You need more than just a logical exercise to demonstrate the existence of an entity. You also need this little thing called empirical data that actually shows this entity exists. Obviously you don't have any.

So I think I'll stick with modern physics and cosmology which is continually showing there's no need to invoke "G" for anything.

Bob, Blü, et al,

Incorrect appraisal. An atheist who actually understands both formal logic and physics has already given his verdict on the general outcome of our little debate.

Let any fair-minded and unbiased observer study the thread for himself. Neither of you gentlemen nor I qualify.

Kind regards,

Oh, and Happy Easter!

Lil Easter Bunny

Mar 31, 2012 -- 11:32AM, redshifted wrote:

Mar 31, 2012 -- 11:26AM, Lilwabbit wrote:

Something exists that is composite is a rather solid empirical statement. This objective observation, together with logic, suffices for the proof if you are able to follow the proof. 

All you're saying there is that the empircal data for God is the universe. That's just silly. 

No, I'm not saying that, nor is Hatcher. You do not seem to understand the argument. Don't worry, most of the contributors to this thread don't. To my knowledge two have actually understood it: Jiwe (atheist), and Caliber (theist).

Kind regards,

LilWabbit

Mar 31, 2012 -- 5:44AM, Lilwabbit wrote:

No one on this thread has given a satisfactory counter-argument to Hatcher's proof. A resident atheist Jiwe, a logician like Hatcher, agrees. He too may not find Hatcher's proof "satisfying", but we're not here to talk about our feelings. He agrees that Hatcher's logic is sound.

If something objectively exists (evident truth), and if that something is a composite entity (the apparent universe), and if something cannot come out of nothing (i.e. cannot be uncaused), it must, in the absence of other causes, contain within itself a sufficient reason for its own existence (i.e. be self-caused). Since it is logically impossible that a composite entity be self-caused (principle of limitation), something non-composite within it must be self-caused while being the cause of all the non-self-caused components of that composite entity. In other words, if we can accept the above 'ifs', then there must be G (or alternatively a committee of g's) that is the cause of all existence while remaining itself self-caused. Atheism is simply not on the plate.

If we do not accept one or several of the above ifs, we must offer a logical alternative to the 'if' in question which is more plausible. So far I haven't heard of any.

(And please no more ignorant appeals to radioactive decay or virtual particles since quantum vacuum, according to experimental physics, is everything but absolute nothingness. Virtual particles pop out of vacuum energy by borrowing that energy. They do not pop out of absolute non-existence. Neither is radioactive decay uncaused. It is stochastic, meaning unpredictable. Unpredictable does not mean uncaused.)

Kind regards,

LilWabbit

Actually, it would seem that if someting is inherently unpredictable, then it is not caused.  If it is random, then it is not caused because it isn't "fixed" or determined by anything else.

Lilwabbit

It seems odd to say we don't understand the argument when we understood it well enough for you to abandon its defense.

You couldn't defend your claim that change can occur in zero time.

You couldn't describe the process by which a thing can "self-cause" itself, so "self-cause" continues to have no meaning.

You couldn't defend your argument against the point that the universe might be uncaused.

And you couldn't keep your answers succinct.