The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[1robin]

Fallacy of composition. To infer that mechanics behind the parts of an object must apply to the whole is false. "Every man which has existed has a mother so the human race has a mother." "If someone stands up out of his seat at a baseball game, he can see better. Therefore, if everyone stands up they can all see better." "Objects in the universe are contingent so the universe must be contingent."

It is not a fallacy it is a logical deduction which has no rational objection. Histories greatest scholars trained to the highest degree of recognition of what makes good arguments from bad have held what you call a fallacy from the age of Greece to modern times. It is irresponsible and invalid to try and use a fallacy crutch to dismiss it.

P1 is false as object exist both due it their nature and external nature of other things.

That is completely wrong and not even technically coherent. My pen does not have my pen as a cause. My computer had a man as an agent of causation. Contingent beings are by necessity dependent on external causes and always are in every single observation ever made. Name a single contingent existent thing that was not caused by an external thing. That is the worst contention against the cosmological argument I have ever heard.

P2/P5 is not one single explanation. There are many theories within theoretical physics such as the multi-verse just is super-natural but not a God. QM could be necessary not a personal God. Non-sequitur.

What there is no evidence for these theories. They do not even stand up well as hypotheticals. The multiverse for example makes God even more likely with every additional universe and in theory makes his existence a certainty in all universes. Too bad there is zero evidence for them. Your mistakenly assuming all theories are equally valid even ones that come as pure declarations straight from an intellectual vacuum. The cosmological argument is not a certainty but is by far the best explanation currently available.

The argument is unsound and invalid.

If so you have not shown it to be.

There are other issues with creation such as change without time nor space. The definition of God in absence of space-time completely fail. One could suggest matter or the quantum vacuum are necessary objects.

This is irrelevant to the CA and is pure speculation.

 

[1robin]

If I was to find some scholarly sources would you take them seriously? I remember having a lot of trouble with you in the past about this and before I embark on something that will be quite a lot of time and effort on my part I just want to make sure it won't be totally wasted.

I will tell you the truth. I have long ago lost my memorization with scholarship it's self. I still take it seriously but not automatically authoritative. For pity sake huge crowds of scholars make mutually exclusive claims. It is unlikely you can find anything that will persuade me as I have spent years looking at most of the mainstream counter claims already but it is not impossible. I will leave it up to you. I take claims on merit alone.

Apparently all you need to know is that it "began" in order for you to make assumptions and claims beyond your realm of knowledge.

Well it began is the only necessity for the deductions. The likes of Aquinas, Leibniz, Craig, etc.... have agreed. That does not make them right but it certainly justifies my reasoning as intellectually permissible. Yes, I only require the universe to begin in order to derive what I did.

If you claim cause and effect are universal elements then you must admit defeat in the matter as we are talking "pre universal" which I still don't think you fully grasp.

I think I said independent of the natural. I think universal does not bind my in any way but I don't think I used the term. Regardless think independent of the natural. Natural laws did not create cause and effect.

You've stated a lot but not defended your argument. I agree that QM is the single most misunderstood thing in current physics by the layman. However it still doesn't ruin your idea of classical cause and effect. It even brings up possibility of retro-causality and necessity clauses as well as impossibilities by normal physics. I am not going to delve any deeper in it till you give me a single reason to believe that in a world where logic and physics don't work your arbitrary claims still hold meaning.

1. I did not say it ruined my cause and effect. I said it always confirms it.
2. I said no matter what it said it is still too new of a science to risk everything on. It is in my corner I believe but even I don't rely on it.
3. Less than 1% even remotely understand it and I am justified in including you in the 99% unless evidence is given not to. IMO the quantum is so vague and little understood non-theists try to hide arguments in it's ambiguity. I have long noted no arguments against God seem to come from the shallower ends of science but reside 100% in the most speculative end of the pool.

There is no "best" explanation. There is no "explanation" in general. Nothing supported or even plausible in terms of evidence. Mainly due to the fact we don't have the evidence yet (if we ever will). That is what I am trying to get through to you. Based on YOUR world view you have a PRESUPOSITION about the universe that "sort of" fits with what "MIGHT BE". But NOTHING is actually KNOWN to verify or falsify your claim.

God did it is 100% an explanation, it might still be so even if wrong.

Therefore there is no good answer. Not mine, not yours. That is why I don't have an answer and I simply go with "I don't know". Beyond that there isn't any way to argue for or against it.

This was my exact complaint. You equate less than certainty with having no value and not only is that not how any area of human academia works you also seem to have a sliding scale of what amounts to certainty.

