| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/23/2011 12:41:57 AM · #2151 |
Ye Olde God of the Gaps. "My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms."
When the gap closes, the god goes away. "He also said it appeared that there had been progress made regarding the naturalistic origins of DNA." |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 10:07:39 AM · #2152 |
We seem generally argue about whether the existence of the universe is evidence for a creator or first mover.
I would approach it from a different angle. I would draw some conclusions from the question âCan the existence of god-concepts within human society be explained purely by human nature?â
Clearly, humans love to ask âwhy?â and create mental links relevant to their experience and the available evidence. Humans have a weak natural appreciation of probability, placing undue weight on coincidence. Humans are also very creative.
Finally, humans have social desires, to be leaders, to be included and to belong, to be believed, to be important, to be loved. People will compromise their telling of the truth in order to achieve their desires. People can be persuaded to believe in extraordinary things by persuasive people.
In this context, it seems almost inevitable that early human cultures would invent gods and demons to explain the world around them. It also seems inevitable that some people (consciously or not) would use and develop these concepts in line with their social desires to gain prominence, acceptance and value. And with the scaling offered by civilisation, it seems inevitable that those people and concepts would be formed into organised religion.
So â completely independently of whether a god actually exists or not, and without need for a shred of evidence â it seems almost inevitable that we would end up with a number of highly developed god-concepts in human society (as indeed we have).
I would therefore argue that god-concepts can be explained entirely by human nature. I would draw from this that there is no need to adopt them to explain the beginning of the universe â they do not help explain anything more than human history. More likely, they hinder: every major religion needs its creation mystery to extract from believers their time, energy and money.
|
|
|
|
08/23/2011 11:40:09 AM · #2153 |
I would add to Matthew's point that even the most fervent believers tend to ascribe faith only to "unreachable" situations like the beginning of the universe or life after death, and God doesn't extend to real life except in the abstract of prayer and personal validation. If Craig found a translucent ball in the forest, he would assume a person left it there, not God. If a doctor is presented with a rash, he'll run through a list of natural explanations- poison ivy, chicken pox, food allergy, detergents, etc.- in search of the answer. At no point will he ever toss his hands up and say, "God did it." That's the difference between doctors and witch doctors (and widely divergent patient outcomes). When you watch a magic show, you try to figure out the trick rather than assume some supernatural magic occurred... unless you're a child, which is exactly why religious indoctrination takes place at a very young age!
Believers use pseudo-logic to reverse engineer natural observations into evidence for the supernatural, but always stop short at the desired belief. As an example, Craig and others like to use the "logic" of intelligent design to explain the origin of the universe. Complex things are designed by the clever mind, they reason, therefore God... and no need to continue with that rationale. If we examine the explanation further, we find all sorts of problems: a mind can only imagine (to create anything, one needs materials and physical manipulation), intelligence is a product of physical brains (brain damage = impaired intelligence... ever heard of genius or moron spirits?), and intelligent creation cannot operate outside of time (imagine trying to think or create something with time stopped, you would always be stuck at step one). So ID proponents must stop at "we know complex things are made by smart entities" and go no further or everything else we know collapses the argument.
As noted before, if prayer worked at all, then a statistically significant difference would have been plainly apparent for the "correct" faith eons ago. When a freak thunderstorm disrupted the Pope in Madrid on Saturday, "organizers told the crowd that they had asked for more water during the day when it was so hot, and their prayers were answered," and the Pope remarked, "With this rain, the Lord sends us many blessings." You would think if these guys really believed a personal, intervening god was responsible for the storm that they would take the hint when the Pope's skullcap was blown off and the stage shook right in the middle of a speech against gay marriage. Obviously, even they don't believe it. |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 11:58:40 AM · #2154 |
[quote=scalvert] I would add to Matthew's point that even the most fervent believers tend to ascribe faith only to "unreachable" situations like the beginning of the universe or life after death, and God doesn't extend to real life except in the abstract of prayer and personal validation. If Craig found a translucent ball in the forest, he would assume a person left it there, not God. If a doctor is presented with a rash, he'll run through a list of natural explanations- poison ivy, chicken pox, food allergy, detergents, etc.- in search of the answer. At no point will he ever toss his hands up and say, "God did it." That's the difference between doctors and witch doctors (and widely divergent patient outcomes). When you watch a magic show, you try to figure out the trick rather than assume some supernatural magic occurred... unless you're a child, which is exactly why religious indoctrination takes place at a very young age!
