The Causal God Gambit

[remez]

Last thought. You have certainly heard of atheists becoming theists. Did those atheists reach their conclusion by presupposing God? Did Anthony Flew, CS Lewis or Lee Strobel (just to name three) presuppose God as the investigated the existence of God?

Flew stopped at deism, because that's where his (flawed) reasoning led him.

So.
Don't lose the context.
The point was one of presupposition.
When these atheists concluded theism, they did not begin by presupposing God's existence.
That's all.

 

[Juma]

Typical….cop out.

But tyou totally failed to adress my point: big bang is no evidence of gods …

???Dishonesty???.....I totally redressed that here…..

But since there are no evidence of gods then big bang is not evidence that gods did it.

Again you are conflating two different levels of concern. That is an error of reasoning called a categorical error. Thus your reasoning lead you to a wrong conclusion.

The SBBM is evidence that the universe began.
The argument is evidence FOR God existence not FROM God’s existence.

The SBBM is supporting evidence…..for a premise…. in an argument…. that has theistic implications.

also..........

I’m not asking you to interpret that the SBBM proves the existence of God.
I’m not saying that we can scientifically prove God exists.

I’m stating that empirical science….support a premises….in an arguments…..that have theistic implications.

Nice try.

No, you say that NT does not presuppose gods. That is what we discuss. That the universe began is not evidence of agency. So where is the evidence of gods?

 

[Juma]

Flew stopped at deism, because that's where his (flawed) reasoning led him.

So.
Don't lose the context.
The point was one of presupposition.
When these atheists concluded theism, they did not begin by presupposing God's existence.
That's all.

Yes they did. "God" was already there as an cultural alternative.
And besides: why would it matter how they became theists? They didnt became theists on purely rational reasons.

 

[remez]

No, you say that NT does not presuppose gods. That is what we discuss. That the universe began is not evidence of agency. So where is the evidence of gods?

I'm not asserting that the SBBM alone proves God exists.

That is something you keep saying and then judging because it fails therefore the KCA does not have any evidence. That is not the way any argument works.

I'm just stating the The SBBM is exhibit D in a larger case/argument the provides a verdict that God exists.
SBBM is just one piece of evidence in a trail of evidence and reasoning to reach a conclusion.
Thus the SBBM is empirical evidence that supports p2.
I'm not saying one piece of evidence makes the whole case.
Now.......
Remember the context here....
You said these arguments for God's existence did not have any empirical evidence.
I think I have made my case that not only do they provide evidence for support, they rely upon them.

 

[remez]

So.
Don't lose the context.
The point was one of presupposition.
When these atheists concluded theism, they did not begin by presupposing God's existence.
That's all.

Yes they did. "God" was already there as an cultural alternative.

That is not what presuppositional means.
None of the atheists were PS.
It would be illogical to think so.

 

[Kharakov]

I'm not asserting that the SBBM alone proves God exists.

It doesn't address anything prior to this universe's existence.

If a precursor universe gave arise to our universe, it isn't necessarily detectable from within our universe.

 

[Juma]

Yes they did. "God" was already there as an cultural alternative.

That is not what presuppositional means.
None of the atheists were PS.
It would be illogical to think so.

I didnt say it did. I explained why they did. They all became theist because they wanted to.
Their personal reasons to believe has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[Juma]

No, you say that NT does not presuppose gods. That is what we discuss. That the universe began is not evidence of agency. So where is the evidence of gods?

I'm not asserting that the SBBM alone proves God exists.

That is something you keep saying and then judging because it fails therefore the KCA does not have any evidence. That is not the way any argument works.

I'm just stating the The SBBM is exhibit D in a larger case/argument the provides a verdict that God exists.
SBBM is just one piece of evidence in a trail of evidence and reasoning to reach a conclusion.
Thus the SBBM is empirical evidence that supports p2.
I'm not saying one piece of evidence makes the whole case.
Now.......
Remember the context here....
You said these arguments for God's existence did not have any empirical evidence.
I think I have made my case that not only do they provide evidence for support, they rely upon them.

