In response to pashley’s challenge, I am nominating myself for the mano a mano debate. I realize that there are several posters in the original debate with seniority; however, I wish to elicit responses from pashley.
Since pashley wishes to establish rules for the debate, I submit the following:
[list=1][li]All points presented must be addressed.[/li][li]Upon the submission of a successful rebuttal, the “losing” party must formally concede. Concessions are to be posted on a point by point basis.[/li][li]This clause should be unnecessary, but personal attacks are not permitted. If you feel that this stipulation cannot be heeded, please request that this thread be moved to the Pit.[/list=1][/li]Given the nature of the challenge, I request that pashley present evidence for the existence of god. I think that a response to the post below would be a good starting point; however, if you wish to introduce other alleged evidence, you may do so.
quote:
Originally posted by Nen:
Pashley:
Please consider the following:
Although the example of the electron/anti-election pair contradicts this premise (and premises for an argument should be widely accepted if not true), assume that this premise is true. It has been expressed that if god is, then god must have had a cause. Either all things have a cause, including god, or causality is not implicit in existence, thereby rejecting your premise #1.
Can energy, space and time exist in singularly or in any combination which excludes one of the three? Is time not a constituent of existence? If you agree, then the concept of beginning, which implies the existence of time before and after the beginning to have relevance, has no meaning. Perhaps you disagree with this argument because it is based on a priori synthetic knowledge. As pointed out by Bertrand Russell, Kant’s proof of a priori synthetic knowledge utilizes a priori synthetic knowledge as premises; therefore, the proof is invalid. Your premise #2 is also asserted as a priori synthetic knowledge. You must either submit a proof for the existence of a priori synthetic knowledge, which I humbly believe to be impossible, or you must refine your concept of beginning. Regardless, your second premise is also rejected.
Once again, assuming this statement to be true and that the conclusion follows from the premises, thereby making your argument logically valid (which it is not), how is it necessary that the cause be god? Are there no other possibilities?
Please see above. I await your rebuttal or retraction of the argument.
End quote.
You may being, pashley.
