Debunking Scientism - Tricks New Atheists Play (Part 6)

Uber Genius · Sep 17, 2018

Silmarien said:
The Principle of Sufficient Reason and modal collapse is an issue for theism that I find particularly interesting. If all things that come into being have a reason for their existence, and the ultimate reason is God, then if God has the choice between our universe (A) and an alternative universe (B), why did God choose A instead of B? Either there is no reason, and the Principle of Sufficient Reason is false, or there is something about A that made it the optimal choice, and the possibility that our universe could exist collapses into the necessity that it would exist, leaving us effectively at Spinoza.

Craig is suggesting that he does not use, nor do Davis, Wright, or Hale us the strong version of PSR that Van Inwagen inveighs against.

My understanding of the PSR is that we can intuit that a necessary being is required as an explanation of a series of contingent facts. Inwagen is suggesting that necessary beings produce necessary facts not contingent ones so in a sense cannot be used for explaining contingent facts. I don't see why God doesn't possess the agency to choose to create various worlds. So Inwagen's premise constraining a eternal separation between contingent facts and necessary causes seem counter-intuitive.

Nevertheless

1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence. (from 1, 3)
5. Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God. (from 2, 4)

About 1, Craig states, that he holds to a weaker view than Leibniz (who held every fact must have an explanation). Quoting from Craig's book in, "Reasonable Faith," Craig states he, “merely requires any existing thing to have an explanation of its existence. This premise is compatible with there being brute facts about the world” (p. 107). He goes on to claim, "My version of the Principle denies that there are beings which exist without any explanation. That’s all I need for the argument to go through."

I don't let people drag me into the weeds by forcing me to use the stronger PSR.

Secondly, it is PSR that is central to much scientific inquiry and discovery. Often people will use the PSR, informally, unwittingly, and ironically, to try and defeat my premise about PSR. (Not implying you are doing that here).

So to Inwagen's complaint I am saying of course there are brute facts. The point is that I don't need an account of every contingent fact to suggest that whatever exists needs an explanation.

I claim that the weaker version ("existing things" not "all facts") is self-evidently true.

For more see: http://alexanderpruss.com/papers/LCA.html

Uber Genius · Sep 17, 2018

Silmarien said:
None of them conceive of God as an object that exists in the same sense that physical objects or even concepts might.

This hardly seems equivalent to, "Theism isn't really a claim of existence, though, at least for anyone who is theologically literate."

Anselm's argument for "The Existence of God."
https://www.uky.edu/~look/AnselmAquinasPascal.pdf

Here the internet encyclopedia of philosophy helps us understand the definition of natural theology as:

"Natural theology is a program of inquiry into the existence and attributes of God without referring or appealing to any divine revelation. In natural theology, one asks what the word “God” means, whether and how names can be applied to God, whether God exists, whether God knows the future free choices of creatures, and so forth. The aim is to answer those questions without using any claims drawn from any sacred texts or divine revelation, even though one may hold such claims."

https://www.iep.utm.edu/theo-nat/
Plato (427 – 347 B.C.E.) in his well-known “Allegory of the Cave” ...The form of the Good is the cause of all being and all knowledge (the first principle).Although Plato himself does not identify the form of the Good as God, later thinkers surely did.
Aristotle (384 – 322 B.C.E.) offers arguments for the existence of God (a God beyond the gods so to speak).
Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius (480 – 524) presented an elaborate account of God’s existence, attributes, and providence.

For Aquinas, there are two sorts of truths about God:

“There is a twofold mode of truth in what we profess about God. Some truths about God exceed all the ability of human reason. Such is the truth that God is triune. But there are some truths which the natural reason also is able to reach. Such are the truth that God exists, that he is one, and the like. In fact, such truths about God have been proved demonstratively by the philosophers, guided by the light of natural reason.” (SCG I, ch.3, n.2)

So while natural theology covers those things that can be known about God including what that term means, it also has included arguments for God's existence.

Nihilist Virus · Sep 17, 2018

2PhiloVoid said:
Ok. Well...................that's that, then. I must be a liar or a delusional person, according to you. So, what's more there for me to say since you're not going to take anything I say as being representative of the reality which I think I've lived, breathed, and thought. Apparently, you have the insight to interpret "me" better than I can myself.

