Driving Force

[cvanwey]

Fine. Special pleading involves applying standards or rules to others but not to oneself, without providing adequate justification. If one provides adequate justification, one is by definition not engaging special pleading.

Okay, let's explore. I'm ready to eat 'humble pie', so to speak...

Any well-crafted cosmological argument will start by defining God as the First Principle, that which is uncaused, etc., and the entire argument is geared towards the idea that any contingent chain of events needs an initial cause. To accuse a defender of a cosmological argument of special pleading because they are exempting God from needing a cause is to miss the point of the argument entirely. For the sake of simplicity, we are referring to a theoretical First Cause with the term "God." Given that we are attempting to provide an alternative to an infinite regress, exempting God from needing a cause is justified, as God is by definition where the chain ends.

From reading your response, it would appear you are saying, 'you first assert that God is of a first cause.' You then state 'any chain of events needs a first cause.'

I already see apparent pitfalls...?

Why could I not assert some other alternative causing agent/agents?

The entire argument begs it's own question. It merely pushes the problem back one step. The 'asserter' assumes the statement under examination to be true. In other words, begging the question involves using a premise to support itself. 'God IS the first cause'. Nothing more than a blank assertion... Or, an example of an argument from ignorance, in that I cannot think of a possibility of infinite causal chains, thus... God.

Furthermore, special pleading also means 'an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.' Or, 'appeals to give a particular interest group special treatment'. Why is your specific brand of God THE first cause? Why couldn't it be alien(s), a universe in a test tube ran by Thor, why does this agent need to be divine, how do we know this agent was not also created by something prior?

Trust me, I actually get what you are saying. You are telling me this is how the theist will present the argument. But you must admit, it is nothing more than blank assertions, followed by flawed reasoning.

The cosmological argument appears trivial, at best, with a 'horn-swaggled' assertion attached. We have no evidence for 'creation ex nihilo', only 'ex materia'. Is this demanding evidence, by way of empiricism? Maybe so... However, if the universe is actually eternal, then to ask such a question of 'what banged the big bang' would end up being as nonsensical as asking, 'what is colder than absolute zero?'

You can criticize cosmological arguments on other grounds (though I don't think successfully), but the accusation of special pleading is just wrong. Well, unless someone is trying to say that Yahweh can be the First Cause but Allah or Brahman cannot. I'm not sure I've seen that outside of atheistic caricatures, though.

Disagree. Thus far, your justification is a mere blank assert. Which is, 'God is the uncaused causer,' without even demonstrating that such an agent was not themselves created.

but I'm not particularly interested in apologetics.

You might want to venture off to other arenas then, because you are 'knee deep' in it

 

[Silmarien]

From reading your response, it would appear you are saying, 'you first assert that God is of a first cause.' You then state 'any chain of events needs a first cause.'

I already see apparent pitfalls...?

Why could I not assert some other alternative causing agent/agents?

It's a matter of definition. Forget about the Bible for now and focus on the idea of a First Cause - that which exists of its own nature, uncaused. Let us reduce the definition of God for the moment so that it is simply this: not necessarily personal, not necessarily conscious, just something that exists of its own nature, uncaused. Then tell me what other alternative causing agent is possible that does not also incorporate this definition.

The entire argument begs it's own question. It merely pushes the problem back one step. The 'asserter' assumes the statement under examination to be true. In other words, begging the question involves using a premise to support itself. 'God IS the first cause'. Nothing more than a blank assertion... Or, an example of an argument from ignorance, in that I cannot think of a possibility of infinite causal chains, thus... God.

No, not really. If someone is running with a cosmological argument, part of their claim is that this type of infinite causal chain cannot be possible. A well-crafted argument will attempt to defend this claim, and to do so is no more an argument from ignorance than defending the notion that effects have causes would be.

This is how philosophy works. People use logic (and evidence where applicable) to attempt to defend claims. Defending one claim instead of a different one does not mean you're engaging in an argument from ignorance.

Furthermore, special pleading also means 'an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.' Or, 'appeals to give a particular interest group special treatment'. Why is your specific brand of God THE first cause? Why couldn't it be alien(s), a universe in a test tube ran by Thor, why does this agent need to be divine, how do we know this agent was not also created by something prior?

