Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Reply to thread

Message

If you are going to engage me in a debate, you should at least demonstrate some fortitude in conviction. And so, you THINK that the cosmological argument is 'fundamentally flawed' for making use of a priori reasoning? Is that the gist of your objection?

The operation of causality is an 'a priori' reasoning employed by science also. The cosmological argument merely demonstrates the consequences of such a premise. Reduced to a simple logical statement - IF all phenomena are causal, THEN there must be a FIRST CAUSE - INCONTINGENT, INFINITE AND NECESSARY.

And while we are in the topic of 'a priori' reasoning, are you not aware that the whole of mathematics is founded on it as well, hmmm?

Now, is it your intention to raise fundamental objections on science and mathematics (not to mention the very operation of logic) as well, hmmm?

<blockquote data-quote="numinus" data-source="post: 26817" data-attributes="member: 537">If you are going to engage me in a debate, you should at least demonstrate some fortitude in conviction. And so, you THINK that the cosmological argument is &#039;fundamentally flawed&#039; for making use of a priori reasoning? Is that the gist of your objection?The operation of causality is an &#039;a priori&#039; reasoning employed by science also. The cosmological argument merely demonstrates the consequences of such a premise. Reduced to a simple logical statement - IF all phenomena are causal, THEN there must be a FIRST CAUSE - INCONTINGENT, INFINITE AND NECESSARY.And while we are in the topic of &#039;a priori&#039; reasoning, are you not aware that the whole of mathematics is founded on it as well, hmmm?Now, is it your intention to raise fundamental objections on science and mathematics (not to mention the very operation of logic) as well, hmmm?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="numinus, post: 26817, member: 537"] If you are going to engage me in a debate, you should at least demonstrate some fortitude in conviction. And so, you THINK that the cosmological argument is 'fundamentally flawed' for making use of a priori reasoning? Is that the gist of your objection? [B][U]The operation of causality is an 'a priori' reasoning employed by science also. The cosmological argument merely demonstrates the consequences of such a premise.[/U][/B] Reduced to a simple logical statement - [B][U]IF[/U][/B] all phenomena are causal, [B][U]THEN[/U][/B] there must be a [B][U]FIRST CAUSE - INCONTINGENT, INFINITE AND NECESSARY[/U][/B]. And while we are in the topic of 'a priori' reasoning, are you not aware that the whole of mathematics is founded on it as well, hmmm? Now, is it your intention to raise fundamental objections on science and mathematics (not to mention the very operation of logic) as well, hmmm? [/QUOTE]

Verification