thehomer:

If all you can observe is C and maybe B, at what point can you introduce A?

'A' will only be in doubt if 'B' or 'C' did not exist...unless you are saying that 'B' existed of itself without anything or anyone causing it.

striktlymi: Morning Kay,

Brilliant!...this is simply brilliant...but...



You forgot to state why God is necessary and to whom is he necessary to...

Do you mean that he is necessary for man to exist? Or do you mean that he is a necessity for the existence of everything and everyone?

Let me take it that your meaning is that God is a necessity because he made all that is not in existence to come into existence...



This really is a repeat of the first premise with a little twist...probably meant to introduce the element of doubt. If he exists then he becomes necessary because of the aforementioned reason but if he does not then the argument ends here.

Hence, you hinge the existence of God on whether he is necessary or not...the argument should have started here in my opinion because this brings forth the crux of the argument...



Statement meant to introduce the position of Theists I guess...

Now how is God Supernatural? The likely answer would be because he is not part of nature i.e he is beyond nature...this is reasonable I believe.

A computer programmer is not necessarily part of his program...in a similar vein, an inventor is not necessarily part of his invention...hence God is not necessarily part of his creation i.e. he is not necessarily governed by nature and its laws.



Agreed but we should not forget that these natural causes were brought about by this supernatural cause...without the supernatural cause there won't be any natural cause...this actually is the position you attempt to disprove.



Okay...



Agreed but the natural causes are not necessary because they wouldn't have existed without the supernatural cause...have it in mind that this has not shown that the supernatural cause is not necessary...

In order to show that the supernatural cause is not necessary, there is a need to demonstrate that the supernatural cause is not needed for the natural causes to be...anyways, this still depends on your definition of what is natural.



You have not demonstrated that God is not necessary...look at it this way...

'A' causes 'B', 'B' causes 'C'...your argument now is that since 'A' and 'B' are both causatives therefore 'A' is not necessary...but this does not follow because without 'A' existing, 'B' or 'C' would not exist.


EDIT:

If the argument is intended for Theists then it would make sense but to an Atheist, it would have failed from the beginning.

Mr striktlymi, thank you so much for saving this thread and for the indepth scrutiny of the OP.

Yes, 1 and 2 were repeative, I wanted to stress on that necessity attribute of God both as his attribute and only reason we will accept his existence. But next time I will be more precise and careful with my language.

I will skip to 6. We are more familiar with natural causes, natural causes are better explanation for phenomena than supernatural causes. The only way natural causes wouldn't be available is if there was no natural world and a non-systematic (supernatural) cause is the only available option. But there is no sufficient reason to be there wasn't always a natural world.

Note: that a natural world here isn't only the Universe, it includes abstracts.

So to the conclusion: if natural causes still linger, then God is necessary as a supernatural cause. And since he is by attribute necessary, we can calmly say God doesn't exist.

thehomer:

If all you can observe is C and maybe B, at what point can you introduce A?

Good point from thehomer.

Kay 17:

Mr striktlymi, thank you so much for saving this thread and for the indepth scrutiny of the OP.

Yes, 1 and 2 were repeative, I wanted to stress on that necessity attribute of God both as his attribute and only reason we will accept his existence. But next time I will be more precise and careful with my language.

Cool!

Kay 17:
I will skip to 6.

Okay!

Kay 17:
We are more familiar with natural causes, natural causes are better explanation for phenomena than supernatural causes.

True!

Explaining something with what we know is always a good starting point but this does not negate the existence of what is 'not known'...

Kay 17:
The only way natural causes wouldn't be available is if there was no natural world and a non-systematic (supernatural) cause is the only available option.

Now, I am struggling to get your meaning....

Are you saying that natural causes only exist because of the natural world and the supernatural cause? If this is your statement then I beg to slightly disagree with you...

With or without the natural world there would still be natural causes but these natural causes cannot exist without the supernatural cause.

Kay 17:
But there is no sufficient reason to be there wasn't always a natural world.

The above implies that the world has always been here without anything or anyone causing it...is this your view? Again, not having "sufficient reason" does not imply that the "natural world" has always been here.

Kay 17:
Note: that a natural world here isn't only the Universe, it includes abstracts.

Oh...okay!

Kay 17:
So to the conclusion: if natural causes still linger, then God is necessary as a supernatural cause. And since he is by attribute necessary, we can calmly say God doesn't exist.

Now the conclusion does not follow because the general feel of your premise is: 'we do not know for sure'...this seems to me like an argument from ignorance (Ad ignorantiam)...

We cannot draw a definitive conclusion from a premise that is not itself definitive.

Kay 17:

Good point from thehomer.

Why is the point a good one?

@striklmyi

Natural and supernatural causes compete, and if you noticed I said a cause can either be natural or supernatural. Remove from your mind any superiority you believe the supernatural has over the natural.