Then present the argument. Noone has presented such a valid argument so be my guest.

 

[remez]

I'm not asserting that the SBBM alone proves God exists.

It doesn't address anything prior to this universe's existence.

Yes....?????...I agree. That's why I'm NOT asserting that the SBBM ALONE proves God exists.
I don't get your point there because you seem like you are trying to disagree with me.

If a precursor universe gave arise to our universe, it isn't necessarily detectable from within our universe.

A precursor universe would have to be material. Right?
Also this would, if wild speculation could be true, only kick the can down the road and not solve the need for a cause.

 

[bilby]

It doesn't address anything prior to this universe's existence.

Yes....?????...I agree. That's why I'm NOT asserting that the SBBM ALONE proves God exists.
I don't get your point there because you seem like you are trying to disagree with me.

If a precursor universe gave arise to our universe, it isn't necessarily detectable from within our universe.

A precursor universe would have to be material. Right?
Also this would, if wild speculation could be true, only kick the can down the road and not solve the need for a cause.

So, exactly like the God hypothesis, then?

 

[remez]

I think I finally got it. It took me a while sorry. I thought you guys were further up the scale in the debate. I thought your reasons for saying that these classic NT arguments had no evidence and/or that NT is PS was because we were coming at it from two different epistemological positions. Like Scientism/physicalism/materialism/methodological naturalism etc. versus theism. But now I'm don't think that was not actually the case. My replies were aimed to the target of epistemologies

Over the last several posts I have come to realize that the real issue was something even simpler than that. You folks were not up at the level of epistemology. You were back at a level of simple definition. And by saying that I'm in no way inferring I was higher in intellect but only that we did not recognize we were at two different levels of understanding. So............here AS I (you may disagree) now see it are the 3 major distinctions you're confusing....

1- Prepositionalism (PS) is a system of thought that means when you attempt to make a case for theism you begin by presupposing (assumed true w/o evidence) that God exists and then proceed to argue that the Bible is God's word. Then that the historical account of the life of Jesus was accurate. Etc.

2- Natural Theism (NT) is a system of thought that begins by providing evidence for God's existence not simply presupposing it. The natural Theist believes the PS is circular reasoning and thus aims first to provide evidence that God exists through arguing from nature. AKA Classical apologetics. Once the existence of God is established then they move on to the historical accuracy of the Bible etc.

3- God is a recognized as a term of CHOICE (a possibility right or wrong) among the numerous choices. Like....
What was the cause of the universe?
a) has no cause b) multiverse c) spacegoat d) fsm e) God f) gravity ..etc

So from above 3 IS NOT 1. PS and NT are a systems of thought. A simple recognized CHOICE of God is not PS. If simply knowing that God was one of the choices automatically made you PS, then even you atheists would be PS. You cannot rationally conflate 3 with 1. When you answer a multiple choice question you are not presupposing all the choices.

But that seems like what many of you folks were doing. Abaddons , Juma and bigfield's last posts finally made me realize that is where we might be talking past one another. Which further explains (from my pov) your insistent fallacy of affirming the consequent. You folks were conflating 3 and 1 and by the same reasoning conflating choices 1 and 2 as well. Which lead CC to set up his gambit as a straw man and your assertions that there is no evidence for god's existence.
so...
Hopefully that clears up what I NOW see as our major source of confusion here..

Agree or disagree?

 

[Juma]

Yes....?????...I agree. That's why I'm NOT asserting that the SBBM ALONE proves God exists.
I don't get your point there because you seem like you are trying to disagree with me.

If a precursor universe gave arise to our universe, it isn't necessarily detectable from within our universe.

A precursor universe would have to be material. Right?
Also this would, if wild speculation could be true, only kick the can down the road and not solve the need for a cause.

So, exactly like the God hypothesis, then?

