Why is the First Cause Argument Flawed?

EvilGrey · Post by **EvilGrey** » 2003-06-13 07:49pm

I've heard this claim made many times by atheists, often citing erroneous reasons and employing strawmans. I'm curious as to what the denizens of this BBS think.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-06-13 07:53pm

Give a definition of the argument, please, and then I'd be more than willing to poke holes in it.

Yuri Prime · Post by **Yuri Prime** » 2003-06-13 07:54pm

EvilGrey wrote:I've heard this claim made many times by atheists, often citing erroneous reasons and employing strawmans. I'm curious as to what the denizens of this BBS think.

Please give examples of these "strawmans'" before you make a sweeping statement.

EvilGrey · Post by **EvilGrey** » 2003-06-13 07:57pm

Yuri Prime wrote:
EvilGrey wrote:I've heard this claim made many times by atheists, often citing erroneous reasons and employing strawmans. I'm curious as to what the denizens of this BBS think.
Please give examples of these "strawmans'" before you make a sweeping statement.

Please discuss the topic as I have declared it.

EDIT: I'll get back to you guys later.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-06-13 08:01pm

They cannot discuss the topic as you have declared it dumbass, because theyhave no reference point. We have nothing to refer to.

Oh and moron...the plural form of strawman is not strawmans...it is strawmen. If you are not a native English speaker I apologize...

Yuri Prime · Post by **Yuri Prime** » 2003-06-13 08:02pm

EvilGrey wrote:
Yuri Prime wrote:
EvilGrey wrote:I've heard this claim made many times by atheists, often citing erroneous reasons and employing strawmans. I'm curious as to what the denizens of this BBS think.
Please give examples of these "strawmans'" before you make a sweeping statement.
Please discuss the topic as I have declared it.

no

The Question · Post by **The Question** » 2003-06-13 08:07pm

You people claim to be great atheist debaters and you don't know what the First Cause argument is?

Samuel Colt save me from the playtheists.

Yuri Prime · Post by **Yuri Prime** » 2003-06-13 08:09pm

The Question wrote:You people claim to be great atheist debaters and you don't know what the First Cause argument is?

Samuel Colt save me from the playtheists.

No the point is we have no idea what he's trying to argue based on the fact that he makes no sense and gives no examples. All I can tell is that he's unhappy with the way some atheists handled the First Cause Argument, but he's not going to tell us what they said or how their arguments were strawmen...

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-06-13 08:11pm

The Question wrote:You people claim to be great atheist debaters and you don't know what the First Cause argument is?

Samuel Colt save me from the playtheists.

I have a decent idea, but I want him to define what he thinks it is, so we have an agreed upon definition of what we are debating. It's just common sense.

Insofar, our boy EvilGrey here wants us to argue something that he refuses to define and thus far has refused to give his definition.

The Question · Post by **The Question** » 2003-06-13 08:14pm

Ah, now I see your objection.

That just scared the hell out of me, thinking people didn't know what FC was.

Carry on.

EvilGrey · Post by **EvilGrey** » 2003-06-13 08:39pm

I wish to know why those who believe the argument is flawed think that. I wish to hear their reasoning.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-06-13 08:41pm

Quantum theory predicts and shows that nothing, absolutely nothing is unstable. You don't need a first causer when the first cause is random instability of nothing.

EvilGrey · Post by **EvilGrey** » 2003-06-13 08:43pm

kojikun wrote:Quantum theory predicts and shows that nothing, absolutely nothing is unstable. You don't need a first causer when the first cause is random instability of nothing.

Who said anything about a first causer?

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-06-13 08:47pm

EvilGrey wrote:I wish to know why those who believe the argument is flawed think that. I wish to hear their reasoning.

Jesus Horatio Christ on a Pink Pogo Stick, if you want an argument, you are first going to have to give the definition of the argument you want discussed before the debate starts. Until you do that, no debate can happen.

Yuri Prime · Post by **Yuri Prime** » 2003-06-13 08:48pm

EvilGrey wrote:
kojikun wrote:Quantum theory predicts and shows that nothing, absolutely nothing is unstable. You don't need a first causer when the first cause is random instability of nothing.
Who said anything about a first causer?

Ok, just say it. What are you arguing? Please define your version of First Cause...

EvilGrey · Post by **EvilGrey** » 2003-06-13 08:50pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
EvilGrey wrote:I wish to know why those who believe the argument is flawed think that. I wish to hear their reasoning.
Jesus Horatio Christ on a Pink Pogo Stick, if you want an argument, you are first going to have to give the definition of the argument you want discussed before the debate starts. Until you do that, no debate can happen.

I have already stated what the topic for discussion is.

EvilGrey · Post by **EvilGrey** » 2003-06-13 08:51pm

I suppose I will have to wait for the intelligent posters to arrive.

Yuri Prime · Post by **Yuri Prime** » 2003-06-13 08:55pm

EvilGrey wrote:I suppose I will have to wait for the intelligent posters to arrive.

What do you want? A friggin cookie?

Sindai · Post by **Sindai** » 2003-06-13 08:56pm

EvilGrey wrote:I have already stated what the topic for discussion is.

And then you promptly did exactly what everyone could tell you were going to do: sneer at the first person who addressed the First Cause argument as it usually goes (Kojikun) by saying:

Who said anything about a first causer?

Obviously, idjit, no one because no one has even said what the argument we're supposed to be talking about is. I don't think I've ever seen anyone actively ignore their own opening post before.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-06-13 09:02pm

the first cause arguement is flawed because it presumes a necessary intelligence behind the "first cause" and not a natural occurance. it also violates occams razor by including an unknown as massive as the universe itself thus making the unknowns outweigh every known. thats why the first cause arguement is flawed.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-06-13 09:03pm

EvilGrey wrote:I have already stated what the topic for discussion is.

You said what the topic was, but you didn't define what exactly your argument as you see it is.

What you are doing is:

You: Find what is qrong with the First Cause Argument.
Me: Provide your definition for the First Cause Argument.
You: I'm talking about the First Cause Argument.
Me: Sure, define it.
You: I already told you! The First Cause Argument!

See the problem?

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2003-06-13 09:06pm

EvilGrey wrote:I have already stated what the topic for discussion is.

Yes, the topic is about a moron (you) who touches himself at night.

The Question · Post by **The Question** » 2003-06-13 09:08pm

Gil Hamilton wrote: See the problem?

I'm not seeing it.

If people can't address his argument, they should just say so.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-06-13 09:11pm

he hasnt defined his argument

this site will debate anything. but he hasnt put foward his position.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-06-13 09:15pm

The Question wrote:I'm not seeing it.

If people can't address his argument, they should just say so.

The problem is that he's not actually giving a definition for us to argee on as the First Cause Argument is for us to debate. I want his exact definition before any debate actually takes place so he can't change his position at a whim. Insofar, he's refusing to actually define his position but is still demanding people debate it.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Why is the First Cause Argument Flawed?

Why is the First Cause Argument Flawed?

Re: Why is the First Cause Argument Flawed?

Re: Why is the First Cause Argument Flawed?

Re: Why is the First Cause Argument Flawed?