Ask God for Me

[2PhiloVoid]

Here is a definition from Fallacies | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Special pleading is a form of inconsistency in which the reasoner doesn’t apply his or her principles consistently. It is the fallacy of applying a general principle to various situations but not applying it to a special situation that interests the arguer even though the general principle properly applies to that special situation, too.

Example:

Everyone has a duty to help the police do their job, no matter who the suspect is. That is why we must support investigations into corruption in the police department. No person is above the law. Of course, if the police come knocking on my door to ask about my neighbors and the robberies in our building, I know nothing. I’m not about to rat on anybody.

In our example, the principle of helping the police is applied to investigations of police officers but not to one’s neighbors.

How is this not what you are doing with god as being uncaused but everything else is caused? Maybe you are right but you need to explain why you are right. Your previous justification of god being defined as uncaused is not sufficient. That seems like it fits the definition above.

In short, the problem here is with the initial semantic and conceptual analysis that some skeptics (and a few Christians) are attempting to apply. There are several conceptual complications with comparing the biblical idea of God with that of the material universe, and hence the whole notion of causality separately entailed in the comparative conceptual schemas between God, on the one hand, and the material universe, on the other, may not be assumed to simply and directly transfer and apply in any comprehensive fashion. And I think it doesn't transfer and apply for the following reasons:

The first complication is that the term "everything" is a vague term.

The second complication is that when we use the "term" everything, we don't really have a comprehensive list of what everything should refer to. "Everything" is vague; it can also be ambiguously used and argued over.

So, do we mean by everything "ALL" of that which is humanly experienced? Or do we mean everything which human beings can conceptualize and fabricate within their little rational heads? Or do we mean to assume that the term everything essentially refers to the material universe and all things within it, even within the context of physics

The third complication is that we as human beings don't actually know that "everything" that could exist, whether inside or outside of the space-time continuum as we understand it presently, has always been in existence.

The fourth complication is that the term "God" as Christians use it is specifically a Jewish term, different in quality and exacting attributes from those of other ancient religions; it is one that has taken its definitional proportions from within the scope of ancient Jewish thought lines and religious conceptions.

The fifth complication is that the term "God" as it is biblically conceptualized in Christian theology isn't bound in all aspects to human experiment or experience. So, assumptions about how God could or should be handled conceptually, one way or another, are biblically contextualized and ARE NOT analagous in quality, scope or epistemic structure to those involved in the the concept of the material universe.

So, no, it's not special pleading to say that the biblical idea of God is "different" in conceptual and epistemic essence and that it is not subject to the same causal references when held up along side the idea of the material universe which draws it conceptions from 'outside' of the referential scheme of the bible.

If there's special pleading going on here, it might be that there is special pleading on the part of skeptics in their use and application of special pleading as a citable fallacy... mainly WHEN they attempt to apply it to the biblical idea of God while referencing the epistemological notions typically at play within their handling of the idea of the material universe.

Name calling. huh.

Only when the shoe fits. At the moment, and since I can see that you at least made an effort to find a definitional source and you posted it (even though I'd prefer to see several sources), I guess I can admit that the term "troll" might not exactly have a Cinderella fit on you. But I'll be keeping my eye on you ...

 

[Oncedeceived]

Here is a definition from Fallacies | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Special pleading is a form of inconsistency in which the reasoner doesn’t apply his or her principles consistently. It is the fallacy of applying a general principle to various situations but not applying it to a special situation that interests the arguer even though the general principle properly applies to that special situation, too.

1. The Biblical narrative on God is that He is not a created Being. That is consistent within the worldview of Christianity.
2. God is not a material Being.
3. The universe is a material object.
4. Non-Material vs. Material means the situation can not be applied equally.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In short, the problem here is with the initial semantic and conceptual analysis. There are several conceptual complications with comparing the biblical idea of God with that of the material universe, and hence the whole notion of causality separately entailed in the comparative conceptual schemas between God, on the one hand, and the material universe, on the other, may not be assumed to simply and directly transfer and apply in any comprehensive fashion. And I think it doesn't for the following reasons:

The first complication is that the term "everything" is a vague term.

