Atheist's Attack On Logic & The Sound Mind

 

 Atheist's Attack On Logic & The Sound Mind

Atheist

Quantum mechanics really does describe superpositions of states, some of which really do include particles both existing and non existing.

Reply

The question asked was "Can something exist and Not exist at the same time?"

The atheist said "Quantum mechanics really does describe superpositions of states, some of which really do include particles both existing and non existing".

If the atheist implies by this that "Something can exist and NOT exist at the same time" it is indeed a violation of law of non-contradiction- a fundemental principle in  classical logic. It is akin to closing the doors of rationality, logic , sound mind and observation.

Does citing "science" or "Quantum mechanics" absolves one of the rational rational absurdities one commits?

Claiming something has been "observed" to exist and not exist at the same time not only leads to violation of law of non-contradiction it also puts a question mark on the observation itself.
(See the subheadings Quantum mechanics and Rational interpretations below for more information)

Imagine a scenario, where a physicist observes a particle.

1) He can say "I can see a particle" which is an admission that "it exists".
2) Now the particle pops out of existence. He says "I cannot see the particle ".
3)Can he conclude from his observation that the said particle EXISTS AND IT DOES NOT EXIST AT THE SAME TIME?
4) Ofcourse not. Because when the particle existed the observed said "It exists" and when the particle popped out of his sight he said "It doesnot exist". But How can he ever conclude that the same particle is existent and non-existent at the same time through observation?
4) The absurdity is obvious, because claiming "It DOES NOT EXIST" is an affirmation that the physicist CANNOT SEE the Particle which simulatenously negates his claims "It EXISTS" AND "I Can See a Particle"
5) "I can see a particle and cannot see it at the same time" is a statement that is devoid meaning because "cannot see" negates "can see". Since the physcist's claims are devoid of meaning, one can safely conclude that his interpretation is a silly one. It has got nothing to do with observation and everything to do with irrationality.
So no, I do not accept your idea that "a particle existing and not existing at the same time"  has been observed at the Quantum Level.
You have either not understood it, or the scientist is full of it.

Now the atheist might ask "the statement can mean " A particle can exist here and Not there" How is that rationally absurd?".
Our response will be: "There is nothing absurd about a Particle being existent here and Not there. It is not a violation of law of non-contradiction. This is true because in order to constitute or demonstrate a contradiction the following conditions must be met":
  
the subject of both statements must be the same
the predicate (i.e. the thing being claimed) must be the same 
the place must be the same 
the time must be the same 
the conditions and circumstances must be the same 
both must be in an actual sense or both in a potential sense 
both must be talking about either the whole or the part, and if the part, then the same part
relation: all tertiary attributes must be the same

What is a Rational absurdity:

{What absolutely cannot be is; what the mind does not accept the potential existence of under any circumstance.}

Let’s begin by considering a simple example. If I say, “Can you draw a square circle?” you would respond, “That’s an absurd question.” This is known as a contradiction in terms.

Let’s take a more subtle example. Can you contain infinity? Again, the obvious response is, “What in the world does this mean?” The answer to this question is obvious. Something can only be contained in some space (for example water in a bottle) if it is limited (say 3 liters of water). How can you “contain” infinity if “containment” requires finiteness?

The proposition of its possible existence is absolutely irrational and logically incongruent. The impossible is expressed as “necessarily non-existing,” or “required not to exist,” “rationally impossible” or “impossible to exist.”

This does not mean that it is impossible to propose the idea of its existence. This is because the proposal only requires putting words together to form a descriptive sentence, such as: “the spherical ball is perfectly cubical.” It is just that when one analyzes the meaning behind the words, one ends up with an absurdity. For example, the expression: “The round circle is a perfect square” is a grammatically sound sentence. It does not, however, have a sound meaning. Its proposition is impossible, because it expresses a contradiction of terms.

These are claims that sound reasoning concludes to be absurd, such as the claim that 1+1=3, or that a part of a whole can be larger than the whole, or that there is a square circle. Another example of something impossible would be for a camel to enter through a needles eye, without a change in the size or shape of either party. Impossible claims refer to things that cannot ever be; they are mere verbal absurdities without a sound meaning. They are usually contradictions of terms (such as the idea of a perfectly round square) or meaning (such as the idea of 1+1=3 using natural numbers).

What is inconcievable is that you are affirming the existence of a particular particle and negating its existence in the same breath at the same time.

For Example:

A) Particle X does exist.
B) Particle X does NOT exist.

Holding both statements (A) and (B) to be true at the same time IS a violation of law of non-contradiction.

The Statement "does NOT exist"is negation of existence and affirmation of non-existence.

Isn't the statement "It does Not exist" equal in its meaning to the statement "It is Non-existent"?

What Is A Rational Possibility?

It is rationally possible or concievable that one particle is existing and yet another particle isn't.
There is nothing absurd about it.

For Example:

A) Particle X does exist.
B)Particle Y does NOT Exist.

Holding (A) and (B) to be true is Not a violation of law of non-contradiction.

Quantum Mechanics:

Hiding behind big words such as "Quantum mechanics" is not going to rid you of the absurdity that has just been highlighted.

This kind of sophistry primarily stems from failure to differentiate between what is "Observed" and what is "Interpreted" or "Assumed" prior to an observation.

You should have realized it is a scientist’s attempt to interpret some observation that he made.

We reject those interpretations which contradict "Logic, rationality and the sound mind".

And your attempt at bringing in the interpretations or assumptions of scientists to dismantle the proofs based on the veracity of law of non-contradiction has been exposed.

After all accepting which contradicts sound mind necessarily entails rejecting observation and reality as has been demonstrated previously in the physicist's example.
At the end of the day we only have the scientist's word for what he saw.

Show us how and what was actually observed that contradicts the Kalam argument. We are not interested in theories or silly interpretations.

As respected Shaykh Abu Adam rightly points here;

As Muslims we must not accept everything a person says just because he is good at math or is wearing a white jacket. Let us also not forget that the word of a kaafir is not a proof of anything. We cannot even accept as true what they claim to have observed in the laboratory. Why? Because we have only a kafir’s word for it. It is kħabar waaĥid, a singular narration, and from a kaafir, so it is like writing on water; it is only possibly true in itself. Not only that, but when it is also self-contradictory in nature, such as some of the supposed interpretations of experiments in physics, then we would not accept it from a muslim, let alone a kaafir.