Believers use pseudo-logic to reverse engineer natural observations into evidence for the supernatural, but always stop short at the desired belief. As an example, Craig and others like to use the "logic" of intelligent design to explain the origin of the universe. Complex things are designed by the clever mind, they reason, therefore God... and no need to continue with that rationale. If we examine the explanation further, we find all sorts of problems: a mind can only imagine (to create anything, one needs materials and physical manipulation), intelligence is a product of physical brains (brain damage = impaired intelligence... ever heard of genius or moron spirits?), and intelligent creation cannot operate outside of time (imagine trying to think or create something with time stopped, you would always be stuck at step one). So ID proponents must stop at "we know complex things are made by smart entities" and go no further or everything else we know collapses the argument.
Great points and spot-on analogies. however, some people do not wish to be awakened from the dream.
Message edited by author 2011-08-23 12:00:15. |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 12:41:01 PM · #2155 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Are you saying the fallacy automatically makes it false? |
The argument is unsound because it provides no rational basis for the exception. If I said, "An object at rest will remain so until a force is applied, except flying reindeer which aren't subject to the laws of physics," that's simply not good enough.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"All positive intergers are greater than 1, except 1." Is that an exception fallacy? |
Nope. There is a clear, rational basis for the exception. |
I just can't do it Shannon. There are always responses to your objections, but I will graciously say it is my own lack of eloquence that doesn't allow you to see them. Like the insane person I will try just on this one. First, doesn't it strike you that you are making an exception to your exception fallacy? That seems ironic. ("All exception clauses are guilty of the exception fallacy, except those with a rational basis"). However, there is a clear rational basis for Craig's proposition. We can see a direct analogy from a geometric ray. He is stating that all points we know of have a point before and after except one, the beginning. That's all the first precept says. Your issue is with proposition #2, not 1, but you always seem to take a scorched earth policy and want to find problem with every little thing.
If you want something up to the challenge, I'd recommend reading Plantinga rather than this article out of "Christianity Today". He is a scholarly philosopher and with painstakingly deal with objections and counter-objections. If that's your requirement, then you are going to have to put the time into the reading... |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 01:21:37 PM · #2156 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
First, doesn't it strike you that you are making an exception to your exception fallacy? That seems ironic. ("All exception clauses are guilty of the exception fallacy, except those with a rational basis"). |
To be more precise, the fallacy you're invoking is called Special Pleading, "attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption." Where the exemption is justified, as in your "positive integers" and "all points before and after," no fallacy is committed. The futility of your position stems not from lack of eloquence, but from your inability to distinguish between reason and rationalization (not as "being rational," but as "working backwards to justify a preconceived conclusion"). I have repeatedly challenged you to present your arguments without resorting to fallacy, and thus far you haven't even demonstrated a basic understanding of what fallacy is. |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 01:45:44 PM · #2157 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
First, doesn't it strike you that you are making an exception to your exception fallacy? That seems ironic. ("All exception clauses are guilty of the exception fallacy, except those with a rational basis"). |
To be more precise, the fallacy you're invoking is called Special Pleading, "attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption." Where the exemption is justified, as in your "positive integers" and "all points before and after," no fallacy is committed. The futility of your position stems not from lack of eloquence, but from your inability to distinguish between reason and rationalization (not as "being rational," but as "working backwards to justify a preconceived conclusion"). I have repeatedly challenged you to present your arguments without resorting to fallacy, and thus far you haven't even demonstrated a basic understanding of what fallacy is. |
so...
(A) Reason: in the sequence of positive numbers, each number is preceded by another, except "1".
(B) Irrational: the universe must have been created by god because things cannot (i) spring from nothing or (ii) have an infinite history, except for god who either (i) sprang from nothing or (ii) was infinite - otherwise how could he have preceded and created the universe?
|
|
|
|
08/23/2011 02:45:35 PM · #2158 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
(B) Irrational: the universe must have been created by god because things cannot (i) spring from nothing or (ii) have an infinite history, except for god who either (i) sprang from nothing or (ii) was infinite - otherwise how could he have preceded and created the universe? |
Two points Matthew:
1) To be fair, proposition one doesn't mention God at all. That's proposition two. The point in bringing this up is just to say proposition one doesn't fall victim to any particular fallacy.