The second complication is that when we use the "term" everything, we don't really have a comprehensive list of what everything should refer to. "Everything" is vague; it can also be ambiguously used and argued over.

So, do we mean by everything ALL of that which is humanly experienced? Or do we mean everything which human beings can conceptualize and fabricate within their little rational heads? Or do we mean to assume that the term everything essentially refers to the material universe and all things within it, even within the context of physics

The third complication is that we as human beings don't actually know that "everything" that could exist, whether inside or outside of the space-time continuum as we understand it presently, has always been in existence.

The fourth complication is that the term "God" as Christians use it is specifically a Jewish term, different in quality and exacting attributes from those of other ancient religions; it is one that has taken its definitional proportions from within the scope of ancient Jewish thought lines and religious conceptions.

The fifth complication is that the term "God" as it is biblically conceptualized in Christian theology isn't bound in all aspects to human experiment or experience. So, assumptions about how God could or should be handled conceptually, one way or another, are biblically contextualized and ARE NOT analagous in quality, scope or epistemic structure to those involved in the the concept of the material universe.

So, no, it's not special pleading to say that the biblical idea of God is "different" in conceptual and epistemic essence and that it is not subject to the same causal references when held up along side the idea of the material universe which draws it conceptions from 'outside' of the referential scheme of the bible.

If there's special pleading going on here, it might be that there is special pleading on the part of skeptics in their use and application of special pleading as a citable fallacy... mainly WHEN they attempt to apply it to the biblical idea of God while referencing the epistemological notions typically at play within their handling of the idea of the material universe.

Only when the shoe fits. At the moment, and since I can see that you at least made an effort to find a definitional source and you posted it (even though I'd prefer to see several sources), I guess I can admit that the term "troll" might not exactly have a Cinderella fit on you. But I'll be keeping my eye on you ...

So much more eloquent and articulate than my response. I tried to use an emoji but my computer loses my reply and I have to start over for some reason. I would have liked to use a grumpy face emoji.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So much more eloquent and articulate than my response. I tried to use an emoji but my computer loses my reply and I have to start over for some reason. I would have liked to use a grumpy face emoji.

.... Lol! Well, I personally wouldn't call my effort above eloquent. It's a short shrift articulation spit out in the matter of 20 minutes. It needs a lot of syntactical work---likes tons of it---but it's what I can do on short notice and when pressed for time. ... but thanks for the compliment, Sis!

 

[Oncedeceived]

.... Lol! Well, I personally wouldn't call my effort above eloquent. It's a short shrift articulation spit out in the matter of 20 minutes. It needs a lot of syntactical work---likes tons of it---but it's what I can do on short notice and when pressed for time. ... but thanks for the compliment, Sis!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

In short, the problem here is with the initial semantic and conceptual analysis that some skeptics (and a few Christians) are attempting to apply. There are several conceptual complications with comparing the biblical idea of God with that of the material universe, and hence the whole notion of causality separately entailed in the comparative conceptual schemas between God, on the one hand, and the material universe, on the other, may not be assumed to simply and directly transfer and apply in any comprehensive fashion. And I think it doesn't transfer and apply for the following reasons:

The first complication is that the term "everything" is a vague term.

The second complication is that when we use the "term" everything, we don't really have a comprehensive list of what everything should refer to. "Everything" is vague; it can also be ambiguously used and argued over.

So, do we mean by everything "ALL" of that which is humanly experienced? Or do we mean everything which human beings can conceptualize and fabricate within their little rational heads? Or do we mean to assume that the term everything essentially refers to the material universe and all things within it, even within the context of physics

I would say everything means everything that actually exists whether we know it exists or not.

The third complication is that we as human beings don't actually know that "everything" that could exist, whether inside or outside of the space-time continuum as we understand it presently, has always been in existence.

I agree.

The fourth complication is that the term "God" as Christians use it is specifically a Jewish term, different in quality and exacting attributes from those of other ancient religions; it is one that has taken its definitional proportions from within the scope of ancient Jewish thought lines and religious conceptions.

Yes everyone has their own concept of god.