Hence the universe either has a supernatural cause or natural cause, and a natural cause is more plausible. So the supernatural is merely a second option, its not compelling necessary.

striktlymi:

Why is the point a good one?

Thehomer's sentiment is merely why a supernatural cause rather than natural cause which we can observe and PREDICT.

Kay 17: @striklmyi

Natural and supernatural causes compete, and if you noticed I said a cause can either be natural or supernatural. Remove from your mind any superiority you believe the supernatural has over the natural.

Hence the universe either has a supernatural cause or natural cause, and a natural cause is more plausible. So the supernatural is merely a second option, its not compelling necessary.

One small detail you left out...the Supernatural cause is also the first cause...without it there will be no natural cause.

Kay 17:

Thehomer's sentiment is merely why a supernatural cause rather than natural cause which we can observe and PREDICT.

What is here is similar to focusing on the program and saying the programmer is irrelevant...

thehomer:

I didn't. Can you tell me what the flaw was?

What is the meaning of the word "necessary". I cannot do your homework for you, I know you are knowledgeable enough. That argument in the OP is as disastrously nonsensical as any i have ever seen, and you can see it clearly.

striktlymi:

One small detail you left out...the Supernatural cause is also the first cause...without it there will be no natural cause.

But as I said earlier there is no sufficient reason to believe natural causes aren't always available as supernatural causes.

Kay 17:

But as I said earlier there is no sufficient reason to believe natural causes aren't always available as supernatural causes.

Even if we assume insufficient reason, do you now draw your conclusion based on what you are yet to ascertain?

striktlymi:

Even if we assume insufficient reason, do you now draw your conclusion based on what you are yet to ascertain?

I'd hold natural causes to be selfexistent just as supernatural causes.

Kay 17:

I'd hold natural causes to be selfexistent just as supernatural causes.

...and your basis would be?

striktlymi:

...and your basis would be?

Something can not come out of Nothing. So a natural world is selfexistent

Kay 17:

Something can not come out of Nothing. So a natural world is selfexistent

Lol!!!

The second phrase, negates the first...

striktlymi:

Lol!!!

The second phrase, negates the first...

I don't see how

Kay 17:

I don't see how

Don't worry, it does...

I was concerned about your argument and have made known my concerns, so Kay my time here is done.

#Going back to my 'corner' now.

striktlymi:

'A' will only be in doubt if 'B' or 'C' did not exist...unless you are saying that 'B' existed of itself without anything or anyone causing it.

Of course. Otherwise, why accept that "A" existed of itself without anyone or anything causing it?

Deep Sight:

What is the meaning of the word "necessary". I cannot do your homework for you, I know you are knowledgeable enough. That argument in the OP is as disastrously nonsensical as any i have ever seen, and you can see it clearly.

I've not asked you to do my homework for me. All I ask is that you show what the problem is. You could have done that by telling me what you thought the word "necessary" meant here and then gone ahead to show me what the problem was.

thehomer:

Of course. Otherwise, why accept that "A" existed of itself without anyone or anything causing it?

I have my answer handy but considering that Kay was the one who set up the argument in the first place, he should be the one to tell us why...

striktlymi:

I have my answer handy but considering that Kay was the one who set up the argument in the first place, he should be the one to tell us why...

The conclusion of his argument appears to be that "A" isn't supernatural while you think it is. So, what is your answer?

thehomer:

The conclusion of his argument appears to be that "A" isn't supernatural while you think it is. So, what is your answer?

Nope...his conclusion is thay "A" does not exist because "A" is not necessary.

striktlymi:

Nope...his conclusion is thay "A" does not exist because "A" is not necessary.

Right. And if "A" is not necessary, it would contradict the idea that "A" was necessary. Thus, how can one tell that "A" is out there if all we have is "C" and maybe "B"?

thehomer:

Right. And if "A" is not necessary, it would contradict the idea that "A" was necessary. Thus, how can one tell that "A" is out there if all we have is "C" and maybe "B"?

My goal here is to show the flaw in Kay's argument...I believe I have achieved that...hence I leave as I came...

You guys should enjoy the thread.

Kay 17: @striklmyi

Natural and supernatural causes compete, and if you noticed I said a cause can either be natural or supernatural. Remove from your mind any superiority you believe the supernatural has over the natural.

Hence the universe either has a supernatural cause or natural cause, and a natural cause is more plausible. So the supernatural is merely a second option, its not compelling necessary.

you wish a natural cause is more plausible. Logically thts dog poo ,
you credit to chance the faculty of intellect far mor superior thn even d collectve brain power of d best brains can configure! Blind mindless chance did this!!
Mor like willful self deception

Tpfkakambo:

you wish a natural cause is more plausible. Logically thts dog poo ,
you credit to chance the faculty of intellect far mor superior thn even d collectve brain power of d best brains can configure! Blind mindless chance did this!!
Mor like willful self deception

Why are you ppl like this?! Is it chance or God that makes water boil??! C'mon. Think

Kay 17:

Something can not come out of Nothing. So a natural world is selfexistent

from this argument, u already negate scientifc answers to d wrlds origin. Even godless science agree tht d world has an origin.

