Lies, Dang Lies, and Daniel Dennett -Tricks New Atheists Play (Part 4)

[Uber Genius]

If cause and effect require space and time, how can the cause of space and time be outside of space and time? At the very least, we lack the language and/or understanding to even begin to have the discussion.

Despite the up votes you received, this objection fails to recognize the distinction between causes illucidated by Aristole 2350 years ago. In you 1st college philosophy class you will be introduce to four types of causes. One is material causation (e.g. The wood used to make a chair), the other is an efficient cause, (e.g. The woodworker who intends t build a chair, designs a chair, uses various material causes to accomplish bringing into existence a chair).

So your analogy is fallacious in that it assumes there are only material causes.

But how did you comment get created in the first place?

Did the asci text appear on the forum as a sole function of material causation? Or did you intend to use your keyboard and form words, link them to sentences, and express ideas? You are an efficient cause. You have that attribute in common with all scentiant life.

Since at least Socrates but more likely Perminides we have recognized that the prime mover would be eternal and an efficient caus rather than material cause.

Only due to recent ignorance by atheists like Dawkins do we get reintroduced to these philosophical eguivocations. He must be too busy to read any philosophy on the subject for the last couple milenia.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Despite the up votes you received, this objection fails to recognize the distinction between causes illucidated by Aristole 2350 years ago. In you 1st college philosophy class you will be introduce to four types of causes. One is material causation (e.g. The wood used to make a chair), the other is an efficient cause, (e.g. The woodworker who intends t build a chair, designs a chair, uses various material causes to accomplish bringing into existence a chair).

So your analogy is fallacious in that it assumes there are only material causes.

But how did you comment get created in the first place?

Did the asci text appear on the forum as a sole function of material causation? Or did you intend to use your keyboard and form words, link them to sentences, and express ideas? You are an efficient cause. You have that attribute in common with all scentiant life.

Since at least Socrates but more likely Perminides we have recognized that the prime mover would be eternal and an efficient caus rather than material cause.

Only due to recent ignorance by atheists like Dawkins do we get reintroduced to these philosophical eguivocations. He must be too busy to read any philosophy on the subject for the last couple milenia.

I did not use an analogy. And this is a pretty long reply for not at all addressing my comment.

Now, my objection is only regarding a universe where time and space had a beginning. As far as we can understand, the concept of a "beginning" requires time. So regarding cause and effect, in the case of the universe, time and space is the effect. But we can't begin to have a discussion about anything that is beyond the universe, that is to say "the cause." We can't discuss what comes BEFORE time because the concept of "before" becomes complete nonsense. I am not personally arrogant enough to ever assert anything that's beyond our understanding of space and time nor am I gullible enough to accept anyone else's assertions.

 

[mark kennedy]

Despite the up votes you received, this objection fails to recognize the distinction between causes illucidated by Aristole 2350 years ago. In you 1st college philosophy class you will be introduce to four types of causes. One is material causation (e.g. The wood used to make a chair), the other is an efficient cause, (e.g. The woodworker who intends t build a chair, designs a chair, uses various material causes to accomplish bringing into existence a chair).

So your analogy is fallacious in that it assumes there are only material causes.

But how did you comment get created in the first place?

Did the asci text appear on the forum as a sole function of material causation? Or did you intend to use your keyboard and form words, link them to sentences, and express ideas? You are an efficient cause. You have that attribute in common with all scentiant life.

Since at least Socrates but more likely Perminides we have recognized that the prime mover would be eternal and an efficient caus rather than material cause.

Only due to recent ignorance by atheists like Dawkins do we get reintroduced to these philosophical eguivocations. He must be too busy to read any philosophy on the subject for the last couple milenia.

The four causes are from his book of physics, specifically discussing metaphysics. Metaphysics has been described as the substantive element that tranends all reality. The four causes are existential, you can't know what a thing is until you know why. The most basic dichotomy in natural science is cause and effect, all four causes are four parts of the same thing.

The material cause of the water pitcher is clay, the form is the molding of wet clay, the agent is the sculptor and the purpose is to hold and pour water.