 

[idav]

God did it is 100% an explanation, it might still be so even if wrong.

Sure 'god did it' is an explanation while 'god exists' is not its just a place holder.

 

[1robin]

Sure 'god did it' is an explanation while 'god exists' is not its just a place holder.

God exists is not an explanatory statement or not necessarily one. Regardless, if God did it is an explanation then God's existence is inherent in that context. However that was not the contention. God's existence and his creative acts are very sound deductions, unlike any counter explanations. You either conclude something very Godlike created the universe or something who's only merit is it currently can't be proven to be impossible did. Neither are certain nor are they remotely equals in explanatory value.

 

[Thief]

Sure 'god did it' is an explanation while 'god exists' is not its just a place holder.

?...so the Creator is an explanation for all that we see...but....
saying He exists would be a completely different topic?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I will tell you the truth. I have long ago lost my memorization with scholarship it's self. I still take it seriously but not automatically authoritative. For pity sake huge crowds of scholars make mutually exclusive claims. It is unlikely you can find anything that will persuade me as I have spent years looking at most of the mainstream counter claims already but it is not impossible. I will leave it up to you. I take claims on merit alone.

The fact you use the term "mainstream" to begin with allows me to infer that your definition of "merit" doesn't mean what it means to most people.

Well it began is the only necessity for the deductions. The likes of Aquinas, Leibniz, Craig, etc.... have agreed. That does not make them right but it certainly justifies my reasoning as intellectually permissible. Yes, I only require the universe to begin in order to derive what I did.

However your missing several key points. The most important one being that time "began" which is normally a nonsensical statement. Its like the end of a circle. However that is exactly what the evidence suggests. Causality, by the way, cannot exist without "time" as a medium. Now we don't have to have forward or backwards movement across this dimension of time to have cause/effect but we do have to have it. So how can there be a cause that predates time?

Do you see how your inferences break down?

I think I said independent of the natural. I think universal does not bind my in any way but I don't think I used the term. Regardless think independent of the natural. Natural laws did not create cause and effect.

Why should I believe that? Specifically?

1. I did not say it ruined my cause and effect. I said it always confirms it.
2. I said no matter what it said it is still too new of a science to risk everything on. It is in my corner I believe but even I don't rely on it.
3. Less than 1% even remotely understand it and I am justified in including you in the 99% unless evidence is given not to. IMO the quantum is so vague and little understood non-theists try to hide arguments in it's ambiguity. I have long noted no arguments against God seem to come from the shallower ends of science but reside 100% in the most speculative end of the pool.

1. It was a typo. I meant to say it DID ruin your cause and effect
2. Its not "risking" anything on anything. Even without QM my argument is solid against yours and the only thing I have invoked about it at all is an example (that still stands aside from my general argument) that cause and effect is not as universal and simple as you make it out to be.
3. You would be correct. Though it would be far less 1% of the population understand it. But my points still stand regardless and you don't know enough about QM to even make an argument against my claims and what you have stated about it is usually rather inaccurate.

God did it is 100% an explanation, it might still be so even if wrong.

Its not an explanation based off of any evidence. It is an explanation based off of your presupposed world view trying to fill in the void science has yet to fill.

This was my exact complaint. You equate less than certainty with having no value and not only is that not how any area of human academia works you also seem to have a sliding scale of what amounts to certainty.

Less than certainty? Wow. So evolution is a huge leap in logic that we can never make but we can claim god is the best evidence for the universe without any evidence at all?

That aside you straw man me. Actually no you have purposefully and intent-fully stated my position is exactly what it isn't. It isn't "less than certain" it is IMPOSSIBLE at this point to know as we don't even have the slightest clue. Everything we have ever known about the universe adds up to jACK-SHAT when we try to apply it to the big bang or the singularity.

 

[cottage]

I have heard make this argument different ways. Are you sure he wasn't quoting someone. This sounds exactly like another scholars argument to me, but for now we will take it as Craig's and move on.

What I quoted was Professor Craig’s formulation that he used in his debate with Alex Rosenburg: “Is faith in God Reasonable”. I believe it might have also have been broadcast on Youtube?

You really blew it here. Especially since Craig makes this emphatic. Necessary things contain their own explanations. Only contingent things require external explanations.

Every time you prefix a passage with one of those little quips it turns out that you’ve jumped in with a reply before reading what follows.

Cosmological thinking is not even relevant here. When you run out of universe cosmology is no longer applicable. Craig uses cosmology to get to T=0 and philosophy and theology to add to that. You drug cosmology into where Craig does not employ it then declared it failed. If this is an A + B + C = God argument then cosmology gets you from A to B. Do not use it to get see then cry foul.