 The habit of physicists in this age is to throw ideas/ theories and then stay with them until an experiment shows otherwise. They do not always use logic before they speak. They consider everything as possible – it is the heritage of christian sophistry. They do not care about something called impossible in the minds eye, such as the idea of standing and not standing at the same time. This type of idea-throwing as theories happens a lot.

The physicists of today are philosophers of yesterday, empowered by the technological success of physics. They use this power to fool people into accepting even their ideas that are metaphysical – atheism, agnosticism, sophistry – hiding behind the achievement of physics, sometimes disguising them as physical theories. They do this just as the philosophers of yesterday did the same in light of their skills in mathematics, until the kalam scholars drove them into the corner. Today this is not happening, because the muslims are weak, and highly qualified kalam scholars, capable of critical thinking, are extremely few.

As for QM, it explains a lot of the strange things observed in small particles. What necessarily follows from this theory has to do with measurement of speed, position, velocity, etc. Physicists do not say that a thing is in several places at the same time, except perhaps those that are prone to silly interpretations of some observations, like the double-split experiment. A number of them do say that if we want to know the place of an electron, then we come with an instrument to see, or by our eyes. Before we look, the system was undisturbed, they say it was not in a place. When you looked or measured, then you disturbed the system, thus you obliged the electron to go into an arbitrary position. This is philosophy, not science. It is the ancient, “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”

Schrödinger's cat

Schrodinger proposed a scenario with a cat in a locked steel chamber, wherein the cat's life or death depended on the state of a radioactive atom, whether it had decayed and emitted radiation or not. According to Schrödinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead until the state has been observed. Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; on the contrary, he intended the example to illustrate the absurdity of the existing view of quantum mechanics.

However, since Schrödinger's time, other interpretations of the mathematics of quantum mechanics have been advanced by physicists, some of which regard the "alive and dead" cat superposition as quite real.

A commonly held interpretation of quantum mechanics is the Copenhagen interpretation.^[12] In the Copenhagen interpretation, a system stops being a superposition of states and becomes either one or the other when an observation takes place. This thought experiment makes apparent the fact that the nature of measurement, or observation, is not well-defined in this interpretation. The experiment can be interpreted to mean that while the box is closed, the system simultaneously exists in a superposition of the states "decayed nucleus/dead cat" and "undecayed nucleus/living cat", and that only when the box is opened and an observation performed does the wave function collapse into one of the two states.
However, one of the main scientists associated with the Copenhagen interpretation, Niels Bohr, never had in mind the observer-induced collapse of the wave function, as he did not regard the wave function as physically real, but a statistical tool; thus, Schrödinger's cat did not pose any riddle to him. The cat would be either dead or alive long before the box is opened by a conscious observer.^[13]

Many physicists and philosophers^[who?] have objected to the Copenhagen interpretation, both on the grounds that it is non-deterministic and that it includes an undefined measurement process that converts probability functions into non-probabilistic measurements. Einstein's comments "I, at any rate, am convinced that He [God] does not throw dice."^[57] and "Do you really think the moon isn't there if you aren't looking at it?"^[58] exemplify this. Bohr, in response, said, "Einstein, don't tell God what to do."^[59]

 Questions:

Is a cat being dead and not dead (alive) at the same time an observation?
Is a particle being existent and NOT existent at the same time an observation?

By observation we mean DID any of those scientists SAW a cat being dead and alive at the same time?By observation we mean did any of those scientists SAW a particle being existent and NOT existent at the same time?

The answer to these questions is: ofcourse not. Since according to one interpretation in QM; observation collapses the superimposed states into one of the definitve states (Reality).

If you want to contest this; bring an observation that effectively shows a cat being dead and alive at the same time OR a particle which is existing and not existing at the same time.

This brings us to the meat of the matter:

Is the claim "a particle is existent and NOT existent at the same time " based on speculation or imagination or interpretation?

If your answer is yes.
How can you claim to know this with any level of certainty?
Moreover, why did you bring this in a rational discussion that is based on solid logical principles such as the law of non-contradiction?


Is it based on rational and deductive mode of reasoning?
How can it be so when your proposition violates the principles of Logic?

Rational Interpretations:

-The wave function reflects our knowledge of the system. The wave function ${\displaystyle (|{\text{dead}}\rangle +|{\text{alive}}\rangle )/{\sqrt {2}}}$ means that, once the cat is observed, there is a 50% chance it will be dead, and 50% chance it will be alive.

There is nothing rationally absurd about the proposition made above unless one says that the cat existed in two states of being dead and NOT dead at the same time.

In other words it is rationally possible that a cat is either dead OR not dead (alive) even before opening the box. This is no way implies the cat IS dead and not dead at the same time. That is a rational impossibility.

 -If an experiment of QM;quarks, really does show particles popping into existence and out of existence randomly, the maximum such an experiment would tell you is "lack" of observable cause.

Lack of observable cause does not mean "Without a cause".

Atheists usually bring Quantum findings (Quarks) to refute the premise "Everything that begins to exist has a cause".
Had the atheists bothered to read and understand the arguments , it would have dawned upon them that the cause is NOT contingent and that by defintion means it is NOT emperical.

Their proposition falls apart because these Quantum findings do not dispel the Kalam Premise "Everything that begins to exist MUST have a cause" because

a) This premise is proven based on the fundamental principle of logic i.e. law of non contradiction.

b) "cause" being mentioned in the Kalam Argument is not contingent in nature (emperical) to begin with. Their propositon strengthens our argument and doesnot weaken it at all.

c) It is their interpretation  of what was observed that is flawed because sound-reasoning rejects their interpretation.

d) Kalam also establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that a cause cannot be contingent because that is a rationally absurd proposition AND the real reason things begin to exist MUST be on account of a necessary existent being bringing them into existence.

e) If the Kalam argument was proposing a contingent cause, the idea of bringing Quantum findings into an argument would have made some sense.

f) Since contingent or emperical causes CANNOT bring things into existence. The proof of this is based on rational and deductive mode of reasoning mentioned in the argument here. The gist of the matter is that the propositon that contingent causes bring things into existence LEADS to infinite regress. Something which this sophist/relativist has completely missed.

g) It is rationally possible that a Creator brings a particle into existence without any preceding correlating event. It is this "correlating event" that was not observed in Quantum mechanics.
So what? Lack of a correlating event (or emperical cause) has no effect on the premise "Everything that begins to exist has a cause". In otherwords, it cannot dispel the argument because the KALAM proves beyond a reasonable doubt that advocating a contingent cause is a rationally absurd proposition because it leads to infinite regress. Rational absurdities don't exist outside of an insane mind.
We can say that if the pattern of quarks truly have no observable correlating event that makes it predictable, and is thus labeled “random,” it is either because Allah has not willed for it to have a correlating event, or because He has not willed for it to be discovered.

h) As for the observable causality which we see between fire burning and water quenching thirst and other events of this nature, we maintain that these are not the true reasons why things begin to exist.