Not exactly. It is tiny bit different: it doesnt pressuppse something completely unknown...

 

[Juma]

I think I finally got it. It took me a while sorry. I thought you guys were further up the scale in the debate. I thought your reasons for saying that these classic NT arguments had no evidence and/or that NT is PS was because we were coming at it from two different epistemological positions. Like Scientism/physicalism/materialism/methodological naturalism etc. versus theism. But now I'm don't think that was not actually the case. My replies were aimed to the target of epistemologies

Over the last several posts I have come to realize that the real issue was something even simpler than that. You folks were not up at the level of epistemology. You were back at a level of simple definition. And by saying that I'm in no way inferring I was higher in intellect but only that we did not recognize we were at two different levels of understanding. So............here AS I (you may disagree) now see it are the 3 major distinctions you're confusing....

1- Prepositionalism (PS) is a system of thought that means when you attempt to make a case for theism you begin by presupposing (assumed true w/o evidence) that God exists and then proceed to argue that the Bible is God's word. Then that the historical account of the life of Jesus was accurate. Etc.

2- Natural Theism (NT) is a system of thought that begins by providing evidence for God's existence not simply presupposing it. The natural Theist believes the PS is circular reasoning and thus aims first to provide evidence that God exists through arguing from nature. AKA Classical apologetics. Once the existence of God is established then they move on to the historical accuracy of the Bible etc.

3- God is a recognized as a term of CHOICE (a possibility right or wrong) among the numerous choices. Like....
What was the cause of the universe?
a) has no cause b) multiverse c) spacegoat d) fsm e) God f) gravity ..etc

So from above 3 IS NOT 1. PS and NT are a systems of thought. A simple recognized CHOICE of God is not PS. If simply knowing that God was one of the choices automatically made you PS, then even you atheists would be PS. You cannot rationally conflate 3 with 1. When you answer a multiple choice question you are not presupposing all the choices.

But that seems like what many of you folks were doing. Abaddons , Juma and bigfield's last posts finally made me realize that is where we might be talking past one another. Which further explains (from my pov) your insistent fallacy of affirming the consequent. You folks were conflating 3 and 1 and by the same reasoning conflating choices 1 and 2 as well. Which lead CC to set up his gambit as a straw man and your assertions that there is no evidence for god's existence.
so...
Hopefully that clears up what I NOW see as our major source of confusion here..

Agree or disagree?

Then there is no NT since there is no evidence for the existence of god.

Or did you just mean that NT tries to do it that way?

Words are important you know...

 

[remez]

post 103

So.
Don't lose the context.
The point was one of presupposition.
When these atheists concluded theism, they did not begin by presupposing God's existence.
That's all.

Yes they did. "God" was already there as an cultural alternative.
And besides: why would it matter how they became theists? They didnt became theists on purely rational reasons.

now.............

That is not what presuppositional means.
None of the atheists were PS.
It would be illogical to think so.

I didnt say it did. I explained why they did. They all became theist because they wanted to.
Their personal reasons to believe has nothing to do with this discussion.

So when you said ...

Yes they did. "God" was already there as an cultural alternative.

..... It seemed to me that because they understood God as a possible choice that made them presuppositional.
Presuppositional simply means that they assumed God's existence w/o evidence not that they considered God as a choice.
I know of no atheist that would assume God's existence w/o evidence. That was my point. If an atheist converts to theism it is certainly is not because they were presuppositional.

 

[remez]

Then there is no NT since there is no evidence for the existence of god.

Or did you just mean that NT tries to do it that way?

Words are important you know...

I mean that NT uses evidence from nature to support premises in an argument that has theistic implications.

The KCA is an argument for God's existence. P2 of that argument is supported by SBBM.

 

[blastula]

Folks are dog-piling on remez about natural theology and saying it's not evidence based.
Well the existence of a thing which (science says) came into existence 13.8 B years ago is what gives rise to the line of enquiry as to causation.
The first and second premise of the cosmological argument are theistically neutral.

