Ichthus77,

Are you planning on addressing any of the arguments that were raised against your previous posts since you bowed out of this discussion? Here and here for example? Or are you just planning to advertise your blog and leave?

BTW, it's a bit rich for a proponent of the Kalam Cosmological Argument ("Everything that begins to exist has a cause. So God didn't begin to exist, because he is the cause of everything that exists. Therefore, God exists because everything that begins to exist needs a cause, and God is that cause.") to accuse others of making "circular arguments".

Yep, rich, isn't it.

Our friend Maryann Spikes (Icthus77) chose not to quote this appalling example of theistic logic failure from her same blog article she just linked to:

... San Francisco's atheist blogger Greta Christian retorts, in her May 4 Atheist Meme of the Day,

"'Everything has to have a cause, therefore there must be a God' is a terrible argument for religion. If everything has to have a cause -- what caused God? And if God either always existed or came into being out of nothing -- why can't that be true for the universe?"

In short, "everything" refers to "everything which needs a cause". The "uncaused cause" is not physical, therefore needing no cause. Daniel Dennett in "Breaking the Spell" conjures the straw man reply that God is self-caused. God cannot "come into being" or he is not God, leaving the alternative that he always existed and is the necessary being from which all contingent being derives its being. The physical universe has not always existed but has a definite beginning, as explained below by physicist Brian Greene ...

Let's take a look at this farrago of nonsense.

"Everything which needs a cause"

Tell me, Maryann, how do you determine which objects or concepts fall into the category "things which need causes" ? Tell me, did you take a vote on it at church ? Did you ask an expert ? Which expert ? Expert on what ? On theology ?

And note, your quoted physicist "authority" Dr, Greene is not on your side, since he addresses the question of an explanation for the beginning of the cycle, which is NOT synonymous with a cause for the beginning of the cycle. Not unless you, Maryann, are choosing to lie by equivocation between his quoted word "explanation" and your desired use of the term "cause".

The "uncaused cause" ...

Honestly, Maryann, where are you getting this nonsense ? What grounds do you have for using that term as if it referenced anything in reality ? It's made up. It was adopted from Aristotle as nothing more than a get-out-of-jail-free card for your god. How do you expect to get any respect for your so-called logical column if you insist on throwing in invented nonsense like that right off the bat ?

... is not physical ...

Oh, it's not, is it ? How do you know ? Who told you ? Then, how do you imagine it "created" the physical world ? Magic ? The only examples we have ever experienced of interactions with our physical world are with other physical objects/forces. We have NEVER experienced a non-physical object/force; we have zero grounds for even imagining such might exist. Much less for the preposterous claim that, if such existed, it could interact with our physical world.

... therefore needing no cause.

So you say. Again, you totally ignore that - if you assert "no cause" as a privilege for your side - you are being hypocritical and illogical to then claim, as you later do, that "somebody got the ball rolling". Remind me, how do you, Maryann, determine which concepts fall into the category of "need somebody to get the ball rolling" and which don't ? Are we supposed to believe, just based on your unsupported word, that the "somebody" who (you think) got our ball rolling does not itself need a "somebody" to get it rolling ?

Daniel Dennett in "Breaking the Spell" conjures the straw man reply that God is self-caused.

It's a sad little lie that Dennett conjures a straw man, and a quote-mine to boot. Here's the quote:

“The Cosmological Argument, which in its simplest form states that since everything must have a cause the universe must have a cause—namely, God—doesn’t stay simple for long. Some deny the premise, since quantum physics teaches us (doesn’t it?) that not everything that happens needs to have a cause. Others prefer to accept the premise and then ask: What caused God? The reply that God is self-caused (somehow) then raises the rebuttal: If something can be self-caused, why can’t the universe as a whole be the thing that is self-caused.” (Breaking the Spell, pg. 242)

Note that you have zero effective response to this perfectly logical point except to lie about it being a straw man. You can't actually refute it, with your nonsense about "uncaused cause" being nothing more than special pleading dressed up in shopworn clothes.

God cannot "come into being ..."

Why not ? Who says ? Against some law, is it, for god to come into being ? What law ?

... or he is not God, ...

Damn fine logic you've got there. Either god matches your made-up condition, or god isn't god. Well, as an empty syllogism, yes, you're probably right. Either god matches the made-up definition of god, or by definition, god isn't god after all. But you, Maryann, have yet to advance your case for the actual existence of an entity matching your made-up definition by one iota here.

... leaving the alternative that he always existed ...