Does that mean we Muslims deny empirical observation and deny that there this is any correlation between these events? No. Not at all. We say, there is a correlation, and that is all it is, a correlation. It is not causality in the sense that was established in the argument.

Atheist

 “I never denied the logical law of non contradiction.

Reply 

A) Particle X does exist.
B) Particle X does not exist.

Holding both (A) and (B) to be true is a violation of law of non-contradiction.Your claim that you have never denied the law of non-contradiction means nothing but sophistry.

Law of non-contradiction is an axiom of classical and modern logic. It is a first principle which is very obviously and clearly true and it is used extensively in proofs and in building higher-than-first principle laws. It needs no proof of its own. No rational human denies the veracity of this axiom.

Recall how exactly we form the antithesis of a thesis; we take the thesis and apply negation to it. We can then optionally move the negation closer into the root of the thesis if there are quantifiers and modalities. So if someone denies that an antithesis and thesis are contradictory, what they are doing, in essence, is denying the meaning of negation (“not”). This is not a denial of any rational argument; it is a denial of semantics and observation. And what can be said of a person who does this?

Atheist:

A properly formed statement cannot be both true and false.”The law doesn’t apply to improperly formed statements, and it doesn’t apply to two statements that may or may not be in conflict with each other.

Reply:

Stating the obvious that "The law doesn’t apply to improperly formed statements, and it doesn’t apply to two statements that may or may not be in conflict with each other" implies that I have formulated the statements in the wrong manner. He is making a claim without demonstrating "how". and "what" was improperly formulated.
This claim of his is without evidence, it is rejected without evidence (Hitchen's).


Let me put it this way for you:

A) Jack exists.
B) Jack does Not exist.
Negation (Not) of existence (in statement B) means Non-existence. It doesn't mean anything else.
Claiming it does mean something else without showing "how" is the height of sophistry.

How can you affirm the existence of Jack and Negate his existence (which essentially means affirming his non-existence) at the same time?

Then you have the audacity to point out the obvious by saying "The law doesn’t apply to improperly formed statements, and it doesn’t apply to two statements that may or may not be in conflict with each other" without realizing that you need to demonstrate that the examples I have provided above:
1) donot stand in conflict with each other therefore they donot violate the law of non-contradiction.
2)They are improperly formed therefore they donot violate the law of non-contradiction.

You will never be able to demonstrate 1) and 2). It is my open challenge.

Atheist

 “According to QM the answer is Yes”.

Reply

What can be said about a person who says the following:

A) A properly formed statement cannot be both true and false.
B) Quantum mechanics really does describe superpositions of states, some of which really do include particles both existing and non existing.

Clearly Madness has no cure!


An Antithesis (an-ti-tha-sis) is the opposite (or contradiction) of a thesis. More precisely, a statement S is the antithesis of a statement T if both are exactly the same except that the affirmativeness of both is different. For example, the statements “I am alive” and “I am not alive” are contradictory because, all other things being the same, their affirmativeness is different.

 It is crucial that all other aspects of the statements be the same.

1) Jack is Alive.
2) Jack is NOT Alive (dead).

Since according (2) "NOT" is the negation of Life ( and affirmation of death) it is then absurd to claim that the two statements do not contradict each other when (Statement 2) IS NEGATING (LIFE) and (Statement 1) IS AFFIRMING (LIFE).

Our readers might be wondering that what does Quantum mechanics has to do with this. The answer to this is quite simple: Nothing.
The argument of the atheist has everything to do with an absurd mind.  His act of hiding behind science to support his rational absurdities is akin to bringing a bad name to the science itself.

Atheist

I didn’t make that up. 

Does making a claim "I didn’t make it up" solves the contradiction? It only shows your ignorance of the law of non-contradiction and it also shows you have no trouble violating it.

Atheist

This would seem to be a contradiction, but if looked at simplistically, quantum mechanics is full of such contradictions.

Reply

His sophistry is quite obvious here.

He emphasizes on the word “seem” or “apparant” in order to give false impression to the reader that “Contradiction” doesn’t exist in reality.

But how does he solve the apparent contradiction?
By stating “quantum mechanics is full of such contradictions.”
Is that how you solve a contradiction?

What could be more rationally absurd than the following:

1) These don't violate the law of non-contradiction.
2) Because the law doesn't apply to improperly formed statements.
3) The apparant contradictions in QM is so,
4) because QM is full of contradictions.

1) According to him the claim "Particle does exist and doesnot exist at the same time" is not a violation of law of non-contradiction"
2) He hasn't provided any proofs for why the statements are improperly formed. Just empty claims.
3) He is asserting that there is no contradiction in reality i.e. it only appears to be.
4) He solves the apparent contradictions by asserting QM is full of contradictions.

Atheist

See 20th century physics for plenty of seemingly contradictory dualities. These don’t actually violate the logical law of non contradiction, though they do violate typical human expectations of which things should be contradictory.

Reply

Desperately trying to hide under the cover of science to bolster one's bad arguments is indeed a sign of defeat. It is also akin to appealing to authority.
Another obvious hidden assumption comes from equating what is being observed to what is being interpreted and/or assumed.

This has been discussed extensively in the beginning of the post.  Contradictons by definition cannot exist because they are intrinsically impossible by definiton.

Let's focus on what is being discussed here.
A) Particle X is existent.
B) Particle X is NOT existent.
He holds both of them to be TRUE at the same time.

Based on his violation of law of non-contradiction the following becomes:

A) God does exist.
B) God does NOT exist.

Since he believes both A) and B) to be true at the same time, what is all this argument about?

Why is he hell-bent on refuting the idea of a God that exists when according to him Both A and B are true.This kind of sophistry is the result of a diseased mind.
Nothing more.

Atheist

 These don’t actually violate the logical law of non contradiction.

Reply

My open challenge:

a) Demonstrate the improper formulation of the examples given above.

