Given my recent post on falsely assuming that God’s eternality excludes the possibility that He has a cause (and thinking premise 1 of the kalam cosmological argument proves He doesn’t have a cause), I thought it fitting to address atheists who assume that the universe, if it is eternal, is uncaused. Some atheists reason as follows:
(1) If the universe began to exist, then it has a cause
(2) The universe did not begin to exist
(3) Therefore the universe did not have a cause
This commits the fallacy of denying the antecedent. The form of the fallacy is as follows:
(1) If A, then B [If Bono is an American citizen, then he is a human being]
(2) Not A [Bono is not an American citizen]
(3) Therefore not B [Therefore Bono is not a human being]
Applied to the atheists claim that an eternal universe must be an uncaused universe, the fallacy looks like this:
(1) If the universe began to exist, then it has a cause [If A, then B]
(2) The universe did not begin to exist [Not A]
(3) Therefore the universe did not have a cause [Therefore not B]
It could be the case that all things, both eternal and temporal, require either a temporally prior or logically prior cause. One cannot merely assume that an eternal being is an uncaused being. One must provide an argument for this premise.
This will prove difficult because we have a very good reason to think that even an eternal universe must be caused. The universe is a contingent being (meaning it need not exist in every possible world). It could have been different than it is. For example, it may have operated according to different laws, been constituted by a different number of quarks, or perhaps even constituted of a completely different set of particles. So even if the universe has in fact existed eternally, it did not need to exist, and/or it did not need to exist in the fashion that it does. The defining feature of contingent beings is that they require an external cause for their being. They do not have being in themselves, so they must derive their being from some transcendent source; something else must make contingent beings the way they are. So even if the universe was eternal, as a contingent being it must derive its being (be caused by) from a transcendent, logically prior cause.
One might grant this, but then ask what caused the logically prior cause of the universe. Perhaps the logically prior cause of the universe is also a contingent being, and as such it also has a logically prior cause, but to avoid an infinite regress of logical causation one must eventually terminate the regress with a necessary being — a being that cannot not exist, whose nature is such that it must exist and must exist as X rather than –X.
Given the evidence, naturalists need to do one of three things:
(1) Identify the necessary being that caused the universe (or caused the cause of the cause of the cause of…the universe).
(2) Provide an argument for thinking that the universe is metaphysically necessary rather than contingent.
(3) Provide an argument for thinking that not all contingent beings require a transcendent cause.
In summary, even if it could be demonstrated scientifically that the universe is eternal (and it can’t), atheists cannot avoid the causal question. The universe cannot cause itself, so the cause must transcend physical reality. Furthermore, one cannot posit another contingent being as the cause of the universe because that just pushes the problem of origins back one step and invites an infinite regress. Eventually one must arrive at a necessary being to explain all contingent beings, including the universe. And if that necessary being is not God, then what is it?
Thinking to Believe 
June 21, 2012 at 12:10 pm
“The universe cannot cause itself, so the cause must transcend physical reality.”
Why?
One universe compressing and then exploding into the next seems to make sense. And nothing about it ‘transcends physical reality’. And it doesn’t require coming up with a supernatural explanation with nothing to back it up.
I see no good reason to think the cause of the beginning of the universe as we know it was a being, let alone your particular god, let alone anything supernatural at all. It’s a very strange thing to conjecture, and the only reason it looks like you are proposing it is because you already believe in a religion for different reasons.
LikeLike
June 21, 2012 at 12:29 pm
NotAScientist quotes Jason and asks,
Because such an affirmation would violate the law of non-contradiction. Self-causation requires existence prior to existence meaning that a being would be in potency and in act in the same respect. If it exists, it doesn’t need to be caused, and if it is caused, then at some logical point it did not exist. Hence, self-causation is impossible.
He continues,
This has nothing to do with your previous question. The “next” universe at some point did not exist until it was caused the the “previous” one. In other words, the result did not cause the result, the previous form did. Hence, the impossibility of self-causality is not impeached.
It is irrelevant whether there are collapsing and expanding universes, multi-verses or circular universes. No composite being can assemble itself on pain of contradiction, whether composed of physical or metaphysical parts. Since whatever is currently caused to exist is caused by another, and since a per se series cannot be infinitely regressive, the metaphysically necessary stopping point is a simple being. There is no “conjecture” whatsoever.
LikeLike
June 21, 2012 at 12:30 pm
The “why” was in response to ‘must transcend physical reality’.
And again…you can claim there’s some sort of starting ‘being’…but you have no evidence to back it up.
LikeLike
June 21, 2012 at 1:19 pm
NotAScientist,
If the universe is finite, it must transcend phsical reality because, as Scalia pointed out, self-causation is incoherent. If physical reality was caused to come into being, it could not be caused by some other physical reality since that would require physical reality to exist prior to physical reality existing. It must be caused by a reality that is outside of, beyond, or transcendent to physical reality. That doesn’t bode well for a materialist worldview.
And if the universe is eternal, it still needs a transcendent cause because the universe is contingent, and contingent beings must derive their being from some other transcendent source. Since we are trying to explain the source for the existence of all material reality, obviously the source cannot be something material. The universe cannot pull itself up by its own bootstraps.
The evidence? Did you not read the post? The evidence was just presented for a starting “being.” Contingent beings (i.e. things) require causes, and those causes cannot extend infinitely into the past. There must be a first cause that is itself not caused. Such a cause must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on anything else. Your response makes me wonder if you think “evidence” is a synonym for “empirical.” If so, you have a very flawed epistemology.
Jason
LikeLike
June 21, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Saying “some” atheists say this is disingenuous. I know of none of us who make this claim. I could just as easily say “some” Christians reason that God and Yahweh are enemies of one another (I have heard that claim), but that’s hardly the position of the vast majority of Christians. This is a straw man fallacy, which means you’re answering a fallacy with a fallacy.
The vast majority of people who consider themselves atheists accept the scientific view, which is that our universe did indeed have a beginning 13.7 billion years ago, based on multiple lines of evidence. So premise (2) is false.
You may have a definition problem. If you mean something other than OUR universe–such as a multiverse or something else beyond our own universe–then you should use a different term. I find the term “metaverse” to be useful.
We need do no such thing. The ONLY reasonable answer is “We don’t know what caused the universe.” All we know is that several theories in physics predict multiple universes, and thus a naturalistic explanation is plausible. And since we’ve only EVER found naturalistic explanations for EVERYTHING we’ve ever found an answer for, and it has never once turned out that a presumed naturalistic phenomenon actually turned out to have a supernatural one, it is logical to presume that the likely cause of the universe is indeed natural.
All you have to remember is that one possible explanation for our universe is that it is a virtual world created by other beings who may or may not be like us in any way, shape or form. If that is true, then cosmological arguments CANNOT be considered any form of evidence that God exists. To resort to a supernatural explanation of anything, one must first eliminate any possible naturalistic explanation, and there is simply no way to eliminate the virtual world hypothesis.
Since someone mistook this claim as a claim that we actually DO live in a virtual world (which would indeed require evidence to support), let me be clear: I do NOT make that claim. But since cosmological arguments are used to prove the existence of God, all I have to show is that there are plausible naturalistic alternatives to counter those arguments in order to negate their ability to be considered “proof.”
You may not like that this merely puts off the cause by one step…but it’s a profound step, since any cause of a world that created us would likely be utterly unknowable.
LikeLike
June 21, 2012 at 3:49 pm
Hi, derekmathias. I am not a proponent of the KCA, so I will not be defending what I wrote from that perspective. You write,
The first sentence appears to acknowledge that the universe is caused. The second sentence offers the possibility of multiple universes. If you read Post 2 (above) you’ll see that I most definitely agree with the first and can assume for sake of argument the second.
You continue,
The Thomistic Cosmological Argument (TCA), which I defend, is immune to this sort of criticism. If you disagree, then please tell me what it is about the TCA that is vulnerable to that objection.
Regards.
LikeLike
June 21, 2012 at 4:06 pm
Derek, perhaps if I said “all atheists” that would be disengenous, but by saying “some” I can hardly see how that would rattle your feathers and cause you to make such an accusation.
Yes, I think part of the problem here is our definitions. By “universe” I am thinking of the sum of physical reality, whether that just be the single entity we are familiar with, or a sum of multiple, independent universes (a.k.a. multiverse, or what you would like to call a metaverse). But I do not wish to use a term such as the “metaverse” because it implies that reality is such that there is more to physical reality than our own local universe: a position for which there is no empirical evidence. I do not wish to give such speculation respect by speaking of it as if it is real when it is just speculation. I do, however, need to make this more clear in future posts to avoid confusion.
In the past, when it was assumed by all that the universe was eternal, atheists maintained that the universe needed no cause. It was just a brute fact. When it became clear that our universe has a finite past, atheists still tried to say the universe was uncaused (or just avoid the causal question altogether) or self-caused, despite the fact that such notions are philosophically absurd. Now, they are once again trying to maintain that physical reality is eternal by postulating that our universe is preceded by a multiverse that is eternal. Trying to restore an eternally physcial reality is what most of these new cosmologies are about (set aside the fact that they are not successful). It is still believed that if physical reality is eternal, then it does not need a cause (or cannot be caused). I deal with such atheists quite often, on this blog and elsewhere. I am consistently getting asked to prove that physical reality is finite in the past.
Why is the only reasonable answer “We don’t know what caused the universe” when we have very good reasons to identify the cause as a being with the very properties ascribed to God? It sounds to me like what you are saying is “We don’t like the God option so we’ll just feign ignorance.” And if someone has to resort to virtual worlds and alien beings, that only shows how weak their naturalistic position is.
You don’t seem to be hearing the point that no naturalistic explanation is possible. To explain the whole set of physical reality–let’s call it set X–you cannot appeal to anything within set X. That is fallacious.
Jason
LikeLike
June 21, 2012 at 11:50 pm
The TCA presupposes that “a sequence of causally related contingent things cannot be infinite.” I respectfully disagree that we can know that. The ONLY constants we know are those possessed by OUR universe. The predictions of some theories in physics suggest that there could be up to an infinite number of universes, each possessing their own constants, and that includes the “source” of these universes, whatever that may be (the “metaverse,” if you will). For all we know, what constitute logical impossibilities in OUR universe may have no bearing whatsoever on any metaverse. Pi could equal 3, a triangles angles could equal 100 degrees, and infinite contingents could exist. We cannot imagine some place where time and matter/energy do not exist and yet is capable of generating universes, but that IS a plausible consequence of theory. Are infinite contingents any more strange? Especially considering we may be two or more steps removed from any natural cause to our universe?
To me, the best answer remains: We do not know. To say otherwise is necessarily conjecture.
LikeLike
June 22, 2012 at 12:30 am
The problem here is that the accusation IMPLIES a significant number of atheists believe your claim, but it is misleading. You could say that “some atheists believe it is okay to urinate in public,” and you would be correct…since we are all born atheists and “must” be taught religion. But the implication would be misleading. Another example, I knew a 6 y.o. Christian kid who thought his minister wrote the Bible, thus I could say “some Christians believe the Bible was written by modern-day ministers” and I would be correct…but to present that as an argument and then refute it would be disingenuous because that is a fringe belief that no adult Christian would make. Similarly, no self-described atheist (I say self-described, since atheism is the default position and thus can include uneducated children).
While it’s true there’s no empirical evidence for a metaverse, even theists typically believe their gods occupied a location prior to the creation of the universe. Thus a “metaverse” would include such a location. There is the hypothesis the universe came into existence out of nothing, but most hypotheses include SOMETHING that exists “outside,” “beyond” or “apart from” OUR universe–like an eternal dynamic vacuum that spawns other universes, for instance. (Although I have to admit surprise that a theist would place much value on empirical evidence. Then again, I’m used to arguing with fundamentalists who insist that any contradiction between scripture and empirical evidence means the evidence must be wrong and thus must be ignored.)
Not so absurd at all. Physicists in the relevant fields have no problems with the concept. They understand the theories far better than those of us who are not. Quantum physics is extremely difficult to understand, but one predicted consequence of it is that a universe created by dynamic vacuum fluctuation that is INHERENT to the vacuum could be described as “uncaused.” This isn’t an “atheist” conclusion, but a prediction of quantum physics.
We observe that complexity comes from simplicity. We have physics that predict multiple universes from naturalistic sources. No omniscience is required, no omnipotence is required, no benevolence is required…so it is up to the theist who believes in a being possessing such characteristics to justify such belief. If it’s belief based on faith, fine–it’s not rational, but it’s understandable. But if it’s belief based on evidence, where is the evidence?