I quite explicitly defined God as the "First Principle" or "theoretical First Cause." I'm going with the God of the Philosophers, not the God of any particular religion, so there is no specific brand of God here at all. If you would rather use the word "alien" or "Thor" to describe the concept of the theoretical First Cause, then we can go with that instead. The theoretical First Cause cannot have been created by something prior, because if it were, then it would be that something prior that we were actually referring to with the term "theoretical First Cause."

There is no special pleading here. You're simply not paying attention to what I'm saying. Maybe it would be better to drop the term "God" entirely for the purposes of actually elucidating these arguments?

The cosmological argument appears trivial, at best, with a 'horn-swaggled' assertion attached. We have no evidence for 'creation ex nihilo', only 'ex materia'. Is this demanding evidence, by way of empiricism? Maybe so... However, if the universe is actually eternal, then to ask such a question of 'what banged the big bang' would end up being as nonsensical as asking, 'what is colder than absolute zero?'

I never mentioned the Big Bang at all. Most classical cosmological arguments actually take for granted that the universe might be eternal--I think Judaism is something of an exception, since both the Greek and Vedic traditions tend towards eternal universe/multiverse.

Don't assume everyone is always talking about the Kalam.

You might want to venture off to other arenas then, because you are 'knee deep' in it

Pffft, you trapped me with the logical fallacy accusation. This is still mainly about logic, though. I'm not playing the 20 page back and forth game, and I'm not touching on anything aside from why a well-constructed deductive cosmological argument does not commit a logical fallacy. If its premises are correct, it suceeds. No amount of whining about special pleading and arguments from ignorance changes that.

 

[cvanwey]

It's a matter of definition. Forget about the Bible for now and focus on the idea of a First Cause - that which exists of its own nature, uncaused. Let us reduce the definition of God for the moment so that it is simply this: not necessarily personal, not necessarily conscious, just something that exists of its own nature, uncaused. Then tell me what other alternative causing agent is possible that does not also incorporate this definition.

We appear to be at a possible impasse of possible dichotomous proportions (i.e) first cause vs infinite regress.?.?.?

At present, we appear to have no definitive evidence for either assertion. Alternatively, laying forth two premises and a conclusion does not appear to solve anything?

Example (not a cosmological one BTW):

Physical objects which exist and are pushed forward, will move forward or faster
A rock is a physical object which exists
Therefore, a pushed rock will move forward or faster

But now that we understand there appears to exist 'limitations' to speed, it would appear nonsensical to continue to abide by such above premises, when we now have such 'knowledge' of such 'laws'.

Now use the Kalam... Without first solving the dichotomy of first cause vs infinite regress appears to fall within the same category.... It looks very tempting for many, to adopt, use, and assert such a simple analogy. Without knowing if the 'universe' model is eternal, the Kalam is no better or worse than the debunked premises/conclusion asserted above....

Hence, it appears trivial.

No, not really. If someone is running with a cosmological argument, part of their claim is that this type of infinite causal chain cannot be possible. A well-crafted argument will attempt to defend this claim, and to do so is no more an argument from ignorance than defending the notion that effects have causes would be.

This is how philosophy works. People use logic (and evidence where applicable) to attempt to defend claims. Defending one claim instead of a different one does not mean you're engaging in an argument from ignorance.

Well, " 'Said agent' exists because I don't 'know' things ", appears to fit the bill. I'm saying, I have NO clue, and remain a skeptic, without assertion or conclusion. But I do assert that I have yet to find an argument for the Kalam, which does not appear to demonstrate a fallacy. And like I've stated prior, this 'could' be an argument from ignorance in itself, since I am basically saying because I have not seen a valid argument, there isn't one. But yet, this is not what I'm effectively saying.

I'm instead asking you to provide one So can you?

 

[Silmarien]

We appear to be at a possible impasse of possible dichotomous proportions (i.e) first cause vs infinite regress.?.?.?

At present, we appear to have no definitive evidence for either assertion. Alternatively, laying forth two premises and a conclusion does not appear to solve anything?

An assertion does not have to have definitive evidence to avoid being logically fallacious. There is no step in a chain of reasoning being skipped simply because there is no empirical element available. This is not the definition of a logical fallacy.

This is honestly how philosophy works in general: people make rational arguments for and against premises and it is up to you to decide which is the better solution. (In the end, this is how everything including empiricism works, since evidence never exists in a vacuum and you will always ultimately need to reason through what it might mean.)

