Driving Force

[cvanwey]

Sure, concluding that there is a Creator can be done without violation of "flawed reasoning." I do it all of the time. ......................wait a minute! What??????????????????????

(Oh, but you meant to say "such and such," right?).

This posting is intended to explore the topic. I'm not trying to play 'gotcha' with anyone, quite frankly.

In all fairness, it is a learning process for me as well. I have been deeply pondering this question for a couple of years now. Thus far, I have not been able to deduce a conclusion to such an assertion, without directly committing some sort of fallacy.

If I am wrong in my conclusion, I gladly ask for demonstration. If you agree with me, then just say so. If not, I'm all ears sir.

So I ask, yet again....

If anyone, you, me, other, was to ASSERT a creator of our existence, does there exist a method to pose as such, using a sound method? In my estimation, I have not found it.

Thus, it appears much more logical to not adhere to any concluded belief. But to instead remain skeptical of them all. And in terms of Christianity, such assertions seem to ask one to violate their own reasoning; as we have no tangible proof to the contrary.

Thoughts?

 

[Silmarien]

We can demonstrate the existence of humans. I would assume the claim is that Julius Caesar was a human.

Julius Caesar was human, therefore he existed? That's a pretty huge logical fallacy, unless you're very carefully defining "human" to rule out fictional characters. But then you'd need to concoct a test to demonstrate that he was "human" and not a fictional person all along.

Now can we get back to the OP?

We've been at the OP all along. You're claiming that if there isn't a way to test something, the only thing left is logical fallacies. Can you provide a falsifiable test for this claim?

 

[cvanwey]

Julius Caesar was human, therefore he existed? That's a pretty huge logical fallacy, unless you're very carefully defining "human" to rule out fictional characters. But then you'd need to concoct a test to demonstrate that he was "human" and not a fictional person all along.

Speaking of logical fallacies, I care not to devote any more time to this 'red herring', except for the response directly below, which will be revealed as to why, when reading...

To place your rationale to rest, no, I cannot prove that Julius Caesar is real, anymore than I can prove Jesus the Christ was real But I gather you are picking up what I'm putting down...

Which is, you are wasting your time, with me, in regards to this path or distracter...

I already accept that humans existed, and do/did stuff (i.e.) Jesus, Muhammad, etc etc etc...

I feel, in this case, I need to provide another example, so you do not continue to harp on this topic...

We have yet to have proof of extra terrestrials. Does this mean they do or don't exist? It just means we may never receive actual contact from such. And we may never prove existence, or lack-there-of...

But now, does there exist a book, in which the vast majority of members on this forum adhere to, which states if I do NOT accept the assertion of extra terrestrials as fact, we will surely be doomed?.?.?.?

I hope this places your above inquiry to bed...

We've been at the OP all along. You're claiming that if there isn't a way to test something, the only thing left is logical fallacies. Can you provide a falsifiable test for this claim?

Demonstrate a logical case for the existence of an asserted 'causal agency', without violation of a logical fallacy. If (you) cannot, then I guess we can both bask in the plausible 'argument from ignorance fallacy' ourselves

This post is not to say I know the answer. I've been on both sides of the coin. For all intents and purposes of this post, it becomes quite simple...

To be a Christian, you must believe such an asserted conclusion in a very specific causal agency. Does a position presented exist, which does not encompass a fallacy of sorts? Because I surely have not found one...

 

[Silmarien]

To place your rationale to rest, no, I cannot prove that Julius Caesar is real, anymore than I can prove Jesus the Christ was real But I gather you are picking up what I'm putting down...

My point is that the conclusion that Julius Caesar existed is the result of sound reasoning, but is not falsifiable. Historical facts and scientific facts work differently, but this doesn't make all historical reasoning a matter of logical fallacies.

In other words, you are abusing the term "logical fallacy" in defense of a problematic theory of justification of knowledge. Empirical testing is not a requirement outside of the natural sciences, and even there, falsification is not an entirely uncontroversial notion. Some of those string theorists certainly attack it.

Demonstrate a logical case for the existence of an asserted 'causal agency', without violation of a logical fallacy. If (you) cannot, then I guess we can both bask in the plausible 'argument from ignorance fallacy' ourselves

I'm going to start with the wikipedia definitions of the three types of reasoning:

Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, abductive inference, or retroduction) is a form of logical inference which starts with an observation or set of observations then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation for the observations.

Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic, logical deduction is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion. Deductive reasoning goes in the same direction as that of the conditionals, and links premises with conclusions.

Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence for the truth of the conclusion (in contrast to deductive reasoning). While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given.

Here is what you do not understand: an argument from ignorance is automatically an abductive inference. It involves a sort of attempted inference to the best explanation, which makes it fairly tricky to determine where the line between legitimate and illegitimate abductive reasoning might lie. Much if not all of empirical science is based upon abductive reasoning, so the degree to which you are disparaging abduction here while championing empiricism is actually fairly intriguing--the ability to test an abductive inference doesn't determine whether or not it is fallacious, just whether it is scientific. I'm honestly not a fan of abductive theistic arguments myself, though I don't think it's fair to label them arguments from ignorance simply on account of being abductive.

Abductive reasoning is not the only type of reasoning, however, and not the only thing you will find in theistic arguments, though it is admittedly more common these days. Still, deductive and inductive versions of cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments exist as well (see Aquinas for the first two, and perhaps Gödel for an interesting modern ontological argument). None of these are going to be arguments from ignorance because they're not abductive in the first place.

 

[gaara4158]

Speaking of logical fallacies, I care not to devote any more time to this 'red herring', except for the response directly below, which will be revealed as to why, when reading...

To place your rationale to rest, no, I cannot prove that Julius Caesar is real, anymore than I can prove Jesus the Christ was real But I gather you are picking up what I'm putting down...

Which is, you are wasting your time, with me, in regards to this path or distracter...

I already accept that humans existed, and do/did stuff (i.e.) Jesus, Muhammad, etc etc etc...

I feel, in this case, I need to provide another example, so you do not continue to harp on this topic...

We have yet to have proof of extra terrestrials. Does this mean they do or don't exist? It just means we may never receive actual contact from such. And we may never prove existence, or lack-there-of...

But now, does there exist a book, in which the vast majority of members on this forum adhere to, which states if I do NOT accept the assertion of extra terrestrials as fact, we will surely be doomed?.?.?.?

I hope this places your above inquiry to bed...



Demonstrate a logical case for the existence of an asserted 'causal agency', without violation of a logical fallacy. If (you) cannot, then I guess we can both bask in the plausible 'argument from ignorance fallacy' ourselves

This post is not to say I know the answer. I've been on both sides of the coin. For all intents and purposes of this post, it becomes quite simple...

To be a Christian, you must believe such an asserted conclusion in a very specific causal agency. Does a position presented exist, which does not encompass a fallacy of sorts? Because I surely have not found one...

I don’t think you’re going to get a satisfactory answer from the resident Christians here for a couple of reasons. First, it’s my understanding that their belief doesn’t come from empirical evidence. They’re never going to come forward with that type of evidence. Second, you’re challenging them to provide a type of evidence that isn’t empirical yet isn’t fallacious, implying that all non-empirical evidence is somehow fallacious. This is going to drag you into a debate defending empiricism when that’s not really your point. What you should be asking is what kind of evidence, if not empirical, leads these believers to Christianity?

 

[cvanwey]

My point is that the conclusion that Julius Caesar existed is the result of sound reasoning, but is not falsifiable. Historical facts and scientific facts work differently, but this doesn't make all historical reasoning a matter of logical fallacies.

In other words, you are abusing the term "logical fallacy" in defense of a problematic theory of justification of knowledge. Empirical testing is not a requirement outside of the natural sciences, and even there, falsification is not an entirely uncontroversial notion. Some of those string theorists certainly attack it.



I'm going to start with the wikipedia definitions of the three types of reasoning:

Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, abductive inference, or retroduction) is a form of logical inference which starts with an observation or set of observations then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation for the observations.

Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic, logical deduction is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion. Deductive reasoning goes in the same direction as that of the conditionals, and links premises with conclusions.

Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence for the truth of the conclusion (in contrast to deductive reasoning). While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given.

Here is what you do not understand: an argument from ignorance is automatically an abductive inference. It involves a sort of attempted inference to the best explanation, which makes it fairly tricky to determine where the line between legitimate and illegitimate abductive reasoning might lie. Much if not all of empirical science is based upon abductive reasoning, so the degree to which you are disparaging abduction here while championing empiricism is actually fairly intriguing--the ability to test an abductive inference doesn't determine whether or not it is fallacious, just whether it is scientific. I'm honestly not a fan of abductive theistic arguments myself, though I don't think it's fair to label them arguments from ignorance simply on account of being abductive.