But that’s the problem: there ARE no “very good reasons” to identify the cause as God. As I point out in the video I posted elsewhere…
…each step of the KCA (commonly considered by theists to be one of the best arguments for God) can be contested as fallacies, factual errors and irrelevancies. When the details are analyzed they don’t hold up, and even the KCA’s main cheerleader, William L. Craig, admits that the KCA is ultimately based on intuition. But an argument from intuition is a fallacy, since it’s easy to come up with examples where intuition can lead to the exact opposite of reality (the sun circling the Earth is one example I use).
I am an agnostic atheist, meaning I don’t claim to know if any gods exist but I don’t believe any gods exist. I’m not afraid to say I don’t know for things we really don’t know, and I’m highly suspicious of those who do claim to know, especially when their arguments can be shown to contain fallacies.
And if someone has to resort to virtual worlds and alien beings, that only shows how weak their naturalistic position is. You don’t seem to be hearing the point that no naturalistic explanation is possible. To explain the whole set of physical reality–let’s call it set X–you cannot appeal to anything within set X. That is fallacious.
LikeLike
June 22, 2012 at 7:27 am
“a position for which there is no empirical evidence. I do not wish to give such speculation respect by speaking of it as if it is real when it is just speculation.”
and then you say…
“Why is the only reasonable answer “We don’t know what caused the universe” when we have very good reasons to identify the cause as a being with the very properties ascribed to God?” It sounds to me like what you are saying is “We don’t like the God option so we’ll just feign ignorance.”
Or Maybe, it is a position in which there is no empirical evidence for and there’s no reason to give such speculation respect by speaking of it as if it is real when it is just speculation. Just saying.
LikeLike
June 22, 2012 at 9:19 am
Hello again, Derek. You write,
This isn’t quite accurate. It is the type of causal sequence that is critical to the argument. Aquinas acknowledges that a per accidens causal series could proceed to infinity (at least for the sake of argument), because conservation is not inherent in the antecedent. Your father, in part, caused your existence but he doesn’t continue to do so. Moreover, assuming God created the universe, He could have prevented “motion” which would, in a sense, prevent “time.” Hence, the “movement” of the universe would have occurred a finite time ago whereas its existence could be eternal.
A per se series, however, is very different. In it, each cause, at best, is instrumental. A common illustration is a hand that moves a stick that moves a stone that moves a leaf. The movement of this series is not explained by an appeal to the leaf or the stone or the stick. No appeal to an instrumental cause explains the series. Hence, such a series requires a point of initiation. Another illustration of this is a mirror that reflects light. If we have one mirror in a set, the light we see reflected is not generated by the mirror itself; it comes from something other than the mirror. If we add another mirror so that the light reflects off one onto the other, the explanation for the light cannot be each mirror. If we add a thousand, a million or a trillion mirrors, we have the same situation. We could even conceptualize an infinite number of mirrors in the set. That doesn’t change the force of the argument. Since light generation is not inherent in a mirror, no appeal to an individual mirror or to the entire set can explain the light we see. We are thus obligated to look outside the set in order to explain said phenomenon.
Since that which is caused is caused by another, since nothing composite can compose itself, and since what caused to exist here and now has nothing inherent that explains its continued existence, there must be a point of origin. A human body is actualized by its molecules, which are actualized by their atoms, which are actualized by their subatomic particles…strong forces…weak forces……..???…to what? This type of finite series cannot be explained by the series itself (per above).
Against this you write,
This doesn’t work because theorizing about logical possibilities is self-refuting. We have to argue over what we have, not over what we do not have; and unless we can prove that these alternate worlds exist, postulating theories reduces to a logical-possibility-warrants-refutation argument. If mere logical possibility is the ground for refutation, then the refutation itself stands refuted for the same reason. Even a concession for the sake of argument obligates one to at least tentatively affirm the causal principle to a primary cause. I thus respectfully see no good reason to adopt your counter argument.
Regards.
LikeLike
June 22, 2012 at 3:47 pm
The problem, I believe, is that the argument from contingency is a separate argument from the Kalam argument. Since the argument is formulated as such: 1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause; 2) The universe begins to exist; 3) Therefore the universe had a cause, you are essentially saying that premise 1 is incorrect, and replacing the entire argument with that of the argument from contingency.
But the problem with Kalam (not the argument from contingency) is that it is talking about those things which begin to exist, and nothing else. If it doesn’t begin to exist, according to the argument, then it doesn’t have a cause.
LikeLike
June 22, 2012 at 4:14 pm
Christopher, I’m not sure who your comment is directed toward since I have not kept up with all of the comments, but I wanted to chime in here. You are right that the argument from contingency is separate from the KCA. And in this post, I am not arguing for the KCA. In fact, I’m assuming for the sake of argument that the universe is eternal, which is opposed to premise 2 of the KCA.
But I disagree that the KCA supports the contention that if something doesn’t begin to exist, it doesn’t have a cause. It does no such thing. That was the topic of my recent post here: https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/premise-1-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument-does-not-prove-god-has-no-cause/. To conclude “if not X then not Y” from “if X then Y” is the fallacy of denying the antecedent. It is possible for something to be eternal and yet caused. The KCA does not speak to the causal necessity or causal non-necessity of eternal beings.
Jason
LikeLike
June 23, 2012 at 4:34 am
[…] Even if the universe is eternal, it still needs a cause- Atheists miss an important point in regards to the Kalam Cosmological Argumentwhich Jason does an excellent job drawing out. Namely, a denial of the first premise of the Kalam does not show that the universe is acausal. […]
LikeLike
June 23, 2012 at 5:53 am
Christian here.
If the universe is infinitely old, asking “what caused the universe” in the sense of “what was there before the universe” is like asking about what a square circle looks like.
The more proper sense of the question is that which asks about its constituent “effects.” In this sense, when speaking of an infinitely old universe, the answer to the question “Does the universe have a cause?” is “Yes, it has infinity of them.”
I will further point out that a universe that “began” is certainly a “more acausal” universe than one that never began (and just always has been). Remember that what we perceive as “stops” and “starts” in our lives are actually just changes in motion; we’ve never actually observed anything that isn’t moving, and the scientific layperson has no reason to believe that the universe’s movement had to begin.
LikeLike
June 23, 2012 at 1:55 pm
This is the basis of the argument for an eternal dynamic vacuum. Since particle generation is inherent to said vacuum, there is no need to look outside the set in order to explain our universe.
But in the context of infinite recursion, I thought we were talking about a god creating a god creating a god…into infinity. And if we’re talking about some region that exists beyond the conditions and constants of OUR universe, then claiming the impossibility of such infinites just because they cannot be a part of anything for which we have evidence…is a mistake. We can’t claim conditions for regions we do not know, nor have anything to compare them with.
PRECISELY. And that argument applies equally to claims of proof for the supernatural, omnipotence, omniscience, sentience outside the context of time, sentience in the context of the immaterial, and so on. We don’t have ANY examples for ANY of these claims, yet those who would present the KCA as proof for the existence of God seem quite happy to ignore the fact.
All we have is predictions from well-established theories in physics (such as quantum mechanics) to claim as a basis for the possibility of alternate universes. And we have to accept the possibility that our universe is a virtual creation by some other species with a few more decades of computer technology advancements over our own. That alone is sufficient to counter the claim that the KCA is proof God exists. And Occam’s Razor is sufficient justification to be more accepting of naturalistic explanations (which we know exist) over supernatural ones (which we’ve yet to have any evidence exist).
LikeLike
June 23, 2012 at 4:08 pm
Derek writes,
This misses the point of the illustration. Mirrors do not generate their own light anymore than the moon does, so you cannot appeal to them as the ground for the light.
This demonstrates you do not understand the TCA. I asked you how the TCA is vulnerable to your claims and your reply is the substantive equivalent of insisting that we merely posit without proof the existence of God. You can most certainly disagree with that proof, but you are quite mistaken if you believe it is the equivalent of your possibility-warrants-refutation argument.
And I have already informed you that I am not a proponent of the KCA.
Again, as stated above, merely positing a logical alternative without PROOF is self-refuting.
LikeLike
June 23, 2012 at 8:27 pm
Moreover, the particle is not the vacuum and the vacuum is not the particle. This confirms the causal principle that whatever is caused is caused by another. Since you acknowledge that the universe is caused, then the vacuum cannot be uncaused. The pattern of material causation either proceeds to infinity or it does not. That’s the crux of the KCA but it misses the point of the TCA.
LikeLike
June 24, 2012 at 2:14 pm
Except that an eternal vacuum WOULD generate its own particles as an inherent part of itself, making the mirror analogy not apt.
Actually, I think I misunderstood your question, but it is true that I’m far more familiar with the KCA than I am with the TCA. However, many of the refutations I make for the KCA relate to the arguments of the TCA. For instance, the conclusion that there must be a “first, unmoved mover,” which is God is no more logical since an original eternal dynamic vacuum would fill that role–unless you want to call THAT God, in which case this is just an argument over semantics. Furthermore, why is it logical to conclude that god would be a “maximum goodness,” when one could equally say that god would be a “maximum evilness” (again, something referenced in my KCA video). I have similar problems with the rest of the arguments. And the problem only gets worse if we are indeed denizens of a virtual world, because even if there IS a first cause god, we would know nothing about it, nor would it be relevant to our lives. The only gods that would be relevant to us would be those the programmers created, if any.
Well, if you’re looking for proof for ANY theory, then you will be sorely disappointed…since NO theory in science can ever be proven true, only false. The accumulation of evidence supporting a theory can only increase our confidence in it. That’s all. And since there is at least SOME evidence to support a naturalistic explanation for the source of our universe, it is rational to expect that the actual explanation is naturalistic and that there is no reason to violate Occam’s Razor and postulate a being possessing characteristics that we not only observe nowhere in the universe, but which are even theoretically implausible in the extreme (omniscience? Omnipotence? Supernatural?).
LikeLike
June 24, 2012 at 3:38 pm
Derek writes,
Of course it is apt for the point I am making. You say an “eternal vacuum” can generate its own particles. And?? A human being can generate its own spit. That has nothing to do with the causal principle. This vacuum is either caused, self-caused, or uncaused. Since you call it eternal, you are perhaps arguing it is uncaused, but as Jason pointed out, that commits the fallacy of denying the antecedent. In all your replies to Jason, you did not engage that argument. The fact it is eternal does not mean it is uncaused. You acknowledge that our universe is caused, but it appears to have been caused by this “eternal vacuum.” Based upon Jason’s definitions of contingency and necessity (in relation to possible worlds), this vacuum is a contingent being and is, as such, in need of a cause.
You continue,
Thank you for acknowledging your lack of familiarity with the TCA because this follow-up that I quoted demonstrates you do not understand the TCA at all. The Prime Mover argument of Aquinas has NOTHING to do with the KCA’s first cause. I gently suggest that you inform yourself of arguments you wish to refute. Recall that you are having a discussion with a TCA advocate on a Christian website. If you are going to come here and claim that your argument refutes mine, you are obligated to have a comprehensive knowledge of it. The fact that you continue to try to rebut what you do not understand prompts no interest in me to try to correct your ignorance.
You make the claim that this vacuum is eternal. What is your argument that it is eternal?
You continue,
This assumes that the level of proof for the circularity of the Earth is the same for a virtual world. That is not the case at all. One is akin to speculation and the other is demonstrated by repeated observation. To raise a speculative theory to the level of repeated and unfalsified observations (like water freezing at 32F) is fallacious on its face. And since those theories are light years apart, it DOES reduce to a possibility-warrants-refutation argument. Consequently, your appeal to a metaverse is self-refuting.
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 11:13 am
Ah, I’d thought I made myself clear by referring to the dynamic vacuum as eternal. But let me clarify: I mean to say the vacuum is uncaused. If God can be uncaused, then why not save a step in the interest of parsimony and say the vacuum is the uncaused, non-contingent source of our universe. Thus you avoid the whole problem of envisioning some supernatural being possessing characteristics for which there is no evidence.
Excuse me, but I never started the argument about the TCA. I came here to argue about the KCA. YOU were the one who brought up the TCA and YOU requested my opinion. I did you the courtesy of responding with my opinion. So please don’t get your panties in a wad and claim that I should inform myself of arguments I wish to refute. I DID that with the KCA. Perhaps someday I’ll investigate the TCA with additional scrutiny, but until then you’ll have to make due with what I can give you.
Regardless, my ARGUMENTS still relate to the TCA with only slight modification of the verbiage. THAT’S what I’m saying. So if we DO live in a virtual world, for example, then the argument for a prime mover cannot be made. Nor one for maximum goodness, and so on.