This is the only way you can rid yourself of the charge of violation of law of non-contradiction. But since you will NOT be able to demonstrate this, then

b) Go to any logician and tell them that what you are claiming above doesn’t violate the law of non-contradicton. And I guarantee 100% he would ask you to go and get your head checked up from a psychiatrist.
Claiming it doesn’t violate the law is PURE SOPHISTRY.

The violation is as obvious as a clear day. It all comes to how one formulates contradictions and what conditions need to be met. I have illustrated quite clearly how these are formulated.


It is my sincere advise now: Why don’t you try to learn logic first if you really are serious in refuting the arguments mentioned here?

Atheist

The specific point that you stated incorrectly (this is more a definitional issue than a statement form issue) is that you cited a specific attribute which does not necessarily appear in all cases to have a single state, in the particular case, existence, at least as it applies to certain things.

Reply

I have to wonder, at least, what possessed you to write this gibberish.

The specific attribute being discussed is Particle's existence.
So "Not-existing" according to you is a state OF existence of that particle?
Or is "not-existing" according to you a state of that particle?
What do you mean when you claim the particle does not exist?
Are you affirming its existence or negating its existence or both?

What do you mean when you say God does not exist?
Are you affirming His existence or Negating his existence?

Where is your proof of your claim: "It doesnot necessarily appear in all cases to have a single state?"

Is this proof based on:
1) Observation?
2) Logic?
3) Speculation or imagination?

Do i really need to write a refutation of this?

The NOT in "Does NOT exist" is a negation of existence and affirmation of non-existence.  Denial of "NOT" is denial of semantics and observation.

How is negation/denial  of existence of a particular thing anything other than non-existence of that particular thing?
How is negation/ denial of existence of something anything other than "Not Existing" (Non existent)?
How is "Not existing" any different from "Non-existence"?
How can you claim to have observed a particle when observation of it hinges upon the fact that "it exists" yet you claim "It doesnot exist" at the same time and that hinges upon the fact that you can't observe it?

Atheist

Stating repeatedly that something cannot be both one thing and another thing doesn’t make your statement true if the two properties aren’t actually exclusive of each other.

Reply

It’s a wonder how much far you can go in affirming your madness.

Let’s give you some lesson on the law of non-contradiction:

A) A box is red in colour.
B) A box is white in colour.

Holding A) and B) to be true at the same time is not a violation of law of non-contradiction.
It is rationally possible that a Box can be both red and white in colour.

You seem to be misrepresenting my arguments in the manner listed above. And you have been exposed beyond a reasonable doubt.

A) Jack is sleeping.
B) Jack is sitting.

Holding A) and B) to be true at the same time is not a violation of law of non-contradiction.
It is rationally possible that Jack might be sleeping while he is sitting.

You seem to be misrepresenting my arguments in the manner listed above. This is NOT what my arguments are postulating.

A) Jack is Sitting.
B) Jack is not standing.

Holding A) and B) to be true at the same time is not a violation of law of non-contradiction.This is true because B) has meanings that might or might not contradict A. For example "Not standing" could imply "Jack might be sitting" which is affirming A.

The true contradiction would stem if these statements are phrased the following way:

A) Jack is standing.
B)Jack is NOT standing.

Holding A) and B) to be true at the same time is a violation of law of non-contradiction. This is because "Not standing" is Denial/Negation of Standing. Both A and B can't be true at the same time.
A) Jack is Sitting.
B) Jack is NOT sitting.
Holding A) and B) to be true at the same time IS a violation of law of non-contradiction.

NOT Sitting is a denial/ Negation of Sitting. Both A and B can’t be true at the same time.

A) Particle X Does exist.
B) Particle X Does Not Exist.

Particle X Does NOT exist, is the denial/negation of its  existence. Both A and B can’t be true at the same time.
Even after understanding this, if you still feel the urge to “violate the law of non-contradiction” and claim at the same time that “you are not violating it” all I can say is “incredulity has no cure”. After all the only thing you are good at is sophistry. This is precisely what this post is refuting at the moment.

For a beginners, read this article on the law of non-contradiction to understand what this conversation is about and learn how far these atheists can go in rejecting their Creator.

Atheist:

I explained my point perfectly well. Existence within quantum mechanics is not necessarily a binary state, so the law of non-contradiction is not violated.

Reply:

First

what and where is your proof that this has been "Observed" in quantum mechanics?
SHOW US WHAT, HOW AND WHERE a particle was existent and NOT existent WAS OBSERVED.
We are not interested in silly interpretations and we are also not interested in YOUR empty claims.


Secondly,

1) Particle X does exist.
2) Particle X doesnot exist.

It is a violation of law of non-contradiction. In order to charge us with dichtomoy you need to bring a third alternative.

Your third alternative is "In Quantum mechanics it can be both" which is a direct violation of law of non-contradiction. And in the same breath you claim "the law of non-contradiction: is not violated.


Theist: Claiming something can be both existent and non-existent at the same time is violation of law of non-contradiction.

Atheist: It can be both in QM and it is not a violation.

Theist: This is cyclical reasoning, you are violating the law and claiming it is not violated in the same breath. This is true because all you are doing is deeming both "Particle X does exist" and "Particle X doesnot exist" to be true at the same time. That is not a third alternative but questioning the veracity of law of non-contradiction. Adding the word Quantum mechanics doesnot absolve you of the absurdity you are committing here.

What do we mean when we say bring a third alternative?

A) The stone is blind.
B) The stone is not blind (Seeing).

A) AND B) is a true Dichotomy.The stone is niether said to be "blind" nor "seeing"  and this is NOT a violation of law of non-contradiction.  Why? Because the hidden question (third alternative) that needs to be answered FIRST is this "Does stone have sight?" Since the answer to this question to No... asking "Is the stone blind or seeing (not blind)" is a pure nonsense question.

This is how you need to demonstrate your third alternative. All i have is your claim that "something can be existent AND not existent at the same time is valid contention" but so far you haven't demonstrated it.

On the other hand, the reason of its INVALIDITY is based on sound reasoning:

The judgement of intellect regarding the existence of anything is that it is:

Necessary/Eternal: It's existence is intrinsic to itself. The mind absolutely doesnot accept its non-existence.
Impossible: It's non-existence is intrinsic to itself. The mind absolutely doesnot accept its existence. E.ga square circle, 2+2=5.

