If You Are Certain God Exists Why Prove It?

[remez]

Because…..
And do remember that post was very long, but brief to the effect that

It was a good post. I didn't have a problem with it.

Thank you that.
With same desire to be thorough….this one is longer as well.
So thank you this…….all that follows…….

Right. Anything that exists is part of the allaverse. If gods exist, they are part of the allaverse.

Yes God is a member of the set of everything.
And….

Which is why I was astounded that you thought my use of "allaverse" somehow precluded the existence of theists.

I thought at the time you were asserting they were one in the same like Sagan and skepticalbip. It’s a common refrain here.

Which to me with those given definitions means the same thing as
p1 everything that begins to exist has a cause.
p2 the universe began to exist
C the universe has a cause.
So your allaverse is to me is the same thing as my term “everything” in p1….both things that begin and don’t begin to exist.

Yes.
Though I don't stipulate that some things begin to exist and some things don't.
The allaverse includes everything that exists, regardless of whether begun or unbegun.

Quoted whole to present whole thought. Parsed here….

The allaverse includes everything that exists, regardless of whether begun or unbegun.

Absolutely. But………….this……

Though I don't stipulate that some things begin to exist and some things don't.

Well I’m reasonably certain that that you would agree most things begin to exist.
So…… your stipulation, stated positively, must be that you believe that all things begin to exist….
Well………..
If the universe were eternal would it begin to exist?
No? because reasonably……
That which is eternal wouldn’t begin to exist. That’s the non-trivial implication of p2, a beginning universe.

Keep this in thought………………That is the power of the KCA, or any argument really. You are perfectly free to reject the reasoning. But at what cost? A rejection is an oppositional line of reasoning. Thus the reasoning of the rejection is weighed against the reasoning of the argument. P1 is the basic principle of cause and effect. A principle foundational to good reasoning. To reject p1 would bankrupt the economy of your reasoning. To reject the reasoning that things either begin to exist or not also diminishes your economy. Hence why I’m highlighting that.

The boundary between the orange zone and the blue zone is not clearly established. Many (most?) theists, including William Lane Craig, think gods exist in the orange zone, that they exist in time and space. WLK: "That's how it has to be!"

To clarify…..“boundary” is too vague a term. The distinction between them is clear, the interaction between them is unclear. Similar but not exact….I build a house. I am distinctly separate from the house yet I can freely go into the house and exit the house. I can sustain and modify the house from within or without.
So….
Just to be clear....“boundary” does not blur the distinction of the two.

But I do want the boundary between orange and blue to be fixed, even if not precisely identified. That is, whatever's in the orange zone in premise 2 must still be in the orange zone in the conclusion. If we agree on that, then we can agree on the KCA's validity.

Absolutely.

Then the c still follows and is sound and valid.

I can give you valid at this point, but not sound. By calling it sound, you've just assumed your conclusion without proving it.

I’m not assuming the c. That is the structure of all arguments to be stated conclusively. It is understood in all arguments that the premises need to be supported…..as you go on to do here.....….

At this point, we've agreed on what the premises are. We haven't agreed that they're true.

And that the conclusion is understood. The rest is measuring the economy of my reasoning for support against your economy of reason to reject. Giddy up.

No equivocation,

Granted.

Thank you very much.

no special pleading,

Then why did you choose to exclude unbegun things from the scope of P1? Isn't that because, and only because, you believe in an unbegun god? That looks like special pleading to me.

“exclude” is the term that is vague here. How it is exluded is important issue. If it is excluded by definition then I would be committing a fallacy. But it is not exluded by definition….. because things that begin to exist and do not begin to exist are part of the allaverse. We have already agreed to that.
So now….
The KCA is overtly a deductive argument. Thus logically it deduces to a conclusion. Are you asserting that I’m wrong because I’m using deductive reasoning?

I don’t understand. I addressed this before……………………here…

- First, it looks like special pleading.
Why do those who believe in an unbegun god say that everything that begins to exist has a cause? If they believed in a blue god, would they say everything that isn't blue has a cause?
Either everything is caused or not. I don't know of any reason to carve an exception for things unbegun.

I know there are too many thank you assertions here but this also needs noting. It is refreshing that you explained your special pleading and didn’t just simply assert it. If only the others could learn to do the same, at least after asking several times.

P1 everything that begins to exist has a cause.

This is the law of cause and effect. Sometimes referred to as the causal principle or the law of causality. It’s foundational reasoning. Foundational to science. To deny it would basically render your position unreasonable.
But …..
You are attempting to reason that this principle is constructed as a special pleading.
So……
1) It is not a construction….it is a recitation of an observed principle we all know to be basic reasoning.

2) There is no human intentional “carve out”. There is a logical exemption of things that don’t begin to exist. Thus there is no intent to carve out. Eternality is a reasonable exemption of the principle of cause and effect. After all we are not looking for the first effect.

3) If the universe were eternal it would not need a cause, because it did not begin to exist and then would itself be a candidate as the first cause. Now with that hopefully understood we need to look at history. For millennia the universe was strongly believed to be eternal. However, with the discovery of an expanding universe the strength for that belief came into question. Only 150 years ago is was reasonable to consider the universe eternal.
Now…
Juxtaposed with the understanding that the first cause argument predates the discovery of an expanding universe. Thus it is unreasonable to NOW assert special pleading because for millennia the universe was thought to be in the same category that you are now calling a “carve out”. What was carved out was the reasonability of the universe being eternal.

So…….in our new terminology……….
History is replete with number 3. The paraverse was widely and commonly thought to be eternal, thus not to have begun, thus was the first cause. Check out Sagan’s quote posted by James Brown post 121. Now he was clinging on to this notion long past the expiration date. So you can’t possibly charge special pleading with a history of this very notion applying to the paravesre as well. And I emphasize again the cosmological argument predated the current understanding that now the paraverse most reasonably began to exist. Predates it by over 1000 years. No special pleading by definition….but reasonable exclusion by the rational power of deduction.