OR the alternative that it never existed whatsoever, OR the alternative that it existed but not in a form which matches your particular made-up definition, while still matching someone else's definition of god, OR ... something.

... and is the necessary being from which all contingent being derives its being.

My, my, you're really pulling in every crackpot philosophical concept you've ever heard of, aren't you. Please provide a scrap of evidence that there is any such thing as a "necessary being" named god. But for full credit, provide evidence that your particular "necessary being" is also the entity from which our real world actually "derives its being". Don't be afraid to admit that you can't do it. Far smarter people than you have admitted that it's an indefensible - or at best, an unfounded but not dis-proven - concept. We're certainly not going to take your unsupported assertion for it.

The physical universe has not always existed ...

Is that a fact ? Who says so ? What's their justification for saying so ? We know what YOUR justification is - you have to believe the universe has not always existed in order to prop up your unfounded belief that it needed a "cause" and the even-more unfounded belief that the "cause" of the universe was your preferred god. And we know you don't understand the relevant science, so you aren't competent to judge whether a particular cosmology model even allows for the possibility of god, much less supports the actual existence of god - but don't let that stop you

... but has a definite beginning ...

which you don't understand in a scientific sense, but as I just said, you are willing to grasp at any straw if it appears to match your already-chosen belief in god.

... as explained below by physicist Brian Greene ...

and with that, we're back to demonstrating that you shamelessly snatch any quote that you hope supports your theistic claim, even when you have to deliberately distort the words quoted.

I'm left shaking my head in amazement that you would willingly sign your name to that column to be preserved for posterity as an example of your thinking.

Speaking of strawmen, our Maryann seems very pleased with herself for how she performed in this fictional debate with a couple chaps named "Harris" and "Dawkins."

Shrunk wrote:Speaking of strawmen, our Maryann seems very pleased with herself for how she performed in this fictional debate with a couple chaps named "Harris" and "Dawkins."

Gee, that's impressive.

Here's my debate with non-present people:

Xrayzed: I admit I'm not a philosopher, but it seems to me that neither of you actually provide any evidence for your claims. You just make shit up - well, steal old ideas and tart them up a bit - and frankly it's kind of embarrassing that anybody would swallow it.

Craig: Agreed.

Plantinga: Totally.

Shrunk wrote:Ichthus77,

Are you planning on addressing any of the arguments that were raised against your previous posts since you bowed out of this discussion? Here and here for example? Or are you just planning to advertise your blog and leave?

The two "here"s you posted both refer back to my last post (I'm assuming). I'm not advertising my blog--just the gambit. And inviting folks to join the dialogue going on at the Philosophers' Carnival. If I had time (or several clones all linked to a central mind), I'd shoot the poop all day w/ you fellers/fellerinas.

BTW, it's a bit rich for a proponent of the Kalam Cosmological Argument ("Everything that begins to exist has a cause. So God didn't begin to exist, because he is the cause of everything that exists. Therefore, God exists because everything that begins to exist needs a cause, and God is that cause.") to accuse others of making "circular arguments".

Here goes nothin'. I'm sorry I don't have time to reply to the really long reply.

***

1. The universe (the whole of all physical "being") has a beginning, even in the cyclic model (Greene, Fabric of the Cosmos).

2. In order for "doing" to happen, there must be a "being" who does the "doing".

3. All doings of any particular being are done by that particular being "after" that particular being "is" (after it is "being").

4. "Becoming" is a doing.

5. Because of 3, the universe (see 1) cannot "become" until it already "is", therefore

6. (Because of 2), some other "being" than the universe (see 1) made the universe (see 1) "become" in the first place.

Now. It does not follow from this that this "some other being" has no beginning (or that it does). We can't study it like we can study the physical universe, because it is not part of the physical universe (though it can be immanent in it). However--it does follow that there IS some other being than the physical universe, something supernatural. And, if it has a beginning, it will have a cause (a being which makes it become) other than itself.

The theist conclusion is that there is only one supernatural being, and it is uncaused--eternal (a personal God). The atheist conclusion must be (in this case) that there is an infinite regress of those caused supernatural (personal or nonpersonal un-god) beings.

But, that isn't the atheist conclusion. The atheist conclusion is a self-bootstrapping universe (a circular argument). So, that's what I address in my article.

Again, I'm sorry, but I don't have time to answer the really long reply. Hopefully you'll have enough fun w/ this one. And remember to submit something to the Philosophers' Carnival, and tip your waitress.