That’s just a load of verbose meandering, when all I’ve done is state a simple premise.

That is quite a mouth full. I acknowledge no such contradiction so reject this entire contention. The only contradiction I can potentially see is nature crating nature.

Again here you are responding to the scene-setting preamble. Please read the entire argument.

That is not technically the contingency argument. It does not posit only necessary causes for contingent events or entities. A contingent entity can have a contingent cause. It only states that contingent things ultimately end in necessary causes. If you believe that last part then point out which contingent being is not ultimately caused by a necessary one. For one you can't find any, and two if you did you would have only inaugurated the nihilistic eternal regression problem or creation from nothing by nothing issue. Those are real contradictions that God resolves.

Read the third sentence! I said: “A thing can exist contingently without having to answer to a supposed necessarily existing thing, and with no contradiction implied.” And your statement that contingent things ultimately end in necessary causes is pure speculation. We know contingent objects exist but I challenge you to show me any necessary objects. You cannot because the only necessary things are self-evident propositions and tautologies.

That is true of contingent things only, not necessary ones.

I’ve given a joined up argument. Why don’t you read the complete work before you respond to its parts, please!!

I do not see any relevance here but there is a world of assumption. There could be all manner of "God's" that would create a world for no rational purpose at all. Maybe the universe is a byproduct of something that had a purpose, maybe God is irrational, maybe he is random in ways we do not understand. My God would have a purpose but I don't see the relevance yet.

But you will see the relevance, I promise you. Continue reading.

You made an argument about God's having no need of creation then concluded from that argument God must need us. How did that work? Need will be a tricky word here. God does not need anything else to be more fully God. However that does not mean things do not have value to him. The same way an artist is no less of an artist without painting a Mona Lisa. It is an expression of his nature that has value but no necessity. Now that complete undermines the assumptions of your argument here. The only recourse is to try and split hairs about what need, value, or purpose mean. Every argument with a non-theist winds up at the same place. Semantic technicality. I may very well be wrong but it always reminds of a lawyer defending a guilty client. He knows evidence is against him so abandons it in favor of finding some technical procedural issue to get off a guilty man. God can value a thing and not require it to be God.

I’m sorry but now you are just waffling.


Continued

 

[cottage]

This is too petty to drag out. Pick one or both and disprove them. I am not going to debate the labels.

Excuse me, but I’ve given you objections to both arguments, properly laid out, and you’ve failed to give me a piecemeal response to either.

There is a known example to billions. The fact you do not know is not a commentary on what is know. Rejecting causality requires rejecting what is true of every observation. Including God does not require anyone to do that. The two are not even remotely equal. I derive causality and God from evidence. They are both deductions which have no good counter arguments. You misunderstood the claim. To correctly exclude natural cause for the cause of nature requires no principle be violated. There could be another God, there could be another type of entity, it is not impossible there is a natural explanation, what there isn't is a candidate better than my God presently. Somehow your side makes the equivalency that barring certainty all explanations are equal and that flies in the face of everything known. Things with evidence always surpass things with none as candidates.

You’re responding to an argument that I’m not making. I’m not absurdly rejecting causality.

I am not drawing any argument that solely relies upon Kalam. My argument does not go the way of Kalam even if Kalam can be countered. Kalam is just one version of a uniform argument. I have never seen a credible contradiction to God's creating the universe. I can't even remember one plausible enough to retain as a rival conclusion. A natural entity producing natural however is completely contradictory. Yet I do not even rule that out, I merely claim it is not even in the same realm of likelihood.

You say you’ve never seen a credible contradiction to God’s existence, yet I’ve given you several in the past that have all gone unanswered (by “unanswered” I mean the contradictions haven’t been overturned). You then affect amnesia and continue to repeat the same claims in other posts with nary a nod to the problems I’ve identified in your arguments.

So far so good. The shipwreck must follow.

By that remark take it you’re still irritated by me then? <chuckles>

This is the same old argument of equating lack of certainty with lack of explanatory value. I can be perfectly rational to deduce that the universe has a cause because everything observable is caused. It is caused and it is uncaused are not equally valid. One is far better, in fact potentially infinitely better than the other. There is no get out of creation free card available here. The exact same methodology is used in law, science, history, and pretty much every category of academia. No jury comes to a certain knowledge but makes the best determination based on the evidence we do have.

My objection to the Kalam cosmological argument has nothing to do with it being devoid of certainty. The Kalam is an inferential argument and I’ve shown that the primary premise fails because it is a false inference.