Bottom line…if you are still going to still assert special pleading against p1 then the economy of your reasoning will suffer greatly for you would have to ignore a whole lot of history and deny deductive reasoning.
Further on that same point…..because you suggested…..

Suppose Joe demands an explanation when he discovers a naked man in his wife's bedroom. Suppose his wife says the naked man's presence is unbegun, and therefore uncaused, and therefore not in need of explanation. You might think that a satisfactory reply, but to me it raises questions rather than answers them.

1) Why would the husband consider the wife’s claim about the unbegun presence of the naked man to be reasonable? Has the man been there in their presence eternally? Doesn’t make sense.
2) You are conflating cause and explanation. The KCA and LCA…Leibnitz. The LCA does not assert that God doesn’t have an explanation even though he is uncaused. The KCA does reason that God is uncaused but says nothing of explanation.
Also…….

Charles Lindberg's plane, the Spirit of St. Louis, had a fuel tank in front of the pilot so he couldn't see forward, couldn't see the runway to land. Why was that?

I'm happy with the explanation that Lindberg had to carry an enormous amount of fuel, and putting the fuel behind him would have unbalanced the plane. I would not be happy with the "explanation" that the plane has just always been like that, that the plane is unbegun, and that it therefore requires no explanation. That would seem like an evasion, not an answer.

Who would ever “suggest” that the plane was eternal? You see I’m not “suggesting” uncaused, I’m “reasoning” that eternal entities are uncaused. So….. What is wrong with reasoning that?

You argue that things need causes, but then you carve an exception for your god. This feels like special pleading to me, and this I do not let slide.

Does it still FEEL like that now?
How do you NOW weigh the economy of our reasoning here regarding special pleading? I think I have defeated your defeater over and over and over again. But still willing to hear possibly a new angle on that.

no begging the question.

You just called your argument sound, which is to say you assumed that your premises are true. How is that not begging the question?

As explained above. All arguments are stated conclusively, with the understanding that the premises may be challenged. Everyone who deals with arguments knows this, except abaddon and attrib. I have defended this reasonable argument for decades. No one has YET presented any reasoning credible enough for me to reject either premise. Thus I was speaking from my experience that the argument is sound. That is not a process of assumption it is ongoing process of reason. You have not presented any reasoning yet that would be better than the reason I have to present and defend it. All of what you presented thus far is misunderstandings of the argument. That have been easy to address. Thus why should I consider the KCA unsound?

And quantum indeterminism does not mean uncaused, and thus is no defeater to p1.

I believe it does mean uncaused. I believe the scientific consensus is that indeterminism entails lack of causation.

You believe that …….do you?
Well….
Now here you are not presenting a misinterpretation of the KCA. You are properly attempting to rebut the reasoning of cause and effect, by asserting that you can name a temporal effect without a cause. Thereby rebutting p1.
So…
Now right from the start you are asserting the sensational. Pulling a rabbit out of an empty hat. So let’s weigh the reasoning.

Your position….. Virtual particles just begin to exist without a cause…..magically!

My position….. We don’t know how they began to exist. And it seems like we hit a wall because our measurements to get at that cause mess up our attempts to determine the cause. So for now its indeterminate.

Which economy of reasoning is more prosperous on that?
Also…
Notice we’re trying to fill a gap in our reasoning here. Aren’t we?
And
You are filling the gap with magical reasoning.
And
I’m simply asserting we don’t know. It’s indeterministic.
Do you see what I’m inferring…..
Do you recognize the reasoning pattern there?
So….
Whose position “sound”s more reasonable?

Since the answer is obvious….I still contend the p1 is sound.
Did that feel like I just assumed it?

Logically the first cause needs no cause.

If experience dictates that things have causes, how can there have been a first cause?

Experience dictates that everything that “begins” to exist has a cause. Reason dictates that the first cause therefore must be eternal. Necessary. Has the power of being in its own nature. That is the force of the first cause argument. The KCA’s effectiveness is to first show that the paraverse cannot be the first cause, and that only the theistic God has the attributes to be that first cause.

If you intend to abandon the requirement that causes precede effects, then, logically, you must also abandon the claim that first causes don't have causes.

I’m not abandoning that causes precede their effects, I simply recognize that some causes are simultaneous to their effects. I mentioned this before. Simultaneous cause and effect. Think of a depression caused by a bowling ball placed on a cushion.
Thus, I don’t have to abandon that the first cause is uncaused.

How is that trivial?

All you've proved is that some things are caused. That's not news.

But again you miss the force of the reasoning. The two major candidates for the first cause are the paraverse or the mono-theistic God. I have provided the age old history of the battle several times now.
So
The KCA doesn’t just prove somethings are caused.
The KCA takes dead deductive aim at the subject of p2, paraverse, and eliminates it as the first cause, thus God.

Is that still trivial?

You also keep inserting that one of these gods is intelligent, personable, powerful, and so on. I don't want to get off topic, but I will mention here that I demur; these claims are not established, and I don't believe they can ever be established. They strike me as whimsy, as wishful thinking, as begging the question.

Only if you continue to ignore the forensic reasoning I have given you twice now. It has been lightly reasoned out to you at a quick basic level. Room for more discussion of course. But you didn’t address the reasoning I gave. You just expressed your feelings.

 

[Wiploc]

Though I don't stipulate that some things begin to exist and some things don't.

Well I’m reasonably certain that that you would agree most things begin to exist.

No, I don't agree. It's not that I disagree. I just haven't thought it thru.

But I'm willing to play with the idea:

Argument that things begin: Take this hamburger. It exists now, but it didn't exist yesterday. So it began. So I propose this rule: Everything begins if it exists at some time X but doesn't exist before time X.

That seems palatable. And it accords well with our common understanding that hamburgers begin. But, if we adopt this rule, must we conclude that everything begins (and that everything therefore, according to you, is caused? Even gods)?