Well, " 'Said agent' exists because I don't 'know' things ", appears to fit the bill. I'm saying, I have NO clue, and remain a skeptic, without assertion or conclusion. But I do assert that I have yet to find an argument for the Kalam, which does not appear to demonstrate a fallacy. And like I've stated prior, this 'could' be an argument from ignorance in itself, since I am basically saying because I have not seen a valid argument, there isn't one. But yet, this is not what I'm effectively saying.

I'm instead asking you to provide one So can you?

For the Kalam? I hate the Kalam, so no.

Anyway, I am done now, since we're back where we started. If you can't accept that a logical fallacy is something more specific than "whatever I disagree with," there's nothing more that can be said here.

 

[Uber Genius]

I must admit, this inference does leave one to ponder...?

Meaning, one could adopt evolution by natural selection in it's entirety, along with abiogensis, and etc... And yet still ask, 'what' drives such forces? Does there exist a way to test for such? Or must we merely appeal to all sorts of violated logical fallacies (i.e.) argument from ignorance, special pleading, and-the-like?

There have been some papers in biophysics in the last 10 years proposing some physical necessity that would produce life necessarily. They have not been well received due to equivocation on key terms and lack of experimental conceptualization. But if true it would bury the design inferences around the fine-tuning of the physical constants and quanties for life that have plagued atheists since Brandon Carter 1974 work on same.

It would also undermine design in our solar system, design in the sudden appearance of massive amounts of biological information and information processing capability.

But remember that every design inference suggests two alternative inferences: necessity and chance.

Darwin's idea was chance rather than design.

Further the new function that drives adaptation and thus confers a survival advantage is a protein. Below protein their is no such adaption. Chemistry is a far cry from biology in that to get from one to the other one need to account for a information database of at least 150 megabytes (minimum DNA) and an even more complex information processing system.

So Chemical evolution is just a proposal that sounds conceptually cogent but has nothing to do with a scientific description and was debunked by one of its biggest proponents Dean Kenyon over 25 years ago.

 

[Uber Genius]

I honestly cannot seem to find a methodology to conclude how, if scientific assertions are fully justified that is - that the origin of life was founded basically upon 'chemistry', does there exist a testable driving force which propels such phenomenon? (Disclaimer) I'm not a scientist.

Without appealing to fallacious reasoning, does there exist a way to test for this 'causal agent' in any capacity, if you assert there IS one?

Very different question here.

Design inferences are tested based on information!

Information is a function of two necessary conditions:
Complexity
Specificity

By complexity we measure based on number of bytes.
By specificity we measure by tight conformance to a pattern.

Hsjeifneienndndjjenfndiejenfnjdjwndnkdkdkwnnd

The quick brown fox jumped over all the lazy dogs.

Both strings above have the same complexity.

One conforms to a pattern matching grammar rules and words in common usage that have common spellings and associated lexical meanings.

Since the discovery of the DNA molecule and over two hundred molecular machines in animal cells scientist have struggled to explain sudden, irreducible complex (all parts must adapt at the same time with the proper interfaces, in the proper order of assembly in order to confer functional advantage), machines that are tightly specified.

These features only appear where intelligence has designed something!

That is what is known as the design inference. Read Demski's book by the same name and you will avoid much of the Internet infidel fallacious reasoning.

The chicken or the egg question here is whether Eugenie Scott got her arguments from Internet infidels or they got their arguments from her. Let's ignore the fallacies and use the same scientific method (abduction) that Darwin did, and ask since intelligent design is the only known cause of complex specified information, what best explains the complex specified information suddenly appearing in the record both from an abiogenesis standpoint as well as in the Cambrian explosion?

 

[cvanwey]

An assertion does not have to have definitive evidence to avoid being logically fallacious. There is no step in a chain of reasoning being skipped simply because there is no empirical element available. This is not the definition of a logical fallacy.

I've been asking for one, but you are not providing one for your believed agent/god/other. Can you provide an example of such?

I'm simply telling you I have yet to see one which does not appear to invoke fallacious reasoning. Please provide one, by providing demonstration

Lay out your case please.

This is honestly how philosophy works in general: people make rational arguments for and against premises and it is up to you to decide which is the better solution. (In the end, this is how everything including empiricism works, since evidence never exists in a vacuum and you will always ultimately need to reason through what it might mean.)

Please demonstrate one example, for the argument from the existence of a 'causal agency'?

For the Kalam? I hate the Kalam, so no.

I did not necessary ask for the Kalam. Furthermore, I wasn't aware of your apparent disdain for such?

Show me a well pointed, and well articulated case for the necessity of a causal agent, which does not seem to infringe upon a fallacy?