This is an argument from principle. Since no exception to it's premise is known, a enormous data set is available, and no credible counter argument is available the soundness of the principle is rational and eminently permissible. The exact same methodology is employed in all human endeavor. In the absence of a defeater the most consistent explanation is the best and rational.

I can’t be sure whether you are not grasping the point of my argument or whether you’ve simply decided to ignore it and plough on with a strawman approach. I am not denying the principle of causality or our utter dependence upon it in the phenomenal world. You invited me to critique the Kalam argument, saying “do your worst”, and I’ve responded by showing that the argument can be debunked on its first premise.

That is almost certainly true but just as unproven as the other version since everything in the universe cannot be observed. The exact same methodology that validates the above validates this "corrected" version. They are both best explanations.

It most certainly does not validate the conclusion of the Kalam argument, and to propose that it does is fallaciously arguing in a circle as I’ve already taken pains to explain.

I am surprised you would concede even this.

Now why on earth would you say that? I have never committed to arguing for the eternity of the world, but perhaps you would prefer that I did as it would be more helpful to your argument?

SHIPWRECK. The only thing we know is that cause and effect seems to a universal constant. What we do not find is that is in any way dependent on nature. That is why an entire subject about theological causality exists which has no relevance or dependence on the natural. The same thing can be said about abstract concepts, numbers, ascetic value, morality, and many constants. They seem to exist as brute facts without any dependence on the natural. What you must do is show a better argument exists for causalities' absence in the beginning than its presence. Since you can not link it to the natural then it is a hopeless case. My argument is better, may not be true, but a betting man is well within his senses to side with it.

It’s hardly a “shipwreck”. But if we really must use such puerile terms then I would say the case I make here seems to have your ship foundering in heavy seas to be smashed upon the rocks. And here’s why:

First point: You cannot give me a single instance where causality is observed independent of nature. Second point: self-evidently, causality cannot be hitched onto God without making him dependent upon a contingent principle. Third point: any intelligible concept that you can come up with will be abstracted and compounded from experience. Fourth point: aesthetics, morals and numbers all apply directly to the material world. Take sensible qualities out of the equation and you have no aesthetics, no moral or immoral behaviour and nothing to enumerate.

 

[cottage]

Continuation from 1709

I don't think so though the word desire does make it tricky. I can think of no deficiency unless God had a desire that he could not carry out. I can even conceive he has desires he restricts himself from actualizing without any loss to himself. I don't think a desire equal a need. I have desires for things I am worse off for having so the two do not equate. A desire I would suggest is the wiling of a thing. To will ma thing is not a necessity but a choice. It is also not necessarily a lack to refrain from willing.

So a less that Omni-God is consistent with everything? The only argument I saw against a maximal being was this last semantic one. That means a maximal being is not countered by anything but it and so why all the philosophical contentions. Semantics is not my strong suite so I will give quotes for your last point.

To admit the existence of a need in God is to admit incompleteness in the divine Being. Need is a creature-word and cannot be spoken of the Creator. God has a voluntary relation to everything He has made, but He has no necessary relation to anything outside of Himself. His interest in His creatures arises from His sovereign good pleasure, not from any need those creatures can supply nor from any completeness they can bring to Him who is complete in Himself.

First of all, what logically prevents God from creating if He is perfect? Perfection means that God is complete, without error, totally wise, and self-sufficient. So, what in these qualities means God can't create the universe? This atheist says God would be susceptible to greed if He did so. Really? So now it is greedy for God to create a universe? I have to ask, what justifies the atheist to assign such a sin to a holy God? What does greed have to do with creating anything? Why can't God create for His own glory--which would be the greatest good for the most perfect being? Why can't God create people so He could love them? After all, since God is love (1 John 4:8), love gives (John 3:16), and the greatest act of love is to die for another (John 15:13), then why can't God create the universe and people in order to display the greatest act of love by becoming one of us and dying for us as is the case with Jesus?

We can only take perfection to mean exactly as intended and correct for the purpose. And that has no negative impact at all on the conclusion; in fact it enables the conclusion, for God's state is self-evidently compromised.

Let me ask in what way would God be less God without the universe?
Is gravity less or more lawful whether it has anything to attract?

An answer to this is given down the page.

Anyway now it is time to sum up.

Argument 1.