Possible: It may or may not exist.  It is only intrinsically possible in existence.
It's not required by its nature to exist (else it would be necessary) and is niether required by its nature to not exist (else it would be impossible).

Claiming something could be existent and non-existent is to say "Its existence is preponderant over non-existence" and that makes it "existent" AND "Its non-existence is preponderant over existence" and that makes it "non-existent". Claiming it is both is then rationally absurd.

Atheist

Eternal:
1) Always existent/ Existent since eternity past.
2) Not dependent on any external cause.
3)Without a beginning and without an end.
4)The mind absolutely doesnot accept its non-existence.
5)Intrinscially necessary.
6) Uncreated/ UNCAUSED.

Nothing in this list implies that eternal things can’t have properties which can change, and nothing I said indicated that change requires a cause external to the thing that is changing. 

Reply

THE RATIONAL PROOF THAT ANY "CHANGE" MUST REQUIRE A CAUSE:

Any change is essentially a beginning. It begins to exist. Since it begins to exist it MUST require a cause. Our proof of this (that it requires a cause) is NOT inductive and is NOT based on intitution. Our proof is based on the law of non-contradiction something that you surely didn't know before you had this conversation.

After all, youtube DIY-Atheist side-tracking technique videos wouldn't teach you this.They are only meant to teach you how to do side-tracking without being caught.

Whenever something comes into existence or begins to exist, the following claims can be made about its existence:

1) It was necessary: Clearly this is self-contradictory because whatever begins to exist by definition cannot be said to be necessary (Eternal), else it would have been existent since eternity past and moments ago we agreed that it began to exist.

2)It was impossible: Clearly this is self-contradictory because it began to exist. To say that it was impossible is to deny that something came into existence (began to exist). This is true because impossible things donot happen.

3)It was possible: Since it wasn't necessary (else it would have been necessary since eternity past and it wouldn't have begun to exist) and it wasn't impossible (else it wouldn't have begun to exist), it must be merely possible in existence. What does possible in existence entail?

There was nothing in its nature that required existence (else it would have been necessary) neither its nature required non-existence (else it would have been impossible). So the existence and non-existence are equal with respect to the very nature of that thing i.e intrinsic to itself. Equal in what sense? None is preponderant over the other.
Now when such a thing begins to exist from prior non-existence, it has to be on account of some external cause preferring its existence over non-existence. You can't say this thing occured causelessly because that would lead to a contradiction. Please note we agreed occurance of such a thing was a possibility and there was nothing in its nature that required existence (else it would be necessary/eternal) and niether it required non-existence (else it would be impossible). Both existence and non-existence were equal i.e. None was preponderant over the other. Now when you claim that the it occured without a cause, you are making a contradiction because how can something be such that both its existence and non-existence are equal and at the same time be such that its existence is preponderant above its non-existence? (This absurdity is known as Preponerance without a preferror).

Note: The necessary truth of the proposition has been proven rationally. This can no longer be contested by any empirical evidence, or scientific observation. Rather, if one presents anything along these lines to contest the universal application of the proposition, the reply will be simple: obviously, the most such an observation can show us is the lack of an observable cause. It does not solve the contradiction we highlighted just now.
Indeed, at this point, the opponent must refute our argument mentioned in the main article, and then present the scientific finding. He must do both in order to contest our premise.

Atheists usually present fluctuations in quantum mechanics as proof for their claim that "Not everything that begins to exist has a cause" to dispel the Kalam argument.(This had been addressed under the heading "rational interpretations")

However, they can't dispel it for three reasons
1)Kalam Argument doesnot advocate a contingent cause.
2)Absence of a contingent cause (in a scientific finding such as quantum fluctuations) has no bearing on the premises of Kalam argument for the reason mentioned in (1).
3) The premise "Not everything that begins to exist must have a cause" or "Some things which begin to exist do not have a cause’ has been proven to be false due to the absurdity "Now when you claim that the thing occurred without a cause, you are making a contradiction because how can something be such that both its existence and non-existence are equal and at the same time be such that its existence is preponderant above its non-existence?"Based on the above, we can say that if the pattern of quarks truly have no observable correlating event that makes it predictable, and is thus labeled “random,” it is either because Allah has not willed for it to have a correlating event, or because He has not willed for it to be discovered.

THE RATIONAL PROOF THAT ETERNAL CANNOT CHANGE:

Let's review the definiton of eternal:

Eternal:
1) Always existent/ Existent since eternity past.
2) Not dependent on any external cause.
3)Without a beginning and without an end.
4)The mind absolutely doesnot accept its non-existence.
5)Intrinscially necessary.
6) Uncreated/ UNCAUSED.

Since eternal by defintion means uncaused and any change is essentially a beginning i.e. begins to exist and therefore MUST require a cause, the one making the claim "Eternal can change" is implying that a "change" can occur (begin to exist) within the existence of something that is deemed eternal. This is rationally absurd because
Eternal by definition means:
A) Uncaused.
You claim that it changes or it can change means it is dependent upon a cause. It goes against the definiton of the word "ETERNAL".
The absurditycan be rephrased in this manner: "The uncaused is caused."

Atheist

Also, what does 4 have to do with anything? And 5 is kind of meaningless. I mean, it works logically: if X is always a thing, then if Y then X is always true, meaning logically that X can be a necessary condition for anything.

Reply

If you do not understand basic terminology then why don’t you simply ask? Is it a rational necessity that you have to write this gibberish prior to understanding your opponent's position?

4) The mind absolutely doesnot accept its non-existence.

Meaning: It is rationally impossible or inconceivable that Eternity comes to an end because eternity is by definition  is without a beginning and without an end.


Since being eternal entails “Always existent” it is inconceivable to say “ It is not always existent” because the latter statement implies non-existence and this goes against the definiton of the word “Eternal”OR "Always existent". Since you have no trouble violating law of non-contradiction, it is understandable that you wouldn’t be able to wrap your mind around this as well.

5) Intrinscially necessary:

“Intrinsically necessary” means required by its nature to exist i.e its existence is intrinsic to it. It is not merely possible or contingent. It is by definiton not dependent on a cause for its existence. (Read what has been said mentioned above pertaining to “Necessary”, “Possible” and “Impossible”).

Atheist

Fields in physics, like energy, can change values, oscillate, interact with each other, drop in energy levels, increase in energy levels, increase in extent as a result of expansions in space-time, and do other things. If they didn’t change, nothing in the universe could ever happen, since these fields and their changes are what result in the particles and their interactions that make up everything in the universe, us included, at least as those things appear to us.