Yes, we must accept that, because, according to this rule, everything begins. It follows that -- if gods exist -- gods began. And, therefore, according to you, they are caused. And, if the first cause has a cause, it's not really a first cause.

So much for the first cause argument.

Argument that things do not begin: Take this hamburger. All of the parts preexisted the burger itself. They didn't begin; they just rearranged. Before the bun was a bun, it was wheat, and before that it was fertilizer.

Proposed rule: Nothing ever begins. Things just change form.

This rule isn't as palatable, isn't as intuitive as the other, but I don't know that I could defeat it.

But, if we accepted this rule, then gods aren't distinguishable from other things. Once again: so much for the first cause argument.

Maybe the question of whether things begin isn't truth apt; maybe it's just a matter of viewpoint, of how we choose to think about things.

And maybe that's why I never bothered to form an opinion on the question of whether things "really" begin.

But here is an opinion I do hold: There is no single definition of "begin" for which gods do not begin but the rest of the universe does.

Either gods (if they exist) begin like everything else, or nothing begins. Either way, the first cause argument fails.

So…… your stipulation, stated positively, must be that you believe that all things begin to exist….

Why do you say that?

Is there some rule that anytime I don't have an opinion you get to make one up and impute it to me.

That's not fair. I object.

Well………..
If the universe were eternal would it begin to exist?
No? because reasonably……
That which is eternal wouldn’t begin to exist. That’s the non-trivial implication of p2, a beginning universe.

If the partaverse began because it didn't exist before time zero, then gods (if they exist at all) also began because they didn't exist before time zero.

... P1 is the basic principle of cause and effect.

Say what? I'm not with you.

A temporary hamburger is with us now because it was with us a moment ago. An eternal hamburger would also be with us now because it was with us a moment ago.

Cause and effect is with us regardless of whether things are eternal.

You yourself argue that "eternal" gods cause things. So, your claim that P1 is the basic principle of cause and effect ... that just seems nuts. If I looked up "cause and effect," I wouldn't find anything about the first cause argument.

You claim that P1 is a basic principal of cause and effect. That claim comes from nowhere and accomplishes nothing. It's a stay-off-my-side quality argument.

A principle foundational to good reasoning. To reject p1 would bankrupt the economy of your reasoning.

Nonsense.

If I claimed that all non-blue things are caused, would you grant that to be a principal foundation of good reasoning? No, you would view it the way I view your claim.

To reject the reasoning that things either begin to exist or not also diminishes your economy.

I would never claim that. I wonder that you bring it up. Is it that you think I claimed that? Or are we again invoking the rule that you get to impute opinions to me if I don't have one of my own?

I said above that "I don't stipulate that some things begin to exist and some things don't." Let me rephrase that: If we define "begin" so that some things do begin, then maybe everything begins. I do not stipulate that some things begin and other things don't.

Hence why I’m highlighting that.

Well, I hope I have managed to clarify.


---
Edited to add:

You misrepresented me in a couple of places, and I said something about you thinking you get to make up my opinion for me when I don't have one.

I was joshing. I assume we'll misrepresent each other repeatedly, but accidentally, in our attempts to understand and rephrase and clarify.

 

[steve_bank]

As this is a religion thread and mot science the issue is a god willing something into existence ostensibly where there was mothing to begin with.

That leads into philosophy, can their be nothing? We can't really picture something that is nothing.

If you are biblical lieralist there always was something, that is generally called god.

Did god wink the universe into existence from nothing? No matter and energy from somewhere else? Did the universe come from part of god?

Is god unbounded by constraints of matter and energy? If so ten you can create any desired mythology about god and creation. As the bible just says god created everything, then Christians can spin any theology they please. They just know it is true. Theology being mythology with god.

If you believe god is unrestrained by what our science says, then you can imagine and believe anything. There is no debate over organs and a beginning. There is no proof either, that is why religion is called faith not certainty in any scientific sense.

AsI like to say the proofs and certainties voiced by Christians sound more like they are trying to convince themselves than us freethinkers and atheists and rationalists.

I can see why scientific evolution and cosmology can cause such a deep emotional response from Christians. It casts doubt on deeply held life long beliefs. It brings into question who they are.

The logical reaction is questing science itself and branding it atheist. 'Scince' isout to get religion and disprove god.

We hear it often enough n he forum, words like scientism. Science tries to disprove god, and the like.

So, back to the OP, if you are Christian, why engage in any debate either way on god? Are you not content in your faith and dwelling in the spirit?


I am not opposed to religion per se, only the unrestrained actions of organized religion in the name of a god. That being said if religion suddenly went away it would not affect how I feel or live.

 

[Wiploc]

The boundary between the orange zone and the blue zone is not clearly established. Many (most?) theists, including William Lane Craig, think gods exist in the orange zone, that they exist in time and space. WLK: "That's how it has to be!"

To clarify…..“boundary” is too vague a term. The distinction between them is clear, the interaction between them is unclear. Similar but not exact….I build a house. I am distinctly separate from the house yet I can freely go into the house and exit the house. I can sustain and modify the house from within or without.
So….
Just to be clear....“boundary” does not blur the distinction of the two.

The first times I read that, it seemed pretty muddy. "Boundary" is too vague but it does not blur the distinction?

But, since I fancy myself a pretty fair English-to-English translator, I propose to explain to our readers what you were saying. And then, perhaps, you can needle me for misrepresenting you.

As I'm told, WLC (William Lane Craig) holds that gods "existed" without time or space for a long "time." "Then," "eventually," he created time and space, and thus was in time and space. So long as there is time and space, god is temporal and, uh, spacey.

So, "at first" there was just the blue zone. "Then" god created the orange zone.



So now, like a man who has built a house without himself being a house, god can visit the orange zone sometimes (or enter his house temporarily).

The arrow in the illustration may show god visiting the orange zone.

I believe WLC doesn't allow for even a magic-throwing god to leave the orange zone, but that's hardly the point. You believe he can come and go, maintaining the orange zone from within and without.