Anyway, I am done now, since we're back where we started. If you can't accept that a logical fallacy is something more specific than "whatever I disagree with," there's nothing more that can be said here.

I am trying my best to have you set me straight, but you seem to instead want to tell me I'm wrong, without demonstration to the contrary.

Can you please provide a well thought out example, which does not appear to violate reasoning? But I do find it curious that the assertion for God has been proposed for thousands of years, and we have yet to adhere to some logical conclusion for such in all of that time, as 'mainstream' or 'compulsory'. Not absolutely necessary, but curious none-the-less...

Believe it or not, I'm trying to side with you more than you might think... If you read my last response again, you may pick up on that

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Very different question here.

Design inferences are tested based on information!

Information is a function of two necessary conditions:
Complexity
Specificity

By complexity we measure based on number of bytes.
By specificity we measure by tight conformance to a pattern.

Hsjeifneienndndjjenfndiejenfnjdjwndnkdkdkwnnd

The quick brown fox jumped over all the lazy dogs.

Both strings above have the same complexity.

One conforms to a pattern matching grammar rules and words in common usage that have common spellings and associated lexical meanings.

Since the discovery of the DNA molecule and over two hundred molecular machines in animal cells scientist have struggled to explain sudden, irreducible complex (all parts must adapt at the same time with the proper interfaces, in the proper order of assembly in order to confer functional advantage), machines that are tightly specified.

These features only appear where intelligence has designed something!

That is what is known as the design inference. Read Demski's book by the same name and you will avoid much of the Internet infidel fallacious reasoning.

The chicken or the egg question here is whether Eugenie Scott got her arguments from Internet infidels or they got their arguments from her. Let's ignore the fallacies and use the same scientific method (abduction) that Darwin did, and ask since intelligent design is the only known cause of complex specified information, what best explains the complex specified information suddenly appearing in the record both from an abiogenesis standpoint as well as in the Cambrian explosion?

...I think Eugenie Scott got her info from her graduate work at the university....long ago.

 

[cvanwey]

I suppose it could be concluded by way of the Argument from Ignorance, but it could instead just be that some people here need to come to realize that Evidentialism, Foundationalism, and/or the Correspondence Theories of both Truth or Knowledge are not the only epistemological formats by which to evaluate our axioms, our bits of truth, our perceptions and deliberations, along with the other experiential flotsam and jetsam we may haul around in our heads.

True, but I find it inconsistent to conclude the Bible, as the ultimate end to this conclusion; in light of the testable and presentable evidences against their assertions and claims.

But all in all, if you want to label an attempt to see a Grand Creative Agent of the Universe as but a form of the argument from ignorance, then so be it. However.............the most fun thing for me is to realize that there is so much more than just what I've mentioned above that will have to be brought in, turned over, analyzed and then ultimately synthesized with one's evaluations so as to give any one of us something fuller to mull over and by which to surmise whether there is or could be some Supreme Causal Agent behind our universe. And being that this is the case, then it just goes to show that we have reason to understand why so many people have different ideas about just how this little inflationary universe blew itself up from some singularity...... a long time ago in a smaller space (I guess) far, far away.

As stated above, it appears inconsistent to conclude the Bible in all of this however.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

True, but I find it inconsistent to conclude the Bible, as the ultimate end to this conclusion; in light of the testable and presentable evidences against their assertions and claims.



As stated above, it appears inconsistent to conclude the Bible in all of this however.

I agree. That's why my decision to follow Christianity over and against some other 2-bit religion OR blindly assume a skeptical, even atheistic, position is "existential." PLUS, there's the fact that I've read a whole He$$ of lot of atheistic and other skeptical literature, and after giving the things I've read a good acid bath, I'm left in the existential middle.

And by golly, if there are two things I do KNOW for sure they are that ... I think, therefore I am AND ... I'm going to die, and neither you nor any army can fix Humpty Dumpty when he eventually takes a spill. (Oh, that might be three things I know for sure. No, maybe four, with the fourth being that in many ways, this World in which we live can sure suck at times! )

So I'll Wager with Pascal that Christianity is the best bet and take the Leap of Faith with Kierkegaard beyond the aesthetic and ethical, as well as pray to God with Paul that God, in His Spirit, will open my mind to further wisdom and, thereby, make Coherent connections in my mind that'll take me, however Subjectively, to an Eternity of Bliss with Jesus.