You appear to be confusing facts, hypotheses and theories. A fact is something that can be readily observed. A hypothesis is an untested explanation for the observation. A theory is a tested explanation for the observation. The circularity of the Earth is a FACT, while the virtual world scenario is a HYPOTHESIS. I have made NO CLAIMS that the virtual world scenario is anything but a hypothesis, and perhaps an untestable one at that. But it makes no difference. IF the virtual world hypothesis is true, THEN the arguments of the KCA (and, I’m fairly certain, the TCA) are invalidated. I DO NOT need to provide evidence to support the virtual world scenario because I am not CLAIMING it is the truth. Proponents of the KCA, however, DO use it as “proof” of the existence of God. All that is needed to falsify that claim is to provide a more plausible, simpler, naturalistic explanation.
For example, it’s 2000 years ago and someone claims that lightning is proof of an all-powerful, all-knowing God: It is intuitively an obvious expression of anger, it is more powerful than anything made by beast or man, and sometimes strikes people who have done bad things (even if few people know they did bad things). A secular thinker objects and says that lightning may be nothing more than a naturalistic force. The believer scoffs and demands evidence for the naturalistic explanation. The secular thinker says that the observation of static electricity implies lightning is naturalistic, but he certainly can’t prove the naturalistic explanation. So…who is right in this scenario?
Those who claim the KCA is proof God exists make an equivalent mistake to the one who believes lightning is proof of God.
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 11:35 am
Derek writes,<blockquote< I mean to say the vacuum is uncaused. If God can be uncaused, then why not save a step in the interest of parsimony and say the vacuum is the uncaused, non-contingent source of our universe.
This sidesteps the question. I asked you to provide an argument for an eternal vacuum. You now say that the vacuum is uncaused. It will do you no good to simply say, “Well, since you say God is uncaused, then I can say the vacuum is uncaused too.” The fact that you ask us for an argument to prove our conclusions equally applies to you. What is your argument that the vacuum is uncaused?
You should never offer an opinion on something you do not understand. The appropriate reply is, “I haven’t studied the TCA sufficiently enough to offer a reply.” There is nothing dishonorable in that. It is dishonorable to attempt to rebut an argument you know nothing about.
Forgetting what you just wrote, you march on and insist that your arguments relate to the TCA. You cannot say that if you don’t understand the TCA. In fact, your “ARGUMENTS” do nothing of the sort. If you understood that, you wouldn’t write something so foolish.
Then as I’ve stated repeatedly, you cannot use a mere claim or hypothesis as an argument defeater. I can hypothesize anything I want and claim victory over any argument. If you make no claim regarding virtual worlds but simply offer them as the basis for rejecting any CA, then your offer is self-defeating. You have thus offered nothing to counter either the KCA or the TCA in that regard.
Now, let’s focus on what you DO claim: The eternal and/or uncaused vacuum. Please tell us how science can confirm that the vacuum is uncaused. What empirical data is need to confirm that the vacuum as been here an infinite amount of time? On what basis do you determine whether something is uncaused?
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 5:29 pm
Actually, it does. I use the SAME argument theists use for an eternal, uncaused God. To say that God does NOT require a cause but that a dynamic vacuum WOULD require a cause is what’s called a “special pleading” fallacy. IF there must be a first cause (and I would never be so foolish as to make such a claim), THEN it could just as easily be the vacuum instead of a god.
Whatever. You asked me my opinion and I gave it.
As far as I can tell from my admittedly limited understanding of the TCA, I don’t see how it is immune to those arguments. Rather than simply asserting that they don’t, why don’t you use your scholarly knowledge of the TCA to explain to me why they don’t?
I certainly can. If you were to claim a hypothetical argument for why God must exist (such as a cosmological argument), and I were to provide a hypothetical argument for why something else might exist instead (dynamic vacuum, virtual world, etc.), then your hypothetical goes from “must exist” to “may exist.” And if my hypothetical is more parsimonious, it should have preference over yours.
We don’t have any DIRECT evidence that the dynamic vacuum, virtual worlds or multiple universes exist, but the existence of such things are a PREDICTED CONSEQUENCE of quantum mechanics, which is a well supported theory. Thus, the dynamic vacuum, virtual worlds, etc. hypotheses DO have support and they do NOT require resorting to the supernatural…which has never been confirmed to exist in ANY form.
Please tell us how science can confirm that God is uncaused. What empirical data is needed to confirm that God has been here an infinite amount of time? On what basis do you determine whether something is uncaused?
See? Whatever arguments you use for God can be applied to a dynamic vacuum.
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 11:54 pm
Derek writes,
After time and again posting on this site your criticisms of the KCA because it is fraught with fallacious reasoning (due to you knowledge of logic and physics), and after stating you ignorance of the TCA, you are now insisting that the KCA is a SOUND ARGUMENT (you cannot say that of the TCA since you don’t know what it is) for an eternal, uncaused being called the “vacuum.” I guess that corresponds to your granting that if we would call the vacuum “God,” then we are merely engaging in semantics.
Well, thanks for throwing your hat into the ring of KCA advocates. I hope you included that in your video criticizing the KCA. Again, according to the KCA:
1) All things beginning to exist have a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
You believe that the vacuum is uncaused and that the universe is caused. This (the KCA) is the jump-start argument its advocates use to prove that the universe is caused. They use supplementary arguments to prove (inadequately I think) the other attributes of God. To be consistent, you cannot adopt these supplementary arguments because you’ve already denied their legitimacy. That leaves you with the “pure” KCA by default. Derek, the KCA defender of the vacuum. Incredible.
Which demonstrates your lack of principle. Again, you don’t comment on something you know nothing about.
Neither the TCA nor the KCA offers a hypothetical argument for God, but since you’ve already adopted the KCA as a valid argument for an uncaused vacuum, then your claim for an uncaused vacuum is just as hypothetical as what you think KCA defenders offer. In other words, you’ve just acknowledged that their views are on par with yours. To defend yourself, therefore, from a KCA platform, you must attack your opponents’ supplementary arguments.
You continue,
QM is a well-supported theory, but not virtual worlds. It is the conjecture of some physicists who offer no evidence of the same. Since we are dealing with predictions and not evidence, it is illegitimate to offer it as an argument defeater. When virtual world theory is on par with the theory of gravity, then perhaps you can add it to your argument (it would still fail but at least you’ll have something more than an untestable prediction). You are, consequently, left with its mere possibility, and we’ve already been down that road.
You then attempt to turn tables and ask me the same questions (thinking you have accomplished something). The arguments we offer are philosophical, and since you’ve announced your KCA card membership, you are asking the wrong questions. I was under the impression that you were coming from a purely scientific position, which makes my questions reasonable. So, by attempting to turn tables, your linchpin defeater of a first cause of material existence, namely, quantum predictions, utterly fails to get us to an uncaused cause or causes. Since you’ve already argued that macro-material rearrangement is the best the KCA can do with the first premise of its argument, how then does the KCA prove from the micro-material realm the uncaused cause?
LikeLike
June 26, 2012 at 5:44 pm
I NEVER said the KCA is a sound argument. I merely stated that I use the SAME argument for an uncaused, eternal vacuum as the KCA uses to argue for an uncaused, eternal God. Thus, IF the argument is valid for the latter, it is JUST as valid for the former. Notice I make NO claim for the validity of the argument.
AGAIN, I believe no such thing. Nor would I ever be so foolish as to believe in any claim for the origin of the universe without empirical evidence. I only mention equally (or more than equally) valid hypotheses for the origin of the universe than those who resort to a supernatural, all powerful, all knowing God.
False. I can and do adopt the arguments theists make when they highlight inconsistencies or contradictions in their beliefs. For instance, fundamentalists insist God is all powerful and all knowing. They also claim he is all good. It is perfectly acceptable for me to say that IF God is all powerful and all knowing, he CANNOT be good based on his behavior.
Remind me never to ask you your opinion about anything about which you are not an expert. I would hate to feel obliged to ridicule you for answering my question.
I think the appropriate expression here is, “in your dreams.” 😉
AGAIN you confuse fact, hypothesis and theory. QM is a well-supported THEORY that has multiple universes, etc. as a PREDICTED consequence, NOT conjecture. Virtual worlds are FACTS (they exist in a myriad of relatively primitive forms today), which form the basis of the virtual worlds HYPOTHESIS.
You really don’t seem to be grasping this point, although it should be simple to understand: The KCA makes certain claims based on its premises. IF we live in a virtual world (NO evidence needed for this premise, since I’m not CLAIMING we do), THEN the arguments for the KCA are rendered invalid (my videos explain exactly why), whether or not the arguments for the KCA were ever valid in the first place. And since the existence of precursor virtual worlds exist today, and computing technology is subject to the Law of Accelerating Returns, it is reasonable to conclude that we may soon have virtual worlds indistinguishable from the “real” world. If so, then it is logical to CONSIDER it possible that we live in a virtual world right now. It’s a purely naturalistic explanation for our universe that does NOT require resorting to supernatural god entities. Of course, it just pushes the question out one step further, but that makes any claims made about any “real” universe that created ours exponentially more difficult to make.
LikeLike
June 27, 2012 at 11:33 am
There is too much predicting and not enough admitting that we will never know either way. To say there must be a cause is one thing, to say that cause MUST be God, is another entirely.
LikeLike
June 27, 2012 at 11:53 am
Hi, Jason. I agree that to baldly assert without supporting argumentation that the ultimate cause must be God is illegitimate. As noted above, I am not an advocate of the KCA. However, I think many of the criticisms of the KCA are off target and have defended against false claims.
Since you appear to acknowledge the necessity of a cause, what are you applying that to? Do you agree that material existence is caused? If not, why?
Thanks, in advance, for your reply.
LikeLike
June 27, 2012 at 12:46 pm
It has been my experience that rational persons do not employ arguments that they do not consider valid or sound.
Yet, in Post 21 you wrote:
And in Post 9 you wrote:
In Post 16, you wrote:
You have thus made several claims that a) the dynamic vacuum is uncaused, and b) as a consequence, the universe is caused from it.
You qualify that by saying,
These statements once again affirm that you have no empirical evidence for either the origin of the universe or of the dynamic vacuum. To defeat what you think is the KCA, you cite well-established theories and predictions of physics to demonstrate that theistic premises from empirical data do not necessary follow, but nothing in what you argue challenges the causal principle. Whether the universe spawned from a metaverse, a cyclical-verse, an expand-and-collapse-verse or a virtual-verse is immaterial (no pun intended). All that does is reaffirm the causal principle. If universes are continually being burped by the QV or if they are burping one another in succession, that aptly demonstrates that whatever begins to exist has a cause. The only counterexample from physics is the random particle movement from the QV. We are discussing this on the other thread, so I’ll not repeat that here, except to say that such a move is demonstrably invalid. Forever lacking empirical proof for an uncaused event, you are forced to cite the mere possibility it could be true, and that gets you to the possibility-warrants-refutation fallacy.
I wrote, “To be consistent, you cannot adopt these supplementary arguments because you’ve already denied their legitimacy.” To which you replied:
This completely misses the point. You question the KCA’s legitimacy to get us to a singular first cause. Consequently, you cannot adopt the KCA as a legitimate counter to a theistic argument because you don’t accept its validity. You have to use another argument to defeat it. Since you don’t accept the fact that it can get us to God, you appear to state that IF it can be accepted as valid, the QV equally fits the bill. No it doesn’t because once you accept the hypothetical validity of the KCA, then the natural world has a supernatural cause. Since you do not accept that conclusion, it cannot be legitimately adopted for argumentative purposes.
My reply to which you replied takes that (I thought it was clear, but you missed it) and then reasons that if you cannot really use the KCA as a hypothetical counter, then you are forced to rely upon its advocates’ supplementary arguments to prove that the first cause has the attributes of God. Since you deny the legitimacy of those arguments (else you would believe in God), you cannot adopt them. For example, their argument that the cause must be personal (do you know how they argue this?) cannot be adopted by you to prove that the QV is personal unless you believe the QV is personal in the same way that said argument attempts to prove. And if you adopt every one of those arguments to prove that the QV has every attribute that God has, then we ARE dealing with semantics because that is exactly WHAT God is. Since you clearly deny that, you cannot adopt those supplementary arguments.
No need to worry, Derek. I would never opine on a topic of which I knew little or nothing because that’s an unprincipled thing to do. All you need to do is simply say, “Look, you’re right. I shouldn’t have commented on something I know little or nothing about. My bad.”
In sum, all talk of virtual worlds, etc., only pushes the causal question back a step. It neither refutes it nor brings it into question. You acknowledge that an eternal QV has no empirical proof, and Jason has a possible world scenario that shows the contingency thereof. Consequently, your arguments against theism fail.
