The Causation Argument

[Tigers!]

If we define the universe as "everything that exists" ...

That certainly is a possible definition of the universe but it is not the only possible one.

 

[Tigers!]

If god can spontaneously exist from nothing, then so could a godless universe.

That's where religious folk think they have us by the balls. They think they have us by the balls because they have religion on their side and religious magic always trumps scientific reality. Ask just about any four-year-old and they'll tell you all about their magic creatures.

Since Christianity/Judaism has never claimed that God spontaneously arose from 'nothing' we can ignore that comment.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If god can spontaneously exist from nothing, then so could a godless universe.

That's where religious folk think they have us by the balls. They think they have us by the balls because they have religion on their side and religious magic always trumps scientific reality. Ask just about any four-year-old and they'll tell you all about their magic creatures.

Since Christianity/Judaism has never claimed that God spontaneously arose from 'nothing' we can ignore that comment.

Your gods are just another magic claim. Tell me where gods and tooth fairies and ghosts come from. If you can't then we can ignore your gods, your tooth fairies and your ghosts.

 

[bilby]

If we define the universe as "everything that exists"...

Who is "we"?

The KCA is an argument based on the assertion that a thing which had NOT previously existed was caused by a force which DOES exist.

/me waves goodbye to the strawman.

And that 'force' was caused by what?

Oh, by the way, defining ones terms before using them in an argument isn't a strawman (or any other kind of fallacy) It's an essential safeguard against equivocation fallacies.

Your options, when faced with such a definition, are either to accept it and use the word ONLY to mean what it was defined as meaning; or to reject it and provide your own alternative definition which you will then use consistently throughout your remaining discussion; or to engage in the babbling of unintelligible nonsense due to your words changing their meanings at your whim and without notice.

That third option seens popular with you, but it's the antithesis of honest debate to select it.

And to answer your question, "We" is "The people having this discussion". You can either accept the definition; offer your alternative definition (the "If" implies that possibility); Or absent yourself from the discussion.

 

[bilby]

If god can spontaneously exist from nothing, then so could a godless universe.

That's where religious folk think they have us by the balls. They think they have us by the balls because they have religion on their side and religious magic always trumps scientific reality. Ask just about any four-year-old and they'll tell you all about their magic creatures.

This is incoherent.

 

[bilby]

If we define the universe as "everything that exists" ...

That certainly is a possible definition of the universe but it is not the only possible one.

Sure. So what?

Either you want to discuss the universe as I just defined it; Or you want to use a different definition (in which case you need to presnt the one you want to use, and we can discuss it).

It's purely a shortcut. I provide a definition so that I can say 'universe' rather than cluttering up the page with dozens of instances of the phrase "everything that exists". I am declaring it in advance, and inviting others to use the same shortcut.

If you then go on to use it to mean something other than 'everything that exists', without first declaring that you are using a different meaning from the one I mean, you're just causing needless confusion.

This is how words work. If you want to be clear about your meaning, you need to share your definition when using words that might have more than one.

 

[TomC]

How can the KCA support God's existence 14B years ago but not now?
God has died has He?

This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about.

With no support at all you just added "alive" to God. As in "God has died has He?". Which only happens to beings that are alive.
It also implies that God is a singular, male, being.

You are adding characteristics to God that have no support in KCA.

This is why I believe in God, but not religion. I see no reason to believe that God is anything like the characters described in the Bible.

I say "characters"(the plural) because anybody who reads the Bible can see that Genesis God is little like the Trinitarianism God of modern Christianity. Abrahamic religionists have a huge batch of characters that they all refer to as God. The fact that there is no God who cares enough to clear up the misunderstandings is proof to me that Jehovah is a fictional type of character. Jesus is even less credible, and that's going a piece.
Tom

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This is why I believe in God, but not religion. I see no reason to believe that God is anything like the characters described in the Bible.

Most people would never think of god as a secular concept but people have. The late Carl Sagan often said that god was something inside the stuff of the universe, a kind of panentheism, not even deism. Calling the universe or the earth a god isn't so unusual, or a forest or a mountain.

And why not? A god concept can be clean, it doesn't have to become intellectually laughable and insulting like happens in the book of biblical fables. We don't have to invent flying horses and talking asses. It's merely an idea that there is some phenomenon at work that we haven't yet discovered, a phenomenon that is awesome but wholly scientific and measurable.

Maybe this is the future of religion, a future without all the religious masturbation, retardation and violence.