Anyone else have a similar experience?

[SNP1]

The reason I do not believe in an immaterial god that interacts with the universe is because that is also incompatible with the universe we live in.

btw, I can also give you an argument for this one as well.

[SNP1]

Oh no, here we go again.

Okay, what is wrong with that argument? Is it perfectly sound? No, one of the premises is not definitively true. Is it a good argument? Yes, the only premise which needs support is likely true.

[Desdinova]

SN, I like you, I really do.  But haven't we been over all this already?

[Jason78]

Okay, what is wrong with that argument? Is it perfectly sound? No, one of the premises is not definitively true. Is it a good argument? Yes, the only premise which needs support is likely true.

Your first premise is a tautology, and your second premise is nonsense.

[SNP1]

SN, I like you, I really do.  But haven't we been over all this already?

We have only ever talked about our disagreement on Modal Logic, this one uses deductive logic.

[SNP1]

Your first premise is a tautology, and your second premise is nonsense.

Explain how. Besides, are we even talking about the argument I provided here or the devil's advocate one? I no longer accept the devil's advocate one (as I have recently learned a major fault in the premises).

[the_antithesis]

What's a god?

[Desdinova]

My mistake.  I guess I jumped the gun by not reading your post carefully.

[Jason78]

P1) If God created the universe, the universe has a cause

And if I tied a knot in a piece of string then the string would have a knot in it.

P2) The universe can only have a cause if tensed facts exist

Is a non-sequitur.  It does not follow that tensed facts are the only reason the universe can have a cause.

P3) Tensed facts do not exist

As if that had any effect on anything.

[SNP1]

And if I tied a knot in a piece of string then the string would have a knot in it.

Okay, I could drop the point, but how many theists do you think will try and weasel their way out of causality by claiming that creation does not necessarily mean a cause? I have seen it before, which is why I state this as P1.

Is a non-sequitur.  It does not follow that tensed facts are the only reason the universe can have a cause.

Pretty much every expert on time theory disagrees with you, and the concept of causality requires times progression to be actual, which it is not if there are no real tensed facts.

As if that had any effect on anything.

Makes the argument valid.

[Solitary]

Welcome aboard andreaslagom! It's later than you think!  Live it up, it's the only chance you get.


Again, no kind of logic can prove what the facts are! I have not believed in God since I was 6 years old, and have not found any evidence to believe there is one, and all kinds of evidence to not believe in one since then. How in the hell could anyone know about god that doesn't present himself accept to lunatics and crackpots?  It's just another fairy tail to make people feel good about the human condition: get old and die.  Solitary

[Jason78]

Okay, I could drop the point, but how many theists do you think will try and weasel their way out of causality by claiming that creation does not necessarily mean a cause? I have seen it before, which is why I state this as P1.

You could have a conga line of theists weaseling.   It wont make your premise any more valid.

Pretty much every expert on time theory disagrees with you, and the concept of causality requires times progression to be actual, which it is not if there are no real tensed facts.

I was unaware that time had become a solved problem in physics.  Could you link to the research paper?

Makes the argument valid.

Only if it were true.

[SNP1]

I was unaware that time had become a solved problem in physics.  Could you link to the research paper?

You do realize that time theory falls under the realm of PHILOSOPHY, right?

Only if it were true.

WRONG! A valid argument is one where the conclusion is reached from the premises, a sound argument is one where the premises are all true (therefore the conclusion is true). Something can be sound and wrong. This shows that you do not know how arguments or philosophy works.

[Jason78]

You do realize that time theory falls under the realm of PHILOSOPHY, right?

Exclusively?

WRONG! A valid argument is one where the conclusion is reached from the premises, a sound argument is one where the premises are all true (therefore the conclusion is true). Something can be sound and wrong.

Ok, I'll agree to that.   But your argument is neither sound nor valid. It still doesn't stop P1 from being a tautology, and P2 for presenting a false dichotomy.

This shows that you do not know how arguments or philosophy works.

Rather than insisting that you're right, why not demonstrate your understanding and show us why your argument is both sound and valid? 

[SNP1]

Exclusively?

Almost. We only recently have been able to scientifically test "time" in a very simple way, which is an experiment that actually supports the B-Theory of Time (https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/quantum-experiment-shows-how-time-emerges-from-entanglement-d5d3dc850933). Other scientific points that deal with time do not do it directly.

Ok, I'll agree to that.   But your argument is neither sound nor valid. It still doesn't stop P1 from being a tautology, and P2 for presenting a false dichotomy.

Let's say that P1 is a tautology. How does that make the argument invalid?
Also, how is P2 a false dichotomy? Causality requires tensed facts. If there are tensed facts, then causality can occur. If tensed facts do not exist, causality cannot happen. This is because cause and effect (as we currently understand it) REQUIRES a before and after. If there is no before or after (which are examples of tensed facts), causality cannot occur.

Rather than insisting that you're right, why not demonstrate your understanding and show us why your argument is both sound and valid?

Never said it was sound. It is closer to being sound then unsound. The reason it isn't perfectly sound is because P3 is only supported through inductive reasoning, and thus is subject to being falsified in the future.