2) The important point is that "god" (whatever that represents) is now outside a natural system. You are entirely correct. The Prime Mover either sprang from nothing or was infinite. Neither property falls within a Naturalistic framework. The argument actually does a much better job of destroying any strong version of Naturalism rather than proving the existence of God, but once you shed the fetters of Naturalism, the properties of "God" is a perfectly reasonable conversation to have. |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 03:29:57 PM · #2159 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The Prime Mover either sprang from nothing or was infinite. |
If God can "spring" from nothing, why not just have the Universe "spring from nothing" and eliminate the middle-man ...? |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 03:43:20 PM · #2160 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To be fair, proposition one doesn't mention God at all. That's proposition two. |
Proposition 1: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause, except God (or some other creator) which existed without explanation. Though the italicized section was not written in Proposition 1, it's an inescapable requirement of Craig's argument. The proposition is only logical if no irrational exception is made for the existence of god or some other creator without explanation of its existence. Would you care to argue Craig's position without making the implied special pleading assumption?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
once you shed the fetters of Naturalism, the properties of "God" is a perfectly reasonable conversation to have. |
Once you shed the "fetters of Naturalism," the assumed properties of God remain no more reasonable than genies or giant invisible turtles as an explanation for the universe. Setting aside reality certainly doesn't make the ensuing conversation reasonable. |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 03:54:16 PM · #2161 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The Prime Mover either sprang from nothing or was infinite. |
If God can "spring" from nothing, why not just have the Universe "spring from nothing" and eliminate the middle-man ...? |
Well obviously because 'everything that exists has an explanation of its existence' so there must be a cause, and that cause is [insert whatever you like here] which existed without explanation of its existence. We'll just ignore the glaring inconsistency to pretend this is logical and also make sure we never allow for the possibility of NO explanation...
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
He is saying, "if there is no natural explanation, the explanation is supernatural or there is no explanation at all." |
Oops. |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 04:14:35 PM · #2162 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The Prime Mover either sprang from nothing or was infinite. |
If God can "spring" from nothing, why not just have the Universe "spring from nothing" and eliminate the middle-man ...? |
I suppose it could, but that wouldn't be natural then and we'd still have to ditch that idea, right?
Ask yourself what defines "natural", then ask yourself if "springing from nothing" qualifies under your definition. If not, then the event is not natural and Naturalism would be flawed. Leave God out of it for the moment.
Perhaps the easist way to show the point is to ask you to give me a definition of Naturalism that would allow for the "springing from nothing" of something and isn't ad hoc.
Message edited by author 2011-08-23 16:24:14. |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 04:18:03 PM · #2163 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To be fair, proposition one doesn't mention God at all. That's proposition two. |
Proposition 1: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause, except God (or some other creator) which existed without explanation. Though the italicized section was not written in Proposition 1, it's an inescapable requirement of Craig's argument. The proposition is only logical if no irrational exception is made for the existence of god or some other creator without explanation of its existence. Would you care to argue Craig's position without making the implied special pleading assumption?
|
This is incorrect. "God" would fall under the "necessity of its own nature" clause. It is not an exception to the proposition, the proposition has the exception contained within it. I would assume no natural object or entity would qualify as being a "necessity of its own nature". Your italicized addition is redundant and not necessary. Just as with the geometric ray, all points come from a point before, except the first point. That point is a special case. Craig is making note of this reality. If there is a "first point", it is different than all other points after it in that it has no preceding point, yet it is necessary to have a first point on a ray. You cannot have a ray without a first point.
Message edited by author 2011-08-23 16:25:39. |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 05:20:38 PM · #2164 |
Try this on as a reworking of the argument. It does not attempt to "prove God", so may be more agreeable. Explain any errors you find.
1) There are two possible sets of entities, those with a cause and those without.
a. All entities fall within one of the two sets.
b. No entity falls within both sets or neither set.