But, is this an Argument from Ignorance? No, it is not.

 

[Silmarien]

I've been asking for one, but you are not providing one for your believed agent/god/other. Can you provide an example of such?

I'm simply telling you I have yet to see one which does not appear to invoke fallacious reasoning. Please provide one, by providing demonstration

Lay out your case please.

Actually, I have a better idea: let's do this scholastic style. You are going to lay out the best case for a cosmological argument you can. You are going to say where you think the logical fallacies are, and then we can discuss your objections and see if we can clear up the logical format enough to avoid formal fallacies.

I am trying my best to have you set me straight, but you seem to instead want to tell me I'm wrong, without demonstration to the contrary.

Honestly, I don't even have to. You're the one who keeps on making blanket accusations of fallacious reasoning, without ever offering any clear definition of what you mean by this and then defending it. I don't need to demonstrate why you are wrong when you have not presented a coherent argument in the first place--you are the one making claims, and it is on you to actually lay out a position.

I have however attempted several times to provide some clarity on the issue of logical fallacies. First, I addressed the issue of the argument from ignorance and how if one is not careful, the entirety of abductive reasoning (including the scientific endeavor) can be easily swept under this umbrella. You completely ignored my comments and "thanked" me for the lesson.

I then tried to explain how a well-crafted cosmological argument does not actually engage in special pleading. You immediately started attacking caricatures and shrieking about empirical evidence instead of focusing on the issue of why it is justified to exempt God from needing a cause. Maybe by turning things around and making you try to formulate an argument, we can avoid getting off-track like this.

 

[cvanwey]

Actually, I have a better idea: let's do this scholastic style. You are going to lay out the best case for a cosmological argument you can. You are going to say where you think the logical fallacies are, and then we can discuss your objections and see if we can clear up the logical format enough to avoid formal fallacies.

Kool...

Well, as you 'hate' the Kalam, I 'hate' them all... Maybe I have yet to be exposed to one which appears valid to me. All cosmological arguments, in which have ever been imposed upon me, appear riddled with flaws (i.e.)

- Pushing the problem back only one more step
- Asserting an 'unmoved mover', 'uncaused cause', etc must be the end result because infinite regress simply doesn't make sense.

As stated in my OP, I'm vexed. I'm willing to reconcile that I am at a loss for answers. I'm trying my best to put forth humility, and acknowledge I do not have an excellent counter argument. Because it would appear we are at dichotomous odds between first cause and infinite regress....

But as for infinite regress, I put this to you... Yes, it doesn't make sense either, but neither does some 'proven' scientific principles in existence in which I accept as 'true' for my currently unexplored reasons....

But as I've told others (figuratively), 'just because I don't know the answer to something, doesn't mean I cannot prove you wrong.'

i.e. I don't know the answer to a math problem, and someone asserts the answer is 'fruit salad.' This is extreme, but I trust you get what I'm saying...

At the end of all of this, I think, for me, it just boils down to 'evidence'. And if we had evidence, I guess we would not need to rely upon a philosophical argument

But as stated prior, if (you) got one, bring it.

If not, then I guess I will not waiver in my current stance...

 

[Uber Genius]

True, but I find it inconsistent to conclude the Bible, as the ultimate end to this conclusion; in light of the testable and presentable evidences against their assertions and claims.



As stated above, it appears inconsistent to conclude the Bible in all of this however.

The abductive method of looking at what inference best explains the data is time-honored and the same method that Darwin used to produce his theory. Do you really want to poison the wells to that method the way eugenie Scott does?

When you have to wipe out entire scientific methods to do away with an inference surely any intelligent person would recognize something has gone horribly wrong with that approach.

Imagine for a moment that we put 1000 "Eugenie Scott" scientists at the base of Mount Rushmore and ask what is the cause of the appearance of the heads of four US Presidents in these rock formations. After a lifetime of study not one scientist would be able to give a true account of their formation.

Is anyone getting why poisoning the wells to ID is eliminative to understanding the world around us?

 

[Uber Genius]

Kool...

Well, as you 'hate' the Kalam, I 'hate' them all... Maybe I have yet to be exposed to one which appears valid to me. All cosmological arguments, in which have ever been imposed upon me, appear riddled with flaws (i.e.)

- Pushing the problem back only one more step
- Asserting an 'unmoved mover', 'uncaused cause', etc must be the end result because infinite regress simply doesn't make sense.