The fifth complication is that the term "God" as it is biblically conceptualized in Christian theology isn't bound in all aspects to human experiment or experience. So, assumptions about how God could or should be handled conceptually, one way or another, are biblically contextualized and ARE NOT analagous in quality, scope or epistemic structure to those involved in the the concept of the material universe.

So, no, it's not special pleading to say that the biblical idea of God is "different" in conceptual and epistemic essence and that it is not subject to the same causal references when held up along side the idea of the material universe which draws it conceptions from 'outside' of the referential scheme of the bible.

This is the definition of special pleading. You want the rule that everything that exists has a cause except for my idea of God because it is immaterial. That is a special reason without sufficient warrant to apply to everything but not your god.

If there's special pleading going on here, it might be that there is special pleading on the part of skeptics in their use and application of special pleading as a citable fallacy... mainly WHEN they attempt to apply it to the biblical idea of God while referencing the epistemological notions typically at play within their handling of the idea of the material universe.

This is nonsense.

In summary you want the rule that everything has a cause to not apply to your god because of a special reason. I am not buying your reason that it does not apply just because god is immaterial. In the end that is just an assertion and a reason not supported.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

1. The Biblical narrative on God is that He is not a created Being. That is consistent within the worldview of Christianity.
2. God is not a material Being.
3. The universe is a material object.
4. Non-Material vs. Material means the situation can not be applied equally.

The non material reason is a special reason you are just asserting to avoid the logical conclusion that god must have a cause. That is special pleading.

Why is #4 true?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I would say everything means everything that actually exists whether we know it exists or not.

How very arbitrary of you to do so.

I agree.

If you agree, then you'll condition the statement you made just above ...

Yes everyone has their own concept of god.

What? That response doesn't fit the comment I made. The right response would be ... something other than the one you've given.

This is the definition of special pleading. You want the rule that everything that exists has a cause except for my idea of God because it is immaterial. That is a special reason without sufficient warrant to apply to everything but not your god.

This is nonsense.

In summary you want the rule that everything has a cause to not apply to your god because of a special reason. I am not buying your reason that it does not apply just because god is immaterial. In the end that is just an assertion and a reason not supported.

It sounds like both of us won't budge here. I guess we're just going to have to recognize that we're going to have an interminable stalemate, probably because we disagree on 75% of what makes epistemology work. I guess we're talking different conceptual languages to each other and there's no translator ...

So with that, have peace and prosper! Just don't make it your aim to come in here on CF and upset anyone else's Christian faith. If you can refrain from doing that, then we're good I guess.

 

[Kylie]

I had to look up John Frum ..it's quite a fascinating story, I couldn't help but think how quirky we are as humans and how that would have made a great Herzog documentary.

Very true.

I used John Frum as an example of how a completely unreal person could come about in a very short time. I suspect that a similar thing could have happened in the early years of Christianity regarding Jesus.

 

[Kylie]

I already did (by analogy, one that a 1st grader would understand). Or do you not know the conceptual differences between a baseball and an orange? And do you not know already what Analytic Philosophy is and does?

In the same way, by prior definition and conception, we know we're NOT dealing with two parallel concepts when we compare the "universe" with "biblical God."

When any of us impute the conceptual necessity that "nothing comes about without a cause," what we MEAN IS that nothing we are familiar with, within usual material terms on a human scale [i.e. "within the universe"], comes into being without a cause, not just ANYTHING OR ANY CONCEPT.

Definitionally, God is a concept already different and outside of this necessity of causality. So, the biblical God is off the table and it's NOT SPECIAL PLEADING TO SAY THAT GOD DOESN'T HAVE A CAUSE. It's true by definition (even if it's not true by empirical analysis--of course, then again, how would we put God into a test-tube for experimental analysis anyway? We can't !!!).

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Analytic_philosophy

So you're just defining and conceiving God to be the way you want him in order to make the point you want to make?

 

[Kylie]

Kylie, perhaps you might not get it, you seem to think that only Kylie understand anything.

No, not at all.

It's just that I'm pointing out how you seem to have made a mistake, and your responses have not shown that you can show that my interpretation is wrong.

Kylie, I never claimed you said it. Again, someone else's fault for 'not getting it'.

You made it very clear that you though that's what I thought.

