Driving Force

[2PhiloVoid]

You're a B time theorist?



Of the ones that can be easily formulated, PSR.



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.

....I personally don't have a problem with a video. In my estimation, if a person can pick out a video that is directly relevant to the discussion at hand, I think that's fine since it can be a great time saver [particularly if my opponent is presenting a video that is 10 minutes or less]. Besides, there's no need to spend the time to reinvent the bicycle. Moreover, I've noticed that taking the time to go further and "demonstrate" knowledge to others here on CF by writing things out in a more ordered and extensive manner more often than not seems to land on either deaf or uncooperative ears...........................

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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...

......perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.........................I love his affirmation of the "Great [theoretical] Perhaps."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

And that's why I'm an existentialist who prefers to [correctly] affirm the approach of modern mainstream science on the one hand, with the likes of Eugenie Scott and the late Stephen Jay Gould, and keep my Bible and Faith tucked away under the arm of my other hand. Affirming Methodological Naturalism allows me to do this, and since Scott's position also posits that we CAN'T control a god as a variable in experimental (read: empirical) science, we can't determine if, how, when, where and exactly why a god would or would not participate in our various experiments we might concoct. And I suppose that if we "count" personal prayer as a form of experiment, then Scott's position applies to that kind of thing...........too.

So, when it comes to faith, we can only assume that religious (Christian) explanation is of a different quality in its revelational state as an explanation than is scientific explanation about the world.

 

[Silmarien]

....I personally don't have a problem with a video. In my estimation, if a person can pick out a video that is directly relevant to the discussion at hand, I think that's fine since it can be a great time saver [particularly if my opponent is presenting a video that is 10 minutes or less]. Besides, there's no need to spend the time to reinvent the bicycle. Moreover, I've noticed that taking the time to go further and "demonstrate" knowledge to others here on CF by writing things out in a more ordered and extensive manner more often than not seems to land on either deaf or uncooperative ears...........................

Honestly, an attempted critique of any philosophical argument that's less than 10 minutes long is a waste of time. And in this case, it certainly shows. The video fails to present the opposing view in its best light, and to make things worse, it makes historical assertions that are simply wrong--Aquinas is well known for not assuming that the universe had a beginning, and the Kalam is not about making a small adjustment to Thomistic arguments. They're separate arguments entirely, and seeing how Al-Ghazali significantly predates Aquinas, certainly was not providing a corrective at all. (And it's a caricature of the Thomistic arguments to say that this corrective is even needed, since no scholastic would ever have agreed that "God is surely a thing." That's as basic as it gets.)

Honestly, these sorts of videos are just counterproductive. The only interesting part in it was where the Fallacy of Composition was mentioned, but you would need more than ten seconds to show that the Kalam is actually committing a fallacy here rather than a reasonable abductive inference. Even with the video, we're still lacking a genuine argument that the reasoning is fallacious instead of just a declaration.

The ideal would be to take one potential fallacy and discuss it in depth rather than superficially touching upon a dozen different things without bothering to address any of them in any real depth. I don't think a video is a good medium for that at all, though.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Honestly, an attempted critique of any philosophical argument that's less than 10 minutes long is a waste of time. And in this case, it certainly shows. The video fails to present the opposing view in its best light, and to make things worse, it makes historical assertions that are simply wrong--Aquinas is well known for not assuming that the universe had a beginning, and the Kalam is not about making a small adjustment to Thomistic arguments. They're separate arguments entirely, and seeing how Al-Ghazali significantly predates Aquinas, certainly was not providing a corrective at all. (And it's a caricature of the Thomistic arguments to say that this corrective is even needed, since no scholastic would ever have agreed that "God is surely a thing." That's as basic as it gets.)

Honestly, these sorts of videos are just counterproductive. The only interesting part in it was where the Fallacy of Composition was mentioned, but you would need more than ten seconds to show that the Kalam is actually committing a fallacy here rather than a reasonable abductive inference. Even with the video, we're still lacking a genuine argument that the reasoning is fallacious instead of just a declaration.

The ideal would be to take one potential fallacy and discuss it in depth rather than superficially touching upon a dozen different things without bothering to address any of them in any real depth. I don't think a video is a good medium for that at all, though.

NO, actually in this case, you've just proved one of my [inherent] point...as it abides within my 'hidden curriculum.' That point being that when my opponent uses a short video, it only presents a small challenge to refute. Hence, my quick comment above to cvanwey about the "perhapses" in his video, and in emphazing this, I intended to lean toward the critical rather and than toward the affirmative.

 

[cvanwey]

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.

I'm not interested in engaging in personal attacks. I'm sure if I decided to 'engage' in many of your claims, I could blankly assert plenty as well.

As for THIS OP, I gladly admit, I'm finding that the 'first cause' vs 'infinite regress' argument is what keeps me curious as to a possible 'ID', 'creator', 'driving force', position. Specifically what, if anything intentional, causes stuff to 'function'? It's an 'apparent' dichotomous proposition....