Reply

Agreed but so what?
Who is denying change? It is NOT US.

In fact it is your claim that the "cosmos is eternal and changing" and what that necessarily entails is that:

1) It must be contingent since it is changing.

By contingent we mean IT BEGAN to exist. It requires a cause.

2) If it is Eternal, there will be no change and this contradicts observed reality.

3)The change doesnot require a cause. And that leads to preponderance without a preferrer absurdity (explained elsewhere in the thread).

So it is you who has to get out of your bubble of rational absurdities. NOT US.

Atheist

There are “eternal” models of cosmology which include fields that have existed forever and that will exist forever, and that are changing in patterns across every conceivable time scale. I am not making this up.

Reply

Does stating “I am not making this up” absolves you of the absurdity you are committing here?

It is finally a failure to thing logically that how could a scientist make a claim  about a particular thing existing forever, when it is a claim of the future and future by no means has been observed.

If those scientists are proving this based on logical principles, bring those arguments here. They will be debunked beyond repair.

If it is based on inductive reasoning based on what holds true for the past, then it by definiton probablistic. It doesnot impart certainty. So what have you gained? Moreover, how could observation and inductive reasoning establish something that is by definition  beginningless?

Models are just models some of them more absurd then others. So what is your proof that these models ARE eternal apart from speculation (since it is niether observation and niether Logic)?

I see this attempt of yours as nothing but an appeal to authority. And that has no bearing on the proof presented.

Show us how they have reached the conclusion that something could have been existent forever through observation.
If you can't. then, why are you putting this speculation here implying all the while that it can refute what has been established through solid logical principles?

Atheist

I only argued that eternal and unchanging are two separate attributes
, and nothing at all in your definition of eternal suggests eternal must be unchanging,

Reply

Eternal by definition means:
A) Uncaused.
You claim that it changes or it can change means it is dependent upon a cause.

If you claim “change” does not require a cause: you have violated the law of non-contradiction. Because any change is essentially a beginning, and what ever begins to exist must require a cause. This is based on the fundamental principle in logic- the law of non-contradiction.


Claiming change occurs without a cause, leads to absurdity highlighed below:

How can something be such that both its existence and non-existence are equal (i.e. Not preponderant over the other) and at the same time be such that its existence is preponderant above its non-existence?
If you claim "Eternal can change" (all the while accepting that change requires a cause):

It is a violation of law of non-contradiction:

A) Eternal is caused.
B) Eternal is not caused (Uncaused).

Holding A) and B) to be true is a violation of law of non-contradiction.Moreover A is self-contradictory in and of itself because it goes against the definiton of what is Eternal.

What you are trying to say is "The uncaused is caused".  This is akin to saying "I drew a circle which is a square".

A) The existence of a thing is required by its nature (Intrinsic to it).
B) The existence of a thing is NOT required by its nature.

Holding A) and B) to be true is a violation of law of non-contradicton.

Atheist

so you seem to have just made that one up to make an unsupported point while doubling down on the error by telling me I am in idiot for not seeing it your way.

Reply

This has been addressed above. Everything that i have stated hinges on logical principles. Your failure to understand proofs is not my fault. It is solely yours.

Atheist

Most of what you are arguing is not new, though your zeal at insisting that illogical and unsupported arguments are logical and supported

 Answer

 You need to demonstrate what is illogical and unsupported. Does merely throwing a claim of "being irrational or illogical" at me makes my arguments illogical?
So far I have exposed and refuted your inherent logical contradictions. The proof of this is in this very post.


 and that I am an idiot is at least more amusing than, say, listening to William Lane Craig pretending to be rational.

You are not only an idiot, since you have denied the law of non-contradiction, you are in fact a mule to me.

The only reason i am writing this is to teach the readers a valuable lesson:

The arguments presuppose two matters that we believe are beyond debate. We will thus not engage in attempting to ‘prove’ these two issues. Instead, we would rather not discuss with anyone doubtful in these two issues. They are very obvious:

1. Firstly, the real existence of beings, attributes and events we observe in the world. Our direct observation of them is sufficient in acquiring knowledge of their real existence.

2. Secondly, the principle of non-contradiction. It is not possible for two directly opposing propositions to both be true, and likewise for both to be false. Necessarily, one will be true and the other will be false. Similarly if a proposition leads to contradiction – and we are able to demonstrate this – its opposite will need to be accepted as true on this basis alone. It is not warranted for someone to claim we have not proven our point, if we were successful in demonstrating contradiction within its opposite. Yes. If an opponent wants to contest our disjunction, claiming a third option is possible, they are free to do so. Throughout the article, we will preempt all such occasions. Naturally, the article will get lengthy at such places. For this reason we offer a brief summary before beginning. Below are the six stages of the argument listed in a summarised fashion:

So never ever debate with those who deny (1) or (2). You are wasting your time. This is the way of logicians, so take heed from this article.

As far William Craig Lane, I have to wonder what compelled you to write his name. May be you are wasting too much of your time reading articles of christian missionaries. He is a disbeliver(Kafir) by the consensus of muslim scholars. He has got nothing to do with us.

Atheist

The Cosmos itself might be eternal, yet it certainly changes. 

Reply

Violation of law of non-contradiction, this has been proven in this post beyond a reasonable doubt.

Claiming that the "cosmos might be eternal" is akin to saying "A square circle might exist".

Not only that since it has been proven that "Eternal cannot change" claiming something that is change might be eternal is to DENY "change" and this contradicts observed reality.

Atheist

And again, nothing in your definition of eternal requires that it be unchanging (or even that it not be subject to change from an external event), so it is definitely you who are making an unsupported argument here.

Reply

Unsupported? How is anything based on a solid principle of logic be unsupported?

Your claim that my arguments are “unsupported” is a claim without evidence. It is rejected without evidence. What i am trying to say is that you need to write a refutation instead of merely making empty claim. You need to write and refute the points which have been mentioned here. This is something you cannot ever do.

Atheist

Either that or you have misframed what you are talking about, or you you are simply parroting stuff from Christian apologists without understanding their pretty massive failures to properly frame, describe, and construct arguments.

Reply

Do you call this a refutation?