Once again, only you can understand. Is it hard being the only intelligent being on planet Earth?

I'm asking you to demonstrate that you actually understand the concept. I don't see how that's unreasonable. And yet you do nothing to show any understanding on your part. And now, instead of actually showing me that you understand what "begging the question" means, are seem to be getting all up in a huff.

Kylie, this is rather crazy.
https://letterstonature.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/cv_publ_barnes1.pdf

Okay, so there are lots more papers. I could only find the two. In any case, none of his qualifications are in biology. He has three degrees, all in astronomy and physics.

The book he wrote about the fine tuning of the universe is a philosophy book, not a science book (SOURCE), and of course, books are not peer reviewed. None of his peer reviewed articles have been on this alleged fine tuning.

My computer is wacked. It has been having problems. I try to post my responses and it won't post reply, I have to hit refresh. Its been quite a problem.

Hope you can get it fixed.

That was my point Kylie. I lived the event "at the time" but didn't write about it until much later...same as the authors of the NT.

Yet the source is not contemporary. And writing after the fact, even if the author was there, does not make it a reliable source. Twenty five years ago, there were the Sarin gas attacks on the Tokyo subway. Even if you had followed the story closely at the time, would you be able to write an accurate account of it today?

In fact, there is evidence like I said, that they wrote it down earlier than when it was compiled.

You haven't showed this evidence.

Your assumption is not in evidence.

I don't need to assume it. I know it can be done. I've done it myself. I've done it in this thread.

Yes! I do. The culture is most important in both cases.

And yet you don't believe that the John Frum belief is valid, do you?

Kylie, I would like you to explain why you come here. Spending seven years discussing something that you don't even believe exists, seems strange to me.

Why shouldn't I come here?

Besides, there are creationists who spend years arguing against evolution. If you really thought that people had no reason to discuss something they don't believe in, then surely you'd be asking them as well.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

It sounds like both of us won't budge here. I guess we're just going to have to recognize that we're going to have an interminable stalemate, probably because we disagree on 75% of what makes epistemology work. I guess we're talking different conceptual languages to each other and there's no translator ...

No, you just need to give a sufficient reason why god not being caused is valid when every other case has a cause. You have not shown why being immaterial makes sense. But I cannot make you respond.

So with that, have peace and prosper! Just don't make it your aim to come in here on CF and upset anyone else's Christian faith. If you can refrain from doing that, then we're good I guess.

Do you not think fellow adult Christians here can think for themselves? Well I do. Do you need to somehow shield them from thinking?

Asking questions and challenging others beliefs is what we should be doing about our own beliefs. No one here has to talk to me and no one should fear the truth.

 

[gentlejah]

Of course you are here to cause trouble, you are A CAT!!!

I am still praying for you though and it could just be for selfish reasons but I want to see you canonized.

St Francis of Assisi, St John of the Cross, St Therese of Lisieux, St Louis de Montfort....St.Clizby WampusCat! awesome

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So you're just defining and conceiving God to be the way you want him in order to make the point you want to make?

Uh...............that's not what I thought I was doing, on the whole. Maybe see my post to Clizby above (#1741).

If I'm trying (as we all should) to understand an essentially JEWISHLY derived concept of God, which is what this whole enterprise in C.F. is about, and not just some generic philosophical concept of God than any 5 year old might conceive of, then it definitely goes, even without saying, that the concept of God that's at play in my own head ISN'T------------------------i REPEAT, ISN'T.................................ONE OF MY OWN PURE DEVISING! And iT SHOULDN'T BE YOURS, EITHER!

So, don't attempt to redefine my position as being somehow one that is purely relative, made up by the daily whimsy of my own imagination, as if I made it up myself. I'm not going to play that semantic game with you, Kylie!

You're not going to win this. Of course, I'm not going to 'win' any of this either, but just so long that I know you're not going to win, I'm happy, Mrs. "Defeater of Illogic."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, you just need to give a sufficient reason why god not being caused is valid when every other case has a cause. You have not shown why being immaterial makes sense. But I cannot make you respond.

Earlier, you accused me of producing "non-sense," but buddy, now you're tripping trough the non-sensical gutter.