I will mention that the blue zone may be god, for all of me, and now you have him visiting the orange zone which we agreed, I thought, is where god isn't. But, this issue isn't meant to be our focus. We can let it slide, at least for now.

Then the c still follows and is sound and valid.

I can give you valid at this point, but not sound. By calling it sound, you've just assumed your conclusion without proving it.

I’m not assuming the c. That is the structure of all arguments to be stated conclusively. It is understood in all arguments that the premises need to be supported…..as you go on to do here.....….

At this point, we've agreed on what the premises are. We haven't agreed that they're true.

And that the conclusion is understood. The rest is measuring the economy of my reasoning for support against your economy of reason to reject. Giddy up.

You have stated the KCA, and you think that makes the KCA sound until I express a counter-argument? You think that, once you state your argument, the burden of proof is on me to refute it?

If that's your position, I reject it. Arguments are not presumed sound until refuted. The burden of proof is on you.

no special pleading,

Then why did you choose to exclude unbegun things from the scope of P1? Isn't that because, and only because, you believe in an unbegun god? That looks like special pleading to me.

“exclude” is the term that is vague here. How it is exluded is important issue. If it is excluded by definition then I would be committing a fallacy. But it is not exluded by definition….. because things that begin to exist and do not begin to exist are part of the allaverse. We have already agreed to that.

So now….
The KCA is overtly a deductive argument. Thus logically it deduces to a conclusion. Are you asserting that I’m wrong because I’m using deductive reasoning?
[/quote]

Certainly not. Deductive reasoning is good. It's a kind of reasoning. I'm on the side of reasoning.

I just don't think you get to establish the soundness of your argument by announcing it.

I don’t understand. I addressed this before……………………here…

- First, it looks like special pleading.
Why do those who believe in an unbegun god say that everything that begins to exist has a cause? If they believed in a blue god, would they say everything that isn't blue has a cause?
Either everything is caused or not. I don't know of any reason to carve an exception for things unbegun.

I know there are too many thank you assertions here but this also needs noting. It is refreshing that you explained your special pleading and didn’t just simply assert it. If only the others could learn to do the same, at least after asking several times.

P1 everything that begins to exist has a cause.

This is the law of cause and effect. Sometimes referred to as the causal principle or the law of causality.

That's absurd. It's like calling a sparkplug the law if internal combustion.

Here, I Googled it: "The universal law of cause and effect states that for every effect there is a definite cause, likewise for every cause, there is a definite effect."

There is no mention of things beginning to exist. There is no claim that anything that begins must be an effect, nor that unbegun things need not be effects.

It’s foundational reasoning. Foundational to science. To deny it would basically render your position unreasonable.

I don't deny cause and effect. I dispute your claim that you have established that you get to arbitrarily announce that it doesn't apply to your god.

But …..
You are attempting to reason that this principle is constructed as a special pleading.
So……
1) It is not a construction….it is a recitation of an observed principle we all know to be basic reasoning.

No, it's a made-up rule that gets waived around without ever being supported.

2) There is no human intentional “carve out”. There is a logical exemption of things that don’t begin to exist. Thus there is no intent to carve out. Eternality is a reasonable exemption of the principle of cause and effect. After all we are not looking for the first effect.

I don't follow.

 

[steve_bank]

Can remez reduce his point,if there isoe, to say a short paragraph or sylogism?

The only point he appears to be arguing is proving a first cause of the universe. Which for Christians is god.

 

[Wiploc]

...you suggested…..

Suppose Joe demands an explanation when he discovers a naked man in his wife's bedroom. Suppose his wife says the naked man's presence is unbegun, and therefore uncaused, and therefore not in need of explanation. You might think that a satisfactory reply, but to me it raises questions rather than answers them.

1) Why would the husband consider the wife’s claim about the unbegun presence of the naked man to be reasonable?

Why would he consider his priest's claim about an unbegun god to be reasonable?

Has the man been there in their presence eternally? Doesn’t make sense.

Does it make sense to argue for beginnings and then arbitrarily exempt your gods from that rule?

The story doesn't make sense. That was my point. Why should we accept uncausedness as an explanation for anything?

2) You are conflating cause and explanation.

Possibly.

The KCA and LCA…Leibnitz.

I don't know that song.

The LCA does not assert that God doesn’t have an explanation even though he is uncaused. The KCA does reason that God is uncaused but says nothing of explanation.
Also…….

Charles Lindberg's plane, the Spirit of St. Louis, had a fuel tank in front of the pilot so he couldn't see forward, couldn't see the runway to land. Why was that?

I'm happy with the explanation that Lindberg had to carry an enormous amount of fuel, and putting the fuel behind him would have unbalanced the plane. I would not be happy with the "explanation" that the plane has just always been like that, that the plane is unbegun, and that it therefore requires no explanation. That would seem like an evasion, not an answer.

Who would ever “suggest” that the plane was eternal?

A motivated believer?

You see I’m not “suggesting” uncaused, I’m “reasoning” that eternal entities are uncaused. So….. What is wrong with reasoning that?

You stated the claim and announced that it was true. I'm waiting for the reasoning.

You argue that things need causes, but then you carve an exception for your god. This feels like special pleading to me, and this I do not let slide.

Does it still FEEL like that now?

Absolutely.

How do you NOW weigh the economy of our reasoning here regarding special pleading? I think I have defeated your defeater over and over and over again. But still willing to hear possibly a new angle on that.

I didn't notice your defeating. Perhaps we should focus on just this single point.

no begging the question.

You just called your argument sound, which is to say you assumed that your premises are true. How is that not begging the question?

As explained above. All arguments are stated conclusively, with the understanding that the premises may be challenged.

And I reject that as above. Stating your argument doesn't make your premises presumptively true.

Was this your defeater of my question about why you think unbegun things are uncaused? You stated the claim so I should believe it?