As stated in my OP, I'm vexed. I'm willing to reconcile that I am at a loss for answers. I'm trying my best to put forth humility, and acknowledge I do not have an excellent counter argument. Because it would appear we are at dichotomous odds between first cause and infinite regress....

But as for infinite regress, I put this to you... Yes, it doesn't make sense either, but neither does some 'proven' scientific principles in existence in which I accept as 'true' for my currently unexplored reasons....

But as I've told others (figuratively), 'just because I don't know the answer to something, doesn't mean I cannot prove you wrong.'

i.e. I don't know the answer to a math problem, and someone asserts the answer is 'fruit salad.' This is extreme, but I trust you get what I'm saying...

At the end of all of this, I think, for me, it just boils down to 'evidence'. And if we had evidence, I guess we would not need to rely upon a philosophical argument

But as stated prior, if (you) got one, bring it.

If not, then I guess I will not waiver in my current stance...

Very confusing stream of consciousness here.

So are you saying that you agree with 2500 years of philosophy that there can't be an infinite regress?

Are you then saying due to your lack of understanding of other scientifically proven theories therefore you just chalk an infinite regress to something you don't understand like quantum mechanics?

If that is true then you have given us a false analogy as some people understand the scientific theories you discuss and can make a case in favor of those theories, and no one has made a case for the existence of an infinite regress of causes. The later is incoherent.

The lack of arguments such as the Kalam not being compelling may be that you reject the premise:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause. But false analogy in no way undercuts that premise.

 

[Uber Genius]

I've been asking for one, but you are not providing one for your believed agent/god/other. Can you provide an example of such?

I'm simply telling you I have yet to see one which does not appear to invoke fallacious reasoning. Please provide one, by providing demonstration

Lay out your case please.



Please demonstrate one example, for the argument from the existence of a 'causal agency'?



I did not necessary ask for the Kalam. Furthermore, I wasn't aware of your apparent disdain for such?

Show me a well pointed, and well articulated case for the necessity of a causal agent, which does not seem to infringe upon a fallacy?



I am trying my best to have you set me straight, but you seem to instead want to tell me I'm wrong, without demonstration to the contrary.

Can you please provide a well thought out example, which does not appear to violate reasoning? But I do find it curious that the assertion for God has been proposed for thousands of years, and we have yet to adhere to some logical conclusion for such in all of that time, as 'mainstream' or 'compulsory'. Not absolutely necessary, but curious none-the-less...

Believe it or not, I'm trying to side with you more than you might think... If you read my last response again, you may pick up on that

So I have been engaging your claims for well over a year and you drop out of most conversations or change the subject when I demonstrate where you are attacking straw men, or equivocating, or using false dilemmas, why should we accept your claim that no one is showing you these examples or arguments.

In fact the Kalam, leibnizian arguments are readily available: state them then Refute them by engaging the argument, not by making false unsupported claims of their fallacious nature (ironic charge given your history).



Give us any argument against hilbert's hotel or other a priori defense of historical impossibility of infinite regress of causes since at least Aristotle and possibly Zeno, or give us a list of things that began to exist that didn't have a cause.

You could alternatively offer a defense that our intuition of time is false and we should adopt the so-called B theory of time. Alternatively you could argue as Hume did that there is no such thing as causation. But say goodbye to a good portion of what counts as scientific knowledge currently if you choose to argue for that.

But at least give an argument.

Also stop bringing up the Bible as natural theology doesn't draw its data from the Bible but argues from known features,and relations from observations about our world.

My fellow Christians are treating your sincerity at face-value but I have had dozens of similar engagements and am highly suspect of your sincerity, prove me wrong!

 

[Silmarien]

Well, as you 'hate' the Kalam, I 'hate' them all... Maybe I have yet to be exposed to one which appears valid to me. All cosmological arguments, in which have ever been imposed upon me, appear riddled with flaws (i.e.)

- Pushing the problem back only one more step
- Asserting an 'unmoved mover', 'uncaused cause', etc must be the end result because infinite regress simply doesn't make sense.

Until you write out a coherent cosmological argument, step by step, explain what it is trying to do and where it fails, and then attempt to correct its failings, I really don't have anything more to say to you.

You're not putting together coherent, rational arguments. You're not demonstrating that you even understand what you're criticizing--all I'm seeing is disconnected ranting with no context. Go find an actual professional cosmological argument, give us a detailed presentation of it, and then a more incisive criticism than simply announcing that it is riddled with flaws.

