The apologia of the cosmos. Evidence of God

[quatona]

Who said that a lion was created next to your bed ex nihilo by a non-physical entity?

Who said a lion has popped into existence next to my bed ex nihilo?
And if (as I suspect) nobody said it - why did you bring it up, in the first place?

 

[Elioenai26]

Who said a lion has popped into existence next to my bed ex nihilo?
And if (as I suspect) nobody said it - why did you bring it up, in the first place?

I'm finished speaking with you because I do not see you even attempting to be serious about this. It therefore makes no difference whether or not we speak about the second premise or conclusion. I am not going to continue these circular discussions that you are seeking to engage in for the lack of a good counter-argument.

If you desire to maintain an irrational, illogical, unreasonable position then believe me sir, I shall not endeavor to persuade you to the contrary. The marvelous thing about this is that we all have the ability to accept or reject the truth. I am sorry however that you have chosen this way.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I'm finished speaking with you because I do not see you even attempting to be serious about this. It therefore makes no difference whether or not we speak about the second premise or conclusion. I am not going to continue these circular discussions that you are seeking to engage in for the lack of a good counter-argument.

If you desire to maintain an irrational, illogical, unreasonable position then believe me sir, I shall not endeavor to persuade you to the contrary. The marvelous thing about this is that we all have the ability to accept or reject the truth. I am sorry however that you have chosen this way.

Well, I'm guessing the constant game of dodge ball you're playing in all your threads is keeping you in shape, but it definitely doesn't make you look intelligent...

 

[quatona]

I'm finished speaking with you because I do not see you even attempting to be serious about this.

Well, it wasn´t me who started talking about lions appearing out of nothing besides my bed.

It therefore makes no difference whether or not we speak about the second premise or conclusion. I am not going to continue these circular discussions that you are seeking to engage in for the lack of a good counter-argument.

I am well aware that your entire approach is dependent on there being counter-positions - so that you can tackle them in order to distract from the fact that your own position suffers from the same problems.

On the other hand I am well aware, too, that there is absolutely no need for me to hold a position of my own (regarding the origin of the universe) in order to detect the flaws in your reasoning.

If you desire to maintain an irrational, illogical, unreasonable position then believe me sir, I shall not endeavor to persuade you to the contrary. The marvelous thing about this is that we all have the ability to accept or reject the truth. I am sorry however that you have chosen this way.

So in lack of good arguments you simply are declaring yourself the winner and mingle in a good amount of condescension...doesn´t sound like the epitome of being rational, logical, reasonable exactly.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Please supply a post number for reference so that I may respond to your counter-argument(s) that you maintain I have not responded to.

#198 and #199.

 

[Elioenai26]

Well, I'm guessing the constant game of dodge ball you're playing in all your threads is keeping you in shape, but it definitely doesn't make you look intelligent...

If you would like to discuss this argument, then I am all ears.

So far you and everyone else who has attempted to refute this argument have relied upon rhetoric, sarcasm, unsubstantiated assertions, misconstruals of even the most basic of philosophical concepts, circular arguments, and an assortment of other diversions.

I suggest those of you who do desire to make a case for your views watch some of the debates between those who spend a great deal of their time engaging in these discussion. You will find that no serious and credible non-theist will ever attack the causal principle as is given in premise (i).

However, that is the very thing that most of you all have done here! You attack and attempt to refute something that is not at as vulnerable as you would desire for it to be.

This is evidence of a lack of understanding of the scientific method, but not only that, it is evidence of a lack of basic understanding of philosophy, which any scientist will tell you is indispensible to the discipline of science itself!

Now, having said that, let me say this:

Since this is a philosophy forum, I would expect to find that some of you have some type of rudimentary understanding of the discipline. I simply do not have the time to teach you guys philosophy 101.

So if any of you desire to provide good counter-arguments to the cosmological argument, please study, research and come prepared to discuss the matter intelligently.

Until then, the cosmological stands unrefuted as as such, is one good argument for the existence of God.

 

[Elioenai26]

No, I am not saying that at all. But anything that we can know about the origins of the universe does not need to invoke the existence of supernatural causes.



Saying that something is immaterial is equivalent to saying that it is nothing. And saying that nothing is really something (e.g. a Creator being), and that that something has properties such as omnipotence makes no sense whatsoever.



You just contradicted yourself. If time came into existence with the universe, then it makes no sense to even say "prior to the universe".