If so, why didn't you believe the wife's claim that the naked man had always been in her bedroom? Do you think the burden of proof falls on the husband?

Everyone who deals with arguments knows this, except abaddon and attrib.

And me. And, I presume, most everyone other than you.

I have defended this reasonable argument for decades.

Stated the argument and presumed it true?

No one has YET presented any reasoning credible enough for me to reject either premise.

We don't have the burden of proof.

And if you aren't aware of reasonable objections to your premises, I think you haven't really been looking.

(Yes, I assume you feel the same about me.)

Thus I was speaking from my experience that the argument is sound.

You have undertaken to demonstrate its soundness in this thread. Nobody on either side will think you can fulfill that undertaking by floating rumors that you have demonstrated its soundness elsewhere.

Can I assume that your proofs elsewhere included such absurd claims as the claim that P1 is fundamental to deductive reasoning?

That is not a process of assumption it is ongoing process of reason. You have not presented any reasoning yet that would be better than the reason I have to present and defend it.

Sometimes I can't understand you at all. Sometimes I think I do understand and offer corrections. Sometimes I don't see the relevance of your comments, so I ignore them (as I did in the case of your history lesson).

What I haven't noticed is a lucid argument that tends to persuade.

If you have one of those, on any relevant point, no matter how small, let's give that point all of our attention.

All of what you presented thus far is misunderstandings of the argument. That have been easy to address. Thus why should I consider the KCA unsound?

The burden of proof is on you. Why should anybody consider it sound?

You have an attentive audience, and that's what you're here to convey. As you said above, giddy up.

 

[steve_bank]

In the case of finding a an with your wife the causation traces back to the origins of the particles comprising your body and the planet we live on. Choices being a function of your brain which is comprised of atomic particles.

For a Christian causation of the individual traces back to the fall of Adam and Eve which brought evil into what was a perfect world.

 

[DBT]

Eden can't have been perfect if it had the possibility of failure. Not just the possibility of failure, but all the elements in place to ensure failure.

 

[steve_bank]

Eden can't have been perfect if it had the possibility of failure. Not just the possibility of failure, but all the elements in place to ensure failure.

I had a thread about finding Eden. An anthropoglots using modern technology and refencing different myths may have identified Eden.

It may have been an area in Arabia that was wet and green in the times. A confluxes of 3 rivers that went dry.

 

[Wiploc]

And quantum indeterminism does not mean uncaused, and thus is no defeater to p1.

I believe it does mean uncaused. I believe the scientific consensus is that indeterminism entails lack of causation.

You believe that …….do you?

Of course. I'm a layman, so, when it comes to fields that I don't understand, I have to either not have an opinion or go with the scientific consensus.

My understanding is that quantum physicists by and large accept the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Well….
Now here you are not presenting a misinterpretation of the KCA. You are properly attempting to rebut the reasoning of cause and effect, by asserting that you can name a temporal effect without a cause. Thereby rebutting p1.

First, I'm not rebutting anything. I'm simply accepting the scientific consensus as probably correct. I don't see how you can fault me for that.

Second, I didn't name an effect without cause. That is linguistic nonsense. If something is an effect, it, by definition, has a cause. What I did is name a thing -- not an effect -- without cause.

Third, you did the same yourself. You named a god and claimed it exists. You claimed it doesn't exist at any time, but still claim it exists. And then you claim it is -- to use your understanding -- an effect without cause.

Nothing I claimed is as outlandish as any of those three claims.

So…
Now right from the start you are asserting the sensational. Pulling a rabbit out of an empty hat.

Accepting the judgment of science is sensational?

Science is an empty hat? You sure like to rely on science when you think it agrees with you.

So let’s weigh the reasoning.

Your position….. Virtual particles just begin to exist without a cause…..magically!

Even if I were arguing for magic, you're hardly in a position to argue against it.

My position….. We don’t know how they began to exist. And it seems like we hit a wall because our measurements to get at that cause mess up our attempts to determine the cause. So for now its indeterminate.

If your gods exist, I don't see how they got started either. Can't measure them at all. So, for now, the beginnings of gods are indeterminate.

Which economy of reasoning is more prosperous on that?
Also…
Notice we’re trying to fill a gap in our reasoning here. Aren’t we?
And
You are filling the gap with magical reasoning.

I don't believe in magic. You are the one arguing for the existence of magic-throwing gods.

And
I’m simply asserting we don’t know. It’s indeterministic.

You are rejecting the scientific consensus. According to your claims above, that means you believe the scientific consensus is false, and you are weighing your reasoning against that of the scientists.

Do you see what I’m inferring…..
Do you recognize the reasoning pattern there?
So….
Whose position “sound”s more reasonable?

Mine is more reasonable. Bertrand Russell said something like this: "When the experts agree, the layman does well not to hold the opposite opinion. When the experts disagree, the layman does well not to hold any opinion."

You are taking on all of science, and claiming to be more reasonable than science.

You can forgive me for thinking my opinion to be the more reasonable.

Since the answer is obvious….I still contend the p1 is sound.
Did that feel like I just assumed it?

Yes, I feel like you think you get to believe in god if you believe P1 is sound, and therefore you believe P1 is sound. And for no other reason.

I have asked for other reasons. I'm eager to consider other reasons. But you are not providing other reasons.

Logically the first cause needs no cause.

If experience dictates that things have causes, how can there have been a first cause?

Experience dictates that everything that “begins” to exist has a cause.

That doesn't seem to be true in the case of virtual particles. To claim that it's true in the teeth of scientific opinion is just weird.

Reason dictates that the first cause therefore must be eternal.

How do you figure?

Necessary.

That's another topic altogether. A necessary god would exist in all possible worlds, but some possible worlds don't have gods. Even Plantinga grants this. So, therefore, necessary gods cannot logically exist. They, therefore, do not exist.

You should content yourself with arguing for gods that exist in this world.

Has the power of being in its own nature.

Gibberish?