1. Assume God created the world
2. It is irrational to say a personal being freely and intentionally created the world for no purpose
3. He did create the world for a purpose
4. Therefore there was a need or purpose that benefitted God
5. The Supreme Being requires nothing since he is perfectly complete and entire
6. If 5 is not true then God is not the Supreme Being.
7. Premise 5 is true by definition
8. God had needs, desires, or unfulfilled wishes (4)
9. Therefore God is not the all-sufficient Supreme Being
If the premises are true then the conclusion that follows must also be true.

We can summarise the above argument like this:

P1: If God is the Supreme Being then he wants for nothing
P2: God wanted a relationship with his creation
Conclusion: God is not the Supreme Being


Argument 2.

1. Assume God created the world.

2. God had a coherent purpose (since it would be incoherent to say an intelligent, conscious being created the world with no purpose).

3. God is goodness itself

4. God created the world to bestow his sovereign goodness upon it.

5. But there was no world prior to creation!

6. Therefore the world and its creatures were non-existent prior to creation

7. Thus there was no benefit to the created creatures

8. A coherent reason for God creating the world is required, as in #2

Conclusion: Therefore God created the world for his own pleasure or satisfaction

But that is hugely problematic.

It cannot be argued that the world is necessary to God without falling foul of a contradiction. But God, it is said, did create the world. And that being the case we find that a God that is sufficient in all things is not sufficient in all things. Further, there can be no logical justification for bringing creatures into existence; for creatures that didn’t previously exist cannot be said in anyway to be better off. Therefore the creation of the world can only have been to God’s advantage. But the world is not a necessary aspect of God and therefore nothing can be subtracted from God by the world never existing and no addition can be made to God by the world’s creation. So there are only two possible conclusions and they are that either “God” is not the Supreme Being, but a deist-type external cause of the world, that takes no interest in the creation other than sustaining its continued but indefinite existence, or there is no God at all.

 

[Thief]

It cannot be argued that the world is necessary to God without falling foul of a contradiction. But God, it is said, did create the world. And that being the case we find that a God that is sufficient in all things is not sufficient in all things. Further, there can be no logical justification for bringing creatures into existence; for creatures that didn&#8217;t previously exist cannot be said in anyway to be better off. Therefore the creation of the world can only have been to God&#8217;s advantage. But the world is not a necessary aspect of God and therefore nothing can be subtracted from God by the world never existing and no addition can be made to God by the world&#8217;s creation. So there are only two possible conclusions and they are that either &#8220;God&#8221; is not the Supreme Being, but a deist-type external cause of the world, that takes no interest in the creation other than sustaining its continued but indefinite existence, or there is no God at all.

So if you were the First in mind and heart.....and having created the universe.....
Would you not be alone?

By your command and by your touch the universe might respond....
but it will not 'respond' or speak as you do.

You could split yourself into different places....be in more than one place at a time.
Many people think God is everywhere.

But if you are the First.....and alone.....what do you do?

How about placing a lesser portion (life) into a small portion of substance?
Let it gel.
Stand back and see whatever might come of it?

 

[Bunyip]

So if you were the First in mind and heart.....and having created the universe.....
Would you not be alone?

By your command and by your touch the universe might respond....
but it will not 'respond' or speak as you do.

You could split yourself into different places....be in more than one place at a time.
Many people think God is everywhere.

But if you are the First.....and alone.....what do you do?

How about placing a lesser portion (life) into a small portion of substance?
Let it gel.
Stand back and see whatever might come of it?

So who made the first god?

 

[Thief]

So who made the first god?

He did.....
We get to ask how....wen we get there.

 

[Bunyip]

He did.....
We get to ask how....wen we get there.

And who made him? Or does cause and effect not apply?

 

[Thief]

And who made him? Or does cause and effect not apply?

Like I said.....we get to ask how He did it when we get there.

 

[Shad]

. Opps wrong thread n/m

 

[1robin]

The fact you use the term "mainstream" to begin with allows me to infer that your definition of "merit" doesn't mean what it means to most people.

I have seen every professional debate I can find, have reviewed transcripts of many, and have read popular books from both sides of the isle. From Hume, Aquinas, Craig, Zacharias, Nietzsche, Augustine, Vilenkin, Kant, Descartes, Sartre, Voltaire, Galilei, Machiavelli, Leibniz, and hundreds more of the same. If I have little idea what the mainstream is talking about I need to give it up.

However your missing several key points. The most important one being that time "began" which is normally a nonsensical statement. Its like the end of a circle. However that is exactly what the evidence suggests. Causality, by the way, cannot exist without "time" as a medium. Now we don't have to have forward or backwards movement across this dimension of time to have cause/effect but we do have to have it. So how can there be a cause that predates time?