Surely i don't need to teach you how to write a refutation. This is pretty much an adhominem attack.
Stop reading articles of christian apologists and stop assuming your opponent's position. This blog has got nothing to do with "christian" missionaries or apologists.

You are only

Atheist

This article you are linking to is so dumb, it is hard to know where to begin. But, okay, let’s start at the beginning.

Reply

Let's have a look at his rebuttal below.

Warning: "Laughter alert"

Atheist

This is clearly a straw-man fallacy. You are going to have a seriously difficult time finding anyone who argues that: Because every part of a thing has a certain property, therefore the whole thing has that same property. Well, it has that property trivially by inclusion, but if WLC is arguing against that then it is yet more evidence that he is either manipulative or an idiot. Seriously, this is just making a nonsense argument, declaring that “atheists” (somehow not cosmologists) make such an argument, and then calling them idiots for making an argument that the writer is dreaming somebody actually made.

Reply

This is what happens when your desire to write a refutation supercedes your desire to understand your opponent's position. The outcome then is without a doubt a straw-man.

Give this article a read and then try to understand the gibberish he has written above.

Atheist

Also, the argument doesn’t even understand what makes up the universe, which it doubles down on later in the link by talking about the universe as simple rearrangements of matter. Matter itself is an emergent property of fields and energy, and the energy that results in matter can actually form in stupendously large quantities within a rapidly expanding space-time.

Reply

How does “what the universe is made of” relevant to kalam. This is a failed attempt at setting up a straw-man and side-track because KCA doesn’t make any of those claims. It is irrelevant You are good at side-tracks by the way.

Where does kalam describe, according to you, how beings are created?
Not only that,but you completely missed the point of that post:

1) If matter is an emergent property of fields and energy
2)then those fields and energy ARE contingent by defintion. This is true because matter would emerge from those fields or energy rather than by them.
3) This is akin to entertaining "contingents" without a cause absurdity if you are implying that those fields and energy are caused as a result of something else that is contingent (adinfinitum).
4)If you assert that these fields and energy are eternal then any change in them is intrinsically impossible and what that entails is nothing would ever come into existence. Moreover, energy and fields are by defintion changing so they cannot be eternal.
5) If you assert that those fields came into existence without a cause i.e. a preponderance without a preferrer absurdity, and a violation of law of non-contradiction.

Atheist

so this is simple enough.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2. The universe began to exist; Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause (presumes God here).

Reply

 Did you make a slip here? Whose argument are you actually refuting?

I think you told me that you read my arguments.

I am not affliated in any manner what soever with William Craig Lane as has been mentioned clearly above. This is a muslim blog.Your assumption about me being a christian stems from your hatred towards them. I understand that you feel angry and hateful but please channel it where it needs to be directed.

Atheist

Point 1 may or may not be true in all cases.

Quantum mechanics describes a variety of spontaneous events which don’t seem to be caused by anything in particular.

Reply
 

These quantum findings work for us NOT against us. You are only shooting yourself in the foot.This has been extensive discussed above under the section "Rational Interpretations": Lack of observable cause has no bearing on the Kalam premises BECAUSE Kalam is NOT advocating an emperical or contingent cause. It establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the reason why things begin to exist MUST be on account of a Creator (Necessary existence).

The necessary truth of the proposition “Everything that begins to exist” has been proven based on the law of non-contradiction..
This can no longer be contested by any empirical evidence, or scientific observation. Rather, if one presents anything along these lines to contest the universal application of the proposition, the reply will be simple: obviously, the most such an observation can show us is the lack of an observable cause.
Indeed, at this point, the opponent must refute our argument mentioned in the main article, and then present the scientific finding. He must do both in order to contest our premise.

Atheist

Physicsts and cosmologists do indeed speculate that space-time bubbles might well come into existence spontaneously. Some of this is speculation, so although it fits within certain aspects of known physics and explains some features of the universe, we can’t say for certain that space-time bubbles do in fact arise purely spontaneously. But what this does do is make point 1 arguably dubious. Not that it matters, because even if point 1 were true, the Kalam argument doesn’t lead anywhere all that interesting.

Reply

This is getting boring now.
You trust a speculation of a Physicist and you have no problem violating the law of non-contradiction at the same time. Where is this world coming to?
Secondly how does mere speculations of a physicist makes the Kalam's premise "Everything that begins to exist MUST have a cause" dubious?

Your claim that it does make my arguments dubious exposes 4 fundamental flaws with your reasoning:

a) Appeal to authority.
b) That speculations can refute arguments which are based on solid logical principles. This effectively shows how much regard you give to a rational discussion.
c) It shows the level of incredulity that an atheist could reach in order to deny the existence of their creator.
d) What the physicists say MUST always right. This is something you cannot ever prove, because it is NOT a logical necessity. In fact what the physicists say "May be right" or "May be wrong". If it is wrong judged on the basis that if IT CONTRADICTS rationality we reject it. And we also ask for proof of "observation" from those who bring absurd assumptions or interpretations of physicists to the table. We do so because we know our opponent cannot be bring any observational proof since intrinsic impossibilities CANNOT exist by definition.

Atheist

As for point 2, perhaps our particular space-time bubble began to exist, possibly as a spontaneous event,

Reply

If by spontaneous you meant “without a cause” that is a violation of law of non-contradiction. This has been extensively covered under the rational proof of the premise "Everything that begins to exist must have a cause".

Atheist

possibly as a sudden or gradual change in the local value for an eternal or non-eternal inflaton field, or possibly through some other means.

Reply

a) Violation of law of non-contradiction if it is “an eternal inflation field”. Because change is intriniscally impossible in eternal.The proof of this has been extensively covered above.

b) If it is non-eternal and change is without a cause, it is a violation of law of non-contradiction. The proof of this has been extensively covered above.

c)If it is non-eternal and changing and requires a cause which is caused by another contingent which is caused by another contingent. This is rationally absurd because it leads to infinite regress.
The proof of this has been extensively covered here.

Atheist

But again, even if point 1 and point 2 were true, what then?

Reply

They are true. It's not a question of "IF".

Atheist

So, now we are at point 3. Presuming everything has a cause, and that the universe is one of the everything that has a cause, then the universe has a cause. Great, presuming that two presumptions are true, we reach a conclusion that gives us … well … what exactly? Let’s presume that this argument is actually correct and there was a first thing. What do we know about it? It caused the universe! Yay! Do we know anything else about it from the argument? Nope. Is it smart? Maybe, the argument doesn’t help us out there (neither do most other God arguments).