Have you ever cracked open a text book on Logic? I'm beginning to wonder .......

Ok. Here's what is happening: analytically speaking, for us to make definitive evaluations about the applications of causality, we have to know what each concept we're using and comparing actually 'is,' and if we don't know what each concept we're trying to use specifically 'is' or as to 'how' it applies in any given scheme of analysis, then we can't say we understand what or how our concept actually refers to anything in Reality, a reality that is bigger than our articulated truths.

The point here is NOT to prove that God exists; the point here is to clarify what we talking about so as to understand whether or not given explanations might indeed provide an exception to some principle that someone thinks he or she will apply (or use) UNIVERSALLY. It may very well be that, as I said before, attempting to claim that it is "special pleading" by Christians to exempt the immaterial conception of God we find in a mainly Jewish Bible when speaking about causality is, itself, a form of "special pleading" on the part of atheists.

I can only imagine that atheists want to hold onto the idea that Christians are guilty of special pleading because if it turns out that Christians are NOT guilty of special pleading, well, that might mean there's a snafu that has to be contended with by the atheists in their desire to procure their own political agenda(s).

Do you not think fellow adult Christians here can think for themselves? Well I do. Do you need to somehow shield them from thinking?

If folks can "think for themselves" in the fullest sense, then what need is there for the institutions of education? So, no, I don't think everyone is good at thinking for themselves. If I did, I wouldn't have gotten a degree in education.

As far as I can see, a lot of people can think "for themselves," and that's a good thing. Unfortunately, there's a lot more who only think "by themselves," and thinking 'by' one's self may sound like the same thing, but it really isn't. It's a kind of solipsism and aloofness from being better educated.

Asking questions and challenging others beliefs is what we should be doing about our own beliefs.

What? ... challenging others is what we should be doing about "OUR" own beliefs? I'm not sure I understand the syntax here? Shouldn't your statement rather say, "Asking questions and challenging my OWN beliefs is what I should be doing about my OWN beliefs."

The way you put it, it sounds like you're here to "clean up" everyone else's mess, which, when I say it that way, it sounds like there may be an obscure agenda being acted upon on your part. And of course, I'd have to ask: Is there an agenda on your part?

And guess what? If you have even an inkling or a shred of an agenda here, I won't stand for that! Not ... one......iota! NOT ONE!

No one here has to talk to me and no one should fear the truth.

Of course no one has to talk to you, but then you say no one should fear the truth. So, obscurely, it sounds like what you're really saying is that you'd very much like it if everyone here just shut their traps and listened to you, unilaterally.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, not at all.

It's just that I'm pointing out how you seem to have made a mistake, and your responses have not shown that you can show that my interpretation is wrong.

Your interpretation is wrong on special pleading.

You made it very clear that you though that's what I thought.

I never said you said it.

I'm asking you to demonstrate that you actually understand the concept. I don't see how that's unreasonable. And yet you do nothing to show any understanding on your part. And now, instead of actually showing me that you understand what "begging the question" means, are seem to be getting all up in a huff.

I understand the meaning. For goodness sake, if you are on a forum, you know what begging the question is.




Okay, so there are lots more papers. I could only find the two. In any case, none of his qualifications are in biology. He has three degrees, all in astronomy and physics.

The book he wrote about the fine tuning of the universe is a philosophy book, not a science book (SOURCE), and of course, books are not peer reviewed. None of his peer reviewed articles have been on this alleged fine tuning.

Check again.

Hope you can get it fixed.

Not likely. Probably a new one is necessary.

Yet the source is not contemporary. And writing after the fact, even if the author was there, does not make it a reliable source. Twenty five years ago, there were the Sarin gas attacks on the Tokyo subway. Even if you had followed the story closely at the time, would you be able to write an accurate account of it today?

No. I wasn't there! Someone that was and gassed would be most certainly able to write an accurate account of it.



You haven't showed this evidence.

I don't need to assume it. I know it can be done. I've done it myself. I've done it in this thread.

That doesn't mean he did.

And yet you don't believe that the John Frum belief is valid, do you?

Culture.

Why shouldn't I come here?

I didn't say you shouldn't I asked why you did.