Abductive reasoning is not the only type of reasoning, however, and not the only thing you will find in theistic arguments, though it is admittedly more common these days. Still, deductive and inductive versions of cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments exist as well (see Aquinas for the first two, and perhaps Gödel for an interesting modern ontological argument). None of these are going to be arguments from ignorance because they're not abductive in the first place.

Thanks for the 'lesson'. I think you are missing my point... I'm trying to make these responses fairly short, so people may actually read them. You are either not reading between the lines, or I need to lengthen my responses again. In the past, I would post longer responses, and found many just skim them

Lets cut to the chase however...

The Bible asserts a specific 'causal agency' as the 'driving force'. Using the Bible as 'truth', can one effectively conclude sound reasoning, for 'truth' in the assertion of the asserted driving agent for our existence?

I have yet to find one. Do you got one, for the Bible's 'truth' in this assertion???

 

[cvanwey]

I don’t think you’re going to get a satisfactory answer from the resident Christians here for a couple of reasons. First, it’s my understanding that their belief doesn’t come from empirical evidence. They’re never going to come forward with that type of evidence. Second, you’re challenging them to provide a type of evidence that isn’t empirical yet isn’t fallacious, implying that all non-empirical evidence is somehow fallacious. This is going to drag you into a debate defending empiricism when that’s not really your point. What you should be asking is what kind of evidence, if not empirical, leads these believers to Christianity?

Okay, fair enough.... Lets try it...

"What kind of evidence, if not empirical, leads these believers to Christianity?"

 

[Silmarien]

Lets cut to the chase however...

The Bible asserts a specific 'causal agency' as the 'driving force'. Using the Bible as 'truth', can one effectively conclude sound reasoning, for 'truth' in the assertion of the asserted driving agent for our existence?

I have yet to find one. Do you got one, for the Bible's 'truth' in this assertion???

Er, I'm a classical theist. I don't do the whole "specific causal agent" thing at all--the only question that interests me is whether the Bible presents a credible and coherent picture of God consistent with classical theism. (I'm not sure that it does, but I'm also not sure that it doesn't.)

I don't think revelation can ever be based on logical reasoning--if it were, it wouldn't be revelatory.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okay, fair enough.... Lets try it...

"What kind of evidence, if not empirical, leads these believers to Christianity?"

Believe it or not, much of what drives my attention so as to remain aesthetically drawn to the 'truth' of the Bible is the evidence of ... the Devil. I mean, when we read New Testament, what are we usually told, more often than not, to look for? It's not the good we're told to look for as often as it is certain tropes of evil; it's evil we're warned to recognize and which are commanded to fight in our refrain against sinning.

Right? Or do you deny that there's evidence of Satan in this world, cvanwey? Personally, existentialism or not, I think we all need to begin to wake up to the reality -- that is, the political and cultural reality--- in which we now live and in which the world of humanity has been living. I mean, one would think that the Mark of the Beast was still yet to come? And I have to ask: Is it? Is it really 'still yet to come'?

But as for the evidence of a driving force in evolution or in the creation of the world, I continue to assert that "no," there is no method by which we could experimentally detect such a driving force. And this is all in addition to what @Silmarien has already nicely laid down above regarding deduction, induction, and abduction.

 

[cvanwey]

Er, I'm a classical theist. I don't do the whole "specific causal agent" thing at all--the only question that interests me is whether the Bible presents a credible and coherent picture of God consistent with classical theism. (I'm not sure that it does, but I'm also not sure that it doesn't.)

I don't think revelation can ever be based on logical reasoning--if it were, it wouldn't be revelatory.

Okay, are you essentially saying then you have concluded there exists a singular 'first causer' of all existence? And now, you are studying the Bible to see if it's assertions fits most aptly with your concluded reality? Yes or no. If no, please correct me? If yes, please keep reading below...

- You do understand that to assert a first cause merely promotes special pleading principles right?
- You do understand there exists either no more or less evidence to suggest a singular grand agent/God, versus many, right?
- You do understand there exists no basis that this singular agent/God must be 'divine' right?
- You do understand this asserted singular grand agent is interactive with humans, right?

And finally, what makes the Bible fit such a conclusion, when it would appear some of it's testable assertions appear unlikely, against the weight of the evidence?