That is the force of the first cause argument. The KCA’s effectiveness is to first show that the paraverse cannot be the first cause, and that only the theistic God has the attributes to be that first cause.

I don't think you have a case, but if you want to show that the KCA has effectiveness, I'm still with you.

If you intend to abandon the requirement that causes precede effects, then, logically, you must also abandon the claim that first causes don't have causes.

I’m not abandoning that causes precede their effects, I simply recognize that some causes are simultaneous to their effects.

I don't know what you think you're saying, but I read your words as saying this: Causes must come before effects, but no they don't.

We're right back to the bicycle argument.

I mentioned this before. Simultaneous cause and effect. Think of a depression caused by a bowling ball placed on a cushion.

This is part of why I despise William Lane Craig. He isn't fooled by his own arguments, but he tries to confuse people with them anyway.

The motion of the ball is less than the speed of light. It's effect on the cushion happens at less than the speed of light. The cause (the motion of the ball) is conveyed to the effect (the compression of the cushion) at less than the speed of light.

We can't see the delay with the naked eye, but we are absolutely certain it's there. Cause precedes effect.

Thus, I don’t have to abandon that the first cause is uncaused.

If you rely on your bowling ball example, you've got nothing.

If you don't require causes to precede effects, then we can say that a bullet hole caused a gun to go off.

The only way you can avoid that kind of nonsense is to rely on our experience and accept that causes precede effects.

How is that trivial?

All you've proved is that some things are caused. That's not news.

But again you miss the force of the reasoning.

I do indeed.

The two major candidates for the first cause are the paraverse or the mono-theistic God.

That's "partaverse."

How'd you come up with those candidates? They don't make sense.

Or maybe you shouldn't go there. We're making so little progress on the KCA that we should probably stay on topic.

I have provided the age old history of the battle several times now.

You said some people used to think some stuff. You did not, as far as I could tell, make it relevant to our topic.

So
The KCA doesn’t just prove somethings are caused.

It doesn't prove anything.

The KCA takes dead deductive aim at the subject of p2, paraverse, and eliminates it as the first cause, thus God.

No, not that either.

The KCA is a lot like the bicycle argument:

P1: The sun will rise tomorrow.
P2: The sun will not rise tomorrow.
C: Therefore, you must by me a bicycle.

At least one of the premises is dubious (unless, per your argument, the premises are presumed true until refuted by you) and the conclusion does not flow from the premises.

You may think that if you keep throwing the KCA against a wall, one day it will stick. But that's not going to happen until you figure out how to support your premises, to give people reasons for thinking they are true.

Is that still trivial?

Wow. I'm losing hope here.

You also keep inserting that one of these gods is intelligent, personable, powerful, and so on. I don't want to get off topic, but I will mention here that I demur; these claims are not established, and I don't believe they can ever be established. They strike me as whimsy, as wishful thinking, as begging the question.

Only if you continue to ignore the forensic reasoning

!?

I have given you twice now. It has been lightly reasoned out to you at a quick basic level. Room for more discussion of course. But you didn’t address the reasoning I gave. You just expressed your feelings.

I'd ask you what the reasoning was, but by now I'm desperate for any cogent reasons that are on topic, so let's stick to the KCA.

 

[skepticalbip]

Can remez reduce his point,if there isoe, to say a short paragraph or sylogism?

The only point he appears to be arguing is proving a first cause of the universe. Which for Christians is god.

Using "First Cause" (meaning 'god' to avoid saying 'god') is a bit of word play that creationists have taken to because they think it sounds SCIENCY.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Can remez reduce his point,if there isoe, to say a short paragraph or sylogism?

The only point he appears to be arguing is proving a first cause of the universe. Which for Christians is god.

Using "First Cause" (meaning 'god' to avoid saying 'god') is a bit of word play that creationists have taken to because they think it sounds SCIENCY.

Correct. It is identical to Special Creation.

 

[Rhea]

Can remez reduce his point,if there isoe, to say a short paragraph or sylogism?

The only point he appears to be arguing is proving a first cause of the universe. Which for Christians is god.

It is interesting that most religionists don’t boil it down to one point. Or one argument at a time.

In science, we would do this. Say there are 100 points. Boil it down, group them, then take them one at a time. Decide if that one thing is kept or discarded. Continue one at a time until done.

I feel the reason religionists avoid this with surch fervor in favor of the gish gallop is that they require the uncertaintly of 100 points at once so they can argue something, see it’s not going well and jump to something else. When the something else is not going well, they just back to the first argument, that, since they didn;t stick around for a complete conclusion, is, to them, still valid and in play.

By never letting a conversation finish and reaching a conclusion, they never have to face that their arguments do not conclude in their favor.

They MUST rely on the 5-page post to keep all the balls in the air. It’s like check kiting. To keep ahead of the bounced checks (and the felony fraud charges), you must keep 5 banks inplay at all times.


Remez can easily prove me wrong by boiling it down to one paragraph and sticking to that topic until done. I don’t expect him to do so, however.

 

[James Brown]

A friend of mine's physicist father made a salient point. He said that his field is complicated, and they are constantly pushing the boundaries. So imagine a physicist has an idea and wants to talk it out with a colleague. He might break down the idea one level in order to make a point, such that the colleague can then agree or disagree.

But for physicist graduate students, breaking it down one level might be too complicated for them due to their lack of practical experience in the field. So he might have to break it down two levels so that they can comprehend the idea.

For undergrad students or a popular science magazine he might break it down three levels. For high-schoolers or random civilians, four levels. For children, five levels. The point being, the complicated concept is always simplified by various degrees in order to provide explanatory power. One does not complicate matters, even if it helps make your case, because all someone who's not at the higher level can do is either not understand or accept your explanation by faith. We don't teach grade schoolers number theory when they're struggling to learn how to multiply or handle fractions. The more complicated levels will come later.