So what's missing in Darwinian logic is the agent or efficient cause, he substitutes natural law for miraculas act of God. Darwinism is an infinite regress of exclusively causes with no first cause. They have long made a big deal of dismissing teleological purpose, or thing to which something is directed. So with Darwinism you have a blind watchmaker doing his work to know end, life advances due to serindipitus random occurred yielding purposes selective advantage.

 

[mark kennedy]

The four causes are from his book of physics, specifically discussing metaphysics. Metaphysics has been described as the substantive element that tranends all reality. The four causes are existential, you can't know what a thing is until you know why. The most basic dichotomy in natural science is cause and effect, all four causes are four parts of the same thing.

The material cause of the water pitcher is clay, the form is the molding of wet clay, the agent is the sculptor and the purpose is to hold and pour water.

So what's missing in Darwinian logic is the agent or efficient cause, he substitutes natural law for miraculas act of God. Darwinism is an infinite regress of exclusively causes with no first cause. They have long made a big deal of dismissing teleological purpose, or thing to which something is directed. So with Darwinism you have a blind watchmaker doing his work to know end, life advances due to serindipitus random occurred yielding purposes selective advantage.

Darwin was once asked if his work was metaphysics and he frankly Dmitted he knew almost nothing of the subject. Perhaps he should have learned something about it before expounding existential dogma.

 

[Uber Genius]

I did not use an analogy. And this is a pretty long reply for not at all addressing my comment.

Now, my objection is only regarding a universe where time and space had a beginning. As far as we can understand, the concept of a "beginning" requires time. So regarding cause and effect, in the case of the universe, time and space is the effect. But we can't begin to have a discussion about anything that is beyond the universe, that is to say "the cause." We can't discuss what comes BEFORE time because the concept of "before" becomes complete nonsense. I am not personally arrogant enough to ever assert anything that's beyond our understanding of space and time nor am I gullible enough to accept anyone else's assertions.

The long reply was to give you basic understanding of how you are equivocating the concept of efficient and material causation. Unless you are willing to study why you have made a fundamental misstep in your logic I am unable to help you.

That is quite a long reply for missing the point that you had equivocated. A few minutes of research would have avoided your defending your own misunderstanding.

I am not here to engage individuals who are using logical fallacious arguments, whether intentionally or not. I'm here to expose the bad arguments in hopes that theists and atheists alike will not be sidetracked by foolish tricks. Equivocating causes is a foolish trick.

 

[Uber Genius]

So what's missing in Darwinian logic is the agent or efficient cause, he substitutes natural law for miraculas act of God. Darwinism is an infinite regress of exclusively causes with no first cause. They have long made a big deal of dismissing teleological purpose, or thing to which something is directed. So with Darwinism you have a blind watchmaker doing his work to know end, life advances due to serindipitus random occurred yielding purposes selective advantage.

I would rather focus on Dennett's misrepresentation of Craig's premises im this thread.

That said, Darwin uses an abductive inference to the best explanation of the speciation data he had. His project was much smaller in that it didn't even deal with an origin of life (he does some of this in his "M" and "N" notebooks decades later).

Science focuses on small aspects of the world where there is hopefully a way to isolate causal factors and properly demonstrate a correlation of causes and effects. I don't want to berate Darwin for his focus on a small problem as all science seeks that goal.

 

[mark kennedy]

I would rather focus on Dennett's misrepresentation of Craig's premises im this thread.

That said, Darwin uses an abductive inference to the best explanation of the speciation data he had. His project was much smaller in that it didn't even deal with an origin of life (he does some of this in his "M" and "N" notebooks decades later).

Science focuses on small aspects of the world where there is hopefully a way to isolate causal factors and properly demonstrate a correlation of causes and effects. I don't want to berate Darwin for his focus on a small problem as all science seeks that goal.

Science, which could be more precisely described as natural science, is an exploration of natural phenomenon. The cause and effect relationships they see in infinite regress, that was my point. God is at the point of origin whether we are talking about the Big Bang or life on this planet. What I think you will find is that the underlying logic remains the same, though the specifics vary. It's not that what they are saying is illogical, it's that their logic has no point of origin or purpose to which things are directed. I consider their philosophy to be ultimately fatalistic.

