Mr_Anony: Ok so I've been away for sometime now and I have seen some interesting replies most of them I must confess are fallacies. Unfortunately I may not answer to all questions rather I'll highlight a few places where we misunderstand each other then I will proceed to make my case (hopefully a lot clearer so we all can understand)

for instance, martian keeps trying to draw me into a "battle of the gods" matter that I really don't want to get into at this point. Kay17 and logicboy mistakenly assume (or at least that's how it looks to me) that I have simply inserted a god in the theories of another amongst other things. Jenwitemi and cyrexx seem to be saying that nobody knows for sure hence I cannot possibly claim to be right, jagunlabi argues morals and hisblud and idehn show support each to his own. All is well.
I must admit on reading through the posts that perhaps I have not made myself clear enough however I still haven't seen anyone fault my logic yet or prove me wrong, maybe it is too unclear to even bother I don't know.

To make it a lot less complex, I will break down my argument into progressive steps so that so that it is easy to follow and make for clearer refutation, we shall start on a clean slate and only treat one step at a time before moving on to the next. If you are willing, I would rather we argued for truth and not for bragging rights. Remember the reason for "God" in the first place arises from the question "Why am I here i.e. what is the purpose for existence?"

Anyway, all that aside here is Step 1

From what we know, every effect has a cause, our reality can be described as a series of causes and effects. We know, the Universe has a definite beginning hence it must have been caused.

Do you agree with this statement? If yes we continue to Step 2. If no please tell us why you disagree and what you consider an alternate more accurate statement. (please limit your response to the statement for now abeg!)

The existence of the universe as a whole does not require a causal explanation. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause

logicboy:



You are quite insane. You are suffering from an early stage of delusional thinking. You points were decimated and now you claim that all the atheists that debunk you were making fallacious statements? Wow!


As for your question on the cause of the universe, here is an answer that I gave earlier that you ignored as usual that says no;

-e.

The existence of the universe as a whole does not require a causal explanation. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause

Mr_Anony: If you are willing, I would rather we argued for truth and not for bragging rights.

Mr_Anony:

From what we know , every effect has a cause, our reality can be described as a series of causes and effects. We know, the Universe has a definite beginning hence it must have been caused.

Mr_Anony:

From what we know, every effect has a cause, our reality can be described as a series of causes and effects. We know, the Universe has a definite beginning hence it must have been caused.

Do you agree with this statement? If yes we continue to Step 2. If no please tell us why you disagree and what you consider an alternate more accurate statement. (please limit your response to the statement for now abeg!)

Mr_Anony: To make it a lot less complex, I will break down my argument into progressive steps so that so that it is easy to follow and make for clearer refutation, we shall start on a clean slate and only treat one step at a time before moving on to the next. If you are willing, I would rather we argued for truth and not for bragging rights. Remember the reason for "God" in the first place arises from the question "Why am I here i.e. what is the purpose for existence?"

Anyway, all that aside here is Step 1

From what we know, every effect has a cause, our reality can be described as a series of causes and effects. We know, the Universe has a definite beginning hence it must have been caused.

Do you agree with this statement? If yes we continue to Step 2. If no please tell us why you disagree and what you consider an alternate more accurate statement. (please limit your response to the statement for now abeg!)

Mr_Anony: @Cyrexx, thanks for responding but then from your answer, you have not as yet taken a stance so it makes it difficult to debate. For the purpose of simplicity I have decided to go back to the very beginning of my argument: without assuming anything i.e. whether God exists or not (I assure you there will be plenty of time to debate that as we move along)

For now, all we have before us is a universe, how did it come to be? Was it caused or not? I say it must have been caused. If you agree we move on to step 2, if not, you will be saying that it came from nothing (you will then have to explain how something comes from nothing). If you say we don't know and we cannot know then there really isn't any basis to having a debate and you cannot possibly say with any certainty that anything exists or not.

All that aside, where do you stand exactly? Was the universe caused? Does it have a definite origin?

Kay 17:

The Causal relationship can only function within a framework such as the universe with the texture of time. So if time began with the universe, how CAN there be a "before". Just consider it

cyrexx: @ anony
ok i take the stand that the universe is caused and lets continue from there.

but i must add that you are being unfair in this debate, you virtually ignore almost all of my propositions that are very germane to this debate and you expect people to respond to all your propositions

Kay 17:

Don't you read what ppl post?!