And if the act of creation was supposedly simultaneous, such that the cause and the effect co-occurred at exactly the same time (again, how can you even speak of time in this context?) then it would be impossible to determine which is the cause and which is the effect. The supernatural might have been the effect, rather than the cause.



Again with the "prior to"?

You are assuming something about causality that you may not be justified in assuming. You are assuming that causality itself is supernatural. It must be by your account or otherwise causality would also have begun to exist only from the point of the Big Bang onwards. This assumption is not warranted by any of our observations of cause-and-effect. We only ever observe natural causes and their natural effects. In this way no effect is unlike its cause. A supernatural cause is unlike any other cause because it is apparently immaterial and so on. By what unique mechanism of causality can a supernatural cause exert its effects? We can develop theories to explain the interaction of matter, and the mechanisms that cause certain natural events. That is where our concept of causality is useful to us. You want to excise it from this context in which it finds meaning and apply it to a context that is entirely unfamiliar to us and where the concept finds no application.

Elioenai26, I think on an implicit level you are aware that the concept of causality cannot be used to describe supposedly supernatural entities that exist is no time, in no place, and apparently consist of no substance. Even as try to apply the concept to these supposedly timeless causes you invoke time (e.g. "prior to the Creation there existed..."). That is because our concept of causality applies to things happening at a time and in a location relative to other things. That is how we use the word in everyday language to describe events. When we talk about one thing causing another "to happen", it is always based on the observation of some change occurring in some stimulus at some time. We notice changes accumulating across time and we attribute those changes to certain events. The idea that causality can also apply to events/actions/processes/entities that do not "happen" at a time or in a location is unfamiliar territory to our human experience. So unfamiliar in fact that causality breaks down when you try to talk about it -- the concept ceases to function because it is stretched to fit an idea of a "cause" so different to any other.

#198 and #199.

I believe the following video will help clear up any confusion as to why premise (i) is undeniably true.


The Absurdity of Denying the First Premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (William Lane Craig) - YouTube

 

[Elioenai26]

Well, it wasn´t me who started talking about lions appearing out of nothing besides my bed.



I am well aware that your entire approach is dependent on there being counter-positions - so that you can tackle them in order to distract from the fact that your own position suffers from the same problems.

On the other hand I am well aware, too, that there is absolutely no need for me to hold a position of my own (regarding the origin of the universe) in order to detect the flaws in your reasoning.



So in lack of good arguments you simply are declaring yourself the winner and mingle in a good amount of condescension...doesn´t sound like the epitome of being rational, logical, reasonable exactly.

I believe Dr. William Lane Craig can clear up any confusion that I may have caused in seeking to defend the causal principle.

Enjoy !

The Absurdity of Denying the First Premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (William Lane Craig) - YouTube

 

[Davian]

No, I take the scientific approach. You are the one claiming that these truths are knowable. Prove it. (Since you are the one claiming that these truths can be known, you should be able to prove it).

Your cosmological argument, as you have presented it below. How can you prove that it applies before and at the instantiation of the cosmos?

Not the argument - *you*. You are working backwards through this whole thing from the conclusion, deity that you already believe to exist. This is not science (obviously, which is why it is called apologetics, lol).

As for those attributes:

- sounds like 'non-existant', unless you can describe this thing by what it is, rather than by what it isn't. You have not done so. Self-Existent? Nice try. Is not the universe self-existent?

- define what 'outside' of the universe means
- if it it outside, how does it get inside?

- why must it be? Is there any indication that the cosmos is infinite?

- what is the apparent total of energy in the universe? What if it is zero?
- it is possible for there to be nothing?

- provide details on what choices were available to this supposed deity. Perhaps there were no, or few choices. How much intelligence was needed? Show why this required a 'deity'.

- choice implies change, and time. How does a timeless 'entity' make a choice?
- it is possible for there to be nothing?


Really? Where's he been recently? Keeping low, is he?

But you 'know' you are not just imagining.

How is a living person inside of you? Nevermind, I don't need details.

So how do you avoid being lumped in with the people that know that they are Napoleon or know that they have been abducted by extraterrestrials?

Guilty as charged, I see.

All of it. Is it literal or not? Did the writers of the bible get the details right or not?

Elioenai26, am I to assume that you will not be addressing my questions?

If you would like to discuss this argument, then I am all ears.