But as I stated prior, another poster appears to have already nailed it on the head, at least for ME and my needs for a conclusion...

The only thing which will convince me, is 'evidence'; not a philosophical argument. So if this is the best the theist has to demonstrate their case, then game over most likely.

Unless you feel you got one which may actually be compelling?.?.?.?

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).

Do I have to? Isn't a video more entertaining for others? It sure beats reading long tedious posts Like @2PhiloVoid already stated, my specific flavor may fall upon def ears. Or, you will have already drawn your conclusion, and nothing may sway it... But if you feel you have a good one any ways, by all means, please demonstrate your best one, and why it is so sound?

But quite honestly, it may not help, for (me). As I instead may be looking for evidence, and not syllogisms.

 

[cvanwey]

......perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.........................I love his affirmation of the "Great [theoretical] Perhaps."

Maybe it's an 'English' thing?

 

[gaara4158]

Honestly, an attempted critique of any philosophical argument that's less than 10 minutes long is a waste of time. And in this case, it certainly shows. The video fails to present the opposing view in its best light, and to make things worse, it makes historical assertions that are simply wrong--Aquinas is well known for not assuming that the universe had a beginning, and the Kalam is not about making a small adjustment to Thomistic arguments. They're separate arguments entirely, and seeing how Al-Ghazali significantly predates Aquinas, certainly was not providing a corrective at all. (And it's a caricature of the Thomistic arguments to say that this corrective is even needed, since no scholastic would ever have agreed that "God is surely a thing." That's as basic as it gets.)

Honestly, these sorts of videos are just counterproductive. The only interesting part in it was where the Fallacy of Composition was mentioned, but you would need more than ten seconds to show that the Kalam is actually committing a fallacy here rather than a reasonable abductive inference. Even with the video, we're still lacking a genuine argument that the reasoning is fallacious instead of just a declaration.

The ideal would be to take one potential fallacy and discuss it in depth rather than superficially touching upon a dozen different things without bothering to address any of them in any real depth. I don't think a video is a good medium for that at all, though.

We can’t all type out a cogent, thoughtful reply in ten minutes like you can, Silmarien. We mere mortals have to save time even at the cost of thoroughness

 

[Silmarien]

We can’t all type out a cogent, thoughtful reply in ten minutes like you can, Silmarien. We mere mortals have to save time even at the cost of thoroughness

Oh, I wish I could write out a cogent reply in ten minutes. I'd rather not think about how much time I waste here. (Speaking of which...)

I meant more that a ten minute video isn't a good medium for saying anything worthwhile. Though the same thing goes for an hour long debate, for that matter. I've seen some of those Craig debates--he seldom loses them because he's such a good rhetorician, but the format doesn't allow for much besides tricks and games and the occasional emotional outburst from the opponent.

 

[cvanwey]

You're a B time theorist?

I'm simply holding out for evidence. Do you have any, or instead syllogisms, or maybe something other? Thus far, I'll take the evidence Why? Because it would appear things/assertions, which are proven, don't appear to rely upon such alternative methods, most often.

Of the ones that can be easily formulated, PSR.

Would you mind easily formulating one? I'm curious as to what you find convincing.

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.

I will try to keep this very short, since some here seem to want an argument, as to why I disagree with such assertions; the one below being the most widely used and grand daddy one of them all; towards me...

Premise 1: Anything which begins to exist has a cause
Premise 2: The universe began to exist
Premise 3: Therefore, the universe had a cause

Premise 1, assuming 'begins to exist' means 'from nothing to something' insinuates/asserts/concludes that 'creation ex nihilo' actually exists, and not just 'creation ex materia'. Well, we have all sorts of examples for the later, but do we have any for the former???

We have assertions for it. But unfortunately, premise 1 appears to instead beg it's own question. Until we have evidence that something can 'begin', verses simply changing form, the syllogism appears to start and end at premise 1 for me.

Premise 2, on it's own, fails to meet it's asserted burden of proof, for another reason entirely. We simply don't know if the universe had a starting point, from 'nothing prior' vs being eternal (in possible alternative states of materia). Premise 2 appears to be nothing more than a blank assertion. This, again, would be assuming that the theist is using the word 'began' as meaning, 'nothing to something'. If the theist meant for this word to mean something else, then the argument would appear irrelevant to their case

(OR)

One could instead highlight the word 'cause'...

But the word 'cause' would be applicable for many scenarios, some of which would have no relevancy to 'creation', rendering the use of such an argument pointless.

The universe had a 'cause'. Okay, 'the prior universe died, and the big bang of this universe is the 'cause' of the one we know of now'. The word 'cause' then seems to be trivial in supporting the theist's position.

This is why I hate the Kalam. It begs it's own question.

 

[durangodawood]

....This is why I hate the Kalam. It begs it's own question.

Me too. Its just drops these premises on us and we're supposed to bow down to them rather than take them apart.

 

[Hawkins]

That actually ties to why and how science can identify a truth with no mistake.