What we think of as space time began to exist. Many philosophers posit some kind of time before the big bang but we cannot access it to explain it. It is a terrible mistake to think that if we cannot explain something in detail it cannot have existed. BTW many philosophers also claim that simultaneous causality is possible. I have no idea but do know it is very arrogant to think we can say how things worked before the big bang. We can only make a few inroads into it and they are all philosophic not scientific. Science ends at the singularity. I have read papers explaining how time may have functioned before space time. It is over my head but you can easily find them if you look.

Do you see how your inferences break down?

Look me or you have no idea but you can't expect me to believe you can a firm understanding that disproves the hundreds of the best trained minds in academic history who hold the exact opposite view. I can take disagreement but dismissal is not in your pay grade.

Why should I believe that? Specifically?

By the complete lack of evidence of it's opposite. It is hard to prove a negative. It usually arises from the lack of evidence for a positive. I have never seen the slightest reason to think cause and effect is dependent on nature. I am only left with one option as Sherlock so adequately put it.

1. It was a typo. I meant to say it DID ruin your cause and effect
2. Its not "risking" anything on anything. Even without QM my argument is solid against yours and the only thing I have invoked about it at all is an example (that still stands aside from my general argument) that cause and effect is not as universal and simple as you make it out to be.
3. You would be correct. Though it would be far less 1% of the population understand it. But my points still stand regardless and you don't know enough about QM to even make an argument against my claims and what you have stated about it is usually rather inaccurate.

I have not seen an argument for your case at all. You and most only seem to suggest I lack perfect certainty so any answer is equally valid. They aren't. In fact look above this point in this post. Not one argument for your case, just challenges to mine.

You will need to give me some reason to think you know anything about the quantum before I can give you credibility about things virtually no one understands. Why can't you non-theists find any evidence in areas that aren't hazy grey speculative science? Why does not geometry, arithmetic, algebra, even calculus or DE suggest no God exists, why is it always in the most ambiguous science possible?

Its not an explanation based off of any evidence. It is an explanation based off of your presupposed world view trying to fill in the void science has yet to fill.

No it is not. Philosophy considers that type of argument pure deduction. I have read quite a bit on the type of argument specifically involved in the premise of the cosmological argument. I never heard in in a pulpit or read it I scripture. I found in science and philosophy alone.

Less than certainty? Wow. So evolution is a huge leap in logic that we can never make but we can claim god is the best evidence for the universe without any evidence at all?

Back up the truth trolley. It is my views that assign degrees of reliability based on claim. It is yours which equates less than certainty with uselessness (as long as it is God that Is the topic). So I do not need to defend actions I never took. Your the one making these equality estimations if God is in the equation or even suggested by it, so you need to explain not me.

That aside you straw man me. Actually no you have purposefully and intent-fully stated my position is exactly what it isn't. It isn't "less than certain" it is IMPOSSIBLE at this point to know as we don't even have the slightest clue. Everything we have ever known about the universe adds up to jACK-SHAT when we try to apply it to the big bang or the singularity.

That is garbage. I never hinted, thought, suggested, or implied that any issue here has anything to do with knowing. You argue against my point by proving it in detail. It is about best explanations or deductions, NOT CERTAINTY for crying out loud. How many times do you have to misunderstand that, me point it out, before you stop doing it? Faith, history, law, much of science, even parts of math, etc.... are NOT about certainty. They are about the best explanations and conclusions. My argument is by far better than yours even if it is not a certainty.

 

[1robin]

What I quoted was Professor Craig&#8217;s formulation that he used in his debate with Alex Rosenburg: &#8220;Is faith in God Reasonable&#8221;. I believe it might have also have been broadcast on Youtube?

I am sure he used it as you stated but I have seen him many times state he is using so and so' version. I have seen him use at least three that are not his. I am not sure he has invented one himself. I saw that debate but can't remember what source Craig used if any. It was not a potent debate. If you want to see the only person in my opinion that could contend with Craig look up Craig verses Sean Carroll.

Every time you prefix a passage with one of those little quips it turns out that you&#8217;ve jumped in with a reply before reading what follows.

Possible but I went back and agree with what I stated.

That&#8217;s just a load of verbose meandering, when all I&#8217;ve done is state a simple premise.

"Every time you prefix a passage with one of those little quips it turns out that you&#8217;ve jumped in with a reply before reading what follows." Do you see how unproductive that kind of response is? I can't see how my statement could be any more emphatic, technically correct, or representative. Before you conclude arrogance here I usually would not say that. I re-read it twice and I can't find a flaw in it where most of the time I can easily find improvements to what I say. I can say it no better, take it or leave it.