 

[Uber Genius]

Science, which could be more precisely described as natural science, is an exploration of natural phenomenon. The cause and effect relationships they see in infinite regress, that was my point. God is at the point of origin whether we are talking about the Big Bang or life on this planet. What I think you will find is that the underlying logic remains the same, though the specifics vary. It's not that what they are saying is illogical, it's that their logic has no point of origin or purpose to which things are directed. I consider their philosophy to be ultimately fatalistic.

So these are points I would reserve for the first premise in the cosmological argument. But I focus a little differently in how science must borrow from a Christian worldview to operate.

Namely, the world must be orderly and operate consistently over time and space. This is not clearly true on naturalism. Also rationality must be focused on finding truth between many differing propositions. But fatally, Darwinian mechanisms operate on fitness Not true-value. So we have a defeater for rationality of the scientist.

I don't think science can engage past the space time boundary even theoretically. So I consider your disiderata in your post metaphysical in nature and the squarely in the field of philosophy. But we agree that their foundation is not possible on naturalism or more properly incoherent.

 

[mark kennedy]

So these are points I would reserve for the first premise in the cosmological argument. But I focus a little differently in how science must borrow from a Christian worldview to operate.

Namely, the world must be orderly and operate consistently over time and space. This is not clearly true on naturalism. Also rationality must be focused on finding truth between many differing propositions. But fatally, Darwinian mechanisms operate on fitness Not true-value. So we have a defeater for rationality of the scientist.

I don't think science can engage past the space time boundary even theoretically. So I consider your disiderata in your post metaphysical in nature and the squarely in the field of philosophy. But we agree that their foundation is not possible on naturalism or more properly incoherent.

As I recall your the one who brought up Aristotelian causation that's metaphysics, all four causes required for existential truth, the substantive element that transcends all reality. The thing about theology is it starts with transcendent, eternal truth. An inductive approach to epistemology (theories of knowledge) is that it starts with the testing of hypothesis.

"The number of rational hypotheses that can explain any given phenomenon is infinite."...The law is completely nihilistic. It is a catastrophic logical disproof of the general validity of all scientific method!. About this Einstein had said, "Evolution has shown that at any given moment out of all conceivable constructions a single one has always proved itself absolutely superior to the rest... to Phædrus... To state that would annihilate the most basic presumption of all science! Through...theories and hypotheses, it is science itself that is leading mankind from single absolute truths to multiple, indeterminate, relative ones...Scientifically produced antiscience...chaos. (Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance)
​

So your going to make the empirical the primary, if not exclusive source of knowledge. Since Einstein physics has tried to establish a unified theory of physics, they call it string theory. Time travel and the multiverse are all products of this convoluted worldview trying to force all reality into it's materialist naturalistic assumptions.

Little do they know, a system of metaphysics already exists. The Aristotelian scholasticism of the Medieval of Rome and the ancient Greeks, that unified all human knowledge from the 5th to the 15 century. Just like Plato predicted in the Republic it lasted a thousand years and like the phoenix burnt to ashes and out of the ashes a new republic emerged. This republic was the Protestant Reformation, with higher populations it was largely democratic since the will of the people would be the basis.

In the seventeenth century we also saw the rise of inductive scientific methodology, perfectly compatible with the old world metaphysics but refusing the existential transcendence that unified all human thought and endeavor, rejecting the ecclesiastical authority of divine providence and revelation. It wasn't enough for them to dominate political and legal thought they got into theology and redefined it in exclusively naturalistic terms. Pantheism, deism and the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism prevailed in the culture centers of Europe and later the United States.

Currently they have abandoned the foundational concepts of a unified theory, there is no existential truth. Just an infinite regress of causation proceeding endlessly into a dark purposeless future. This is not that different from the mythos of the pagan myths, we think it all when back to a pantheon of gods but the gods themselves were the product of pagan elementals, earth, air, fire and water. Paganism was always naturalistic at its core.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

The long reply was to give you basic understanding of how you are equivocating the concept of efficient and material causation. Unless you are willing to study why you have made a fundamental misstep in your logic I am unable to help you.