LikeLike
June 27, 2012 at 2:27 pm
THAT, Jason, is the only rational position. Being an agnostic atheist makes the most sense (since we cannot know and thus have no reason to believe), and being an agnostic theist isn’t too unreasonable (since one can admit to not knowing but still believe), but being a gnostic atheist or gnostic theist cannot be supported rationally, since both are essentially statements of faith, not evidence.
LikeLike
June 27, 2012 at 2:50 pm
Really? You’ve never engaged in a hypothetical argument before? Fascinating!
Do you take that for BELIEF in such claims? Let me disabuse you of that notion once and for all: I make NO CLAIMS for knowledge of the source of our universe. I DO, however, accept that there are naturalistic explanations for the source of our universe that are predictions of physical theory. But please do not make the assumption that I believe ANYTHING that can’t be verified empirically.
You question the KCA’s legitimacy to get us to a singular first cause. Consequently, you cannot adopt the KCA as a legitimate counter to a theistic argument because you don’t accept its validity.
Seriously, you’re not familiar with the argument structure, “IF______ is true, THEN______”? It does NOT require that one accept the legitimacy of the “if” statement and, in fact, the structure can be used as part of the argument questioning the validity of the “if” statement (e.g. “If the premises made by the KCA are true–and I do not accept that they are–then those premises can be used to conclude an eternal, uncaused vacuum as the source of our universe just as easily as they can be used to conclude an eternal, uncaused God as the source of our universe”).
I see. And since you know little to nothing about physics…all the claims you’ve been making about it at length so far are…what…typos?
Pot…kettle…black.
LikeLike
June 27, 2012 at 3:26 pm
One last thing…you asserted that the TCA is immune to my arguments against the KCA, vis-a-vis the virtual world or eternal uncaused vacuum hypotheses. You’ve confined your arguments to berating me for saying I don’t see how my arguments wouldn’t apply also to the TCA, but you’ve said nothing to actually defend your assertion. What is the basis for your assertion?
LikeLike
June 27, 2012 at 5:25 pm
Reblogged this on Ways to God? and commented:
The Cosmos is its own boss and explanation so that God did it is,despite Alister Earl McGrath, is a useless redundancy.
The author is just playing with words,because to prattle that it needed not to have existed is silly! Being eternal denies a need to make it so!
LikeLike
June 27, 2012 at 11:57 pm
Of course, but not the way you have here. You say that if the KCA is sound (and you cannot do that because you’ve trashed it), the QV suffices as the cause. I’ve shown why that option doesn’t work, so please don’t confuse that with a mere hypothetical argument. More point missing.
As noted above, claims of possibility without hope of proof, of non-causes through non-observation, and of “nothings” which are really “somethings,” give philosophers every right to cry foul. YOU, Derek, are without warrant to claim THAT somehow compares to your characterization of an argument that doesn’t exist.
Actually, I have been slowly folding in snippets of the Thomistic argument as I have been replying to your posts. It may or may not come together since you are either incapable or unwilling to understand the logical slips you are making with respect to causality. If you cannot or will not see the contradictory nature of denying it, then there is little point in elaboration.
LikeLike
June 28, 2012 at 12:14 am
No argument a physicist makes can refute the causal principle, as I’ve stated over and over. The instant you argue that something doesn’t exist because of what you fail to observe, you’ve left science.
Philosophy is the discipline of rational thinking. Any person trained in rational thinking is qualified to examine the cogency of a claim made by an expert. It is another thing altogether to assert that a group makes a certain claim and then proceed to argue that you have refuted said claim when said group is really claiming something else. It is patently wrong and the fact you refuse to acknowledge that and twist every way you can to say “you too” only proves who is really acting like a male appendage.
“Non-intuitive” isn’t contradictory and it cannot be the bush behind which one dives when one cannot come up with a refutation of causality. When spontaneous generation was in vogue (is it still??), it seemed highly intuitive that dead meat spontaneously generated worms. After all, can’t you see with your own eyes that it’s so? Tests were eventually conducted that disproved that meat gave rise to worms, but it did not and COULD NOT disconfirm causality (not that anybody was then trying). As we all know, there is a cause for worms. Big revelation, huh?
There you go again. Cause and effect are observed in the macro and microscopic world. Science CANNOT disconfirm the causal principle, so your continued to appeal to what “may not be” or what “may be possible” is self-refuting because, for the umpteenth time, claiming mere possibility is self-stultifying.
I have no problem accepting a logical argument, and of all the posts you’ve offered since coming here you’ve never come close to bringing the slightest question to the causal principle.
But that is precisely one component of our argument. We deny that the supernatural goes “against the whole of our experience,” so why would I complain about it?
I demand a logical argument, and that is why I am a theist. Again, I do NOT demand evidence for uncaused particles because science CANNOT provide such evidence. Any question I’ve asked along that line was merely rhetorical because that point has been made time and again. Since it is IMPOSSIBLE for science to refute the causal principle the ONLY option you have is to baldly appeal to the possibility that somewhere, outside our universe—perhaps in a land far away—the causal principle might…just MIGHT…not hold. THEREFORE, since the causal principle “might” not work somewhere (or anyplace outside our universe), we are unjustified in appealing to its authority when arguing about a metaverse. Haven’t we been here before? “Maybe, just maybe” refutations backfire. Since the causal principle goes without rational challenge, we are, as rational beings, as justified in relying upon it as we are upon the law of noncontradiction (LNC).
Surely you are not arguing that these examples disprove the LNC, are you? If you are, you need a refresher course on logic. Since you use the word “seemingly,” you are, of course, stopping short of that. That’s a good thing because assailing the LNC is logical suicide.
Oh, this is rich. From before Aristotle, philosophers have insisted that something coming from nothing is incoherent. For millennia, “nothing” has meant….ready??…NOTHING (absence of being). Atheists like yourself come along and tell us that there is no state of pure nothingness and philosophers shrug and say, “Well, a little bit late, but welcome to the show.” The problem arises when some atheists insist that something is really nothing. If an atheist wants to call something “nothing,” s/he is free to do so, but let’s not confuse that claim with the philosophical “nothing.” And when a physicist claims to have shown that something is indeed produced by nothing, that claim is irrelevant in the philosophical sense because the physicist’s nothing is really something.
I stated, “The universe didn’t spring from “nothing”—nothing ever could, as you obliquely admit.” You replied,
You really should slow down because you’ve missed the point again. You have stated that there is never a pure state of nothingness. Hence, if there is never a state of pure nothingness, then the universe CANNOT spring from pure nothingness because pure nothingness doesn’t exist. Consequently, if the universe is caused, then the universe, BY DEFINITION, comes from something—and you say you do not “admit” this??
You cannot declare something “false” unless you engage the argument. You have consistently failed to do so. Since you admit you cannot show this scientifically, you are forced to offer a philosophical argument—and that is where your ship has crashed.
LikeLike
June 28, 2012 at 2:27 am
derek wrote:
“You really don’t seem to be grasping this point, although it should be simple to understand: The KCA makes certain claims based on its premises. IF we live in a virtual world (NO evidence needed for this premise, since I’m not CLAIMING we do), THEN the arguments for the KCA are rendered invalid (my videos explain exactly why), whether or not the arguments for the KCA were ever valid in the first place. And since the existence of precursor virtual worlds exist today, and computing technology is subject to the Law of Accelerating Returns, it is reasonable to conclude that we may soon have virtual worlds indistinguishable from the “real” world. If so, then it is logical to CONSIDER it possible that we live in a virtual world right now. It’s a purely naturalistic explanation for our universe that does NOT require resorting to supernatural god entities. Of course, it just pushes the question out one step further, but that makes any claims made about any “real” universe that created ours exponentially more difficult to make.”
It would seem to me, and please correct me if I am wrong, that this is the crux of everything you’ve written/said, and therefore, believe.
No offense, but I can’t help but think that this smacks of a terrible desperation, as if to say, AT ALL COSTS, I MUST AVOID RESORTING TO THE SUPERNATURAL…
…even to the point of coming up with some Matrix-esque virtual world scenario obviously not true, which you yourself admit to not believing in, but are more than willing to use as a hypothetical possibility just so you don’t have to conclude that God is real, because you haven’t found any “empirical evidence” for His existence. You are even willing to push the question one step further, and ratchet up the complexity and difficulty of answering such, even in the face of parsimony, instead of just admitting that the possibility of God existing is just as logical from a philosophical, if not scientific, p.o.v.
So, when a person is willing to go to any extreme for the sake of argument, or rather, to avoid the possibility of validating another argument, then all other considerations become “logical”, even if they are absurd or not provable (yes I know the door swings both ways here, but bear with me a moment). So, even though there is no “empirical evidence” for any of your hypotheses (which you say might be logical to consider, though you don’t believe in any of them), the only one you really want to nail to the wall for a supposed lack of empirical evidence is the argument for creation by an all-powerful, all-knowing, supernatural being commonly called God. That is an incredible bias.
It takes more faith, blind belief, or call it what you will, to think that because we have computers which can be programmed to create virtual worlds, it’s logical, (but apparently not worth believing), to extrapolate that some extra-terrestrial entity (which you say is not, nor can be God) created this universe, then claim there’s no actual empirical evidence for such anyways, so that’s why it’s not believable, even though it’s logical, and therefore, perhaps possible.
Don’t you understand, if such were logical, and even more, possible (which is what you say), that the only empirical evidence for such an extra-terrestrial being is the very virtual world it created?
Does the program say to the programmer, why have you made me thus?
Virtual worlds, no matter how sophisticated, have no sentient beings in them. A.I. is not that far advanced. Someone’s World of Warcraft character is not looking for its creator outside of its world. And yet, we have millions, even billions of people searching every day for just such. And guess what? Their best hope of finding such is the very world/universe created around them, if what you say is true. So, if what you say is true, or at least possible, even logical, then by default, you have all the empirical evidence you’ll ever need: your universe.
So though virtual and created as a program on an inconceivably powerful hyper-computer belonging to some Other, it is, nonetheless, still real to you, and admittedly, by its very nature, created. This virtual world makes its Creator a reality. And any beings in such a virtual world, should they be sentient, are going to, whether you like it or not, call their creator GOD, since he/she/it will be indistinguishable from such.
That’s the only conclusion to come to if you are willing to hypothesize that this universe is virtual and that it’s just as logical, if not more so, to argue for such as compared to any other CA. So apply some parsimony and just come to the conclusion that our universe is the empirical evidence of a Creator who exerts full and complete power over all, call Him/Her/It God and be done with it.
But you won’t/don’t/can’t. So I can only assume what I’ve assumed: that you’re desperate to avoid the God-as-reality argument, from whatever presented angle, for whatever (I would say, unjustifiable) reason.
LikeLike
June 29, 2012 at 4:23 pm
This is becoming tedious. It’s perfectly valid to point out all the faults in someone’s argument, and then conclude, “Besides, even if your claim WERE true, the following would be a plausible alternative explanation…” And that’s precisely what I’ve done. So give it a rest.
EXACTLY my argument against claims for the existence of God.
That certainly hasn’t been clear. Surely you can summarize the parts of the TCA that are supposedly immune to my arguments.
LikeLike
June 29, 2012 at 4:47 pm
On the contrary. We KNOW the natural exists. We DON’T KNOW if the supernatural exists. We also know of no examples of omnipotence or omniscience. Thus if we can envision purely naturalistic explanations that can account for all the claims made by those espousing a supernatural explanation, especially if it has precedence in the “real” world, then Occam’s Razor suggests we accept the naturalistic propositions more likely to be true.
You have to realize I am NOT asserting these alternate naturalistic explanations to be true, merely using them to point out that they invalidate the claim that the KCA PROVES the existence of God. They do NOT prove that God does not exist (nothing can, after all), but they do relegate the conclusion of “God” to one of several hypotheses that account for the origin of the universe…and the LEAST parsimonious one at that.
I agree wholeheartedly that it WOULD take blind faith to believe this universe is a virtual world, because despite the precedence of the existence of currently non-realistic virtual worlds, there is ZERO evidence this universe is created. But since I don’t claim the virtual world hypothesis is true, merely that it appears to be technically possible, why would it make any sense at all to assert that an all powerful, all knowing supernatural God created the universe?
Again, since according to physicists an eternal, uncaused fluctuating vacuum that spawns universes is a predicted consequence of quantum mechanics, and since it would explain the EXACT same empirical and philosophical evidence used to claim God exists, then it makes little sense to throw parsimony to the wind and conclude that there is a Creator who exerts complete power over all.
But even if it turns out we live in a virtual universe created by some ET, there is no reason to conclude that having the power to create universes requires omniscience or omnipotence. Even though a programmer may have a lot of power and knowledge about the worlds he creates, it doesn’t necessarily follow that he is any more intelligent than any of today’s programmers.