2H2O = 2H2 + O2

This formula predicts all future occurrence of the dissolution of water without mistake. We humans lack the capability to know the future. If a theory which allows us to predict a repeating phenomenon with no mistake, we know that the theory holds the truth.

Similarly, if you are giving a single cell organism and you can predictably turn it into, say a bird, with no mistake. Then your theory holds the truth. Before that you have a theory but not a scientific truth.

 

[durangodawood]

That actually ties to why and how science can identify a truth with no mistake.

2H2O = 2H2 + O2

This formula predicts all future occurrence of the dissolution of water without mistake. We humans lack the capability to know the future. If a theory which allows us to predict a repeating phenomenon with no mistake, we know that the theory holds the truth.

Similarly, if you are giving a single cell organism and you can predictably turn it into, say a bird, with no mistake. Then your theory holds the truth. Before that you have a theory but not a scientific truth.

Whats the "that" referring to?

 

[durangodawood]

....Similarly, if you are giving a single cell organism and you can predictably turn it into, say a bird, with no mistake. Then your theory holds the truth. Before that you have a theory but not a scientific truth.

Pretty sure there is no scientific theory nor scientific truth that says if you start with single cell life, down the road somewhere you'll definitively get a bird.

 

[Hawkins]

Pretty sure there is no scientific theory nor scientific truth that says if you start with single cell life, down the road somewhere you'll definitively get a bird.

If so then the ToE is just as empty as the statement that "chemical reactions exist". You can present all your evidence that it is so but it won't make it a science.

 

[Hawkins]

Pretty sure there is no scientific theory nor scientific truth that says if you start with single cell life, down the road somewhere you'll definitively get a bird.

The argument started by the OP.

 

[durangodawood]

If so then the ToE is just as empty as the statement that "chemical reactions exist". You can present all your evidence that it is so but it won't make it a science.

Toe truthfully describes a process, not an outcome.

 

[Hawkins]

Toe truthfully describes a process, not an outcome.

Yeah, chemical reaction is also a process. And "chemical reactions exist" must be the greatest theory of all time.

On the other hand, whenever the predictability of science is concerned, it's always about the outcome which is predictable. That (i.e., the predictability of science) is what makes us landing on the surface of moon.

 

[durangodawood]

Yeah, chemical reaction is also a process. And "chemical reactions exist" must be the greatest theory of all time.....

Well yes, compared to the time when people didnt know that chemical reactions exist..... which is the same time you apparently are stuck in re: evolution.

 

[Silmarien]

Premise 1, assuming 'begins to exist' means 'from nothing to something' insinuates/asserts/concludes that 'creation ex nihilo' actually exists, and not just 'creation ex materia'. Well, we have all sorts of examples for the later, but do we have any for the former???

Premise 1 does not state that things are created out of nothing. It actually asserts the exact opposite--that things do not come about from nothing, so your objection here is a non sequitur.

Premise 2, on it's own, fails to meet it's asserted burden of proof, for another reason entirely. We simply don't know if the universe had a starting point, from 'nothing prior' vs being eternal (in possible alternative states of materia). Premise 2 appears to be nothing more than a blank assertion. This, again, would be assuming that the theist is using the word 'began' as meaning, 'nothing to something'. If the theist meant for this word to mean something else, then the argument would appear irrelevant to their case

Premise 2 appears to be nothing more than a blank assertion because you stated it as a blank assertion. A genuine Kalam cosmological argument would put a good deal of effort into arguing for Premise 2. You would need to engage with these arguments and state why they fail rather than falsely declaring that they do not exist.

But the word 'cause' would be applicable for many scenarios, some of which would have no relevancy to 'creation', rendering the use of such an argument pointless.

The universe had a 'cause'. Okay, 'the prior universe died, and the big bang of this universe is the 'cause' of the one we know of now'. The word 'cause' then seems to be trivial in supporting the theist's position.

I agree. The argument as you stated it does not support a theistic conclusion, but it never even draws one in the first place. You made no effort anywhere to get from "the universe has a cause" to "God is the cause of the universe," so it's no wonder that your argument is trivial in supporting a theistic position. It doesn't even try to.

This is why I hate the Kalam. It begs it's own question.

The way you've formulated it, I don't think it even begs its own question. It really just doesn't say anything at all. There are such big holes in the reasoning you've presented, that instead of declaring the Kalam to be logically fallacious, you should look into how people actually try to defend the aspects of the argument that you've skipped over.

Me too. Its just drops these premises on us and we're supposed to bow down to them rather than take them apart.

It doesn't, though. The whole point of the Kalam is to argue for and defend the premises themselves, not to just assert them as obviously true. If you're not engaging with the actual arguments for those premises, though, you're not even bothering to take them apart. You're just asserting falsely that they don't exist.

The underlying question of the Kalam is whether an infinite temporal sequence of past events is possible. If someone doesn't address this question, they're not responding to the Kalam at all.