So here we have the Cosmos, the most complicated thing we've ever encountered. Cosmologists study it and explore it and simplify it by various degrees depending on who they are talking to. But what does the intelligent designer do? He complicates cosmology by introducing a more complex factor--the Intelligent Designer. No matter how complicated the Cosmos may be, any being who can create it (and not die in the explosion) has to be even more complicated. And like the young math student, anyone else hearing the Intelligent Designer argument must either not understand it, or take the speaker's word by faith.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

A friend of mine's physicist father made a salient point. He said that his field is complicated, and they are constantly pushing the boundaries. So imagine a physicist has an idea and wants to talk it out with a colleague. He might break down the idea one level in order to make a point, such that the colleague can then agree or disagree.

But for physicist graduate students, breaking it down one level might be too complicated for them due to their lack of practical experience in the field. So he might have to break it down two levels so that they can comprehend the idea.

For undergrad students or a popular science magazine he might break it down three levels. For high-schoolers or random civilians, four levels. For children, five levels. The point being, the complicated concept is always simplified by various degrees in order to provide explanatory power. One does not complicate matters, even if it helps make your case, because all someone who's not at the higher level can do is either not understand or accept your explanation by faith. We don't teach grade schoolers number theory when they're struggling to learn how to multiply or handle fractions. The more complicated levels will come later.

So here we have the Cosmos, the most complicated thing we've ever encountered. Cosmologists study it and explore it and simplify it by various degrees depending on who they are talking to. But what does the intelligent designer do? He complicates cosmology by introducing a more complex factor--the Intelligent Designer. No matter how complicated the Cosmos may be, any being who can create it (and not die in the explosion) has to be even more complicated. And like the young math student, anyone else hearing the Intelligent Designer argument must either not understand it, or take the speaker's word by faith.

Very insightful post. The last paragraph is worth repeating:

So here we have the Cosmos, the most complicated thing we've ever encountered. Cosmologists study it and explore it and simplify it by various degrees depending on who they are talking to. But what does the intelligent designer do? He complicates cosmology by introducing a more complex factor--the Intelligent Designer. No matter how complicated the Cosmos may be, any being who can create it (and not die in the explosion) has to be even more complicated. And like the young math student, anyone else hearing the Intelligent Designer argument must either not understand it, or take the speaker's word by faith.

I have to ask myself if your standard creationist is truly adding complexity. At least form a creationist perspective I don't think that is the case. Rather I see them simplifying the subject by tossing an emotional blanket over a subject they obviously find incomprehensible. As you explained, this is precisely what we do when we are young and don't possess the mental faculties to understand things any other way. It's a bit of declaring a mental truce, likely primarily subconscious, and certainly naturally selected for. It's mythologizing at it's most obvious, something kids do effortlessly as we can all attest.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I have to ask myself if your standard creationist is truly adding complexity. At least form a creationist perspective I don't think that is the case. Rather I see them simplifying the subject by tossing an emotional blanket over a subject they obviously find incomprehensible.

Well, that's 'simplifying' a map by writing 'here there be dragons' at the limits of your knowledge.
But any person trying to USE that map for navigation finds it more complicated. I agree that the goal is simplification, but that's not the effect.

Reminds me of a guy on my third boat, thought he was god's gift to seaman gang. He saw them doing some task, would walk over and say , "Hey, let me show you a trick.' 9 times out of 11, whatever he did screwed things up and it took them twice as long to clean up as it would have taken to just do it the 'hard' way. But he outranked the shit out of the seamen, so they couldn't tell him to fuck off.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I have to ask myself if your standard creationist is truly adding complexity. At least form a creationist perspective I don't think that is the case. Rather I see them simplifying the subject by tossing an emotional blanket over a subject they obviously find incomprehensible.

Well, that's 'simplifying' a map by writing 'here there be dragons' at the limits of your knowledge.
But any person trying to USE that map for navigation finds it more complicated. I agree that the goal is simplification, but that's not the effect.

It's a prayer.

 

[remez]

Wiploc,

Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I’m truly struggling this week finding time to give to this. So please don’t give up on me I’ll be back with you as soon as I can. I have read them and will be thinking on them until I get the chance to respond. Hopefully within 48 hours. I’ll keep you updated. Just quickly….end of post 142 understood........Thanks. No concerns.

 

[Wiploc]

Wiploc,

Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I’m truly struggling this week finding time to give to this. So please don’t give up on me I’ll be back with you as soon as I can. I have read them and will be thinking on them until I get the chance to respond. Hopefully within 48 hours. I’ll keep you updated. Just quickly….end of post 142 understood........Thanks. No concerns.

Thanks, remez.

This reminds me of the good old days. These days I mostly caption pictures or name the wrong movie, which is fun, but it's not the same as a good debate.

 

[remez]

My approach for the responses……you presented four separate posts to address my last one. I’ll respond in three
I’ll begin by first addressing your conclusion to the last one. That you have defeated the KCA with your objections.
I presented the KCA and all of it comprehensive evidence and reasoning to rebut the atheist claim that theists have no evidence for their beliefs.

You challenged that by claiming you would defeat the KCA and thereby maintain that it is true the theists have no evidence for their beliefs.

I agreed and presented the KCA. You have provided your objections and declared victory…….

You may think that if you keep throwing the KCA against a wall, one day it will stick. But that's not going to happen until you figure out how to support your premises, to give people reasons for thinking they are true.

Not so fast, this is nowhere near over. Yes you presented some reasoning as to why you think the KCA fails. But now you have to defend that reasoning from hamburgers to bycycles. Giddy up…….

Argument that things begin: Take this hamburger. It exists now, but it didn't exist yesterday. So it began. So I propose this rule: Everything begins if it exists at some time X but doesn't exist before time X.

I don’t disagree with all of that. I acknowledge your effort to establish how things begin to exist. I agree with your hamburger analogy. But you jump from the single hamburger to a rule that assumes ALL THINGS begin to exist. And that I certainly do not agree with. Because logically an eternal thing would have no beginning or end.