He just said everything can't be caused, consequently what determines an effect and how the universe fits such a test becomes the next question!

Martian: @anony

You can move on two step3.4,5 and 10 if you want but at the end of the day, no one knows why the universe exists, or what caused it. The only thing we theorize is the big b@ng, and you wouldn't even know about that if not for physicists. They don't pretend to know what caused the big b@ng but at least they are trying by coming up with string theory, m theory and others to try to explain it. Just give it a rest already because you causeless cause is just a figment of your imagination borne out religious convictions about your god.

Martian: @anony

You can move on two step3.4,5 and 10 if you want but at the end of the day, no one knows why the universe exists, or what caused it. The only thing we theorize is the big b@ng, and you wouldn't even know about that if not for physicists. They don't pretend to know what caused the big b@ng but at least they are trying by coming up with string theory, m theory and others to try to explain it. Just give it a rest already because you causeless cause is just a figment of your imagination borne out religious convictions about your god.

logicboy:


You are wasting your time. The guy has ignored posts debunking his position. What kind of science leads you to an uncaused first cause?

Mr_Anony:
lol, Martian, Now I have removed the strawmen there remains nothing left for you to shoot at. All the same, thanks for stopping by.

Martian:

What strawmen? You never explained what god is, but you want to make it the cause of the big b@ng. You never had an argument.

Mr_Anony:
My friend logicboy, science is simply a method for reasoning and not a political movement*. I have not ignored posts, I only call for you to refute my argument properly which no one has done yet. I have broken it down in steps so it can be followed easily and hence more easily refuted.

Mr_Anony:
Then please follow my logic and prove it wrong, start from step 1

Mr_Anony:

My friend logicboy, science is simply a method for reasoning and not a political movement*. I have not ignored posts, I only call for you to refute my argument properly which no one has done yet. I have broken it down in steps so it can be followed easily and hence more easily refuted.

Martian:

You're delusional. Your arguments never held no weight and they have been shown to be fallacies by different posters.

logicboy:
-The existence of the universe as a whole does not require a causal explanation. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause

logicboy:


Huh? When did I say that science is a political movement?

Your first step is a fallacy. There is no uncaused cause because;

-The existence of the universe as a whole does not require a causal explanation. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause

Martian:

You are doing the same thing anony is doing. Making stuff up. If a cause exists, you don't know.

Mr_Anony:

And to that I say: How then would you explain the existence of the universe?

Mr_Anony:
please start from step 1.

Martian:
Please, If you're not familiar with a theory, you need to leave it out of your argument. You misunderstand the big b@ng, then you introduce a first cause that's "extraphysical" which you admit is "very difficult to explain using physical terms"...................Why should anyone discuss a concept you can't even give a coherent explanmation for?

Mr_Anony:

If he said that everything can't be caused then that would mean that some things are caused and others aren't hence there would be no need to argue if God exists or not because I claim God is uncaused and you can't possibly ask me to give reasons for God. This will also imply that scientific reasoning is flawed since science is about finding the cause of everything that is observed. In fact saying the universe can't be caused is as much a faith claim as any. Just for the record he made "if and may" statements to which I had to ask him to take a stand so I know which way to argue

logicboy:

Big bang.

logicboy:


Huh? When did I say that science is a political movement?

Your first step is a fallacy. There is no uncaused cause because;

-The existence of the universe as a whole does not require a causal explanation. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause

Martian:

Here was the answer to your step one.


The bolded.

From what we know, every effect has a cause, our reality can be described as a series of causes and effects. We know, the Universe has a definite beginning hence it must have been caused.

Do you agree with this statement? If yes we continue to Step 2. If no please tell us why you disagree and what you consider an alternate more accurate statement. (please limit your response to the statement for now abeg!)

logicboy:
Huh? Have you also gone delusional from Mr Anony's posts? Where in that comment did I claim to know the cause of the universe?

logicboy:
-The existence of the universe as a whole does not require a causal explanation. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause

logicboy:

No one really knows what happened before the big bang.