So far you and everyone else who has attempted to refute this argument have relied upon rhetoric, sarcasm, unsubstantiated assertions, misconstruals of even the most basic of philosophical concepts, circular arguments, and an assortment of other diversions.

I suggest those of you who do desire to make a case for your views watch some of the debates between those who spend a great deal of their time engaging in these discussion. You will find that no serious and credible non-theist will ever attack the causal principle as is given in premise (i).
<snip>

This is not true. Stanford University has a detailed dismantling of the cosmological argument that dates back to 2004.

Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Elioenai26]

Elioenai26, am I to assume that you will not be addressing my questions?


This is not true. Stanford University has a detailed dismantling of the cosmological argument that dates back to 2004.

Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Dismantled indeed they have! Refuted it no they have not. Sorry Davian but most of those objections have already been treated by the posts I have supplied here.

 

[Davian]

No, I take the scientific approach. You are the one claiming that these truths are knowable. Prove it. (Since you are the one claiming that these truths can be known, you should be able to prove it).

Your cosmological argument, as you have presented it below. How can you prove that it applies before and at the instantiation of the cosmos?

Not the argument - *you*. You are working backwards through this whole thing from the conclusion, deity that you already believe to exist. This is not science (obviously, which is why it is called apologetics, lol).

As for those attributes:

- sounds like 'non-existant', unless you can describe this thing by what it is, rather than by what it isn't. You have not done so. Self-Existent? Nice try. Is not the universe self-existent?

- define what 'outside' of the universe means
- if it it outside, how does it get inside?

- why must it be? Is there any indication that the cosmos is infinite?

- what is the apparent total of energy in the universe? What if it is zero?
- it is possible for there to be nothing?

- provide details on what choices were available to this supposed deity. Perhaps there were no, or few choices. How much intelligence was needed? Show why this required a 'deity'.

- choice implies change, and time. How does a timeless 'entity' make a choice?
- it is possible for there to be nothing?


Really? Where's he been recently? Keeping low, is he?

But you 'know' you are not just imagining.

How is a living person inside of you? Nevermind, I don't need details.

So how do you avoid being lumped in with the people that know that they are Napoleon or know that they have been abducted by extraterrestrials?

Guilty as charged, I see.

All of it. Is it literal or not? Did the writers of the bible get the details right or not?

Elioenai26, am I to assume that you will not be addressing my questions?


This is not true. Stanford University has a detailed dismantling of the cosmological argument that dates back to 2004.

Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Dismantled indeed they have! Refuted it no they have not. Sorry Davian but most of those objections have already been treated by the posts I have supplied here.

By your own admission, not all.

And you have yet to address my questions.

Do you have something to show that you are peddling anything other than religion? I am not falling for your sales pitch.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If you would like to discuss this argument, then I am all ears.

So far you and everyone else who has attempted to refute this argument have relied upon rhetoric, sarcasm, unsubstantiated assertions, misconstruals of even the most basic of philosophical concepts, circular arguments, and an assortment of other diversions.

I suggest those of you who do desire to make a case for your views watch some of the debates between those who spend a great deal of their time engaging in these discussion. You will find that no serious and credible non-theist will ever attack the causal principle as is given in premise (i).

However, that is the very thing that most of you all have done here! You attack and attempt to refute something that is not at as vulnerable as you would desire for it to be.

This is evidence of a lack of understanding of the scientific method, but not only that, it is evidence of a lack of basic understanding of philosophy, which any scientist will tell you is indispensible to the discipline of science itself!

Now, having said that, let me say this:

Since this is a philosophy forum, I would expect to find that some of you have some type of rudimentary understanding of the discipline. I simply do not have the time to teach you guys philosophy 101.

So if any of you desire to provide good counter-arguments to the cosmological argument, please study, research and come prepared to discuss the matter intelligently.

Until then, the cosmological stands unrefuted as as such, is one good argument for the existence of God.

Playing dodge ball with your fingers in your ears?

You sir should be in the circus with talent like that.

Anywhere but here, since you're failing so miserably that if wrongness was a sport you'd be a gold medalist...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I believe the following video will help clear up any confusion as to why premise (i) is undeniably true.