 

[cvanwey]

Until you write out a coherent cosmological argument, step by step, explain what it is trying to do and where it fails, and then attempt to correct its failings, I really don't have anything more to say to you.

You're not putting together coherent, rational arguments. You're not demonstrating that you even understand what you're criticizing--all I'm seeing is disconnected ranting with no context. Go find an actual professional cosmological argument, give us a detailed presentation of it, and then a more incisive criticism than simply announcing that it is riddled with flaws.

You've already told me you 'hate' the Kalam. I would assume you 'hate' the Kalam for similar reasons I do. However, I hate them all. And until I know which one YOU find compelling, I may attempt to defeat another one, in which you also hate

Since you appear to not want to simply point out the one which appears most compelling to you, I'm sticking with the Kalam for now

You told me to dissect a cosmological argument. Okay, here we go...

Since I feel all the cosmological arguments fail equally, for the existence on agency, which ultimately points to a God, or any uncaused agency for that matter, I'm choosing your favorite, the Kalam. Why? Because this is the one which gets jammed and rammed down my throat, when encountering apologists and their rationalization for the existence of an agent.

Since I don't feel like typing out all of it, which the majority here won't read, I located a video which appears to do a pretty good job in exposing the many flaws within it...

 

[cvanwey]

The abductive method of looking at what inference best explains the data is time-honored and the same method that Darwin used to produce his theory. Do you really want to poison the wells to that method the way eugenie Scott does?

When you have to wipe out entire scientific methods to do away with an inference surely any intelligent person would recognize something has gone horribly wrong with that approach.

Imagine for a moment that we put 1000 "Eugenie Scott" scientists at the base of Mount Rushmore and ask what is the cause of the appearance of the heads of four US Presidents in these rock formations. After a lifetime of study not one scientist would be able to give a true account of their formation.

Is anyone getting why poisoning the wells to ID is eliminative to understanding the world around us?

Okay, so in this context, from your statements above, I will tentatively agree with you.

I think what I'm finding, for this OP topic matter, it becomes an apparent forced dichotomy.... 'first cause' vs ' infinite regress'. And without empirical evidence of some kind, its all 'philosophical arguments'.

Like another poster stated already, I don't think I'm going to receive a satisfying argument, w/o empirical evidence.

And since we don't have any, the rest may not demonstrate a convincing case in either direction.

Because AS I STATED FROM THE GET GO, this is the one topic which even keeps me hanging around.

 

[Silmarien]

You've already told me you 'hate' the Kalam. I would assume you 'hate' the Kalam for similar reasons I do.

You're a B time theorist?

Since you appear to not want to simply point out the one which appears most compelling to you, I'm sticking with the Kalam for now

Of the ones that can be easily formulated, PSR.

Since I don't feel like typing out all of it, which the majority here won't read, I located a video which appears to do a pretty good job in exposing the many flaws within it...

Yeah, posting a video doesn't demonstrate that you can formulate and critique any of these arguments. What I want to see is you genuinely engaging with them and showing that you understand them on anything more than a superficial level.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The abductive method of looking at what inference best explains the data is time-honored and the same method that Darwin used to produce his theory. Do you really want to poison the wells to that method the way eugenie Scott does?

When you have to wipe out entire scientific methods to do away with an inference surely any intelligent person would recognize something has gone horribly wrong with that approach.

Imagine for a moment that we put 1000 "Eugenie Scott" scientists at the base of Mount Rushmore and ask what is the cause of the appearance of the heads of four US Presidents in these rock formations. After a lifetime of study not one scientist would be able to give a true account of their formation.

Is anyone getting why poisoning the wells to ID is eliminative to understanding the world around us?

Well, it's Methodological Naturalism.............or bust, for me. And while I disagree with Eugenie Scott on the religious front being that she's an affirmed atheist, I still think she's right about her [mainstream] scientific methodology when we pit her against Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne. From my more religiously existential perspective, I'm going to have to join with Scott in affirming that ID amounts to a from of Philosophy of Science, useful as a form of perspective analysis and thought experimentation, but I don't think it yet qualifies as an actual form of science in and of itself, Behe's mousetraps not withstanding. The upshot is that since Dawkins' and Coyne's Philosophical Naturalism simply uses a similar philosophy of science as those in ID, but the negative side of it, THEN if Scott is correct, not only does ID count as just another form of Philosophy of Science, but so do some of the counter, anti-religious opinions held by Dawkins and Coyne.