2) Naturalism holds that all entities fall into the set of those with a cause.
a. Naturalism holds that all entities are physical, (i.e. made of matter and/or energy).
b. Naturalism holds that all events are cause by the interaction of physical entities.
c. The terms âeventâ or âcausedâ, under Naturalism, only make sense within the context of time. (i.e. time is required for something to be âcausedâ since there is an initial state and a subsequent state. An analogy is âleftâ and ârightâ have no meaning without the corresponding dimension.)
3) If the Universe has an initial event, that event is, by definition, without cause.
4) Therefore, if the Universe has an initial event, Naturalism, as stated, is false.
Message edited by author 2011-08-23 17:21:34. |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 06:16:18 PM · #2165 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"God" would fall under the "necessity of its own nature" clause. I would assume no natural object or entity would qualify as being a "necessity of its own nature". |
You cannot provide any rational basis for a God existing by necessity of its own nature, nor preclude the possibility of the universe also existing by necessity of its own nature. That's why it's an irrational exception, and you continue to demonstrate no comprehension of fallacy. "In philosophy, it is assumed that wherever a distinction is claimed, a relevant basis for the distinction should exist and be substantiated. Special pleading is a subversion of this assumption."
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
all points come from a point before, except the first point |
Matthew already illustrated the difference between exceptions with a rational basis and those made just because it's necessary to support your argument. One can logically conclude that the initial point of a ray was the result of something, but there is no reason to assume that something was a genie that always existed "just because that's the nature of genies."
I should point out that the whole argument is senseless in it own right. As time itself is an inherent property of the universe, concurrent with the Big Bang, at no point in time has the universe not existed. While evidence might suggest a convergence of spacetime, there could never be an actual beginning point to fret over since "before" clearly cannot exist if time doesn't exist. Thus, there was quite literally no "time before the universe" for a supposed prime mover to operate upon. |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 06:33:21 PM · #2166 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The terms âeventâ or âcausedâ, under Naturalism, only make sense within the context of time. (i.e. time is required for something to be âcausedâ since there is an initial state and a subsequent state. An analogy is âleftâ and ârightâ have no meaning without the corresponding dimension.)...
If the Universe has an initial event, that event is, by definition, without cause.
Therefore, if the Universe has an initial event, Naturalism, as stated, is false. |
Lots of problems here. First, some things in the natural world may be uncaused (quantum fluctuations may be a completely random "necessity of its own nature"). Second, there cannot be an initial event since that would require an initial state and a prior state which, as you suggest, has no meaning without time. Third, causality isn't just a problem for naturalism... a prime mover is effectively useless if it cannot cause something to occur. |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 06:33:32 PM · #2167 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"God" would fall under the "necessity of its own nature" clause. I would assume no natural object or entity would qualify as being a "necessity of its own nature". |
You cannot provide any rational basis for a God existing by necessity of its own nature, nor preclude the possibility of the universe also existing by necessity of its own nature. That's why it's an irrational exception, and you continue to demonstrate no comprehension of fallacy. "In philosophy, it is assumed that wherever a distinction is claimed, a relevant basis for the distinction should exist and be substantiated. Special pleading is a subversion of this assumption." |
There is a very big reason to think the two are different. All our scientific evidence, which you and I pay attention to, points to a beginning to our Universe. There is no special pleading involved. We have no empirical reason to believe the Universe is eternal other than ad hoc explanations which suit our preconceived notions. The Big Bang is a blow to Naturalism, not a reinforcement. This is why it was so controvertial when it was first introduced and many people felt very uncomfortable with the idea. I've introduced many, many quotes and evidence in support of this in the past and encourage you to read "Cosmology and Controversy" by Helge Kragh. |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 06:37:37 PM · #2168 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If the Universe has an initial event, that event is, by definition, without cause.
Therefore, if the Universe has an initial event, Naturalism, as stated, is false. |
Lots of problems here. First, some things in the natural world may be uncaused (quantum fluctuations may be a completely random "necessity of its own nature"). Second, there cannot be an initial event since that would require an initial state and a prior state which, as you suggest, has no meaning without time. Third, causality isn't just a problem for naturalism... a prime mover is effectively useless if it cannot cause something to occur. |
Define "natural" in your clause "some things in the natural world may be uncaused". I accuse your definition of being ad hoc.
Second is circular logic. There is no initial event because there is no initial event. Nonsensical.
Time is only a problem of a natural framework. If you want to consider "supernatural" explanations, you do not need to involve time. You are limiting the Prime Mover to a natural framework. There is no reason this is necessary.