There's lies, damned lies, and then there's ... no, not statistics ... christian apologetics.

What a damned pile of garbage. Everything after the first "The Universe" is infected with rot of theistic origin.

I don't think it's just a misunderstanding. It's too pervasive and too often repeated for that relatively innocent connotation of "misunderstanding'. It's all lies. Non-truths stated as undisputed facts. Deliberately constructed to sound superficially plausible, to reassure the faithful that someone - maybe not they themselves, but someone - has wrestled with the evil atheists and come away with a gleeful victory. See, god is the one supernatural being - just like we told you all along - and now we've proved it !

Hoping that no one will notice that the so-called "proof" is based on unsupported assumptions, ruthless equivocation of common meanings with technical meanings of some terms, and bare-faced lies.

Ichthus77 wrote:Again, I'm sorry, but I don't have time to answer the really long reply. Hopefully you'll have enough fun w/ this one. And remember to submit something to the Philosophers' Carnival, and tip your waitress.

No of course you don't have time, sweetie, you being such an important philosopher and all that. You just have time to crap in the bed and leave it for someone else to clean up after you.

and now we've proved it !

Both the atheist and theist conclusions require faith (but the self-bootstrapping atheist conclusion--that one requires blind faith--in the teeth of counter-evidence). I doubt that'll make you feel any better, though. 'Night.

P.S. I don't have time 'cause I have a job and a family (and a lack of clones).

Wow , this "everything that began to exists" pre suppositionalist shit is still going on?
I still wonder where Craig and Ichtyus took this from.They even intend to know more from the "physical" that scientist do.
And lol "physical" as opposed to what? Imaginary "non physical" ?Yeah just go on and invent a new substance that suit to your presuposition , do not define it , and just say "it must be uncausal !"
And for some reason its not "physical" because ,you know...it just can't be .

1- Everything that is "physical" must have an acausal cause to exist wich isn't matter , but makes matters that must have a cause that is not matter.....because it was decided that it's not possible for matter to be uncaused....because .....Whatever that exists must have a cause ! But only if it is physical!....because....Wait what isn't this some logically circular making up shit without any justification ?

And btw , universe = all that exists .Therefore it's stupid to point at anything "outside" .Even the imaginary "non physical stuff that god is made of" is part of the universe.

Ichthus77 wrote:1. The universe (the whole of all physical "being") has a beginning, even in the cyclic model (Greene, Fabric of the Cosmos).

I suspect you are mis-reading Greene. Are you suggesting that Greene suggest that there was an original "Universe 0" that began at "time = 0"?

Perhaps you could clarify this, and provide the relevant passage from Greene's book.

2. In order for "doing" to happen, there must be a "being" who does the "doing".

I can see branches on a tree moving. Unless there is a being doing this - perhaps Enlil, the Summerian god of the air - your premise is false.

3. All doings of any particular being are done by that particular being "after" that particular being "is" (after it is "being").

So a being must exist for it to do something. True, if somewhat trivial.

4. "Becoming" is a doing.

Exactly what do you mean by "becoming" in this context?

5. Because of 3, the universe (see 1) cannot "become" until it already "is", therefore

See previous.

6. (Because of 2), some other "being" than the universe (see 1) made the universe (see 1) "become" in the first place.

Since (2) is false, (6) is false, irrespective of whatever you mean by "becoming".

Now. It does not follow from this that this "some other being" has no beginning (or that it does). We can't study it like we can study the physical universe, because it is not part of the physical universe (though it can be immanent in it).

Even if I accept that within the logic of our physical universe everything must ultimately begin with a being (which clearly I don't), you can't then apply that to that which is outside of our universe.

QED if it is possible that there is a sentient being that a) is the ultimate origin of our universe, b) is exempt from the rules of our universe, and c) cannot be understood in terms of the rules our our universe, it is also possible that there is a non-sentient universe that a) is the ultimate origin of our universe, b) is exempt from the rules of our universe, and c) cannot be understood in terms of the rules our our universe.

You need to make a choice: either there exist things outside our universe that cannot be understood by our universe's rules, in which case we can't say anything about them, or our rules can be applied, in which case your assertion is invalid.

However--it does follow that there IS some other being than the physical universe, something supernatural. And, if it has a beginning, it will have a cause (a being which makes it become) other than itself.

Not at all, for reasons outlined above.

The theist conclusion is that there is only one supernatural being, and it is uncaused--eternal (a personal God).

This is a new premise, and is unsupported by your previous arguments.

