The Causal God Gambit

[remez]

Thank You.
You made my point.
You just rightfully demonstrated the you can provide empirical evidence to support a philosophical position

no. i didnt. my position, that science works, is an empirical position, not one of pure philosophy

Lets focus on this particular point.....reason through it....

Context of thread...WLC's KCA. In which WLC offers empirical science as support for p2.
so your comment here......

You miss that you cannot prove anything about the world by logic alone, you need empirical evidence. That is what kills NT

..... directly declares without doubt that NT has no empirical evidence.

So.............
Does that means you did not know that WLC provides empirical evidence
or............
does it mean you philosophically reject his ability to do so?
now...

And here is the point.............Why can't I do the same?

yes, why cant you? nobody is stopping you.

No one is actually stopping us.

The issue is why you reject the fact the empirical evidence is provided to support p2.

You did so by ignorance or philosophy.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and thought philosophy.
That was my challenge to you.

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

Please explain.

 

[remez]

no. i didnt. my position, that science works, is an empirical position, not one of pure philosophy


yes, why cant you? nobody is stopping you.

show us the evidence.

When it comes to understanding the material world, science works. Theology has not...

Categorical error.
Gambit is still a straw man.

 

[Lion IRC]

...none of the theists in this thread is going to provide any empirical evidence to support their position.

Exhibit 'A'
The universe began to exist.
In 2013, The European Space Agency's Planck spacecraft measured the age of the universe at 13.82 billion years.

Now, shall we believe this evidence or not?
Shall young Earth creationists mimick their atheist counterparts and scream...
"THATS NOT #¥$@!! EVIDENCE"

 

[Juma]

no. i didnt. my position, that science works, is an empirical position, not one of pure philosophy

Lets focus on this particular point.....reason through it....

Context of thread...WLC's KCA. In which WLC offers empirical science as support for p2.
so your comment here......

You miss that you cannot prove anything about the world by logic alone, you need empirical evidence. That is what kills NT

..... directly declares without doubt that NT has no empirical evidence.

So.............
Does that means you did not know that WLC provides empirical evidence
or............
does it mean you philosophically reject his ability to do so?
now...

And here is the point.............Why can't I do the same?

yes, why cant you? nobody is stopping you.

No one is actually stopping us.

The issue is why you reject the fact the empirical evidence is provided to support p2.

You did so by ignorance or philosophy.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and thought philosophy.
That was my challenge to you.

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

Please explain.

Provide the evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

...none of the theists in this thread is going to provide any empirical evidence to support their position.

Exhibit 'A'
The universe began to exist.
In 2013, The European Space Agency's Planck spacecraft measured the age of the universe at 13.82 billion years.

Now, shall we believe this evidence or not?
Shall young Earth creationists mimick their atheist counterparts and scream...
"THATS NOT #¥$@!! EVIDENCE"

It's evidence for the age of the universe as we know it.it is Not evidense of gods.

 

[Lion IRC]

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.

 

[remez]

Lets focus on this particular point.....reason through it....

Context of thread...WLC's KCA. In which WLC offers empirical science as support for p2.
so your comment here......

You miss that you cannot prove anything about the world by logic alone, you need empirical evidence. That is what kills NT

..... directly declares without doubt that NT has no empirical evidence.

So.............
Does that means you did not know that WLC provides empirical evidence
or............
does it mean you philosophically reject his ability to do so?
now...

And here is the point.............Why can't I do the same?

yes, why cant you? nobody is stopping you.

No one is actually stopping us.

The issue is why you reject the fact the empirical evidence is provided to support p2.

You did so by ignorance or philosophy.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and thought philosophy.
That was my challenge to you.

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

Please explain.

Provide the evidence.

Non sequitur

Explain your philosophy.

 

[remez]

...none of the theists in this thread is going to provide any empirical evidence to support their position.

Exhibit 'A'
The universe began to exist.
In 2013, The European Space Agency's Planck spacecraft measured the age of the universe at 13.82 billion years.

It's evidence for the age of the universe as we know it.it is Not evidense of gods.

Right there……………..
Why?
Is it your toy only?
This is what I meant by childish tantrum.

Thus I repeat.....................

I obviously, would in the same fashion as you did right there, provide much of the same evidence to support my philosophical position as well. But you of course would assert that I can't do that with no more reason than, you can't play with my toy.

So? Where does that leave us?

Well if you are going to be mature about it.....then.....It leads us into a philosophical debate about the same evidence.
And that is where the debate takes place between NT and scientism.

If you are going to continue to conclude that NT cannot use the same empirical evidence to support its position,,,,,,,,,
then you will have to step up to the plate
and
defend the philosophy you're using to form that conclusion.

Til then, your groundless conclusion that NT does not have the support of empirical evidence amounts to nothing more than a childish tantrum.

Explain yourself.

 

[Lion IRC]

The atheist says "once upon a time a universe happened".

 

[bilby]

The atheist says "No gods exist except as fictional characters".