LikeLike
June 29, 2012 at 5:13 pm
And no argument physicists make can refute that a cat can be alive or dead but not simultaneously both…and yet they can. Philosophers have often objected to scientific claims when they were first hypothesized…until the claims were validated and the seeming affront to logic had to be accepted. You insist causality can’t be violated because we’ve never seen otherwise. Well, we’ve never seen time not exist, yet it evidently began with the Big Bang. Since it may be possible for causality to function differently beyond the confines of our universe, I would suggest avoiding your causality assertion.
Really? Give me even ONE piece of evidence that the supernatural exists.
You evade the issue. If what THEY referred to as “nothing” never existed in the first place (which is what the physicists are saying), then saying “something from nothing is incoherent” is as meaningful as saying “something from something is incoherent.” After all, the very example often used to define nothing–an empty vacuum–turns out to not be “nothing” at all, but SOMETHING.
I stand corrected…it DOES appear like you’re grasping it after all! Congratulations!
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 11:10 pm
Derek’s inability or refusal to engage the arguments against his position leaves me uninterested in continued dialog with him. Since our conversations cover two threads, I offer the following encapsulation for the interested reader.
The claim that an imagined possibility of an alternative refutes another claim is self defeating. The reason it is self defeating is that it entails the thesis that in order for a claim to be true it must be able to withstand any conceivable possibility. However, no claim can meet that standard, including the claim that in order for a claim to be true it must be able to withstand any conceivable possibility. In other words, such a standard is refuted by its own standard. Such is precisely the kind of argument Derek has offered against the KCA. Since his logical-possibility-warrants-refutation argument collapses under its own weight, he is without a cogent rebuttal to the KCA. Again, I am not a KCA advocate, but many atheists like Derek think they have these “royal flush” refutations of theistic arguments. As it turns out, all he has offered is something that needs to be flushed.
Against this, Derek would probably object and insist that he isn’t offering any conceivable doubt or possibility; he is in reality offering a reasonable alternative based upon the evidence we have from physics. His defeater for any CA?
So, since a virtual world is a possible explanation, given the predictions of physics, it is then perfectly reasonable to conclude that any CA fails. But what if the programmers have programmed him to think that the virtual world scenario undermines a CA when they (the programmers) know it does no such thing? Given his standard, that is certainly possible, and if possibility warrants refutation, he’s sunk.
As has been evident to anybody who has followed this dialog, the option that he is offering a reasonable standard is not available to him. Note what he has written:
Against the request of another poster for evidence that we live in a virtual world, Derek replied:
We thus do not know whether such a scenario is likely and we do not have ANY evidence that we live in a virtual world. Consequently, Derek is merely offering a possible scenario and is thus vulnerable to the above critique.
In contrasting his views with religion, he states:
But given his argument, his preference for “evidence” is bald bias. Notice that he undercuts that claim with the following statements:
And the topper:
To create a virtual universe as vast as our apparently “real” universe, you don’t have to create the whole universe…you only need to create PERCEPTION. Right now all I see is my office and all I hear is distant traffic noise. That is ALL any virtual programmer would need to generate for me right now in order for me accept my world as real. If I go somewhere else, look through a microscope at a microbe, or look through a telescope at a distant quasar, all that needs to be generated is what I’m looking at RIGHT THEN. Furthermore, if my mind is nothing but a computer program, there may be no need to even generate an actual virtual world, but only a VIRTUAL VIRTUAL world that resides only in my mind, so that I THINK I’m seeing something when in reality my programming is just convincing me that what I’m seeing is real. Finally, for all I know I could be the ONLY self-aware person in this virtual world, and you and anyone else I communicate with are just sophisticated expert systems designed to provide me with the illusion I’m not the only person in the world.
Again, if the mere possibility of a virtual world undermines a CA, then the mere possibility that there aren’t virtual worlds undercuts Derek’s claims. Moreover, his appeal to “empirical evidence” fails because it is possible that a computer programmer has programmed him to think that empirical evidence is convincing or “just to believe [he’s] seen the evidence.” A programmer may have programmed Derek so that he thinks that physicists (who are really bit players in a program) make sense. So any appeal to the QV, science, observation, physicists, etc., is meaningless because under his own standard it is reasonable to question the evidence he sees. At bottom, his position is logically indistinct from the KCA he attacks. If one view is undermined because of a programming possibility, then the other is EQUALLY undermined. To be consistent, then, Derek must attack knowledge itself, not merely theistic arguments. Of course, that would self defeating too, but that’s another discussion.
However, Derek would probably object that HE MAKES NO CLAIM about any of his positions. He doesn’t “claim” to KNOW that we’ve been to the moon (even though he claims that the circularity of the Earth is a fact), that the QV is eternal, etc., but that clearly isn’t true. He certainly CLAIMS that science has given him the necessary ammunition to offer a virtual world scenario that undercuts theistic arguments, but on his own standard, it does no such thing. Since it is possible that all of the evidence he thinks he has marshaled against the KCA has been programmed into the “game,” and since it is possible that his programmers have programmed him to falsely think that his arguments are persuasive, then ALL of his claims (statements, whatever) collapse into incoherence.
Against my claim that “[n]o argument a physicist makes can refute the causal principle,” Derek writes:
How this is supposed to undermine the causal principle, Derek does not explain, except to imply (again) that the LNC might not hold. Derek must not know what the LNC is (which explains my earlier recommendation that he should get a refresher course on logic). A cat cannot be alive and dead in the same respect. ‘A’ does not imply the negation of ‘A’ in the same respect. In order explain how a cat can be dead and alive “simultaneously,” Derek is forced to provide different senses in which that could be true, else the claim would be unintelligible, but I digress. Science cannot assail the causal principle, and if Derek wants to attack the LNC (by using it, by the way—does he even realize that?), then no sense can be made of any argument. After all, it’s possible we’re just programmed to think logically, aren’t we?
Derek also offers a possible causeless QV. However, he has yet to reply to Jason’s possible world argument that disproves the QV could be a necessary being. One would think that a person who puts so much emphasis on possible virtual worlds and a possible multi-verse would appreciate the force of such an objection. Of course, a rebuttal from Derek is not really needed here because there isn’t a cogent rebuttal. A necessary being, if one exists, exists in all possible worlds. Since the QV could be constituted differently (especially under Derek’s possibility argument), then by definition the QV is a contingent being. Moreover, the QV is possibly a program in a virtual world, so it is possible it doesn’t exist either.
Derek continues:
Wow. What is “evidently”?? Isn’t it possible that Derek’s been programmed to think that the evidence shows that time began with the BB? Consequently, his objection fails. Moreover, if Derek objects that he is merely “using” reason because that is all he has, then he’s got to conclude that the “evidence” appears to show that time began with the BB. Thus, science is able on his view to determine that time had a beginning. That has NOTHING to do with the causal principle. Science is INCAPABLE—PERIOD of disproving causality because that involves drawing a conclusion on what one doesn’t see, and science is in the business of observing phenomena. One cannot conclude that something doesn’t exist by what one fails to observe—for the umpteenth time.
Finally, Derek writes:
??? If you had to do a double-take at that statement, then join the club. “Something coming from nothing” is incoherent. That is a metaphysically true statement. “Something from something is incoherent” is a metaphysically untrue statement. There is no sense in which these statements are equally meaningful. “THEY” are philosophers who never asserted that “nothingness” existed. They simply reasoned that what begins has a cause, for something cannot come from nothing. That’s as meaningful as “something from something is incoherent”? Oh, I get it; Derek is experiencing a quantum fluctuation which makes him think that what he just said makes sense.
Forgetting what he wrote, Derek replies:
The reader will recall that I wrote to Derek, “Please tell us how science can confirm that the vacuum is uncaused. What empirical data is need to confirm that the vacuum as been here an infinite amount of time? On what basis do you determine whether something is uncaused?” To which Derek replied,
I explained above why this approach doesn’t work. Derek brushes that aside and instead of showing why my objections do not follow, he tells me to give it a rest. If the KCA’s claims are true, then “natural” existence (the universe) has a supernatural cause (or, the material is caused by the immaterial). Although the KCA can be “adopted” to prove an alternate explanation (which is partly why I do not endorse it), it cannot be adopted the way Derek has. A naturalistic explanation does not follow if one posits the truth of the argument’s premises.
Yes, Derek should give it a rest, unless he finally steps up to the plate and engages the refutations of his very weak arguments.
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 10:13 am
And yet you keep responding with longer and longer (and increasingly apoplectic) posts, this one being your longest yet. 😉 Let’s see if I can shorten things up for you somewhat.
EXACTLY. And by the SAME TOKEN, we do not have ANY evidence that God exists. All you have is cosmological arguments…but the VERY SAME reasoning they use to conclude God can be used to conclude NATURALISTIC explanations. True, for none of the naturalistic explanations do we have conclusive evidence for being true…but at least there is SOME precedence. This is the part you seem to have the most trouble grasping. You get all breathless and upset and point to the weaknesses in the current state of scientific knowledge for the origin of the universe, while refusing to recognize the weakness for the arguments for God.
Let’s compare the two: Using the SAME cosmological arguments (at least the ones that are coherent–let’s ignore the sillier ones like the existence of goodness means there must be some being of maximum goodness, which is God) that are used to conclude God, we can ALSO conclude naturalistic origins. HOWEVER, the naturalistic explanations can be PREDICTED consequences of certain well-established theories in physics, or they can be compared with PREDICTED technological achievement.
In the case of virtual worlds, we can be reasonably confident that within a few decades at most we will be able to produce virtual world experiences that are indistinguishable from the experiences of our world. If so, that logically leads to the possibility that we ourselves live in such a world. NO supernatural abilities required, simply a few more years of technological progress.
On the other hand, the God explanation requires the acceptance of the supernatural (for which we have NO evidence), omnipotence (for which we have NO evidence), omniscience (for which we have NO evidence), and more infinite capabilities, depending on the specific CA or version of the CA (for all of which we have NO evidence). Technical feasibility loses to omni ANYTHING every time, if parsimony means anything to you.
So all you’re left to do is throw stones at the gaps in the naturalistic explanations: the fact that there are no empirical evidences for them. Ironically, you confidently used the argument, “One cannot conclude that something doesn’t exist by what one fails to observe—for the umpteenth time.” Well, back at ya. 😉 You can’t win an argument on a special pleading fallacy.
Naturalistic explanations for the origin of our universe are weak. But they’re stronger than the God explanation. The difference is, I’m admittedly agnostic on the issue, whereas you insist the God explanation works best. You see my position as a weakness instead of a strength…which explains why you’ll never be a scientist. Claims of certainty based on insufficient empirical evidence are foolhardy at best.
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Derek writes,
Still missing the point, Derek appeals to evidence. Derek cannot appeal to evidence because it is possible that he is programmed to think that evidence counts in a debate. Hence, his appeal is refuted on its own standard. It is nothing but meaningless hand-waiving.
There cannot be ANY “precedence” since it is possible this “precedence” is a program designed to deceive Derek.
It is obvious Derek doesn’t get it at all. He doesn’t realize that EVERYTHING he writes can have NO persuasive value because he posits the possibility that he could be deceived by a programmer about everything he observes or reasons. Thus, EVERYTHING he writes is REFUTED by his own standard.
Yet another example of refusing to engage the argument. When he gets around to a cogent reply, I’ll be listening.
Again, since it is possible Derek could have been programmed to believe that there is such a thing as “physics” and that he could have been programmed to think that certain predictions have weight, everything he says about it fails as an argument. Derek implies he has read my post, but his answers demonstrate he has no clue why his views are self refuting.
More empty hand-waiving. Derek cannot be confident of ANYTHING given his virtual world proposal. It is possible that a real alien is deceiving Derek that there is evidence of virtual worlds. Again, since that is “possible,” his claim must be rejected.
The programmer has programmed Derek into thinking that there is something wrong with a special pleading fallacy. Since it is possible that there is nothing ultimately wrong with special pleading, Derek fails again.
Since it is possible that the programmer has made Derek think that way, that makes his thesis NO BETTER than theism. Derek has merely been programmed to think that his case is stronger. Another fail.
Of course, all of this has been explained over and over, and after all this time, Derek still doesn’t get it. I am not confident he ever will, but it is obvious to every objective reader that he has hoisted himself with his own petard.
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 12:05 pm
With respect to my “longest” post, I clearly stated that it wasn’t for Derek’s benefit (since I am no longer interested in having a direct dialog with him). Said post is an encapsulation of the discussions over two threads for the benefit of any “interested reader.”