Of course, I also notice that you so nicely 'framed' YOUR mini-bio info (that regarding you and your family), and I suppose that in your case, I'm supposed to take all you've shared as being fully and accurately representative of the reality you think you've lived, breathed and thought. It's funny how this doesn't work both ways, NV. You apparently know me AND you know you, but according to you, I don't know me AND I don't know you. Hmmm...

And as for your tirade against Ben Shapiro, that doesn't upset me. I'm neither Red nor Blue, but Transcendent-Purple, so I don't lean toward either Ben Shapiro OR Chuck Todd, so calculate that into the perception you have of me.

Liar or delusional? Clearly you didn't read the post. I went into explicit detail in my Snickers candy bar analogy explaining why you're probably neither.

Any time you want to take your foot out of our mouth works for me. I'm sure a Snickers would tatse better.

Silmarien · Sep 18, 2018

Uber Genius said:
Craig is suggesting that he does not use, nor do Davis, Wright, or Hale us the strong version of PSR that Van Inwagen inveighs against.

My understanding of the PSR is that we can intuit that a necessary being is required as an explanation of a series of contingent facts. Inwagen is suggesting that necessary beings produce necessary facts not contingent ones so in a sense cannot be used for explaining contingent facts. I don't see why God doesn't possess the agency to choose to create various worlds. So Inwagen's premise constraining a eternal separation between contingent facts and necessary causes seem counter-intuitive.

Nevertheless

1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence. (from 1, 3)
5. Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God. (from 2, 4)

About 1, Craig states, that he holds to a weaker view than Leibniz (who held every fact must have an explanation). Quoting from Craig's book in, "Reasonable Faith," Craig states he, “merely requires any existing thing to have an explanation of its existence. This premise is compatible with there being brute facts about the world” (p. 107). He goes on to claim, "My version of the Principle denies that there are beings which exist without any explanation. That’s all I need for the argument to go through."

I don't let people drag me into the weeds by forcing me to use the stronger PSR.

Secondly, it is PSR that is central to much scientific inquiry and discovery. Often people will use the PSR, informally, unwittingly, and ironically, to try and defeat my premise about PSR. (Not implying you are doing that here).

So to Inwagen's complaint I am saying of course there are brute facts. The point is that I don't need an account of every contingent fact to suggest that whatever exists needs an explanation.

I claim that the weaker version ("existing things" not "all facts") is self-evidently true.

For more see: http://alexanderpruss.com/papers/LCA.html

Yes, I didn't say that it works, only that it is an interesting argument. There are lots of theological arguments and counterargument that make you think more clearly about the subject matter, and Inwagen's is one of them. I would say that it knocks the question of determinism vs. libertarianism to the divine level.

Uber Genius said:
This hardly seems equivalent to, "Theism isn't really a claim of existence, though, at least for anyone who is theologically literate."

Anselm's argument for "The Existence of God."
https://www.uky.edu/~look/AnselmAquinasPascal.pdf

Here the internet encyclopedia of philosophy helps us understand the definition of natural theology as:

"Natural theology is a program of inquiry into the existence and attributes of God without referring or appealing to any divine revelation. In natural theology, one asks what the word “God” means, whether and how names can be applied to God, whether God exists, whether God knows the future free choices of creatures, and so forth. The aim is to answer those questions without using any claims drawn from any sacred texts or divine revelation, even though one may hold such claims."

https://www.iep.utm.edu/theo-nat/
Plato (427 – 347 B.C.E.) in his well-known “Allegory of the Cave” ...The form of the Good is the cause of all being and all knowledge (the first principle).Although Plato himself does not identify the form of the Good as God, later thinkers surely did.
Aristotle (384 – 322 B.C.E.) offers arguments for the existence of God (a God beyond the gods so to speak).
Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius (480 – 524) presented an elaborate account of God’s existence, attributes, and providence.

