Does God exist ? (part 2)

--- Shifting the burden --- Pro says "To answer Con's question directly, yes, you have to prove God's non-existence" Pro implies that I have to prove that God does not exist, to justify the claim that its more likely that Gods non existence is more like than its existence. I don't have to prove that God doesn't exist, in order to defend my position, I just have to prove that Gods non existence is more likely than its existence. Part of that is what you have already agreed too, that most possible things don't exist, and the other part is showing that you have presented bad arguments and thus should be rejected. You see its not just enough to have ANY reason to believe in God or fairies or gremlins, you have to have a GOOD reason. Which raises the question have you provided a good reason ? That's kinda the point of the debate now isn't it. --- Countering that the first cause is personal --- --- A non personal first cause (or as pro likes to call it the mechanical universe factory) -- Pro says "Any impersonal universe with no aspect of intelligence with a finite amount of events is, by definition, a temporal universe." I made it quite clear that I am arguing for the possibility a non personal first cause. The effects of the first cause are temporal not the first cause its self (or as you call it, the mechanical universe factory). This is kinda silly since Pro is quite aware of this since they are arguing for a first cause that its self has no cause (God). I have a suspicion that Pro calls this first cause that is non personal a universe, and also calls temporal effects universes to cause confusion. As such I ask Pro to not refer to a non personal first cause as a universe to alleviate me of my suspicions. Call it non personal first cause or NPFC for short. --- Countering the premise that all eternal causes MUST be personal --- Pro says "Con's rebuttal can be summarized in his question, "Why can't an eternal cause produce a finite amount of things?" No, I made a typo error there, it should read, why can't an eternal non personal first cause produce a finite amount of things, also I should add to that, why can't an eternal non personal first cause produce a potential infinite of things as opposed to an actual infinite of things. Pro says "Why would a universe that does nothing forever and forever suddenly do one thing? The only logical answer is that something changed" You ask why would a non personal eternal cause do nothing for ever ? this is an irrational question because doing nothing for ever only applies to things in a time context. The first cause as you argued is "timeless", there is no time, thus there is no doing nothing for ever. Pro says "And when something changes, we have an effect. An effect always has a cause. Thus, the universe is not eternal after all because it now has its own chain of causes and effects." Why do you keep arguing that if a non personal first cause, causes something, that means the first cause was not timeless and uncaused to begin with ? Yet you have no problem accepting that God as a first cause, causes something but still remains timeless and uncaused ? --- Non personal first cause vs Personal first cause with free will --- Pro says "Now, compare this with a personal eternal creator. When he creates, he causes an effect. But did something change? Not at all, for his will is the cause, and his will didn't change in the process." So God (a personal eternal thing ) can be a cause, but an eternal non personal thing can't ?. A non personal cause has to change in order to create an effect, but a personal eternal thing doesn't have to change cause of its "will" ? This is just a made up reason to get God off the hook. God having an timeless/eternal/changeless will, doesn't get God out of Pros metaphysical rules. Cause the argument that eternal things that don't change can't produce anything still applies to this timeless/eternal/changless will, of a timeless/changeless God. Special Pleading is a formal logical fallacy where a participant demands special considerations for a particular premise of theirs. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency. Therefore, they introduce a "special case" or an exception to their rules. While this is acceptable in genuine special cases, it becomes a formal fallacy when a person doesn't adequately justify why the case is special. [1] Seeing there is no justification for this double standard, of God can be a changeless cause, while a non personal eternal thing can't, consider these arguments. 1) An effect requires a change to the cause (claimed by Pro) 2) Gods will does not change (claimed by Pro) 3) Therefore God will is not the cause of anything or 1) An effect doesn't require a change to the cause 2) Gods will does not change and an eternal non personal thing does not change 3) Therefore Gods will or an eternal non personal thing could be a cause So what's its going to be Pro ? --- The First cause and Occam's razor --- For those that are paying attention, I have not contested nor tried to refute the conclusion that there is a "first cause" in order to solve the infinite regress problem. What I have done, is argued what we should and should not deduce about this first cause in light of Pros arguments. It could be argued that the first cause could be either non personal or personal, so why not just choose the personal over the non personal ? or maybe its split 50/50, flip a coin and take your bets. A personal eternal cause, should not be taken over a non personal cause because it is unnecessarily adding to an already sufficient explanation. As occams razor says.... "Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor), often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae, translating to law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness, is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects. For instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place." [1] Person hood is not necessary for the first cause, and as such should not be added to it. The first cause only needs to be powerful enough to cause our universe/reality, or start a chain of causation that some where down the line results in our universe. To add "all powerful" to the first cause is unnecessary and unwarranted. The first cause does not need to be "all good" thus ascribing any morality to it is unnecessary and unwarranted. --- Countering Tag --- I will have to seek some clarification on some things in Pro arguments before I can argue against it. You claim that I have to provide an alternative world view ? why MUST I do this ? why can't I argue against the argument it self ? You claim that.... "So, now we've transcendentally argued that logic must be abstract and absolute" I find this to be an ambiguous claim cause what it means to be "absolute" can differ, especially in TAG arguments. One persons absolute only applies to this universe while another persons absolute has no exceptions what so ever. So what does logic apply to, and what does it not ? 1) Does it apply to possible worlds/realities which may or may not come to ever exist ? 2) Does it apply to God (The God you are trying to prove exists) 3) Are there any exceptions what so ever where logic does not apply ? You also claim that logic is abstract, and that the precondition of logic is abstract. Please give a definition and explanation of what it means to be "abstract", with an emphasis within the context of the TAG argument. Sources [1] http://rationalwiki.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...