothing as it is really the claim they are using to validate the claim.

The thing is: rationality requires a first cause.

Let's see if that stands.

Now you are just moving the goal posts hoping it stops. This still leaves your god as irrational because there was no cause for it to be or cause for it to cause any causes. You have simply moved the problem somewhere else.

Let's state this another way: Did this god have a first thought? If not, then by your definition there was no first thought (or the impetus to cause the first something) so there couldn't have been a first cause. That would leave it irrational. If it did have a first thought, then it is not eternal and didn't always exist which means it must have began to exist (requiring a cause).

You (paraphrased): The universe needs a cause - it's not rational to believe otherwise.
Also you (paraphrased): My God doesn't need a cause. This is rational.

Never has there been a clearer case of special pleading.

[Wootah]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #24]

That's an ungenerous take. It could be said the last few posts on your side were nit picking.

A first cause doesn't need a cause of course.

You are thinking deterministically about causation not rationally.

When your cat knocks over the fruit bowl because it saw a mouse no one goes further than that.

A first cause, a cause thst explains, is just rationality.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
A first cause, a cause that explains, is just rationality.

That's pretty good, just to tell it.

What becomes irrational though, is to say a god's involved in it, without showing that god's actually involved in it.

[TRANSPONDER]

The thing is: rationality requires a cause.

So the god you are proposing is irrational? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

That's the thing.This god -claim is apparently exempt from the rule they insist on. And as evidence they quote the Bible.That validates nothing as it is really the claim they are using to validate the claim.

The thing is: rationality requires a first cause.

Let's see if that stands.

It doesn't because you say yourself that nothing comes from nothing so a first cause without an origin is irrational. A 'First Cause'is something that either came from nothing or never had to have an origin. That denies that everything has to have a cause. As you say, absurd.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #24]

That's an ungenerous take. It could be said the last few posts on your side were nit picking.

A first cause doesn't need a cause of course.

You are thinking deterministically about causation not rationally.

When your cat knocks over the fruit bowl because it saw a mouse no one goes further than that.

A first cause, a cause thst explains, is just rationality.

Your argument is flawed and semantic fiddling. Of course, a first cause without any cause for itself doesn't require a cause, But that is no more than saying a universe that popped out of nothing or was eternal, didn't need an origin or causation. But you say yourself, that's irrational and not plausible. So why is it plausible for your proposed cause not to need a cause itself? Just because you say by 'definition' it doesn't? But that 'definition' is no more than a claim that you say is irrational.

Your analogy about a cat and a mouse is footling. If we just said a universe was produced from cosmic stuff and 'go no further than that', you would demand to know where the Stuff came from just as you'd refuse to believe the mouse popped out of nothing.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #24]

That's an ungenerous take. It could be said the last few posts on your side were nit picking.

I fail to see how it's "ungenerous". Of course we are all nit picking, this is a debate site and we should all expect to get as good as we give.

A first cause doesn't need a cause of course.

Sure, by definition. But you are just claiming (because it suits your argument), that such a first cause even exists.

My point was that you claim your god had no cause. Why can't we make the exact same argument about the stuff the universe is made of? Why does it have to have a cause, but your god doesn't? That's textbook special pleading.

You are thinking deterministically about causation not rationally.

When your cat knocks over the fruit bowl because it saw a mouse no one goes further than that.

A first cause, a cause thst explains, is just rationality.

Have we observed "the cat" in your analogy "knocking anything over"? No, or we would not be having this debate. You are positing an invisible, undetectable, purely faith based "cat" and using that to explain why a bowl got knocked over when nobody observed the cat, the original state of the bowl, the mouse, or anything before the current state of the "fruit on the floor"

Again, it's fine to propose a god entity as a conditional hypothesis. Just like it's fine proposing any other hypothesis on the condition it may be discarded once we actually have verifiable data. The problem is that we don't even have an indication it could be a god because we are unable to verify any such thing exists. It could just have easily been a group of entities that live in another universe. Maybe we are a black hole experiment gone wrong (or maybe right?).

The best we can do now is say "We don't know" and keep looking.

[Wootah]

How many of you live as if nothing can be a cause?

That is the point. It hardly matters to debate the issue beyond that if your actions agree with me even though your words do not.