Then atheists say all kinds of other things; because the above is the only thing that they have to agree on.

FIFY.

 

[bigfield]

...none of the theists in this thread is going to provide any empirical evidence to support their position.

Exhibit 'A'
The universe began to exist.
In 2013, The European Space Agency's Planck spacecraft measured the age of the universe at 13.82 billion years.

That at least rules out Young Earth Creationism. What evidence do you have that supports theism but not atheism?

 

[Juma]

...none of the theists in this thread is going to provide any empirical evidence to support their position.

Exhibit 'A'
The universe began to exist.
In 2013, The European Space Agency's Planck spacecraft measured the age of the universe at 13.82 billion years.

It's evidence for the age of the universe as we know it.it is Not evidense of gods.

Right there……………..
Why?
Is it your toy only?
This is what I meant by childish tantrum.

Thus I repeat.....................

I obviously, would in the same fashion as you did right there, provide much of the same evidence to support my philosophical position as well. But you of course would assert that I can't do that with no more reason than, you can't play with my toy.

So? Where does that leave us?

Well if you are going to be mature about it.....then.....It leads us into a philosophical debate about the same evidence.
And that is where the debate takes place between NT and scientism.

If you are going to continue to conclude that NT cannot use the same empirical evidence to support its position,,,,,,,,,
then you will have to step up to the plate
and
defend the philosophy you're using to form that conclusion.

Til then, your groundless conclusion that NT does not have the support of empirical evidence amounts to nothing more than a childish tantrum.

Explain yourself.

Evidence is not something by itself. "Evidence" is fact interpreted in the context of a hypotesis.

To interpret the big bang as evidence of gods you must presuppose that there are something such as gods.

If there are gods then the uniqueness of big bang (the low entripy) is evidence that they did it.

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



If there is a new packet of butter in the fridge, do you take that as evidense for gods also?
Even if you live alone? Isnt it much more probable that you firgot you brought it? Or that someone got knto the wrong apartment? Or millions of other more and more improbable scenarios before even thinking, "a miracle!".

 

[remez]

Evidence is not something by itself. "Evidence" is fact interpreted in the context of a hypotesis.

Absolutely. You may not like the implications of the conclusion, but that does not mean we do not have empirical evidence for p2. You can find the argument uncompelling, but that does not mean we don’t support p2 with empirical evidence.

You are conflating the theistic implications of the argument with the p2.

To interpret the big bang as evidence of gods you must presuppose that there are something such as gods.

It is so intellectually lazy, dishonest and fallacious to reason all theists as PS. You can make all your dishonest requests for evidence, already presupposing your denial based only on the fallacious reasoning which is nothing more than affirming the consequent. That way you can lazily avoid the intellectual engagement. I thought about labeling a new gambit there but then realized it is already called burying your head in the sand.

Just in case you want to try…………..

I’m not asking you to presuppose God.
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 premises….in arguments…..that have theistic implications.

If there are gods then the uniqueness of big bang (the low entripy) is evidence that they did it.

This is more FTA which concludes that the best explanation for the observed fine-tuning is design. That of course has the implications of agency but you don’t have to presuppose God at all. But when we have to defend and support p1 and p2 empirical evidence is provided.

But note your dishonesty of your quote there. You really would not even entertain the thought. If you did you would be staring right in the teeth of the FTA which of course in your lazy reasoning is already PS and therefore has no evidence. I must admit that is easy, but it is also intellectually sickening. I feel like I need to go take a shower for even thinking something so anti-intellectual.

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, which....
is premised by the universe began to exist.

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

If there is a new packet of butter in the fridge, do you take that as evidense for gods also?
Even if you live alone? Isnt it much more probable that you firgot you brought it? Or that someone got knto the wrong apartment?

Of course I would not think God did it. But I, like you did right there, would conclude that the best explanation would certainly be one of agency. See… you really can’t honesty hide from that one.

Even if you live alone? Isnt it much more probable that you firgot you brought it? Or that someone got knto the wrong apartment? Or millions of other more and more improbable scenarios before even thinking, "a miracle!".

Absolutely.

But your analogy falls way short. Because as you suggested earlier context is important. I’m not seeking an explanation for the unexplained existence of butter in my refrigerator. Which overwhelmingly would have natural explanation involving agency.

I’m seeking an explanation for the unexplained existence of the entire material universe itself. So forensically examine what must be the characteristics of such an explanation? Or Cause?

Because if I’m seeking explanation for the existence of the universe or cause of the universe. An explanation must address the material existence of the universe and the cause that must be immaterial. An explanation would need address the contingent existence of time and the cause that must be timeless. An explanation must address the contingent existence of space and the cause that must be spaceless. An explanation would as you rightfully suggested need to address agency and the cause like you suggested involves agency. An explanation would need to address the contingent existence of nature and the cause from outside of nature. A cause that must be intelligent to explain the design. A cause that must be incredibly power. Etc.

I’m not presupposing God’s existence.
I’m reasoning that he must exist.
That is what Natural Theology does.
It reasons FROM nature to God.