2. You demonstrate an ability to digest an idea of an eternally existg object.
So y does it seem strange to u atheists to assimilate a notion of an alwys existg being-God?

Kay 17:
[b]the universe either has a supernatural cause or natural cause, and a natural cause is more plausible.

defend this statement

Kay 17:

Why are you ppl like this?! Is it chance or God that makes water boil??! C'mon. Think

does water jump into a kettle,wch evolved by CHANCE , move to a stove tht evolved by CHANCE strke match direct the flame to a burner and boil all by CHANCE.
the emotional outburst are unnecessary. Stay on d logic lane..

Kay 17: 1. God is a necessary being

2. If God exists, he necessarily exists

3. God is a Supernatural Cause.

4. Causes can be Natural.

5. A cause is either supernatural or natural.

6. A cause is not necessarily Supernatural.

7. Therefore God is not necessary and hence can not exist.

Your conclusion from the premises is absurd and wrong..
5.) A cause is either supernatural or natural
(i.e a cause can have a supernatural or natural agent)
that means there is a binary possibility of the origin of the cause. only 2 possible originators of the cause.

6.) "A course is not necessarily supernatural"
i.e
a course is not always the result of a supernatural agency.

this is a rehash of point 5. this point was un necessary.

7.)
therefore God is not necessary, and CANNOT EXISTS.
bunkum.
in other words,
therefore God , a supernatural agent, may not the originator of a cause,
A natural agent may be the originator of the cause.
Therefore if a cause is naturally originated,
it is not at the same time supernaturally originated . mutually exclusive agency.
so if a cause is NOT supernaturally originated,
THEN the originator of that cause CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO be SUPERNATURAL.
this is the conclusion that follows, but the OP twisted it all up.


Your points could be summarized as:
1.) God is a timeless, eternal being.
2.) God is an agent , a causer. (he causes events to occur)
3.) A cause must have an Agent.
4.) A cause can have only 2 types of agents: natural or supernatural.
5.) A cause doesnt need a supernatural agent.
6.) Therefore , since a cause doesnt require a supernatural agent, God is un necessary as as an agency and doesnt exists.


errors:
------
#1- u assume all causes can be started without a supernatural agent.
#2- u contradict urself:
God is an agent, a supernatural agent,
and there is a natural agent.
if there are 2 agents, then both agents exists.
if God is an agent (a supernatural agent), then he could produce an event (a cause).

#3- unfounded assumption.
the natural agent is more dynamic,than the supernatural agent.
your premises insinuate this.
that a cause is more likely to be started originated by a natural agent than by a supernatural agent.

#4- ignored implications of a supernatural agency .
A supernatural agency, CAN bring about an event, one out of nothing-
or out of something.
so a supernaturalagent can start a new process from an old one-
using old causes as building blocks for new causes (events)

but a natural agent, cannot summon a supernatural or anykind of being, to bring about an event.

#5- injected assumption :
A supernatural agent MUST use a pre existing CAUSE (an event) ,as building blocks,
to bring about an event.
Because with human agents creating causes, creating out of nothing isnt possible,
all human tangible fabrications rely on old causes..
therefore if this is how it is for Man IT MUST BE THE SAME WAY FOR GOD..
In other words, God has Man's Limitations...
(wrong!)
the argument will always go back to hovering on this point.

#6 - injected assumption2:
a natural agent can produce the same effect as a supernatural agent ( it is acceptd that there are two agents
)
a natural agent is nothing but matter ,acting under some elemental base force.
e.g wind , generated by differing air pressures and gravity,will move and woosh but is mindless.
meanwhile a supernatural agent , is not believed to be mindless but intelligent and logical and dynamic
possessing the faculties of will and volitions , all human characteristics except a physical body.
The natural agent you allude to , isnt on the same par with the supernatural agent in the premise
and so cannot do what the supernatural agent can do based on their characteristics.

Its like saying,
the forces of nature (natural agent)
can build a complex house (the event/cause)
that an architect (supernatural agent ) can do?!

the agents used in your premises have different assumed characteristics so your argument fails on those
false assumptions in the agency premises alone.

Tpfkakambo:

from this argument, u already negate scientifc answers to d wrlds origin. Even godless science agree tht d world has an origin.

2. You demonstrate an ability to digest an idea of an eternally existg object.
So y does it seem strange to u atheists to assimilate a notion of an alwys existg being-God?

The Universe is said to have an origin, not the natrual world.