The Genetic Fallacy

[JGG]

I am saying that it is a strawman, and that if you look at the fine-tuning and cosmological arguments (both the Kalam and the Leibniz), they are not the god of the gaps. Silverman, in his debate with Frank Turek, even tried to say that the moral argument was the god of the gaps.

Still God of the Gaps. Not long ago, someone on here defined God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, author of reality. I will continue to use that definition. So, if we assume that the universe has been fine-tuned, why do we immediately jump to the conclusion that it must have been an all-knowing, all-powerful author of reality? Perhaps it was an entity who was only capable of creating universes. It may have known nothing else, or only had the power to do this one thing. Perhaps it was many entities working in concert, each only capable of performing their own single task. And why, if any being was responsible for the creation of the universe, is it necessary for it to still be around?

Atheists are frequently told that you cannot prove a negative, and thus cannot prove that there is not a God. That's fair enough. Are you prepared to say that a fine-tuned universe could not have been created by a non-God entity?

And that all assumes that the universe is fined tuned. Scientists admit that it only appears fine-tuned as it supports carbon-based life. That's not to say that life would have appeared in some other form in another type of universe. We don't know.

And claiming "You don't know, therefore God!" is God of the gaps, and not evidence of God.

The problem with defining God as infinite, or all-knowing, or all-powerful, is that it is the most extreme answer possible. There are an infinite number of possible explanations, each of which is more reasonable.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Still God of the Gaps. Not long ago, someone on here defined God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, author of reality. I will continue to use that definition. So, if we assume that the universe has been fine-tuned, why do we immediately jump to the conclusion that it must have been an all-knowing, all-powerful author of reality? Perhaps it was an entity who was only capable of creating universes. It may have known nothing else, or only had the power to do this one thing. Perhaps it was many entities working in concert, each only capable of performing their. And why, if any being was responsible for the creation of the universe, is it necessary for it to still be around?

Atheists are frequently told that you cannot prove a negative, and thus cannot prove that there is not a God. That's fair enough. Are you prepared to say that a fine-tuned universe could not have been created by a non-God entity?

And that all assumes that the universe is fined tuned. Scientists admit that it only appears fine-tuned as it supports carbon-based life. That's not to say that life would have appeared in some other form in another type of universe. We don't know.

And claiming "You don't know, therefore God!" is God of the gaps, and not evidence of God.

The arguments for God's existence are a cumulative case; WLC once explained it pretty well like chainmail, where everything supports one another, rather than one chain.

 

[JGG]

The arguments for God's existence are a cumulative case; WLC once explained it pretty well like chainmail, where everything supports one another, rather than one chain.

That sounds like it should be scientific. But you'll have to do a whole lot more than William-Lane-Craig-says.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I am saying that it is a strawman, and that if you look at the fine-tuning and cosmological arguments (both the Kalam and the Leibniz), they are not the god of the gaps. Silverman, in his debate with Frank Turek, even tried to say that the moral argument was the god of the gaps.

Theism has no explanation for the fine-tuning constants, or the universe. And the moral argument does not explain anything either. Ergo useless God-of-the-Gaps argumentation. It is not a strawman, it is the plain truth.

It wouldn't even be so bad IF theism kept its promise of delivering explanations, but it is ridiculous to just think it ever could. Not for thunder and lightning, not for the fine-tuning constants, not for morality, and most certainly not for it all.

(The average theist has problems even spelling "fine-tuning" or "universe".)

 

[Lord Emsworth]

The arguments for God's existence are a cumulative case; WLC once explained it pretty well like chainmail, where everything supports one another, rather than one chain.

I can make a cumulative case for the existence of unicorns.

 

[KCfromNC]

If it's a rational argument, it does justify the conclusion. And by the way, this kind of argumentation can be used for all kinds of things; the problem of geography can be used against anything from the heliocentric model, to democracy, to natural rights, to all kinds of things.

For 2 of the 3, I agree, but only because you've picked things which are matters of opinion and culture.

Please demonstrate that acceptance of a heliocentric model depends mostly on where you are born and not on, say, education level.

If you were born in ancient Sparta, you would probably believe that if a child is not good for society, the child should be left to die. If you were born in Soviet Russia, you'd think that communism is better than democracy.

Yep, these are matters of opinion and culture, just like religious beliefs.