That is quite a long reply for missing the point that you had equivocated. A few minutes of research would have avoided your defending your own misunderstanding.

I am not here to engage individuals who are using logical fallacious arguments, whether intentionally or not. I'm here to expose the bad arguments in hopes that theists and atheists alike will not be sidetracked by foolish tricks. Equivocating causes is a foolish trick.

I can understand the differences between the four causes Aristotle outlined. I have no real problem with that. EVERY instance of cause and effect that we are currently capable of understanding or discussing requires space and time to exist. Any example you can conjure up requires space and time. Woodworkers are no exception.

 

[Uber Genius]

I can understand the differences between the four causes Aristotle outlined. I have no real problem with that. EVERY instance of cause and effect that we are currently capable of understanding or discussing requires space and time to exist. Any example you can conjure up requires space and time. Woodworkers are no exception.

Wrong.

Aristotle recognized that there mus be a first efficient cause that transcends space and time. A "prime mover."

Out of nothing nothing comes. Aristotle didn't mis that point. You do.

 

[Uber Genius]

As I recall your the one who brought up Aristotelian causation that's metaphysics, all four causes required for existential truth, the substantive element that transcends all reality. The thing about theology is it starts with transcendent, eternal truth. An inductive approach to epistemology (theories of knowledge) is that it starts with the testing of hypothesis.

"The number of rational hypotheses that can explain any given phenomenon is infinite."...The law is completely nihilistic. It is a catastrophic logical disproof of the general validity of all scientific method!. About this Einstein had said, "Evolution has shown that at any given moment out of all conceivable constructions a single one has always proved itself absolutely superior to the rest... to Phædrus... To state that would annihilate the most basic presumption of all science! Through...theories and hypotheses, it is science itself that is leading mankind from single absolute truths to multiple, indeterminate, relative ones...Scientifically produced antiscience...chaos. (Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance)
​

So your going to make the empirical the primary, if not exclusive source of knowledge. Since Einstein physics has tried to establish a unified theory of physics, they call it string theory. Time travel and the multiverse are all products of this convoluted worldview trying to force all reality into it's materialist naturalistic assumptions.

Little do they know, a system of metaphysics already exists. The Aristotelian scholasticism of the Medieval of Rome and the ancient Greeks, that unified all human knowledge from the 5th to the 15 century. Just like Plato predicted in the Republic it lasted a thousand years and like the phoenix burnt to ashes and out of the ashes a new republic emerged. This republic was the Protestant Reformation, with higher populations it was largely democratic since the will of the people would be the basis.

In the seventeenth century we also saw the rise of inductive scientific methodology, perfectly compatible with the old world metaphysics but refusing the existential transcendence that unified all human thought and endeavor, rejecting the ecclesiastical authority of divine providence and revelation. It wasn't enough for them to dominate political and legal thought they got into theology and redefined it in exclusively naturalistic terms. Pantheism, deism and the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism prevailed in the culture centers of Europe and later the United States.

Currently they have abandoned the foundational concepts of a unified theory, there is no existential truth. Just an infinite regress of causation proceeding endlessly into a dark purposeless future. This is not that different from the mythos of the pagan myths, we think it all when back to a pantheon of gods but the gods themselves were the product of pagan elementals, earth, air, fire and water. Paganism was always naturalistic at its core.

Fair enough.

I did bring up Aristoltles causal theory. But I did so to highlight an equivocation by another poster but was hoping to stay on Dennett's misrepresentations of Craig's premises being unfounded.

I have a hard time keeping new atheist wannabes on topic, but appreciate the help out here and the insight and study your comments reflect. I retract my earlier remark.

 

[mark kennedy]

Fair enough.

I did bring up Aristoltles causal theory. But I did so to highlight an equivocation by another poster but was hoping to stay on Dennett's misrepresentations of Craig's premises being unfounded.

I have a hard time keeping new atheist wannabes on topic, but appreciate the help out here and the insight and study your comments reflect. I retract my earlier remark.

Well that's fine, I did think the problem was confusion because of too many tangents. I still think Aristotle has to be revisited in order to get a unified theory, but that's another topic

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Wrong.