Again here you are responding to the scene-setting preamble. Please read the entire argument.

Sometimes I respond with the way a statement presents it's self. Only if inaccurate would I have erred by doing so. So far I have complaints and no evidence of wrong doing. Maybe it is coming below at some point. You sure are touchy here lately.

Read the third sentence! I said: &#8220;A thing can exist contingently without having to answer to a supposed necessarily existing thing, and with no contradiction implied.&#8221; And your statement that contingent things ultimately end in necessary causes is pure speculation. We know contingent objects exist but I challenge you to show me any necessary objects. You cannot because the only necessary things are self-evident propositions and tautologies.

I think the first half may have indicated a flaw in my understanding what you said. If so dismiss my response. The last half is kind of weird. In modal being logic it is assumed that the universe is contingent. That means it absolutely requires a necessary cause that must exist that can't be seen. Your question is like asking "Oh yeah, show me a picture of the wind". Well it is a given that wind can't be seen but is a reliable deduction from the evidence. It would be as bad as my asking you to show me dark matter. Worse in fact. It is not really a meaningful question. I do not think you even object to necessary beings existing so what is even the motivation here?

I&#8217;ve given a joined up argument. Why don&#8217;t you read the complete work before you respond to its parts, please!!

I can be guilty of this but you seldom show any evidence for me to agree that I have. Objections alone are not really persuasive.

But you will see the relevance, I promise you. Continue reading.

I will deny it even if I do. Just kidding.

I&#8217;m sorry but now you are just waffling.

No you are. These complaints alone do nothing. Even if you are right and I made "quips" at times I followed them by explaining why I made them in detail. At least you could agree or not. Since you showed no waffles' I can't even consider that I made any. This is actually such a vague issue I looked up scholarly responses to it and simply stated them in my words here. Are they waffling as well? Where are the waffles? Why are they such?

 

[1robin]

Excuse me, but I’ve given you objections to both arguments, properly laid out, and you’ve failed to give me a piecemeal response to either.

That was not my point. I seem to suggest either label would not matter. MY computer is acting up and I do not want to risk going back and verifying so just ignore this for now.

You’re responding to an argument that I’m not making. I’m not absurdly rejecting causality.

I know you don't but that is exactly what it seemed like you were doing in this case. The same way I think you accept necessary beings but demanded I show you one. It just seems inconsistent.

You say you’ve never seen a credible contradiction to God’s existence, yet I’ve given you several in the past that have all gone unanswered (by “unanswered” I mean the contradictions haven’t been overturned). You then affect amnesia and continue to repeat the same claims in other posts with nary a nod to the problems I’ve identified in your arguments.

I told you then, have not changed my mind, and repeat it here I could not see the contradictions. If I remembered most only held a potential for a contradiction given some arbitrary semantic assumptions about what words mean which did not agree with my understanding of what they mean. I of course did not overturn a contradiction I could not find. I pointed out instead why I found nothing contradictory.

By that remark take it you’re still irritated by me then? <chuckles>

My sense of humor cannot be impugned, though it may not be recognized.

My objection to the Kalam cosmological argument has nothing to do with it being devoid of certainty. The Kalam is an inferential argument and I’ve shown that the primary premise fails because it is a false inference.

I do not recall this and I don't think that is even potentially possible. You could only show that level of assumption in the positive claim but that would do nothing no matter what level to justify a negative conclusion. Lets say the universe consisted of only one HP computer and us. If we can deduce easily that the mother beard had a cause. That the screen did. That the power supply did. That the DVD burner did, and so. We have a thousand parts that have known causes. Lets say there was 999 causes for convenience and those 999 causes had 998 causes and so one. We eventually get all the way back to 3 causes then two then for some reason you yell we are done and can't reasonably deduct that there is a cause for only two contingent things. In 999 cases the same exact method and reasons are employed for going the last step, yet it is not only uncertain it is no longer even allowable. Now forgetting semantic technicalities and word salads pleas plainly state why. Why did the Greeks not see this roadblock, the Roman's, the Christians, the Muslims? Why does it still have as razor sharp teeth 3000 years later?

I can’t be sure whether you are not grasping the point of my argument or whether you’ve simply decided to ignore it and plough on with a strawman approach. I am not denying the principle of causality or our utter dependence upon it in the phenomenal world. You invited me to critique the Kalam argument, saying “do your worst”, and I’ve responded by showing that the argument can be debunked on its first premise.