For Aquinas, there are two sorts of truths about God:

“There is a twofold mode of truth in what we profess about God. Some truths about God exceed all the ability of human reason. Such is the truth that God is triune. But there are some truths which the natural reason also is able to reach. Such are the truth that God exists, that he is one, and the like. In fact, such truths about God have been proved demonstratively by the philosophers, guided by the light of natural reason.” (SCG I, ch.3, n.2)

So while natural theology covers those things that can be known about God including what that term means, it also has included arguments for God's existence.

My point was that it's a claim about existence, not claim that something in particular exists. We're dealing with ontology and the question of what Being really is, not unicorns and aliens.

joinfree · Sep 18, 2018

Uber Genius said:
God is all-powerful, God is all-loving, there is evil and suffering in the world.

Two of the three premises could be true but it is hard to see how all three could be true.

If he is all loving he wouldn't want people to suffer and if he is all-powerful he would be able to prevent suffering.

Secondly, It seems that the same argument can be run for the problem of Hell.

Replace "Evil and Suffering" with "a Hell" in the third statement above.

These would be the principle 2 arguments in favor of atheism. Other arguments would be counter-arguments to the various cosmological, teleological, moral, transcendent arguments for God's existence.

DEFINITION:
A thing exists, if it comes from God. The pain comes from satan. So, the pain is problem, but the pain is not real.

Hawkins · Sep 19, 2018

Spikey said:
But children are not being brainwashed into thinking that a non belief in unicorns can lead to eternal torture. What about our obligation to support rational relevant learning?

This is actually where the atheist trick is. God is from human accounts of testimonies, while there's no human accounts of testimonies for unicorns. Equating the two is one of the biggest but fallacious trick atheists play most often!

gaara4158 · Sep 19, 2018

Hawkins said:
This is actually where the atheist trick is. God is from human accounts of testimonies, while there's no human accounts of testimonies for unicorns. Equating the two is one of the biggest but fallacious trick atheists play most often!

Of course there are. But if you don’t like unicorns, try alien abductions.

2PhiloVoid · Sep 19, 2018

Nihilist Virus said:
Liar or delusional? Clearly you didn't read the post. I went into explicit detail in my Snickers candy bar analogy explaining why you're probably neither.

Any time you want to take your foot out of our mouth works for me. I'm sure a Snickers would tatse better.

I thought I was wearing Snickers on my feet. I'm so confused ... trying to keep up with all the atheistic jargon and other duplicitous terminology is exhausting and disorienting......................

Hawkins · Sep 19, 2018

gaara4158 said:
Of course there are. But if you don’t like unicorns, try alien abductions.

You are getting closer to the point. It all boils down to how credible those accounts of testimonies are. God can have a clear motive and all the ability to hide behind humans. While aliens don't seem to have such a motive and ability. God and spiritual entities are said to exist in another realm while aliens are inside our space. It means you have a much better chance to encounter aliens and you can assume their absence if by far no credible account of testimonies being recorded.

God on the other hand, relies only on chosen prophets to be His eyewitnesses such that the rest of humankind will have to rely on faith to be saved. So there's still a big difference between God and aliens. They are still apples and oranges.

A capable God has all the ability to hide Himself such that humans need faith to be saved in accordance to what is specified in a covenant. Human authorities don't have the ability to confirm His existence. Aliens on the other hand, can be assumed as don't exist before a human authority such as a government, NASA or CNN make a confirmation. It lies a big difference. Equating God to aliens is still fallacious.

Uber Genius · Sep 19, 2018

joinfree said:
DEFINITION:
A thing exists, if it comes from God. The pain comes from satan. So, the pain is problem, but the pain is not real.

This seems to be false. Abstract objects like numbers exist necessarily and it is hard to imaging God creating a world where 2 +2 = 5

Further we can describe pain as caused by something but to say it doesn't exist because of its secondary causal rank seems strange. I can't make anything out of the Satan comment.

But would like to return to epistemology rather than ontology. Do you run into people who claim that the only meaningful claims are scientific claims?

Do you use similar methods as described in the OP to disabuse them of their folly?

Uber Genius · Sep 19, 2018

Silmarien said:
ter, and Inwagen's is one of them. I would say that it knocks the question of determinism vs. libertarianism

Yes. Inwagen assumes a deistic deterministic cause that is wholly unrelated to the God of Judeo-Christian or Islam.