The atheist conclusion must be (in this case) that there is an infinite regress of those caused supernatural (personal or nonpersonal un-god) beings.

That is wrong on so many levels I can't be bothered dissecting it.

But, that isn't the atheist conclusion. The atheist conclusion is a self-bootstrapping universe (a circular argument).

Not at all.

If you assume a simple linear arrow of time that must exist for the universe(s), that has a clear sequential causal chain back to time = 0, then arguably (but not necessarily - I'll ignore the nuances for now) yes.

But you don't apply this simple linear arrow of time to your god, or else you would have a self-bootstrapping god. Your solution to this is to say that the rules of time in our universe needn't apply to a god outside it - in which case these rules needn't apply to anything outside it, be it a god or a non-sentient thing that is the cause of our universe.

So make a choice: everything must have a cause, or not.

Ichthus77 wrote:

and now we've proved it !

Both the atheist and theist conclusions require faith (but the self-bootstrapping atheist conclusion--that one requires blind faith--in the teeth of counter-evidence). I doubt that'll make you feel any better, though. 'Night.

P.S. I don't have time 'cause I have a job and a family (and a lack of clones).

Where the fuck is this coming from ?When you have jack shit of a justification or self contradicting fictional characters , not believing is a rational stance requiring no faith at all.What we need isn't counter evidence but evidence and justifications of whatever people like to call god.

Ichthus77 wrote:
P.S. I don't have time 'cause I have a job and a family (and a lack of clones).

And I don't ?

Jayzuz fucking christ, what a shitty thing for you to say.

Come here to post, or don't come, it's not up to me. You're a free woman, white and over twenty one. You pays your money, you make your choices. But I promise I will call you on supercilious butter-won't-melt-in-your-mouth bullshit every time I catch you at it.

Ichthus77 wrote:Both the atheist and theist conclusions require faith (but the self-bootstrapping atheist conclusion--that one requires blind faith--in the teeth of counter-evidence).

The atheist doesn't need to conclude anything of the kind. I'll try to clarify this, although I suspect you'll still fail to get it:

Atheism ≠ belief in a self-bootstrapping universe.

An atheist doesn't need to have an opinion on the origins of the universe, much less hold your version. "I don't know", "I don't care", "it's unanswerable", "causality is a flawed concept", "the universe doesn't exist", and "the universe was created by an neo-farnangling murch-wobble in the 128th inverse non-temporal reality" are all possible atheist positions on the creation of the universe.

The one thing all atheists will agree on is that there is no reason to believe that the origin of the universe must be a god.

For example, speaking for myself (n=1, so I am not claiming to be a representative sample), it is possible that the universe was created by a god, although given the lack of evidence for the existence of a god it is more likely that this isn't the case.

I suspect our notions of causality are wrong. They are useful approximations, but they aren't universal truths. It's been known for a century that many of our normal ways of understanding how the world works fail, such as when trying to understand quantum physics or general relativity. Many aspects of reality, probably including how casuality "works", is more complex than our normal commonsense models can deal with. Indeed it is possible there may be aspects of reality that our non-commonsense models are unable to deal with. I just don't know.

So is entirely possible that the "ultimate" cause is unknown and unknowable, and it is also possible that it is knowable, but we may never actually acheive that knowledge. But it would be silly to conclude "I don't know, therefore god".

More equivocation on the use of the word 'universe'. And people wonder why I berate physicists and cosmologists for using the word in that context.

And yes, I've read the Brian Greene too. Difference being, I actually understood it.

I've only read snippets of Greene, but what I have read isn't saying what Maryann/Ichthus77 claims it's saying.

My big disappointment with the book was his treatment of entropy, which he cites as 'disorder' and doesn't even come close to explaining why he's citing it as such, or what he actually means by it. It makes the book kind of woolly, because a good deal of it is dealing with entropy, and this oversimplification is extremely misleading. Other than that, it's an excellent read, and very close to the top of my recommended reading list.

And best of all, there's a Kindle edition, so I have something to add to my brand-new Kindle.

Ichthus77 wrote:

and now we've proved it !

Both the atheist and theist conclusions require faith

So, you admit that a naturalistic, non-intelligent process can satisfy the Kalam requirement for a "first cause" just as well as a God can? That the latter depends on "faith"? Well, then, I think we're done here. Thanks for playing.

(but the self-bootstrapping atheist conclusion--that one requires blind faith--in the teeth of counter-evidence).

...assuming one engages in self-serving deliberate miscomprehension of the relevent scientific evidence, of course.