The premises are disproved or unproven and the conclusion would only prove there was a cause not a god.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

It is not a religion. It is an approach for providing evidence of God’s existence. It even predates the birth of Jesus.

Then there are claims, such as William of Okham that claim that God is so beyond possible comprehension we can never know anything about God from reason, and can only know about God from revelation.

So. What does that have to do with YOUR OP?

If you insist of natural theology one can end up anywhere. Aristotle's World Soul, Spinoza's pantheism, or Giant Space Goats.

Then you obviously don’t understand the KCA.
None of those would be a reasonable option.
Make your case if you want to.

The main point here to your detriment….is the NT does not operate from a foundation of PS.
So yes many theists are PS but that is not the gambit you set up. You went after NT with the lame presupposition of your own that WLC was espousing PS. Your gambit depended on it, thus you constructed a straw man. Your gambit also claimed that WLC would present the LCA when defending premise 1 of the KCA against virtual particles again creating a straw man.

Done?

I understand the KCA very well. It starts with the claim that anything that has a beginning has a cause, a creator. The problem is that KCA hypothesizes that the Universe has a beginning. But modern cosmology calls that assertion very much in question.

The KCA, as used by people like WCL, is meant to bolster claims of revelation, which is the basis of Christianity. It is meant to counter skeptics and atheists who question the revealed Gods of Christianity and Islam etc. But it cannot substitute for Christian revelation in it's full glory.

Even if we ignore the theories such as the Multiverse, which shows no need to posit a God, the cause of the Universe, if any, need not be God. There is a big leap from Big Bang to a personal, omni-everything God. And a ton of assumptions.

 

[remez]

Yes....?????...I agree. That's why I'm NOT asserting that the SBBM ALONE proves God exists.
I don't get your point there because you seem like you are trying to disagree with me.

If a precursor universe gave arise to our universe, it isn't necessarily detectable from within our universe.

A precursor universe would have to be material. Right?
Also this would, if wild speculation could be true, only kick the can down the road and not solve the need for a cause.

So, exactly like the God hypothesis, then?

Not at all..... the BGV concludes that the precursor universe would still be finite in the past. That is what I meant by kick the can down the road. It would still be contingent.

 

[blastula]

Because p2 is supported cosmology, CBMR. red shift, BGV etc. and you claim that it has no empirical support.

Please explain.

Big Bang cosmology doesn't tell us what was the nature of the origin of the universe, which is the point of contention. It tells us the universe has been expanding for a certain time, but that's not the same as "the universe had a beginning" as in "began from absolute nothingness and with an outside cause."

BGV doesn't help because it assumes classical spacetime. Guth himself doesn't believe the universe had a beginning and believes it's eternal.

 

[remez]

I understand the KCA very well. It starts with the claim that anything that has a beginning has a cause, a creator.

Not sure what you meant by adding the “a creator” part.
Precisely………..
P1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

The problem is that KCA hypothesizes that the Universe has a beginning.

Not quite
P2 the universe began to exist.

Supported by the SBBM. And all the evidence supporting it. Thus the KCA supports p2 with a universe of empirical evidence. Of course you can debate the premise, but that does not mean there is no supporting evidence
And……….
P2 is far more plausible than its alternative. I never claimed it was absolute. But supported by the evidence it is by far more plausible than it did not begin to exist.

But modern cosmology calls that assertion very much in question.

That would be a very hard case to make. But by all means make your case.

The KCA, as used by people like WCL, is meant to bolster claims of revelation, which is the basis of Christianity.

No its not. The KCA is an argument FOR god’s existence FROM nature. It is not designed to enhance Christianity.
In theism there are two kinds of revelation. General and Special revelation. Look it up. You are conflating the two.

But it cannot substitute for Christian revelation in it's full glory.

Of course not. It was not designed to do that. The KCA is and argument constructed from general revelation. It does not presuppose God’s existence. It argues for his existence.