Yet your doing so seems to me to be that the last step is uncertain and so is not only deniable but completely dismissible. I can't see it any other way, so help me. The exact same reasons to suggest a sun has a cause exist for saying the singularity had a cause. The only difference I can see is that one has a natural label and the other a supernatural one which makes no difference in this context. And your not juts saying another cause must be present but saying concluding any cause exists is censorable which I can't possibly see as except a denial of causality even if you generally except it. Your excepting it in the other 99.9% of cases only makes your denial of it in this context even more suspicious.

It most certainly does not validate the conclusion of the Kalam argument, and to propose that it does is fallaciously arguing in a circle as I’ve already taken pains to explain.

My argument beat yours. Do you see meaningless that kind of response is? I read your argument and did not agree with it. Stating over again how great it was without adding new information does not change anything. Did you think I would go "Oh I had no idea you did not agree, in that case I give up", without adding to what I had already not been persuaded by?

Now why on earth would you say that? I have never committed to arguing for the eternity of the world, but perhaps you would prefer that I did as it would be more helpful to your argument?

Because I am surprised when anything what so ever is conceded by non-theists that in anyway is consistent with God. You have no idea how consistent atheistic argument are from my side. It is at times worse than watching OJ's defense attorney but there are exceptions. At times I think by the rule instead of the possible exception. I debate so many people I have trouble keeping each avatar's character correctly associated.

It’s hardly a “shipwreck”. But if we really must use such puerile terms then I would say the case I make here seems to have your ship foundering in heavy seas to be smashed upon the rocks. And here’s why:

You do not often hear Puerile outside of Monty Python skits or are you being served.

First point: You cannot give me a single instance where causality is observed independent of nature. Second point: self-evidently, causality cannot be hitched onto God without making him dependent upon a contingent principle. Third point: any intelligible concept that you can come up with will be abstracted and compounded from experience. Fourth point: aesthetics, morals and numbers all apply directly to the material world. Take sensible qualities out of the equation and you have no aesthetics, no moral or immoral behaviour and nothing to enumerate.

1. I cannot give you a single example of numbers or abstract concepts outside of nature but in my experience these are almost universally excepted. I can't give you any example of dark matter in nature for certainty. The number one exists as an idea regardless if a universe exists at all. I have no necessity or need to provide what you demand. If a thing only has two possible outcomes and there exists no reason what so ever to even hint it is one then it must be the other. Besides usually negative arguments are only the negation of a positive claim. Sherlock expounded on that principle quite a bit.

2. I have never understood this contradiction insinuation especially in that case. In hundreds of debates I do not think any non-theist raised even a similar contention. I find nothing persuasive about it but this one at least that could be over my head. That is why I searched the library in my head for debate examples from scholars but found none. You remember a debate where it was used? I even have 3 and 4 inch thick books with thousands of one and two page arguments from prominent theists and atheists and do not recall a similar one.

3. To either rightly or wrongly say something is based only in experience is about the weakest argument possible. What isn't based in experience? What is deficient with it being so? In my studies I always find experiential claims used as additions to certainty not the opposite. If I said I experienced guilt would a reasonable counter claim that it was only my experience? Which is more reliable? I read in a book that the N pole is hot or I have been there and felt it is cold?

4. Application was never the issue. Dependence was. If there was a green race of people on earth that were always behind every other race in every category. Would it be reasonable to say that their faults depend on the color green? The nature of their fault sand even the existence of he faults themselves would exist whether green did or not. If numbers have no dependence on nature it is irrational to suggest their existence is defendant on it.

My pycrete ship of fools is in no danger of capsizing yet. If you know what pycrete is without looking it up I will concede any point you choose. Not really.

 

[1robin]

And who made him? Or does cause and effect not apply?

That has been referred to as the worst contention against God in the history of western thought. Things are either explained by their own nature or by external things. This what separates necessary things from contingent things. Another principle is that only things that begin to exist requires causes. It is also a principle that an infinite regression of causation is impossible. These three plus about a thousand other things suggest or prove God has no need of an external cause and that an uncaused first cause is a necessity. He is the explanation of his existence, nature is not, nor could it be.

You cannot find a single exception to any of these principles anywhere. The most you can do is try and water down the certainty of what I consistent with every known observation.

But your question while common is not really applicable nor is it a mature one. Do you ever watch professional debates?

 

[idav]

So if you were the First in mind and heart.....and having created the universe.....
Would you not be alone?

Existing would be first in mind not a creation. Existing comes before being created. No reason to assume the universe was created per se, thats your preference. For all we know existence is a universal supercomputer.