LikeLike
July 5, 2012 at 10:27 am
Yay, you’re FINALLY showing that you’re beginning to understand this argument. Congratulations! But you’re still missing one key element. Let’s see if I can help you make it over the last hurdle.
It IS possible we live in a virtual world and are programmed to ask certain questions and perceive certain observations. That much you admit. Good. But BECAUSE of this possibility, you reject the hypothesis as being refuted. That’s where your problem lies. I see this blind spot in theists all the time: if some idea implies a disturbing conclusion, it can’t be right and thus must be dismissed. But that DOESN’T mean that conclusion is not true. It IS possible we live in a virtual world that is like one we ourselves will likely be capable of creating within a couple of decades. You don’t have to like it, but it IS a possibility, and it’s one that requires NO resorting to the supernatural, omnipotence or omniscience, for which we have NO evidence.
Again, do we have any direct evidence for this? No, of course not. But I’m not claiming it IS the truth. I’m merely pointing out that it IS a plausible possibility, giving it greater weight than the whole God concept.
And that leads me to a second point. I’ve argued with several “theistic philosophers” over the years, and they all seem to follow the same tendency: the closer one gets to refuting their beliefs, the more they resort to ad hominems, jargon, opaqueness and evasion. Why not simply be honest and demonstrate the courage of your convictions by simply providing a clear explanation of your reasoning? One of the reasons my videos are popular is because for any topic I understand well, I can put it in terms anyone can understand. I don’t hide behind jargon or attempt obfuscation at all.
Yet theistic philosophers seem compelled to opaqueness. Even your most recent posts have switched to scornful third person, which is a common form of ad hominem attack intended to win by belittling one’s opponent, rather than through the quality of one’s argument. It’s as if you think you can win with style over substance.
So let’s see if you can reverse this trend and make your argument clear and compelling. Please explain in clear, simple terms the salient points of the TCA that you believe refute the various naturalistic explanations for the source of our universe, and explain why they do. If you know what you’re talking about, you can do this. If you don’t, well, then we’ll know and we can stop wasting each other’s time, right?
The biggest evasion committed by many theistic philosophers is the final step of their arguments–going from relatively simple premises to an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, all-good, all-just, immaterial, timeless, changeless God who cares deeply about what we do with our genitals. To avoid discussing this, they savagely defend their premises (resorting to ad hominems and opaqueness when weaknesses in those premises are exposed) and attack naturalistic explanations for their lack of definitive evidence…as if somehow that conveys truth to their own God explanation and its even more profound lack of evidence.
So what’s it going to be? Are you going to answer these questions in a mature, logical fashion without resorting to fallacies? Or are you going to continue to evade the issue?
LikeLike
July 5, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Derek, because he has offered a self-refuting argument, tries to turn tables and pretend that I am finally getting it (even though my argument has been consistent throughout. He writes
I “admit” no such thing. I was only showing Derek how his “refutation” of theism backfires.
Still missing on all cylinders, Derek cannot see that nothing he offers has “greater weight” because he could be just as deceived about what constitutes “evidence” as anything he criticizes. He again fails to see that on his own terms he cannot appeal to ANY evidence, and because he has taken evidence off of the table, his appeal to it is unintelligible.
Thinking he can win by ignoring the argument, or pretending that his position hasn’t been completed refuted on his own terms, Derek flails by trying to attack my third-person approach. The reader will note that I have already explained why I am no longer interested in direct dialog with him, but to hide his unwillingness to see his self-immolation, he wants to pretend that he’s the poor victim of an ad hominem argument.
Marching on, the emperor, as if by rote, continues to perform as if he had any clothes on. What is “evidence”?? According to Derek, the possibility exists that he is merely programmed to think that he has evidence on his side. That makes his appeal to it incoherent. The aliens must be slapping each other on the back Derek is doing just what they programmed him to do. Pass the virtual popcorn! Oh! That’s it! Derek is a droid who is incapable of seeing that he is hanging himself—not…
Of course he understands what has been argued. He has made a fundamental error of logic, and because he cannot bring himself to admit it, he desperately tries to turn tables in the hope that people will not notice that HE is the one who has come to a theistic website and repeatedly offered an argument that is inherently contradictory on its face. He doesn’t like being peeled so easily, but easy it is.
LikeLike
July 5, 2012 at 5:26 pm
Okay, so I guess you’re choosing the childish evasion option. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. But do you seriously think anyone reading these posts is going to think your switch to third person means you’re actually NOT arguing with me? Why embarrass yourself like that?
I point out how a virtual world (and other naturalistic scenarios) can explain all of the reasons theists use to conclude God exists, and your refutation of that is that I could be programmed to think that (as if an all powerful God couldn’t do the exact same thing)? Really? Well, maybe you actually believe that is an argument, but I doubt you’ll convince anyone else.
And when I ask for a clear, specific argument for how the TCA rationally leads to concluding an omnipotent, omniscient God, you do nothing more than ratchet up the attacks against naturalistic alternatives, as if using ad hominem and contrived dualism fallacies constitutes a winning argument.
O-kay. Since you’re evidently not interested in actually defending your beliefs, I’m done here.
LikeLike
July 5, 2012 at 6:28 pm
Derek writes,
What we’ve learned through the course of this “discussion” is that Derek doesn’t know what the LNC is, he doesn’t know what an invalid logical inference is, and he doesn’t know what a self-refuting argument is. From the beginning, I’ve shown him why his argument is self-defeating, but he still cannot see it. An argument cannot even get off the ground if one of the participant’s arguments is unintelligible. One cannot discount evidence as a possible deception only to turn around and appeal to evidence as more “weightier” or more “persuasive” than an argument one doesn’t happen to like. If a virtual world scenario defeats one view, it defeats ALL views, which is why it self-destructs. This has been repeated ad nauseam but dear Derek can’t let go of his pet ace in the hole, even if it is obvious to everybody else that it’s just a lump of coal (a virtual one at that).
Funny. Derek cannot understand what a self-refuting argument is, and he complains that the TCA discussion has been suspended? Why in the name of rationality would anybody in their right mind try to convince him of that when he cannot see that he refutes himself in every post? His bob and weave sophistry might work with atheist-bots, but it doesn’t work with thinking people.
LikeLike
July 5, 2012 at 7:05 pm
Hey. I think I’m probably the only interested reader left. I’ve read this entire thread. I’m a Christian.
I think one of the biggest hang-ups happened here:
Scalia said,
“The claim that an imagined possibility of an alternative refutes another claim is self defeating. The reason it is self defeating is that it entails the thesis that in order for a claim to be true it must be able to withstand any conceivable possibility.”
But that’s not really what Derek was saying. He was saying that in order for a claim to be *regarded as true*, alternate explanations must be reasonably found implausible. This is a profitable and constructive position to have.
In other words, if I claim that God probably exists because X is true, I have to convincingly explain the connection therebetween. And if an alternative is proposed wherein X could be true but God false, I am burdened to show why that alternative is implausible to a degree that makes God probable. I *must* take on those burdens as the positor; if I didn’t have to do that, we’d all be in a world of trouble.
Derek is correctly saying that these arguments have
– failed to show the connections between what we observe in the world and the supposed attributes of God (including his being existent), and
– not sufficiently shown that alternative explanations for what we observe in the world are implausible.
I will say 3 additional things:
1) The conversation between you two has devolved irreparably. It’s obvious that you guys are emotionally investment in this thing, but, again, I’m probably the only one left reading, and I’m sure you both realize that the other isn’t going to be convinced.
2) The so-called “God proofs” are nearly all terrible, many of them medieval word tricks and appeals to vaguery. They work really well when preaching to the choir, but that’s about it. I really wish Christian theology and apologetics would stop confidently sitting down on these “rubber-legged stools.”
3) The difference between contingency and necessity is a product of our imaginations as creatures who think contingently. Everything that happens is necessary. It just isn’t very profitable/constructive to decisionmaking to talk about things that way; we *imagine* alternative worlds and possibilities because that’s a useful device for decisionmaking. But that doesn’t make them non-imaginary. The argument from contingency is a vestigial relic of a mental trick we’ve found useful, nothing more.
LikeLike
July 6, 2012 at 12:46 am
Hi, Stan. Thank you for your comments. Let me first address the “investment” issue. If this were the only thread that Derek had commented on, I probably would have ignored it. I lead a very busy life and have had numerous debates with atheists. Most of the debates follow a predictable pattern and my dialog with Derek is no exception. When Derek began posting on various threads his “virtual world” argument with no sustained reply from the “regulars,” I decided to step in. I have no investment in this because I don’t think Derek has offered anything meaningful to the debate. You disagree, but I can live with that.
You observe,
I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of his argument. You will recall that I encapsulated the discussion in Post 39. I freely quoted Derek and have demonstrated that his argument is very different from what you describe. His methodology questions whether we’ve been to the moon and whether he is really in an office. He states unequivocally that the possibility of a virtual world, for which he admits there is no evidence, precludes any cosmological argument. Since he included non-theistic matters (in the direct sense) like moon travel and day-to-day experiences, his position is closer to radical skepticism. Since he affirms the possibility of deception with respect to the moon, then logically speaking, his argument is exactly the possibility-warrants-refutation position.
But this “alternative” is the possibility that we’re being deceived by everything we see and experience. That is nothing but Descartes in drag. As I noted above, no claim can withstand any imagined possibility. A claim must be able to withstand any reasonable objection, but again, as I noted above, Derek cannot claim reasonability because his argument of possible deception covers everything in and out of the universe.
For example, if I claim that the moon is real, that we’ve traveled there, planted a flag, and brought back samples, Derek, on his own argument, states that all of those experiences could be programmed by the creator of a virtual world. We thus can have no confidence that what we are seeing is real or even that WE are “real.” Consequently, his view that science makes a “stronger” case than theism is undermined for the very reason he thinks that theism is. That isn’t my opinion; it is what logically follows given Derek’s own statements.
That notwithstanding, I agree that the theist is obligated to logically defend h/er argument for God’s existence. A theist must be able to construct a positive argument and be able to defend it against reasonable objections. Derek’s objections are unreasonable on his own terms. Moreover, since you’ve read this thread, you know that I am not a KCA advocate. It will do no good for me to defend the notion that it gets you to God because I do not believe it does any such thing.
And as I’ve noted repeatedly, Derek has undercut “what we observe in the world” with his virtual world objection. How can anything be “sufficiently shown” when it is possible that everything “we observe” is part of a virtual world program created by aliens? If you are making the same claims as Derek, then your position is vulnerable to the same critique. I’ve shown repeatedly why Derek’s virtual world argument fails. Regardless the merit of the KCA, Derek’s claims don’t even touch it.
LikeLike
July 6, 2012 at 7:04 am
Scalia, thanks a lot for your charitable reply. Many Derek’s posts are a nest of complicated positions, wielding “suppose your right”s as argumentum ad absurdums on multiple levels and in response to multiple different people, and I think that’s made some of his positions hard to follow. Maybe he’ll weigh in on the following:
Here is my alternative hypothesis on where the hang-up might be. Derek offered the virtual world hypothesis as a plausible catch-all explanation. It certainly is plausible, but it definitely is useless, because like you (correctly) say, it undermines empiricism entirely, which means we have no shared mechanism by which we can gauge something’s general veracity. Certainly such a useless (though plausible) explanation shouldn’t be invoked.
The trick is that supernaturalism works the same way. It’s a catch-all explanation that, while plausible, is useless, because it undermines empiricism entirely. God-of-the-gaps explanations are their own funny form of radical skepticism.
That’s why Derek said, “AGAIN, I believe no such thing. Nor would I ever be so foolish as to believe in any claim for the origin of the universe without empirical evidence. I only mention equally (or more than equally) valid hypotheses for the origin of the universe than those who resort to a supernatural, all powerful, all knowing God.”
LikeLike
July 6, 2012 at 7:47 am
Thanks, Stan, for your additional remarks. I think you are correct that a God-of-the-gaps (or atheism-of-the-gaps) approach undermines rational dialog. One question: You say that “God proofs” are “nearly all terrible.” Which ones do you favor?
Regards.
LikeLike
July 6, 2012 at 4:47 pm
You understood my argument exactly, Stan, and summarized it quite clearly (even eloquently!). Thank you. I’ve no idea why Scalia couldn’t grasp it–it seems a pretty straightforward argument to me.
Unfortunately, you’re right about the argument having degenerated irreparably. I did try an appeal for a more civil discourse focused on the relevant topics, but when it became clear that wasn’t going to happen, I figured it would be best to bow out and simply not read any more of Scalia’s posts on this thread.