Message edited by author 2011-08-23 18:37:52. |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 06:42:14 PM · #2169 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We have no empirical reason to believe the Universe is eternal other than ad hoc explanations which suit our preconceived notions. |
Time is a property of the universe. If time exists the universe exists and vice versa. So, the universe has and will exist to the ends of time. Thats as far as eternal can go since there is no time before or after the universe. |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 06:53:04 PM · #2170 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Time is a property of the universe. If time exists the universe exists and vice versa. So, the universe has and will exist to the ends of time. Thats as far as eternal can go since there is no time before or after the universe. |
I love how you think this is quite rational, yet any concept of God is the domain of lunatics. It warms my little heart. |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 06:58:02 PM · #2171 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Define "natural" in your clause "some things in the natural world may be uncaused". I accuse your definition of being ad hoc. |
Uncaused would be a completely random consequence of probability. For example the radioactive decay of an atom, according to quantum mechanics, is totally uncaused, such that knowledge of every particle in the universe would still not enable you to predict its decay.
If the second is circular logic, then it's your own nonsense. YOU said time is required for causality since there is an initial state and a subsequent state. By the same token, the formation of time would be a subsequent state following a prior state without time, which makes no sense according to your own argument.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you want to consider "supernatural" explanations, you do not need to involve time. |
...or reality. If you want to consider supernatural explanations, then genies and unicorns are equally valid, oh ye arbiter of the nonsensical. |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 07:00:37 PM · #2172 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I love how you think this is quite rational, yet any concept of God is the domain of lunatics. It warms my little heart. |
An insulated straightjacket would do that, too. ;-) |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 07:03:30 PM · #2173 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Define "natural" in your clause "some things in the natural world may be uncaused". I accuse your definition of being ad hoc. |
Uncaused would be a completely random consequence of probability. For example the radioactive decay of an atom, according to quantum mechanics, is totally uncaused, such that knowledge of every particle in the universe would still not enable you to predict its decay. |
I didn't ask you to define "uncaused". I asked you to define "natural".
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you want to consider "supernatural" explanations, you do not need to involve time. |
...or reality. If you want to consider supernatural explanations, then genies and unicorns are equally valid, oh ye arbiter of the nonsensical. [/quote]
Sure. If you want to define the word "genie" as "The Prime Mover" or "unicorn" as the same. If the Prime Mover has to live in a bottle or have one horn and look like a horse, then I have some issues and they are not equally valid. |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 08:00:37 PM · #2174 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I would therefore argue that god-concepts can be explained entirely by human nature. |
More precisely, they can be explained entirely by the evolution and workings of the human brain. A fascinating read is Michael Shermer's The Believing Brain, which basically drills down to the level of the neuron and the chemical composition of neuronal hormones to explain virtually every aspect of belief. For reasons elucidated in the book and rotating largely around the phenomena of patternicity and agenticity, humans are simply evolved to believe. Further, we are burdened by the illusion of dualism (conceiving the brain to be a separate entity from consciousness). As an added bonus, conscious human beings demonstrably lack free will as shown by fMRI experiments, in effect doing away with any notion that we consciously control our own actions.
(Recommended to read alongside The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris, a philosopher/neurologist who at least incidentally challenges monism, and has something to say about the consequences and implications behind our finding that we essentially lack free will.) |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 08:12:13 PM · #2175 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I didn't ask you to define "uncaused". I asked you to define "natural". |
Natural = that which actually exists in reality. Have fun.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If the Prime Mover has to live in a bottle or have one horn and look like a horse, then I have some issues and they are not equally valid. |
The prime mover must live in a bottle (an invisible bottle), have one horn and an image that equines were created to resemble. Since we need not involve time or any element of real-world logic in our supernatural considerations, this entity either manages to kick over a great cosmic domino before there was such a thing as "before" in order to trigger existence where nothing had existed except the thing that had always existed OR carefully orchestrates an entire universe for the sole benefit of one species of ape required swear belief in a martyred demigod as a requirement for being magically transported from one insignificant planet to another dimension to live forever without brain or body after dying. It's a "necessity of its own nature" that I don't have to back up with a shred of rational explanation. Yes, you have some issues. |
|