Since you brought it up the rule for what it means to begin to exist is …..in the actual precise pedagogy.……..
Some entity e comes into being at t if and only if (a) e exists at t, (b) t is the first time at which e exists, and (c) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact.
Thus I think we are on the same page on what it means to begin to exist. But given that it does not follow that all things begin to exist.

[/B] That seems palatable. And it accords well with our common understanding that hamburgers begin. But, if we adopt this rule, must we conclude that everything begins (and that everything therefore, according to you, is caused? Even gods)?

Yes, we must accept that, because, according to this rule, everything begins. It follows that -- if gods exist -- gods began. And, therefore, according to you, they are caused. And, if the first cause has a cause, it's not really a first cause.

Complete non-sequitur as explained above. Just because hamburgers begin to exist does not infer all things begin to exist.

So much for the first cause argument.

How does an overt non-sequitur improve your economy of reasoning?

Argument that things do not begin: Take this hamburger. All of the parts preexisted the burger itself. They didn't begin; they just rearranged. Before the bun was a bun, it was wheat, and before that it was fertilizer.

Proposed rule: Nothing ever begins. Things just change form.

This rule isn't as palatable, isn't as intuitive as the other, but I don't know that I could defeat it.

You can’t BUT I can. Aka….merological nihilism. This objection conflates a thing with the matter or stuff of which the thing is made. Just because the stuff of which something was made has always existed doesn't imply that the thing itself has always existed. Here is how absurd it is….If that notion were true it would be sensible for me to ask you ….What were you when Alexander the Great died?
That objection is bankrupt of all reason. It’s just plain silly.

But, if we accepted this rule, then gods aren't distinguishable from other things. Once again: so much for the first cause argument.

Why should we accept a rule so blatantly absurd? Seriously that reasoning is bottom of the barrel.

Maybe the question of whether things begin isn't truth apt; maybe it's just a matter of viewpoint, of how we choose to think about things.

And maybe that's why I never bothered to form an opinion on the question of whether things "really" begin.

But here is an opinion I do hold: There is no single definition of "begin" for which gods do not begin but the rest of the universe does.

That’s fine. But your volitional opinion doesn’t improve your economy of reasoning against the reasoning of the KCA. We’re not comparing opinions here. We comparing whose reasoning for those opinions is more reasonable.
With reason…I ask you……. how does “begin” relate to “eternal.” Seriously if something is eternal does it have a beginning? That is more than a question here in this context. Maybe you should bother with that before resorting to opinion.
And …..

Either gods (if they exist) begin like everything else, or nothing begins. Either way, the first cause argument fails.

But by your own words that is based solely on your opinion. The reasons you provided to hold that opinion I have directly challenged to be less reasonable than the reasoning for the KCA. So we are still at the epistemic stage here.
Thus your special pleading assertion rests upon your opinion to reject the obvious reasoning that somethings begin to exist and somethings do not. Against that……. I reason that it is purely logical that things that are eternal did not begin to exist and thus do not have a cause. And overtly somethings do begin to exist and thus have a cause.
I have reasonably, to this point with you, defended the KCA against your assault upon it. Your assault was not successful for the reasons I provided. This isn’t over ….you still have work to do.

Well………..
If the universe were eternal would it begin to exist?
No? because reasonably……
That which is eternal wouldn’t begin to exist. That’s the non-trivial implication of p2, a beginning universe.

Of course God existed before time zero. I think I’m “beginning” to see your misinterpretation here. You think God needs time to exist. God does not need time to exist. God is timeless sans creation. God is eternal. Time is a physical feature of this natural partaverse. God is supernatural…meaning beyond nature, beyond time. Thus time began to exist when the space-time continuum began to exist. Thus the cause of time had to be timeless, without beginning, eternal. Like God.

Therefore the partaverse which is bound by time began to exist. God who was not bound by time but is eternal didn’t begin to exist. That is the difference I think you have been missing. That is why I consider your reasoning ……because the partaverse begin to exist….the eternal God must as well…..is a non-sequitur.

So at this point you have to burden to present reasoning as to why it is unreasonable that an eternal God can’t exist “before” the beginning of time. For that is the reasoning in the KCA.

..P1 is the basic principle of cause and effect.

Say what? I'm not with you.

A temporary hamburger is with us now because it was with us a moment ago. An eternal hamburger would also be with us now because it was with us a moment ago.

Cause and effect is with us regardless of whether things are eternal.

I’m confused. Because I agree with you that cause and effect are with us regardless of whether some things are eternal. Why would you think my commentary on p1 would change the existence of cause and effect?

You yourself argue that "eternal" gods cause things. So, your claim that P1 is the basic principle of cause and effect ... that just seems nuts. If I looked up "cause and effect," I wouldn't find anything about the first cause argument.

No surprise there at all. I wouldn’t think that would occur.

Cause and effect is a principle….yes? The KCA is an argument. Two different things. I’m not saying that the KCA is the basic principle of cause and effect…only p1.
So
Why should a search for the principle of cause and effect point you to an argument that uses it as a premise?

You claim that P1 is a basic principal of cause and effect. That claim comes from nowhere and accomplishes nothing. It's a stay-off-my-side quality argument.

That claim comes from overt identity. And yes, because it is the cause and effect principle you should tread carefully with your reasoning, because to deny cause and effect is unreasonable. Hence why I contend the KCA is sound. It employs the powerfully sound reasoning of cause and effect.

A principle foundational to good reasoning. To reject p1 would bankrupt the economy of your reasoning.

Nonsense.
If I claimed that all non-blue things are caused, would you grant that to be a principal foundation of good reasoning? No, you would view it the way I view your claim.

No I would not. But I don’t get your reasoning. How is non-blue things “reasonably” the same as everything that begins to exist?

My claim is….the principle of cause and effect is foundational to good reasoning.
In context…
Your claim is……….. all non-blue things are caused is foundational to good reasoning.

I don’t get why your claim is analogous to mine.