LikeLike
July 6, 2012 at 10:22 pm
Derek writes,
The very inconvenient truth is that isn’t what Derek has argued. Jesus said in Luke 16:22—
Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee…
Derek’s argument, per his own words, is nowhere close to that. As Stan observed:
Now, Stan and I disagree on the plausibility of Derek’s argument, but we both agree that it is useless. One wonders how “eloquent” that statement is in Derek’s virtual mind. Of course, we’ve been down this road before.
Stan, did you catch my question in Post 50? If not, please allow me to try again. You said that “God proofs” are “nearly all terrible.” I’d like to know which ones you consider valid.
All the best.
LikeLike
July 6, 2012 at 10:23 pm
Oops. That’s Luke 19:22. Apologies.
LikeLike
July 8, 2012 at 2:40 pm
I don’t think any of the “God proofs” suffice as “proofs,” which is why I enclose the term in quotation marks. The argument from morality invokes deontological meta-ethics, the ontological argument commits cross-abstraction equivocation, the cosmological argument is a happy marriage of begging the question and non sequitur, etc.
I think these things persist in popularity because they’re sometimes hard to dissect, and the religious folks equipped to dissect them choose not to, because they’d rather that they work (or they weasel in novel ways to keep them on life support, a la Plantinga). Furthermore, if you’re a Christian philosopher, it’s hard to sell books and get invited to atheist v. theist debates with the thesis that “God proofs” don’t work. It’s just not very “catchy.”
You can’t get to God through pure reason. You get to God through Kantian reason: experience tempered by logic and prudent self-criticism. You invoke God and subsequently bear witness to events that seem to indicate his presence, and after enough such apparent miracles, and after due consideration of various skeptical devices (Littlewood’s Law, placebo, confirmation bias, etc.), it may become reasonable to conclude, “Yes, that’s probably really him.”
LikeLike
July 8, 2012 at 4:22 pm
Thank you, Stan, for answering my question. Although I disagree with some of your views, I appreciate your taking the time to get back with me.
LikeLike
January 6, 2013 at 7:14 pm
I followed the whole thread! WOW! I conclude that derek is an idiot. Is that an ad hominem if it’s really true?Maybe he is not an idiot because he doesn’t understand where his arguments fail… but an idiot because he won’t admit it? I dunno, Scalia you have GREAT patience.
LikeLike
January 6, 2013 at 7:17 pm
I don’t think anyone involved in this thread is an “idiot,” and it’s both uncharitable and unproductive to say things like that.
LikeLike
February 12, 2013 at 11:22 am
[…] Even if the universe is eternal, it still needs a cause […]
LikeLike
September 18, 2013 at 12:52 pm
Can anyone please help me understand one thing here ? If universe is eternal ( no beginning and no end) how can it still be caused by something else ?
LikeLike
September 18, 2013 at 1:07 pm
Rezwan, you seem to think of causation purely in temporal terms. While that is the kind we are most familiar with, that is not the only kind of causation there is. Something can be caused even if it is eternal. A standard illustration of this is an eternal ball resting on an eternal pillow from eternity past. If you were to look at the pillow, you would notice a depression in the pillow. The depression is just as eternal as the ball and pillow itself, and yet clearly the depression in the pillow was caused by the ball’s resting on the pillow. Neither the cause nor the effect began in time, and yet there is clearly a cause and effect relationship.
Similarly, in the case of the universe, even if it were eternal, it would still require a cause because of the kind of thing the universe is. It is a contingent being, meaning it did not have to exist (there’s nothing about the universe that makes its existence logically or metaphysically necessary, unlike numbers or God, which if they exist, are metaphysically necessary beings). So even though it does exist, and even though it has existed eternally (for the sake of argument), it didn’t have to exist. Anything that did not have to exist must be caused to exist. This applies to eternally contingent beings just as much as it does temporally contingent beings.
Jason
LikeLike
November 11, 2013 at 4:06 pm
[…] Even if the Universe is Eternal it still needs a cause […]
LikeLike
June 15, 2015 at 11:22 am
Is this a dead blog? If not i would like to have a discussion about this, and if i can, i would like to clarify the issue.
LikeLike
June 15, 2015 at 11:54 am
I the universe exists one has to presume presumes it exists as a cause.
The fallacy about this article is the example of the fallacy itself. To say “Bono” or “Citizen” or “Human” for each of the 3: if this then that, if that then this, is itself is a logical fallacy rhetorically because saying “Bono” or saying “American Citizen” or saying “Human” is saying the same thing for the same person. For example , all one is doing in this logical falacy is this:
What is the difference of Bono, American Citizen and Human, there is no difference.
What is the difference of Tom , Dick and Harry? The author is comparing apples to no apples and oranges to no oranges but to be consistent one has to compare different meanings and understandings,
1. Universe,
2. Existence,
3. Cause
The author is comparing three names meaning the same thing:
Thus:
1. Bono,
2. Bono,
3. Bono
1. Tom,
2. Dick,
3. Harry
(1) If A, then B [If Bono is Bono, then Bono is Bono]
(2) Not A [Bono is not Bono]
(3) Therefore not B [Therefore Bono is not Bono]
another way of saying this riculous comparison is this:
(1) If A, then B [If Tom is Dick, then Dick is Harry]
(2) Not A [Tom is not Dick]
(3) Therefore not B [Therefore Dick is not Harry]
LikeLike
June 15, 2015 at 2:31 pm
Hi, Wujud. I’ve contributed a lot of posts under this thread. What is it you’d like to discuss? If you’d rather dialog with Jason, that’s fine.
LikeLike
June 15, 2015 at 4:41 pm
OMG Scalia:
Let’s hear what you have to say!
LikeLike
April 10, 2018 at 12:10 pm
Stan, I know this is a very old thread, but I was hunting for something and came across our little back-and-forth. You wrote the following:
I think these things persist in popularity because they’re sometimes hard to dissect, and the religious folks equipped to dissect them choose not to, because they’d rather that they work (or they weasel in novel ways to keep them on life support, a la Plantinga). Furthermore, if you’re a Christian philosopher, it’s hard to sell books and get invited to atheist v. theist debates with the thesis that “God proofs” don’t work. It’s just not very “catchy.”
Forgive me, but this implies that Christian philosophers who insist that certain proofs for God’s existence are sound are being dishonest. Is that what you intended to write? I certainly believe that Aquinas’ reasoning is sound, and others I know are equally sincere. We may be mistaken, but we are not dishonest. Please clarify.
LikeLike
May 7, 2018 at 5:10 pm
*”One might grant this, but then ask what caused the logically prior cause of the universe. Perhaps the logically prior cause of the universe is also a contingent being, and as such it also has a logically prior cause, but to avoid an infinite regress of logical causation one must eventually terminate the regress with a necessary being — a being that cannot not exist, whose nature is such that it must exist and must exist as X rather than –X.”
That syllogism you gave earlier is a straw man!
Here is one:
Everything that does not begin to exist does not have a cause.
X did not begin to exist.
Therefore, X does not have a cause.
X = the thing that is the materially ontological necessary ground state of all other material states. As an example – vacuum energy. The 2nd law would be invoked here – Energy can neither be created nor destroyed only transformed.
As per the *quote above, we could say an existence whose ontology is such that it must exist and must exist as X rather than -X. If theist can define GOD as such, a priori, then so can I with VE (vacuum energy). I can just assert VE or something materially like it (representing X) that has all the necessary properties to be uncaused.
You might ask what caused the vacuum energy or X? But that would be like asking what caused the uncaused or what caused God? You just invoked, a priori, an uncaused cause to move the argument forward or to stop the regress from proceeding. I can do that with X. There is nothing that says everything that is non material in nature needs a cause nor is there anything that says all material things need a cause.
There are cosmological models that are eternal.
LikeLike
May 8, 2018 at 7:13 am
Maximus writes:
But theists don’t simply “define GOD.” God’s necessity and aseity are inferred.
Jason is a proponent of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I personally don’t believe said argument gets you to God (I rather espouse the Thomist argument for God’s existence), but if an atheist defends a bald assertion on the basis that theists do the same, then s/he acknowledges that the truth value of h/er argument is on par with a theistic one.
That said, Jason above addresses your argument. Have you read the entire thread?
LikeLike
May 8, 2018 at 8:36 am
Aquinas argues that an infinite chain never accomplishes its objective and is thus impossible. But that begs the question “what is the objective of an infinite chain if you know?
I submit Aquinas did not know, nor does anybody. That’s the same question asked in religious circles “who can know the mind of God” assuming God has a mind or an objective.
But the bible itself says rightfully: “For who has known the mind of the Lord?”
Isaiah 41:28
“But when I look, there is no one, And there is no counselor among them Who, if I ask, can give an answer.
His nature and plan are infinitely beyond human understanding. God is infinitely different from us in His thoughts and ways. So also is “infinite chain”. Aquinas, it seems to me to think that he knows the objective; I submit he did not, nor do I.
LikeLike
May 8, 2018 at 9:43 am
Leo writes:
That’s not quite what he argues. He analyzes two types of causal series (per se and per accidens). The first is also known as an essentially ordered series such as a hand that moves a stick that moves a stone that moves a leaf. In such a series, the leaf has no causal efficacy for movement. Its movement is derived from the stone. Similarly, the stone also lacks causal efficacy. Its movement in this series is entirely dependent on the stick (which is dependent on the hand, etc.). This kind of series cannot proceed to infinity because the efficient cause cannot be explained by objects lacking causal efficacy no matter how many of them there are. A chain link can hold a light fixture only because another link is connected to it; however, regardless the number of links, the efficacy to hold a light fixtures cannot be explained by said links alone. They must be anchored to something outside the series. Similarly, an infinite number of mirrors reflecting light cannot explain the light because they have no ability to produce light. The explanation for the light must be outside the reflective series.
On the other hand, a per accidens (non-essentially ordered) series can conceivably proceed to infinity, according to Aquinas. Your parents were the proximate cause of your being, but if they die, you continue to exist. Your present existence is not dependent on your parents’ sustaining cause. Aquinas felt that it was at least conveiveable that such a series could proceed to infinity and that the universe could be eternal in that sense. His argument, therefore, is not based on the beginning of the universe (as the Kalam argument is). His argument for God’s existence (and His attributes) is based on a concurrent sustaining cause.
LikeLike
May 8, 2018 at 4:49 pm
The sentence in Post 70 which reads, “They must be anchored to something outside the series,” should be amended to read, “They must be anchored to something which has causal efficacy—a first mover.”
LikeLike
May 8, 2018 at 5:46 pm
Where would this scenario fit into the chain: the sun causes an uneven heating of the earth surface, air naturally moves from high to low pressure and a summer breeze sweeps the fallen leaf along the surface. A nearby reptile braces itself preparing for flight or fight or a meal.
The reptile perceives motion as life; it does not understand motion from wind; if it moves, it must be alive and is ready to eat or be eaten. Never mind where the reptile came from, how long will this chain last and how long has it been going on, all over the cosmos, subjected only to the forces of heat, light and the absences of those, electricity, magnetism, gravity, speed, mass collisions?
Star formations and lumps of planets so old that mere space environment has circularized them like so many beach rocks weathering it out on the seashore yet to eventually turn into tiny grains of sand which themselves were giant rocks and then seashore rocks thousands, perhaps millions of years ago now strewn along the seaside beach as sand in ribbons lining the ocean shores.
Do you imagine when stars and planets collide that pieces of the debris break off in perfect little circles like droplets of water and float along as perfect circles? Like the seaside that shows the rounded rocks of erosion so too the planets and stars are perfectly shaped by the enviro forces surrounded them and in time they are shaped into perfect circles, not squares, not triangles by perfect circles?
And so where are the life forces and what are they made of? That we should marvel so at the diversity. Salamanders living in cave without light, without pigmentation, without eyes, just small mounds of flesh where their cousins above have developed eyes to see. It’s too amazing to fathom.
LikeLike
May 9, 2018 at 8:49 am
Leo asks, “Where would this scenario fit into the chain…”
That’s answered by the definitions provided.
LikeLike
May 9, 2018 at 9:08 am
Stan writes:
I don’t think so. The fact that the universe may be eternal does not discount the fact that it is caused. There is nothing in the nature of matter that leads us to conclude that it exists of necessity. All composites of act/potency, form/matter, essence/existence, etc. have a sustaining cause, even if they are eternal.
Without an ontological point of origin, beings exist independent of God. That equates said beings with God which is impossible given their mutability.
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 9, 2018 at 9:59 am
There is no hand pushing a stick the temperature the wind or the leaf.
LikeLike
May 9, 2018 at 10:41 am
Leo says,
There is no hand pushing a stick the temperature the wind or the leaf.