Reply

Had you bothered to read the arguments linked instead of wasting your time reading articles from christian missionaries, you might have learnt something knew. Since logical rules and a rational discussion is something that is fairly unknown to you, i shouldn’t expect anything else from you to begin with.

Now you can say what brought the universe into existence can be anything such as an eternal matter. Why does it have to be God? Why does it have to be intelligent?

We reject the notion that it is eternal matter. Why? Because if it was assumed that it was an eternal matter, you must admit that the universe was brought into existence FROM it, rather than BY it.

a) If it was From it.
This is impossible. Because the matter is said to be eternal. So it is impossible than any change could occur within the matter. Because by definition, any change is essentially a beginning. To claim that the "eternal" matter changed (on account of leading to existence of the universe) then this would necessarily violate the law of non-contradiction.Change is intrinsically impossible in something claimed to be eternal.

b) If it was By it.
This is impossible because an Eternal matter is deemed lifeless, unintelligent by you. How can the universe be brought into existence by it when you hold the eternal matter to be lifeless and unintelligent?

c) If you say it was eternal matter and there was no change as well, then the existence of a universe from it is a rationally impossible.

d) If you say it was eternal matter that was intelligent then it is a violation of law of non-contradiction because what is "composed" or "material" requires specification. So claiming something is specified and eternal is a violation of law of non-contradiction.

e) The rational proofs for the attributes of a necessary existent being are linked here.

Atheist

Is it eternal or was it spontaneous? Uh … maybe?

 Reply:

Claiming was it spontaneous is rationally absurd because whatever begins to exist MUST require a cause.How could He he create a universe when according to you it's existence is contingent?And since its existence is contingent, it is caused and requires a cause, adinfinitum.


Do we learn how it caused the universe? Nope.
This is known as side-tracking technique in logic. May i know the relevance here? Kalam was not developed to show how the the universe came to be.  It was developed to show using rational principles why this universe MUST be caused  by a necessary existence.

If you are asking about rational proofs for His attributes i.e. Will, Power, Life, Knowledge. Had you read the argument you wouldn't have felt the need to ask this question.

Atheist

But, let’s say that we do define as eternal as also being unchanging. Well, then you just require that things which change not be eternal. Whoo! I mean, there may be a thing which has been around forever and that will be around forever and that has a variety of properties which change over time (or over whatever passes for time outside of space-time bubbles) but it isn’t eternal because eternal things don’t change, because we defined them that way.

Reply

What do you mean by "has been around forever"?
Does it mean
a) always existent or
b) It never began to exist.
c) Uncaused.
d) The mind absolutely doesnot accept its non-existence.
e) Uncreated
If your answer is "Yes" to any of the above, that is the definition of eternal. Eternal CANNOT change by definiton.

Claiming otherwise is a violation of law of non-contradiction.
Something that has been around forever and will be around forever is by definiton eternal. It is by definiton uncaused.

If it is not eternal, it’s existence is either an impossibility or a possibility. According to you, it is not eternal. So it is either a possibility or an impossibility. Possibility makes it contingent (something with a beginning and that requires a cause). Since it is a possiblity (according to you based on the fact you don't consider it eternal), it is caused and your claim "has been around forever" goes out of the window.

Your failed sleight of hand and poor logic was to stop using the word "eternal" and stick to its meaning insead. It doesn't make any difference. You seem to have forgotten that we are interested in the meaning of the words and what they convey. Saying something is not eternal yet has been around forever is a ratonally absurd proposition.

Instead of jumping around like a baboon, it would have been far  better if you had read the arguments.

Atheist

but if God suddenly gets the idea to pop a universe into existence, how can he have such an idea if eternal things can’t change. Is having an idea not a change? Is God doing whatever machinations cause a universe not change? Heck, to simply cause something the “uncaused cause” would have to do … well … something. I can flick something across the room with my finger. I can’t do that without moving my finger. How is that not a change?

Reply

There are 3 hidden premises in your argument above, by which you are trying to prove “a change” in the creator and all three are rational absurdities.

1) His existence is in time.
We say it is a rational necessity that His existence is free from time.

Furthermore, if Aļļaah’s existence had been divisible into moments of time, then this would either be with Him having a beginning, which is refuted by His necessary existence, or with Him having no beginning. If his existence was divisible into moments of time, without a beginning, then this would mean that an infinite number of moments passed before the world came into existence. An infinite number of moments cannot pass, however, because infinity cannot be completed. Therefore, since an infinite amount of moments cannot pass, it must be true that Aļļaah’s existence is not divisible into moments of time, and that He does not pass through it.



2) He has a contingent Will and Power.


We say it is a rational absurdity that his attributes of Will and Power began to exist.You said "God suddenly gets the idea implies He has a contingent WILL and Power and His existence is in time. This leads to infinite regress.

Moreover, His attributes are “ETERNAL” and not contingent by definiton.

3) He is similar to what He creates.You are drawing similarity between a creation (YOU) and a Creator (God). The absurd assumption of yours is "What holds true for creation MUST hold true for Creator". What is your proof for this assumption?

We say it is a rational absurdity to claim that a "Creator is similar" to what He creates because He been similar to what He creates, then He would be in need of a creator and that makes him contingent not a necessary existent being. And that creator would be in need of a creator as well, ad infinitum.

Since i have exposed the hidden premises and refuted them, your contention "God is subject to change" breaks apart.

Atheist

1) Anything that changes something else has to change itself in order to change that something else. 
2) God changes things.
3)Therefore God changes.

Reply

Your premise 1 is a rationally absurd propositon because that leads to infinite regress.
If the occurance of any change hinges on the occurance of change in something else and that hinges on the occurance of a change in something else and that hinges on the occurance of change in  something else and that hinges on the occurance of change in something else and that hinges on the change of something else….. (ad-infinitum)

If the occurance of a change hinges on the completion of infinite number of changes prior to it, that is rationally absurd because infinity by defintion doesnot end.

Moreover, saying something changes on account of change in something else and at the same time maintaining an adrupt cut of point (i.e. ignoring the fact that what caused the change in something else, also requires a cause (because it changed as well and based on your absurd premise) leads to:
 1) Self-refuting propositon. 2) Special pleading fallacy 3) Violation of law of non-contradiction. (Preponderance without a preferrer absurdity).

Since your premise 1 is flawed, whatever follows will be flawed as well.