 

[Silmarien]

- You do understand that to assert a first cause merely promotes special pleading principles right?

This is another fallacious claim on your part.

Other than that, I'm not interested in this bizarre interrogation.

 

[cvanwey]

Believe it or not, much of what drives my attention so as to remain aesthetically drawn to the 'truth' of the Bible is the evidence of ... the Devil. I mean, when we read New Testament, what are we usually told, more often than not, to look for? It's not the good we're told to look for as often as it is certain tropes of evil; it's evil we're warned to recognize and which are commanded to fight in our refrain against sinning.

Right? Or do you deny that there's evidence of Satan in this world, cvanwey? Personally, existentialism or not, I think we all need to begin to wake up to the reality -- that is, the political and cultural reality--- in which we now live and in which the world of humanity has been living. I mean, one would think that the Mark of the Beast was still yet to come? And I have to ask: Is it? Is it really 'still yet to come'?

No, I do not believe the 'Devil' exists anymore than I believe ghosts, spirits, or demons exists. IMHO, after much study, the Bible appears to be a collection of stories, and the entire premise of 'God vs the Devil' appears to be a simplified conclusion of our perceived 'morals' - 'right and wrong', also with a large sprinkling of 'intentional agency.' Furthermore, every 'good' story needs a vilian

But as for the evidence of a driving force in evolution or in the creation of the world, I continue to assert that "no," there is no method by which we could experimentally detect such a driving force. And this is all in addition to what @Silmarien has already nicely laid down above regarding deduction, induction, and abduction.

I hasten to say then, to reconcile a grand agent, may then require the argument from ignorance?.?.?

 

[cvanwey]

This is another fallacious claim on your part.

Other than that, I'm not interested in this bizarre interrogation.

I was actually trying to engage in your specific methodology. I even gave you an out, to correct me. But if you wish not to provide all of us with your conclusions, citing your wisdom, then I guess this is our loss.

 

[Silmarien]

I was actually trying to engage in your specific methodology. I even gave you an out, to correct me. But if you wish not to provide all of us with your conclusions, citing your wisdom, then I guess this is our loss.

I've been trying to engage you on the topic of logical fallacies, since everything you've said about them is wrong. This is not a matter of my "specific methodology," but of rational discourse in general. I would happily explain why a well-crafted cosmological argument doesn't actually engage in special pleading, but given that you weren't too keen about my comments concerning the argument from ignorance, I don't really see the point. If I can't get you to play by the most basic rules of rational discourse here, more complicated and controversial ideas are really out of the question.

 

[cvanwey]

I've been trying to engage you on the topic of logical fallacies, since everything you've said about them is wrong. This is not a matter of my "specific methodology," but of rational discourse in general. I would happily explain why a well-crafted cosmological argument doesn't actually engage in special pleading, but given that you weren't too keen about my comments concerning the argument from ignorance, I don't really see the point. If I can't get you to play by the most basic rules of rational discourse here, more complicated and controversial ideas are really out of the question.

I find it interesting you presume to think you know what (I) know I have heard the Cosmological argument plenty of times, from many people. My OP is extremely simple.

Where the assertion for a 'driving force' is concerned, I have yet to find, or hear from someone whom has presented an argument which does not violate fallacious reasoning. If you are prepared to present one, then GREAT.

And yes, I must admit we appear to all fall victim of fallacious reasoning from time to time.

Case and point, the fact that I even state I have yet to hear of a rational argument, 'which might mean there does not exist one', possibly commits the argument from ignorance fallacy. (i.e.) I have not heard of one, 'therefore' one may not exist

So moving forward, what I am saying, is that regardless of my reasoning, can ANYONE demonstrate sound reasoning for the existence of the 'driving force', 'creating entity', or other? If you cannot, just say so.

As stated prior, this is actually not a game of 'gotcha', trying to prove I'm right, or other

This entire topic breeds fallacious reasoning, IMHO, from both sides of the proverbial fence.

If you are a 'theist' of sorts, or have concluded there exists a 'creating force' for such, I would like for you, or someone, to bring forth your best reasoning and justification. If there exists no flaws or fallacious content within it, then it may definitely merit great pondering....

That's all. Because quite frankly, this is one topic which keeps me from 100% rejecting the notion that there exists some sort of undetectable/detectable 'guiding hand' which may have put all such matter into motion. And yes, this may also be fallacious reasoning of sorts...