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?

Make your case that Natural Theism is presuppositional.

The gambit is still a straw man.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Natural theism does not usually presupoose God's existence. Though often what is offered as NT does in fact do so, but indirectly. This NT has no way of demonstrating God is good, though that usually gets dragged in sooner or later. For example, early deism.

But few religions are based on natural theism, but are based on supposed revelations. Notably Christianity and Islam.

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.

The idea that presupposing God exists as per revelation is not the underlying basis of Christianity is wrong. Christianity does not start with observations of the natural, material, Universe and move from that to the logical conclusion of Jesus, trinitarian God of the Universe.

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

Revelation is a take or leave it situation. It is a series of propositions. That there is a God, and that God created all, for starters. Which is the basis of Christian theology.

 

[Juma]

Absolutely. You may not like the implications of the conclusion, but that does not mean we do not have empirical evidence for p2. You can find the argument uncompelling, but that does not mean we don’t support p2 with empirical evidence.
F
You are conflating the theistic implications of the argument with the p2.

To interpret the big bang as evidence of gods you must presuppose that there are something such as gods.

It is so intellectually lazy, dishonest and fallacious to reason all theists as PS. You can make all your dishonest requests for evidence, already presupposing your denial based only on the fallacious reasoning which is nothing more than affirming the consequent. That way you can lazily avoid the intellectual engagement. I thought about labeling a new gambit there but then realized it is already called burying your head in the sand.

Just in case you want to try…………..

I’m not asking you to presuppose God.
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 premises….in arguments…..that have theistic implications.

If there are gods then the uniqueness of big bang (the low entripy) is evidence that they did it.

This is more FTA which concludes that the best explanation for the observed fine-tuning is design. That of course has the implications of agency but you don’t have to presuppose God at all. But when we have to defend and support p1 and p2 empirical evidence is provided.

But note your dishonesty of your quote there. You really would not even entertain the thought. If you did you would be staring right in the teeth of the FTA which of course in your lazy reasoning is already PS and therefore has no evidence. I must admit that is easy, but it is also intellectually sickening. I feel like I need to go take a shower for even thinking something so anti-intellectual.

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, which....
is premised by the universe began to exist.

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

If there is a new packet of butter in the fridge, do you take that as evidense for gods also?
Even if you live alone? Isnt it much more probable that you firgot you brought it? Or that someone got knto the wrong apartment?

Of course I would not think God did it. But I, like you did right there, would conclude that the best explanation would certainly be one of agency. See… you really can’t honesty hide from that one.

Even if you live alone? Isnt it much more probable that you firgot you brought it? Or that someone got knto the wrong apartment? Or millions of other more and more improbable scenarios before even thinking, "a miracle!".

Absolutely.

But your analogy falls way short. Because as you suggested earlier context is important. I’m not seeking an explanation for the unexplained existence of butter in my refrigerator. Which overwhelmingly would have natural explanation involving agency.

I’m seeking an explanation for the unexplained existence of the entire material universe itself. So forensically examine what must be the characteristics of such an explanation? Or Cause?

Because if I’m seeking explanation for the existence of the universe or cause of the universe. An explanation must address the material existence of the universe and the cause that must be immaterial. An explanation would need address the contingent existence of time and the cause that must be timeless. An explanation must address the contingent existence of space and the cause that must be spaceless. An explanation would as you rightfully suggested need to address agency and the cause like you suggested involves agency. An explanation would need to address the contingent existence of nature and the cause from outside of nature. A cause that must be intelligent to explain the design. A cause that must be incredibly power. Etc.

I’m not presupposing God’s existence.
I’m reasoning that he must exist.
That is what Natural Theology does.
It reasons FROM nature to God.

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?

Make your case that Natural Theism is presuppositional.

The gambit is still a straw man.

Thanks for a response so filled with diverse madly rambling that there is no way to answer it....

But tyou totally failed to adress my point: big bang is no evidence of gods (or of agency). If there was evidence of angods then big bang could be seen as evidence that gods created the universe. But it doesnt work the other way around.

 

[bigfield]

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. How do Christians reason their way to Jehovah and Jesus?

 

[blastula]

They were all raised Christian.

 

[abaddon]

I don’t see how it’s possible to look at nature, whether parts of it or the whole of it, and conclude God as an explanation without the idea already being there and offering itself as an answer. A sloppy answer more appealing to some personalities than others. It started with spirits inhabiting bodies, forests and mountains, and worked up to creator gods. Without that long background -- human's anthropomorphic impulse working itself to increasing abstraction -- there wouldn’t be a philosopher’s God.

 

[Kharakov]

They were all raised Christian.

Ok, then how the hell did Muslims arrive at Allah! It makes no sense.

 

[remez]

But few religions are based on natural theism, but are based on supposed revelations. Notably Christianity and Islam.

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?

 

[remez]

Thanks for a response so filled with diverse madly rambling that there is no way to answer it....

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.