The Absurdity of Denying the First Premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (William Lane Craig) - YouTube

I can't watch the video at the moment, but from the description I fail to see how it addresses my posts:

As odd as it may be there are some skeptics who deny that whatever begins to exist has a cause, which only forces them to think that something can come from literally nothing. This is absurd because this destroys the causal principle (and science too), and they wouldn't be able to deny that something can all of a sudden pop into existence uncaused out of nothing. In this video, William Lane Craig sets atheist Peter Slezak straight on the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.​

To reiterate, your version of the cosmological argument is not compelling primarily because it excises the concept of causality from the real world and applies it in a bizarre way to territory that it entirely unfamiliar to human experience. You want to leverage the meaning of the word for your argument while ignoring the context in which it actually finds meaning.

 

[KCfromNC]

Now you may consider typing posts and replies on a forum as "talking" to someone, but I do not.

Then why did you claim people on this forum were slandering you? You know, "defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc. "

Come on, at least try and be consistent.

 

[KCfromNC]

If my memory serves me aright, I have responded to every counter-argument you have provided.

If you can show me where I have erred in this, please do so or simply restate the counter-argument or supply a post number for reference.

257

 

[Elioenai26]

I can't watch the video at the moment, but from the description I fail to see how it addresses my posts:

As odd as it may be there are some skeptics who deny that whatever begins to exist has a cause, which only forces them to think that something can come from literally nothing. This is absurd because this destroys the causal principle (and science too), and they wouldn't be able to deny that something can all of a sudden pop into existence uncaused out of nothing. In this video, William Lane Craig sets atheist Peter Slezak straight on the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
​

To reiterate, your version of the cosmological argument is not compelling primarily because it excises the concept of causality from the real world and applies it in a bizarre way to territory that it entirely unfamiliar to human experience. You want to leverage the meaning of the word for your argument while ignoring the context in which it actually finds meaning.

So..... basically you are saying that everything that begins to exist needs a cause or an explanation for it's existence except the universe.

You are using the fallacious argument that the atheistic German philosopher Arthur Shopenhauer called the Taxi-Cab fallacy.

He remarks that the causal principle is not something you can dismiss like a hack once you've arrived at your desired destination.

Any other objections Archaeopteryx?

 

[Gadarene]

So..... basically you are saying that everything that begins to exist needs a cause or an explanation for it's existence except the universe.

You are using the fallacious argument that the atheistic German philosopher Arthur Shopenhauer called the Taxi-Cab fallacy.

He remarks that the causal principle is not something you can dismiss like a hack once you've arrived at your desired destination.

Any other objections Archaeopteryx?

Er...no, he's basically claiming you're committing an equivocation fallacy on "causality".

 

[The Engineer]

So..... basically you are saying that everything that begins to exist needs a cause or an explanation for it's existence except the universe.

He didn't say that. At all.

Your objection to Archaeopteryx argument (you got the argument wrong, but that's another issue) can be applied to God, too. Why do you assume that everything that begins to exist needs a cause, except God?

You are using the fallacious argument that the atheistic German philosopher Arthur Shopenhauer called the Taxi-Cab fallacy.

Good joke! Arthur Schopenhauer was born in 1788, so he didn't even know what a taxi was. You might want to check your sources again.

By the way, the Taxi-Cab fallacy doesn't even have a Wikipedia entry, which is why I suggest you explain what it is, as it doesn't seem to be so well-known.

 

[Gadarene]

He didn't say that. At all.

Your objection to Archaeopteryx argument (you got the argument wrong, but that's another issue) can be applied to God, too. Why do you assume that everything that begins to exist needs a cause, except God?

.....because God didn't begin to exist, I suspect.

Good joke! Arthur Schopenhauer was born in 1788, so he didn't even know what a taxi was. You might want to check your sources again.

The name may be a later addition, the fallacy seems somewhat reasonable, but limited.

A counterexample I saw during my last few minutes of googling would be making a claim about Mt Doom that is internally consistent with respect to the LoTR canon, but to show whether or not the argument is SOUND, one has to naturally go outside the LoTR canon, so it is perfectly reasonable to move outside of one particular means of argumentation once you've hit its limits.

It's also pretty obvious that this is just another Craigian knee-jerk regurgitated response to a question that as always doesn't really deal with the topic nearly as much as the fanboys think it does.

Of course, this is all entirely irrelevant, as Elioenai strawmanned Archaeopteryx's argument.

Edit: Interestingly, the only place I've seen this fallacy mentioned is on pro-Craig sites, which is enough to set my nonsense-detectors going.

 

[quatona]

[..] that the atheistic German philosopher Arthur Shopenhauer called the Taxi-Cab fallacy.

ROTFL