 

[Silmarien]

I find it interesting you presume to think you know what (I) know I have heard the Cosmological argument plenty of times, from many people. My OP is extremely simple.

Where the assertion for a 'driving force' is concerned, I have yet to find, or hear from someone whom has presented an argument which does not violate fallacious reasoning. If you are prepared to present one, then GREAT.

The problem isn't the cosmological argument. The problem is that nothing you have said in this thread demonstrates that you understand what makes an argument fallacious in the first place. First you equate sound reasoning with the ability to be tested, then you basically write everything off as an argument from ignorance without considering the difficulties inherent in abductive reasoning in general, then you baldly (and fallaciously) declare First Cause reasoning to be a matter of special pleading. It is not.

The reason you haven't found an argument which avoids fallacious reasoning is that you're wrongly declaring potentially valid reasoning to be invalid. Until you clean up your logic, there's no conversation that can be had here at all.

 

[cvanwey]

then you baldly (and fallaciously) declare First Cause reasoning to be a matter of special pleading. It is not.

Then bring your argument. Show me the 'error of my ways.'

Give me your best reasoning. But please, I implore you not to underestimate me

The reason you haven't found an argument which avoids fallacious reasoning is that you're wrongly declaring potentially valid reasoning to be invalid.

Present your argument, and put me to the test You may be surprised. You will either find that I'm not mistaken about 'seeing the cosmological argument as merely fallacious or unsound'. Or, you will back me into a corner in which I have no choice but to 1. change the subject, 2. stop responding, 3. attempt a personal attack in distraction, or 4. admit flaws in my prior reasoning, which in turn causes me to change my current conclusion.

Care to engage?

 

[Silmarien]

Then bring your argument. Show me the 'error of my ways.'

Give me your best reasoning. But please, I implore you not to underestimate me

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.

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.

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.

Present your argument, and put me to the test You may be surprised. You will either find that I'm not mistaken about 'seeing the cosmological argument as merely fallacious or unsound'. Or, you will back me into a corner in which I have no choice but to 1. change the subject, 2. stop responding, 3. attempt a personal attack in distraction, or 4. admit flaws in my prior reasoning, which in turn causes me to change my current conclusion.

Care to engage?

Honestly, no. I like discussing theistic philosophy, but I'm not particularly interested in apologetics. It's the question of what makes an argument legitimate or illegitimate that catches my attention here, since you've been oversimplifying things to the point of fallacious reasoning yourself.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, I do not believe the 'Devil' exists anymore than I believe ghosts, spirits, or demons exists. IMHO, after much study, the Bible appears to be a collection of stories, and the entire premise of 'God vs the Devil' appears to be a simplified conclusion of our perceived 'morals' - 'right and wrong', also with a large sprinkling of 'intentional agency.' Furthermore, every 'good' story needs a vilian

And some stories have a villain...and people are unable to recognize him as such. But, oh well! It's not my job to 'convince' you that chasing after inordinate Money, Sex and Power is a "bad thing."

I hasten to say then, to reconcile a grand agent, may then require the argument from ignorance?.?.?

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.

No, there are also Existential considerations that can make up one alternative option, although these won't go further than subjective evaluations, relevant only to the person who is experiencing and thinking within his personal existential frame of perception.

There are also those who think that when it comes to religion, the most we can expect is to do our best to draw together our 'truths' into some configuration that expresses something from within a Coherence Theory of truth or knowledge, or even a Pragmatic theory of these things, and the conclusions thus drawn will naturally have looser justifications and there will be insights that are less than completely demonstrable for "the masses." Of course, for those who actually know how various forms of justification work, they also know that Foundationalism, Evidentialism and the Correspondence Theory of Truth and/or Knowledge don't necessarily provide final proof for the masses................either. There's just too many complications with 'justifying' a whole lot of ideas or assertions that are somewhat ethereal in nature, and various forms of logic won't just 'cure' this epistemological deficiency for any of us, no matter have big our heads are.

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.

 

[Chriliman]

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?

Whatever we imagine driving such forces is either random happenstance or intentional. I can possibly imagine eternity past of random happenstance somehow getting us to where we are now, but the laws of thermodynamics renders that idea impossible, which means I should consider something nonrandom as the initial causer.

Edit: I should add that due to the laws of thermodynamics, whatever it is driving these forces probably hasn’t always existed in time/space that we’re familiar with.