Besides, there are creationists who spend years arguing against evolution. If you really thought that people had no reason to discuss something they don't believe in, then surely you'd be asking them as well.

You don't have to be defensive. I just asked.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Of course you are here to cause trouble, you are A CAT!!!

I am offended being called a cat, they are aweful. I am a wampuscat!

I am still praying for you though and it could just be for selfish reasons but I want to see you canonized.

St Francis of Assisi, St John of the Cross, St Therese of Lisieux, St Louis de Montfort....St.Clizby WampusCat! awesome

Ok, we will see. I guess I better start documenting my miracles.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am offended being called a cat, they are aweful. I am a wampuscat!

I should have looked up 'Wampus Cat' earlier ...

10 Mythical American Monsters

Wampus cat - Wikipedia

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Earlier, you accused me of producing "non-sense," but buddy, now you're tripping trough the non-sensical gutter.

More accusations without support. You bowed out of the last discussion remember?

Have you ever cracked open a text book on Logic? I'm beginning to wonder .......

Oh my goodness.

Ok. Here's what is happening: analytically speaking, for us to make definitive evaluations about the various concepts we're attempting to clarify, we have to know what each concept actually 'is,' and if we don't know what each concept we're trying to use specifically 'is' or as to 'how' it applies in any given scheme of analysis, then we can't say we understand what or how our concept actually refers to anything in Reality, a reality that is bigger than our articulated truths.

It does not matter what your concept of god is to apply the special pleading fallacy. Also, I am not interested in talking about your concept of god if you cannot demonstrate that god exists.

The point here is NOT to prove that God exists;

Yes, you are very good at this.

the point here is to clarify what we talking about so as to understand whether or not given explanations might indeed provide an exception to some principle that someone thinks he or she will apply (or use) UNIVERSALLY. It may very well be that, as I said before, attempting to claim that it is "special pleading" by Christians to exempt the immaterial conception of God we find in a mainly Jewish Bible when speaking about causality is, itself, a form of "special pleading" on the part of atheists.

Can you show this?

I can only imagine that atheists want to hold onto the idea that Christians are guilty of special pleading because if it turns out that Christians are NOT guilty of special pleading, well, that might mean there's a snafu that has to be contended with by the atheists in their desire to procure their own political agenda(s).

Please don't lump me in with all atheists like we are all of the same mind. If you are not guilty of special pleading that gets you no closer to demonstrating that a god exists. I think it is special pleading because I think it is special pleading I have no dishonest agenda.

If folks can "think for themselves" in the fullest sense, then what need is there for the institutions of education? So, no, I don't think everyone is good at thinking for themselves. If I did, I wouldn't have gotten a degree in education.

Thinking for themselves and learning for themselves are different. I can think for myself but I could not learn evolution by myself. I need books and people that can teach it to me. Thinking for yourself means to evaluate the evidence and not just believe what someone else says. Everyone can do that if they want to.

As far as I can see, a lot of people can think "for themselves," and that's a good thing. Unfortunately, there's a lot more who only think "by themselves," and thinking 'by' one's self may sound like the same thing, it really isn't.

I agree.

What? ... challenging others is what we should be doing about "OUR" own beliefs? I'm not sure I understand the syntax here? Shouldn't your statement rather say, "Asking questions and challenging my OWN beliefs is what I should be doing about my OWN beliefs."

I think you know what I meant. We should challenge what we believe to make sure it stands up.

The way you put it, it sounds like you're here to "clean up" everyone else's mess, which, when I say it that way, it sounds like there may be an obscure agenda being acted upon on your part. And of course, I'd have to ask: Is there an agenda on your part?

This is not what I meant and I think you knew that.

And guess what? If you have even an inkling or a shred of an agenda here, I won't stand for that! Not ... one......iota! NOT ONE!

Everyone has an agenda or reasons for being here. So yes I have an agenda, so what are you going to do about it?

Of course no one has to talk to you, but then you say no one should fear the truth. So, obscurely, it sounds like what you're really saying is that you'd very much like it if everyone here just shut their traps and listened to you, unilaterally.

No, you just want to fight. You know that is not what I was saying.