Aristotle recognized that there mus be a first efficient cause that transcends space and time. A "prime mover."

Out of nothing nothing comes. Aristotle didn't mis that point. You do.

The only causes we know of require space and time. "Cause and effect" have no meaning outside of space and time. You're appealing to that which requires space and time in order to make your argument for the beginning of space and time.

You and I are both ill-equipped to have this conversation. The difference is that I am willing to admit it.

 

[Uber Genius]

The only causes we know of require space and time. "Cause and effect" have no meaning outside of space and time. You're appealing to that which requires space and time in order to make your argument for the beginning of space and time.

You and I are both ill-equipped to have this conversation. The difference is that I am willing to admit it.

Lol. You could spend 5 minutes researching causation and Aristotle out at Stanford or IEP and get my point. Instead of investing 5 mins you just keep repeating a statement no philosopher would ever support.

One does not need a Ph.D. in philosophy to understanding these basic concepts anymore than one needs a Ph.D. IN math to understand 2+2 = 4.

This is just an argument to authority which is another fallacy. Nice attempt at a dodge.

Do 5 minutes of research please, you have introduced enough rhetoric for now.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

He then argues from pure mathematics that an infinite regression of explanatory priors is not possible.

Pure mathematics is precisely where infinite regression is possible. Or do you think there is a lower bound to the integers?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

One does not need a Ph.D. in philosophy to understanding these basic concepts anymore than one needs a Ph.D. IN math to understand 2+2 = 4.

Mathematics, in its entirety, consists of assumptions, definitions, and the conclusions that follow.

2={{},{{}}} by definition.

By definition, +:NxN-->N through iterations of the successor function.

Now, can you tell me how it follows from these definitions that 2+2=4?

Your intuitive grasp of this is sufficient for daily life, but you don't truly understand what is actually happening unless you study it. And that is kind of the point here, isnt' it?

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Lol. You could spend 5 minutes researching causation and Aristotle out at Stanford or IEP and get my point. Instead of investing 5 mins you just keep repeating a statement no philosopher would ever support.

One does not need a Ph.D. in philosophy to understanding these basic concepts anymore than one needs a Ph.D. IN math to understand 2+2 = 4.

This is just an argument to authority which is another fallacy. Nice attempt at a dodge.

Do 5 minutes of research please, you have introduced enough rhetoric for now.

Can you have a cause and then an effect if there is no space or no time for it to occur in?

Argument to authority? I did no such thing. You think you can plop Aristotle's name down and who is Gene Parmesan to argue against him? No, I'm afraid that fallacy is all yours.

 

[Uber Genius]

Can you have a cause and then an effect if there is no space or no time for it to occur in?

Argument to authority? I did no such thing. You think you can plop Aristotle's name down and who is Gene Parmesan to argue against him? No, I'm afraid that fallacy is all yours.

This is neither an argument to authority (you recast my comment as a strawman in order to mislabel it.)

Any amount of study on stanfords site or googling Aristotle's rewriting on the matter will,produce sufficient explanation of effiecient causation. Nice try.

Secondly, by assuming physical (space and time) is all there is you import naturalism into your argument as a premise. Unfortunately you haven't given us any reason to believe that is the case and I have give reason to think that it is not the case.

This is getting tiring. I wish you would spend as much time researching the concepts you are arguing as you do recasting my comments as straw men.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

This is neither an argument to authority (you recast my comment as a strawman in order to mislabel it.)

Any amount of study on stanfords site or googling Aristotle's rewriting on the matter will,produce sufficient explanation of effiecient causation. Nice try.

Secondly, by assuming physical (space and time) is all there is you import naturalism into your argument as a premise. Unfortunately you haven't given us any reason to believe that is the case and I have give reason to think that it is not the case.

This is getting tiring. I wish you would spend as much time researching the concepts you are arguing as you do recasting my comments as straw men.

I'm sorry, all of our experience with cause and effect is within the context of the universe. You cannot even begin to discuss a cause for the universe. You can try to come up with analogies of painters and watchmakers for an "efficient cause" or whatever you want and then apply that to the universe, but I think you'd be guilty of committing a composition fallacy.