 

[KCfromNC]

If the universe didn't have a cause, it would have to be necessary (P1 of the Leibniz argument, which is a form of the Principle of Sufficient Reason.) The evidence for the beginning of the universe flies right in the face of this notion, however.

Why does the universe having a beginning imply it has a cause? How many universes have you observed coming into existence and how many of them have been caused? I'm guessing 0 and 0, so I can't even call this mistake a hasty generalization since there's nothing to generalize from. It is basically a guess coming from a gap in our knowledge.

 

[durangodawood]

Why does the universe having a beginning imply it has a cause? How many universes have you observed coming into existence and how many of them have been caused? I'm guessing 0 and 0, so I can't even call this mistake a hasty generalization since there's nothing to generalize from. It is basically a guess coming from a gap in our knowledge.

Exactly right. We humans infer that every effect has a cause.

But thats based strictly on events within a universe... and not necessarily applicable to the universe itself, or events beyond a universe.

 

[variant]

Exactly right. We humans infer that every effect has a cause.

But thats based strictly on events within a universe... and not necessarily applicable to the universe itself, or events beyond a universe.

Were we to accept the argument is convincing, it gets even more sketchy from there that living in a universe with an external cause would strongly imply a personal deity and that we can rule out other things as unreasonable.

Craig spends a good portion of that argument grasping at straws.

 

[Tinker Grey]

And as I understand it, it is debated that there are causes at the quantum level. If it is true that there aren't, then even inside our universe not everything is caused.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Theism has no explanation for the fine-tuning constants, or the universe. And the moral argument does not explain anything either. Ergo useless God-of-the-Gaps argumentation. It is not a strawman, it is the plain truth.

It wouldn't even be so bad IF theism kept its promise of delivering explanations, but it is ridiculous to just think it ever could. Not for thunder and lightning, not for the fine-tuning constants, not for morality, and most certainly not for it all.

(The average theist has problems even spelling "fine-tuning" or "universe".)

Saying things doesn't make it so.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

I can make a cumulative case for the existence of unicorns.

Let's see it.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Why does the universe having a beginning imply it has a cause? How many universes have you observed coming into existence and how many of them have been caused? I'm guessing 0 and 0, so I can't even call this mistake a hasty generalization since there's nothing to generalize from. It is basically a guess coming from a gap in our knowledge.

You don't have to observe the universe coming into existence to conclude that nothing can come from nothing without a cause... this is like saying that in some other world , maybe the law of identity doesn't apply.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Were we to accept the argument is convincing, it gets even more sketchy from there that living in a universe with an external cause would strongly imply a personal deity and that we can rule out other things as unreasonable.

Craig spends a good portion of that argument grasping at straws.

I once dismissed this argument for the same reason, until I thought about it a bit more; the external cause would have to be outside of the material realm to create it, otherwise it'd be creating itself, and then WLC's argument regarding personality applies.

 

[Belk]

You don't have to observe the universe coming into existence to conclude that nothing can come from nothing without a cause... this is like saying that in some other world , maybe the law of identity doesn't apply.

No, it's acknowledging that our understanding from observing things at the macro level within the universe tells us nothing of conditions required to create a universe. We do now that the laws of physics as we understand them break down prior to a plank time increment from the big bang.

 

[durangodawood]

....The genetic fallacy is when someone attempts to deduce something about the truth value of a proposition based on the origin of how someone came to believe it.....

I think the genetic argument is quite useful.

In the absence of hard evidence either way, it can provide a sort of anthropological evidence about the probability that a belief is the sort of thing humans invent.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Saying things doesn't make it so.

The burden of proof is yours.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

The burden of proof is yours.

To prove that intelligence is an explanation for these things?
Btw, I caught your original post just in time

 

[variant]

I once dismissed this argument for the same reason, until I thought about it a bit more; the external cause would have to be outside of the material realm to create it, otherwise it'd be creating itself, and then WLC's argument regarding personality applies.

If we grant that we would accept the rest of the argument for the universe requiring an external cause:

It would only have to be external to "the universe" as composed at the big bang, not necessarily outside the physical realm (or all physical realms).

We actually have no experience with anything that is outside of the physical realm so concluding "the supernatural" from available evidence or logically concluding it would be quite impossible.

 

[variant]

And as I understand it, it is debated that there are causes at the quantum level. If it is true that there aren't, then even inside our universe not everything is caused.

Causes at the quantum level are fairly free to be random which kind of cuts into WLC's position of needing a guided cause.