Yes, quite silly of me to think you could connect A-B-C. At this point, if it has to be explained, you wouldn’t understand the explanation, so we’re done.
LikeLike
May 9, 2018 at 11:56 am
Scalia says:
“Without an ontological point of origin, beings exist independent of God. That equates said beings with God which is impossible given their mutability.”
That statement is based purely on the presumptive definitions of god as defined by man and that nothing is independent of your pet God.
Who gives definitions of God, Omin this and Omni that. “…..does all for own glory, eternal, self-existent, need of no one, unchanging in perfections and purposes.” All definitions are by man and therefore using man’s definitions of God how can man say anything about God that is right, correct and even closely accurate? Man cannot but the arrogance of ego can and does assert they right correct and perfectly accurate. Sorry to burst an academia bubble.
If you write a book of fiction you can define your created characters with any value, any virtue, any vexing nature you want because when you write the book you decide on all the definitions. But the author of his own book cannot extrapolate the character nature or supernature he defines for his storybook to the rest of humanity.
Jesus says::
“I’m only quoting your inspired Scriptures, where God said, ‘I tell you—you are gods.’ If God called your ancestors ‘gods’—and Scripture doesn’t lie—why do you yell, ‘Blasphemer! Blasphemer!’ at the unique One the Father consecrated and sent into the world, just because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
If I don’t do the things my Father does, well and good; don’t believe me. But if I am doing them, put aside for a moment what you hear me say about myself and just take the evidence of the actions and words that are right before your eyes.
Then perhaps things will come together for you, and you’ll see that not only are we doing the same thing, we are the same—Father and Son. He is in me; I am in him.”
Go argue with Jesus and begone with your academia.
LikeLike
May 9, 2018 at 12:13 pm
Scalia says:
“……we’ve never actually observed anything that isn’t moving,…..”
If you’ve got a head full of scriptural academia then what you’ve got is a head full of ideas that have stopped growing; that’ll be a head full of dead ideas then.
Here we observe something that is not in motion, not moving, dead, immutable. We observe something that isn’t moving.
LikeLike
May 9, 2018 at 12:21 pm
Leo writes:
You have no basis to make that statement because I haven’t even begun to infer God from the causal series. I merely corrected your misunderstanding of Aquinas’ argument about an infinite causal series.
The definitions are what logically follow from Aquinas’/Aristotle’s arguments. Again, I haven’t even begun to argue that here.
I didn’t say that. I was quoting Stan. Read a little more closely.
LikeLike
May 9, 2018 at 12:41 pm
Leo avers:
Although Stan made the statement that “we’ve never actually observed anything that isn’t moving…,” your reply shows you don’t understand the underlying argument. “Moving,” in a philosophical sense, means change. Hence, a dead body is undergoing change in that it is decomposing.
LikeLike
May 9, 2018 at 12:52 pm
Scalia said:
“You have no basis to make that statement because I haven’t even begun to infer God from the causal series. I merely corrected your misunderstanding of Aquinas’ argument about an infinite causal series.”
The statement being referred to that I commented on:………
“Without an ontological point of origin, beings exist independent of God. That equates said beings with God which is impossible given their mutability.”
…….was not directed to me. Read a little more closely.
That was a statement you made to Stan in Post 74 and not about my misunderstanding (your words, not mine) about Aquinas; what I said about Aquinas was simply quoted about Thomist Argument which you alluded to in a previous post. I quoted the summary, not my own, but an internet summary comparison on “Causality” the sentence following the quote was my own.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomism
“…..Unlike many ancient Greeks, who thought that an infinite regress of causality is possible (and thus held that the universe is uncaused), Aquinas argues that an infinite chain never accomplishes its objective and is thus impossible…..”
LikeLike
May 9, 2018 at 1:02 pm
Scalia says:
“…..“Moving,” in a philosophical sense, means change. Hence, a dead body is undergoing change in that it is decomposing…..”
This shows your misunderstanding of the underlying argument:
I meant change controlled, by an open mind capable to move forward with refined perception and alternate views from other definitions despite the propensity to remain in a self induced or otherwise an indoctrinated drug-like trance, based on Absolute Certainty.
LikeLike
May 9, 2018 at 1:27 pm
Leo, in full confusion mode, writes:
I know it wasn’t directed at you, and I know I was reply to Stan when I made that comment. You replied thusly:
I haven’t even gotten around to defining God from the TCA, so my point stands: You have no basis to make that claim. You can only do so once I present the argument. Read more closely.
You rely on Wikipedia?? As I stated, whether they or you make that observation, it is inaccurate. Aquinas had no issue with an infinite per accidens causal series, so both they are you are incorrect.
You never made an argument, so there was nothing to misunderstand. You’re just playing this silly game of tit-for-tat. You don’t have a sweet clue what you’re talking about, so you’re trying to even the score by accusing me of misunderstanding your argument. This is reinforced by your running to Wikipedia for info on the TCA. Your on-topic opinions are part of the forum, but as I told Derek above, it is unprincipled to opine on a topic of which you’re ignorant. Asking legitimate questions and offering a counter if you have one is fine; popping off about something you know nothing about isn’t.
And that’s a baldfaced lie. You thought you were replying to me when it was Stan who made the comment that I quoted. You had no idea what a philosophical movement is, so in your deluded belief that theists make up the most stupid arguments for God’s existence, you thought you had an obvious zinger to refute “my” (Stan’s) statement. Now, when shown your ignorance, you pretend to be getting at something else.
Next time, if you have an argument to make, make it.
LikeLike
May 9, 2018 at 4:46 pm
Scalia said:
“You rely on Wikipedia??”
I never said that; I simply gave you the source of the quote.
Scalia said: “….I didn’t say that. I was quoting Stan.””
You rely on Stan??
So Scalia show the ego hypocrisy; when he says it it is okay when an opponent says it he sneers in belittlement at others who make similar statements.
Scalia says:
“….I know it wasn’t directed at you, and I know I was reply to Stan when I made that comment.”
And that’s a baldfaced lie because in that very same statement you continued thusly:
“…..Leo writes:
“That statement is based purely on the presumptive definitions of god as defined by man and that nothing is independent of your pet God.”
Scalia: “You have no basis to make that statement because I haven’t even begun to infer God from the causal series. I merely corrected your misunderstanding of Aquinas’ argument about an infinite causal series.”
If you made that statement to Stan, and knew it, why after my comment follow it with : “I merely corrected your misunderstanding of Aquinas’ argument about an infinite causal series.” If they are not connected why insert talk about apples if you are talking about orangutans and state something it was not? That is confusion mode
Since that statement was not made, to correct any misunderstanding of Aquinas, inserting it is for mere obfuscation.
As far as defining God, you don’t have to define God you just have to make your bold assertions for a common sense person to see right through your obscurity veil. It doesn’t matter that you haven’t defined God. All you need to do is assert the ludicrous statements that cannot be made without the presumptive definitions of belief that Christians rely on; for example, Aquinas TCA that you defend? You can only defend Aquinas philosophy if you hold to the same presumptive definitions of God.
I don’t care if you do not explicitly define God, you are using the same definitions based purely on the presumptive definitions of god as defined by man and that nothing is independent of your pet God. That’s what Aquinas based his argument on and nobody can defend Aquinas TCA without the the same presumptive definitions of God.
By defending Aquinas TCA you must necessarily hold the same presumptive definitions. Axiom of Equality
And oh, you can find all about the Axiom of Equality on Wikipedia, OMG, who would have thought?
LikeLike
May 9, 2018 at 4:57 pm
Leo writes,
You can’t stop contradicting yourself, can you? First, you didn’t iinitially say you were quoting them; you asserted it as if it were your belief. Second, it was a definite assertion on your part, so you WERE relying on them, your fatuous denial notwithstanding.
To describe what he believes, yes. Moreover, unlike you, when I quote somebody, I tell everybody that’s what I’m doing.
English must not be your mother tongue. The comment about an infinite causal set is what I corrected regarding your other false statement about Aquinas. If you’re going to lie, at least get them straight. Again, you have no basis for critiquing my definition of God because I haven’t yet provided it.
We don’t make “bold assertions.” I know you’d like us to, for that would at least make your comments somewhat cogent. As it now stands, you’re in loony-bin land.
Of course you don’t care. You don’t have a sweet clue what you’re talking about nor do you care. If that’s the case, THEN QUIT REPLYING.
LikeLike
May 9, 2018 at 5:50 pm
Scalia says:
“Of course you don’t care. You don’t have a sweet clue what you’re talking about nor do you care.”
Ad hominims are used by people cannot or will not debate the issue because you already lost the argument regardless of your name calling and the issue at point is:
The fact remains: you offer no defense for the true statement; and that is, ‘Nobody can defend Aquinas TCA without basing the defense on the same presumptive definitions as defined by MAN and that nothing is independent of your PET BELIEF, GOD that is based on Non Knowledge but tons of academia scholarly religious belief. And you still cannot stand behind your bold assertion that:
Scalia:
“I haven’t even gotten around to defining God from the TCA, so my point stands: You have no basis to make that claim.”
The basis is simple, reason. I did not say that you inferred God from the TCA argument and I did not say that you could define God from the TCA; those are your words of choice not mine.
What I said, which you neglect to mention or in case you did not even understand the gist of what I said I’ll say it again in a way that you cannot possibly fail to understand.
I said that Aquinas based his TCA on definitions of God which were pre-defined by Man, not God, but Man; and further, that no thing could exist independently of God, another pre-definition conjured up my Man.
It was upon those predefined parameters that the theory for Thomistic Cosmological Argument formed.
So what I said about your assertion that you defend TCA, regardless of your definitions which you never made and regardless of your definitions which you never inferred from TCA, it does not matter.
The simple logic that makes my statement so intractably true is that TCA is the Conclusion and the pre-definitions are the Premises. So the mere assertion that you defend the TCA, the Conclusion, can only stand if you accept the premises from which the Conclusion is derived and those premises are the pre-defined definitions of your Pet God and your Pet God’s attributes, virtues, Omni, immutability etc, etc. by not God but from Man. Man defines their belief and gives their caricature creature all the attributes they belief their God must necessarily have to be a real big buxom God they can give akk the credit to and all the debit as well. Mastered of none.
So you claim to defend that conclusion without definitions? huh?
You prefer to nail your colors to the mast before you know if there’s a ship attached to it. And defend that position. Now if that doesn’t qualify as serious mental illness, I would love to be briefed on what exactly does qualify and why.
It’s unfortunate that many people on this planet seem to believe the very first thing they’re told and stick with it for the rest of their life. Not only does it remain unexamined but any attempt to challenge it is taken as a grievous insult. And everything you learn thereafter is skewed to that effect, boom Absolute Certainty.
If you can’t see that, it’s because you not looking.
LikeLike
May 9, 2018 at 5:58 pm
For further clarification, Leo wrote in Post 77:
The first paragraph is Leo’s quotation of me. The second paragraph is his reply. I then replied in Post 79:
You have no basis to make that statement because I haven’t even begun to infer God from the causal series. I merely corrected your misunderstanding of Aquinas’ argument about an infinite causal series.
Leo’s reply is baseless because the above quotation contains no argument for “the presumptive definitions of [G]od.” I then referred to my other comment about Leo’s ignorant assertion about Aquinas’ infinite cause argument. None of my statements were designed to define the attributes of God.
Anyway: Leo, you’re confusion is unnecessarily filling up Jason’s thread. Unless you have legitimate questions about the TCA (about which you are completely ignorant) or unless you have anything substantive to say, I won’t reply to another of your posts.
LikeLike
May 9, 2018 at 6:08 pm
Well, since Post 86 has some substance to it, I’ll reply. Leo writes:
You cannot say that because you don’t know what the argument is. If you were familiar with the TCA, then you’d be able to demonstrate why our definitions are bald assertions. As it now stands, since you don’t know what the argument is, you’re the one making up your terms.
Nobody, including me, said that you affirm my inferences come from the TCA. I simply stated that your accusation that I’m simply defining God into existence has no basis in fact because you don’t know what my argument is.
You really need to stop offering ignorant opinions about Aquinas. It is clear you’ve never read anything but caricatures of his writings. Aquinas employed logically deductive arguments about the causal principle which lead, logically, to various proofs for the existence of God. One doesn’t have to agree with him to see that you’re shooting blanks when it comes to Aquinas’ metaphysics.
More ignorance on your part.
Listen Leo, it’s clear you’re entirely ignorant of the topic. All you need to do is ask what the argument is. You’re not going to do that because you’re in face-saving mode. You put your foot in your mouth about the infinite causal series. You inserted your other foot when you demonstrated your ignorance of the term motion, and you’re compounding your foolishness by making assertions about an argument you know nothing about.
LikeLike