That is why it is a strawman in my opinion. This is not the point of Liebniz or Plantinga's or Pruss, et al. but in either case when one moves from "facts" to "existing things" the Inwagen objection to PRS loses its force.

Silmarien said:
My point was that it's a claim about existence, not claim that something in particular exists. We're dealing with ontology and the question of what Being really is, not unicorns and aliens.

So here the OP was focused on evangelistic endeavors. Discussions between theists and non-theists regarding mere existence rather than the underlying nature of God. That discussion happens in a theology-proper class. Usually in seminary. Ocassionally in philosophy when examining the enlightenment views of God.

So I'm thinking of the types of discussions one has over a beer and a cigar by the campfire when your friend says, "Do you beleive there's a God?"

This scientism can rear its ugly head and destroy any possibility of answering the first question before anyone could get around to asking the question, "Could you describe/defend your view of God's nature?"

Does God exists.

Then

What is God's nature.

It seems that scientism falsely rejects the first order question so if we don't deal with it there we will not progress to the next order question.

HitchSlap · Sep 19, 2018

Hawkins said:
This is actually where the atheist trick is. God is from human accounts of testimonies, while there's no human accounts of testimonies for unicorns. Equating the two is one of the biggest but fallacious trick atheists play most often!

How many times does the Bible mention unicorns?

Nihilist Virus · Sep 19, 2018

2PhiloVoid said:
I thought I was wearing Snickers on my feet. I'm so confused ... trying to keep up with all the atheistic jargon and other duplicitous terminology is exhausting and disorienting......................

Sad. You either refuse to read it or refuse to admit when you're cornered. I'm quite disappointed.

2PhiloVoid · Sep 19, 2018

Nihilist Virus said:
Sad. You either refuse to read it or refuse to admit when you're cornered. I'm quite disappointed.

Where was I cornered, specifically, NV?

Hawkins · Sep 19, 2018

HitchSlap said:
How many times does the Bible mention unicorns?

10 out of the twelve chose to martyr themselves for what have been witnessed. Do you think that they chose to die for unicorn claims?

Hawkins · Sep 19, 2018

HitchSlap said:
No evidence for god/s.

No evidence for any of your meals you ever ate in the past either. So You didn't eat anything? Mind you, you have 3 meals a day, there are 365 days a year then multiples your age. Come back to tell us how many meals you ever had then try to evidence them.

Your line of reasoning is simply a joke! That's however the typical trick of your kind.

2PhiloVoid · Sep 19, 2018

Nihilist Virus said:
Sad. You either refuse to read it or refuse to admit when you're cornered. I'm quite disappointed.

Eudaimonist · Sep 19, 2018

Hawkins said:
there's no human accounts of testimonies for unicorns.

Are you sure about that? Are you absolutely sure?

There are accounts through much of history of unicorns. Perhaps these were all pranks, but it just isn't the case that no one has ever claimed to see a unicorn.

Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

eudaimonia,

Mark

joinfree · Sep 19, 2018

Uber Genius said:
This seems to be false. Abstract objects like numbers exist necessarily and it is hard to imaging God creating a world where 2 +2 = 5

Further we can describe pain as caused by something but to say it doesn't exist because of its secondary causal rank seems strange. I can't make anything out of the Satan comment.

But would like to return to epistemology rather than ontology. Do you run into people who claim that the only meaningful claims are scientific claims?

Do you use similar methods as described in the OP to disabuse them of their folly?

Pain of soul and sin are not created by God. How real they can be then??

Nihilist Virus · Sep 19, 2018

2PhiloVoid said:

Ok, let's just be done then. Bye.

Debunking Scientism - Tricks New Atheists Play (Part 6)

"Super Genius"

"Super Genius"

Infectious idea

Existentialist

Well-Known Member

Member

Gen Alpha Dad

Critically Recalculating!

Member

"Super Genius"

"Super Genius"

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Infectious idea

Critically Recalculating!

Member

Member

Critically Recalculating!

I believe in life before death!

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency