Moderator:
We are here tonight to debate the issue of whether a deity exists. First, the Theist:
Theist:
If the theory of Cause and Effect is consistent enough to be the basis for empirical science, then it should be consistent enough for the justification of the probability that the universe had a cause which was greater than the sum of the components of the universe itself. If that probability is in fact justified and without empirical or rational refutation, then belief that it might be the case is justified.
Atheist:
I have no God theory, and I don’t have to prove anything. The theist has to provide proof that meets my personal approval, and I only approve of material evidence, because material stuff is all that exists, and no, I don’t have to prove it.
(Audience applause)
Theist:
That refutes my argument…. How?
Atheist:
Your logic sucks.
(Audience applause and laughter)
Theist:
Please provide particulars so we can discuss actual cases.
Atheist:
Your logic REALLY sucks.
(Audience applause and laughter and lighters aflame overhead)
Moderator:
Well, that was quick. Thanks for participating, I think we all learned a lot here tonight.
(Crowd roars and rushes to congratulate the Atheist debater on his clear win)
Blog Analysts:
"Well, the Atheist wiped up the floor with the Theist last night. The Atheist was right on the money with his clear answers, while the Theist logic REALLY sucked".
27 comments:
If you want to see a snarky breakdown of an actual debate like this (Craig vs Krauss), check this out.
If the theist fails to construct an irrefutable proof, why is it "logical" to regard atheism/naturalism as the "default" position.
Martin,
Har! That was great, thanks for the link... keep'em coming!
Chris,
I think Atheism is the default because the default for knowledge is ignorance. The irony of the Atheist claim of "having no god theory" is that it is pleading ignorance, coupled with obstinance. (Coupled again with intellectual dishonesty.)
Intellectual dishonesty is an interesting subject that I should write on.
Welcome to the 'straw man fallacy'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Good link.
Interesting essays touching on the question of intellectual honesty.
"Intellectual Freedom"
"Chance"
by Lord Northbourne
(1) There are events.
(2) Every event has a cause distinct from it.
(3) Every causal chain of events must have beginning (i.e., a first member).
.× .(4) There is a first, uncaused cause of all that happens.
.× .(5) God exists.
First Objection. Call this the more-to-being-God objection. The objection is that (5) does not follow logically from (4), that it is not a deductive consequence of (4). It could be false even if (4) should be true.
Why? Because God is not simply the first cause; God is, in addition, omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good, and a lot of other things that are essential to being God. And there is nothing in the argument to show that a first cause would have to have these other attributes or that from the existence of a first cause it would follow that some other being had these attributes. So the inference from a first cause to the existence of God is invalid.
Second Objection. The argument commits what we may call The Birthday Fallacy. Here's how. (1)-(2) imply that there is at least one causal chain of events, and then (3) tells us that it (and any other causal chain) has a first member. This first member, though a more or less remote cause of all the events that follow it in the chain, cannot itself have a cause, since then it wouldn't be the first member of the chain (its cause would be). Thus every chain of events must have a first, uncaused cause. But from this it does not follow that every causal chain of events must have the same first cause. That no more follows than it follows from the fact that everyone has a birthday that everyone has the same birthday. Hence for all that (1)-(3) have shown, there may be infinitely many causal chains and infinitely many first causes, one for each of the causal chains. So (1)-(3) do not imply (4); they do not imply that there is a first, uncaused cause of all that happens. To put it a different way: (1)-(3) do not show that there is just one first cause.
Third Objection. (1)-(3) are logically inconsistent and thus cannot all be true; hence The First Cause Argument is necessarily unsound.
This may take some explaining. Premises (1)-(3), apparently, imply that every causal chain has an uncaused cause. But this implies that some event has no cause. And this contradicts (2), which says that every event has a cause. Thus (1)-(3) imply something that contradicts one of them. They cannot all be true.
Note the power of this objection. Note too that its power derives from its invocation of the concept of deductive consequence. The objection is that a contradiction is a deductive consequence of (1)-(3), so that there's no way that (1)-(3) could all be true without a contradiction being true (and no contradiction can be true). The First Cause Argument therefore must have a false premise. Which one? The objection does not say and it does not need to.
---,
Although I am a non-theist, I agree with Stan's post. Atheists generally do horrible jobs in debates. I've listened to about two dozen of William Lane Craig's debates, and rarely does the atheist seem to even understand what logic is, much less how to mount an attack upon a logical argument.
Anonymous,
That's a fascinating break down of a phony cosmological argument. Good thing none of the major religious philosophers have ever defended anything like it.
For a look at real cosmological arguments, check out my blog: http://rocketphilosophy.blogspot.com
Theist: Dur, universe began at big bang therefore there's a first cause therefore morals must come from the Bible. Game over, leftist Socialist Atheist homosexuals!
Nontheist: To think that space and time and the universe BEGAN at the Big Bang is to misunderstand the scope of the theory and to ignore quantum cosmology. The first mover argument put forward by Aquinas arbitrarily draws the line at God as God always existing. Why not draw the line at the universe? We know the universe exists because we live in it. God supposedly lives outside the universe or is said to be untestable. And how are you meant to know about something that is untestable? Through revelation? Revelation is a bad method of understanding reality.
Space and time need not have a cause. We've seen this scientifically from quantum cosmology. Let's look at it for a philosophical way.
The universe does not exist WITHIN time because time is a dimension that makes up the universe. Causing a universe would be causing time which makes no sense. The dimension of time can not come into existence because coming into existence implies time.
And space. In physics it is mathematically provable that space can never take on a zero size.
Theist: Dur, prove there is no god. If you can't prove something doesn't exist then it must exist. I'm so great at logic!
Nontheist: ‘necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit' Burden Of proof lies With the claimant. Another way to look at it is that you can’t prove a negative. No one can prove that there is no such thing as a god.
For example: If you say that pink unicorns don’t exist, it’s harder for you to prove that, because you can’t search every inch of the planet all at once. If you don't find them on the planet then you must search the universe! What if they are invisible? My pink unicorns are. So of course, you’ll never be able to prove they don’t exist. It doesn’t matter though, because the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim. If you said pink unicorns DID exist then you'd have to prove it not the unbeliever in unicorns to prove you wrong.
Theist: I can't prove God cause you want material evidence!
Nontheist: I didn't say anything about material evidence, any kind of evidence will do.
Theist: But I can't provide material evidence! God... I mean First Cause, must have existed BEFORE the Big Bang...
Nontheist: Time did not exist before the Big Bang, and that it is therefore impossible to speak of anything happening before the Big Bang.
Theist: I'm going to ignore everything you've said and make a strawman to beat up. *Bam* Take that strawman! You won't be voting for Obama once I get through with you!
nontheist What a moron...
Theist Ad Hominion! That is not an argument. You fail the process of logical analysis, as performed under the actual discipline. Dur, I is smart.
Corruptio optimi pessima.
What I like best about this website is how Stan tries to make atheists define atheism without mentioning theism.
It's a fools task because atheism simply means not-theism. It's akin to trying to define apolitical without making reference to anything political.
Message to atheists: Of course Stan is wrong and yes, he can't understand why but it's a profitless activity to waste time with Stan. His apologetics are not worth bothering with. Stan is incapable of arguing honestly because he is more interesting in theism than truth. Stan is more `winning' conversations. You're arguing with some sad loser on some farm. Don't bother.
Martin said...
Anonymous,
That's a fascinating break down of a phony cosmological argument. Good thing none of the major religious philosophers have ever defended anything like it.
Sure, it's not from any major religious philosopher - it's from this blog. And I agree that it's phony.
--- said,
”Space and time need not have a cause. We've seen this scientifically from quantum cosmology.”
Actually, no. That’s Hawking’s first book. He changed that in his
last book. And he’s not a cosmologist. And there’s no “quantum cosmology” evidence, only theory that is passe'. Hawking changed his tune and now claims that the law of gravity caused the Big Bang; he ignores the obvious regression to “what is the source of such laws dictating orderly behavior?”
”Let's look at it for a philosophical way.
OK, go.
”The universe does not exist WITHIN time because time is a dimension that makes up the universe. Causing a universe would be causing time which makes no sense. The dimension of time can not come into existence because coming into existence implies time.”
So you disagree with Hawking then; interesting. And with all cosmologists, too. Interesting. However the mathematical analysis goes against you.
”And space. In physics it is mathematically provable that space can never take on a zero size.”
You’ll need two things here. First a source for that assertion; here's why: mass can convert to energy which is physically dimensionless. Second a reason why it is pertinent. If mass-energy cannot exist outside of space-time, then before time there was no mass, regardless of its size.
”No one can prove that there is no such thing as a god.”
As before, Bingo. You use it as an excuse. But it actually is the point. Theists do not pretend to “prove” that there is a deity. Theists claim that there is better rational evidence for a deity than for no deity. Atheists on the other hand, generally demand touchy feely evidence, a la PZ Meyers, who once claimed that if he prayed for the city he was looking at to be destroyed, and immediately it was destroyed, he still would not believe. That is intellectual dishonesty because it is trapped in the demonstrably false doctrine of Philosophical Materialism.
”I didn't say anything about material evidence, any kind of evidence will do.”
Really? Such as what type? What category of existence would contain evidence that you deem acceptable to your unstated but seemingly nonconventional logic?
”Time did not exist before the Big Bang, and that it is therefore impossible to speak of anything happening before the Big Bang.”
You have proof that non-material things do not, did not exist in some sort of non-material, extra-dimensional yet agent-friendly environment? Then you must show us that. Declaring an impossibility is an extraordinary statement requiring extraordinary evidence, to quote Carl Sagan, Atheist and screen star. We will need extraordinary evidence for the non-existence of agency prior to the Big Bang.
Whatever caused the Big Bang existed outside of space-time and mass energy, and therefore is undefinable in those terms. So here are the options:
1. No cause.
2. Natural cause.
3. Infinite universes.
4. Caused by agency.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
Let’s take these one by one and assess their likelihood.
1. No cause. If prior to the Big Bang the universe consisted of nothing due to the components all being created at the Big Bang, and then it just popped into being for no reason, then universes can pop into being with no reason or cause whatsoever. Now if universes can pop into being for no reason whatsoever, then they would do so all the time and everywhere – unless there were a limiting factor included somehow. If there is a limiting factor, then that implies a cause which can be limited. What we observe is that universes do not pop into being everywhere and all the time. That implies that the creation of universes has a cause.
2. Natural cause. The term natural implies that mass-energy and space-time were involved in their own creation, which goes against the idea of their not existing prior to the Big Bang.
3. Infinite universes. This theory is popular, because it is thought to explain the appearance of agency. The evidence for this theory is non-existent. The infinite universe theory is an outcome of string theory, which is based on equations containing cancelling infinities in numerator and denominator - in general a mathematical "leap of blind faith", and not acceptable for probability assessment. In other words, pure radical speculation with zero credible substantiation. This theory is far more easily dismissed than believed.
4. Agency. Atheists dismiss this outright because it implies a deity, thus violating their dogma. However, taken analytically, bringing a material universe into being from non-being, coupled with orderly rules for the behaviors of the components of the universe suggests agency, an agency which exists outside and beyond the material realm it created, and fully capable of creating the components of the universe.
Theists think that this option is more probable than the other options, while Atheists reject it because it violates their dogma of “no deity foot allowed in the door”, to paraphrase Atheist Richard Lewontin.
Hence, what is obvious to Theists represents to Atheists something that must be defeated due to doctrinal requirements of Atheism. (Never mind the false notion of “no god theory”, Atheism requires the positive rejection of all god theories, including #4). So Atheists will form false arguments against it, and resort to accusations of “too stupid to know you are stupid” personal attacks on those of differing opinions.
”What a moron...”
Yes, always the insults, the refuge of the frustrated elitist.
Here’s the thing. Your scenario is not what actually happens. In fact, the original post is a model of your presence here. Here’s a more accurate and succinct statement of your method of discussion:
---,
Using the specific techniques demonstrated on this blog by commenter known as "---", I will say that your arguments above, "---", are false and very disappointing, being full of bullshit and ignorance. (And no I don't need to prove anything, nor do I need to demonstrate any logical ability. All I need is to declare that you are too incompetent to know that you are stupid). And you need a teacher, because your logic is poor.
Anonymous said,
"You're arguing with some sad loser on some farm. Don't bother."
Well, that is certainly devastating logic.
Anonymous said,
"Sure, it's not from any major religious philosopher - it's from this blog. And I agree that it's phony."
That is a blatantly false statement.
Anonymous, at least have the spine to choose a moniker.
Anonymous,
Re: you three objections:
Interesting. (Also please choose a moniker, I have a feeling there a several anonymouses running around here, and I can’t tell them apart).
The argument you cite does not map onto the First Cause argument I have been using, which accepts that within this universe there is a tree, if you will, of causes that all go back to the single event, which is the Big Bang. This is the common scientific model. Thus there is no posit for multiple, independent chains requiring multiple first causes.
First objection: (5) does not follow (4). From your chain I agree. However, it is not necessary to go directly from (4) to (5). Intermediate steps are available which assert qualities to the first cause that are necessary for accounting for the qualities found in the effect, which is the universe and all it contains. These qualities include intellect, intentionality, and agency, which if found in the universe are also attributable to the first cause of the universe. Taken to sufficient completeness, the characteristics of an intelligent, intentional, powerful agent, one with both rationality and emotions such as love and anger and patience and impatience etc, clearly emerges.
Second objection: Birthday Fallacy – the problem of multiple first causes due to multiple independent chains. It is not necessary to posit multiple first causes or multiple independent chains, when all causal chains regress to the single initial Big Bang. It is possible to add this condition to the premises as perhaps premise 3A.
Third objection: “Premises (1)-(3), apparently, imply that every causal chain has an uncaused cause. But this implies that some event has no cause.”
I do not see the validity of this claim. However, even if valid, I don’t see how it would apply to the “tree” of causation that represents the scientific model of our universe, where every causal chain is traceable back to a single, known first cause. Under those circumstances, how is it possible to posit a cause without an effect (speaking of causes within the material realm of course)? Where could one deduce a contradiction? This would need significant justification to pose an actual objection, in my opinion, and justification has not been shown here.
Actually, no. That’s Hawking’s first book. He changed that in his
last book. And he’s not a cosmologist. And there’s no “quantum cosmology” evidence, only theory that is passe'. Hawking changed his tune and now claims that the law of gravity caused the Big Bang; he ignores the obvious regression to “what is the source of such laws dictating orderly behavior?”
I see. Instead of addressing the argument you decided to bash and misunderstand Hawking. According to quantum mechanics, there are uncaused events. You've asserted that that's wrong. Maybe there's a Noble prize in it if you can prove it.
"The dimension of time can not come into existence because coming into existence implies time.”
So you disagree with Hawking then; interesting. And with all cosmologists, too. Interesting. However the mathematical analysis goes against you.
Again, another non-response. Where is this 'mathematical analysis' that shows the universe is within time, instead of time being within the universe.
Theists do not pretend to “prove” that there is a deity.
Really because there must be thousands of websites where various theists "prove" their favorite deities exist.
Theists claim that there is better rational evidence for a deity than for no deity.
I know what they claim but when are they going to provide this evidence?
”I didn't say anything about material evidence, any kind of evidence will do.”
Really? Such as what type?
I believe I said I'd examine "any" evidence. So, what type? ANY.
You have proof that non-material things do not, did not exist in some sort of non-material, extra-dimensional yet agent-friendly environment? Then you must show us that.
I said: ”Time did not exist before the Big Bang, and that it is therefore impossible to speak of anything happening before the Big Bang.”
--- said,
I know what they claim but when are they going to provide this evidence?
You can start with the classical arguments that have been around for thousands of years, and to my knowledge still have not been addressed properly.
Instead, they are distorted beyond all recognition, and then it becomes an urban legend that they were somehow "refuted".
Laughable, if you actually understand the arguments. You can check out Aquinas' First Way to start.
Here is my conversation. The less number is my voice. I don't speak English but I have read everything about logic and know there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of God.
The conversation has begun.
2- I will use a logic against Allah and the Qua ran!..
1- Did you mention logic? Here is something new for you: Laws of Logic, morality and science are no longer valid unless you assume Allah exists, because Allah created logic, the laws of science, and morality.
2- What? I will try to use logic...
1- Halt! See, you just gave me more proof that Allah exists because you are using Allah-created Logic, Allah-created Science and Allah-created Morality!
2- Sounds like a circle logic...
1- Halt! Reason only works if we presuppose Allah's Existence as Allah is the Source of all reality and reason. For a non-Muslim to prove he was logic and reason he must use logic and reason! There is the true circle logic!
2- But I want to sin.
1- You have stated the true reason for your unbelieving. Since Allah is all-powerful therefor he can reveal Truth such that we can be certain of it.
In the author's imaginary debate the author implies the atheist must prove all gods do not exist because the atheist does not believe in gods.
This is a bizarre and incorrect rendering of the burden of proof.
Michalos, Alex. 1969. Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p 370 - “one who makes an assertion must assume the responsibility of defending it. If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed.”
I would like to ask the author give his reasons for not believing in every god but his own.
The next and subsequent posts by anyone using "anonymous" as a moniker will be DELETED.
Pick a name. Or lose your comment.
Anonymous said,
"I would like to ask the author give his reasons for not believing in every god but his own."
That has not been asserted. You must have come in late and not read the chain of arguments here (such as they are).
You have made a presumption based on a prejeducial Atheist boiler plate argument that does not work.
--- said,
”According to quantum mechanics, there are uncaused events.”
Your assertion is denied. You have provided no evidence to support that assertion. I should have been more assertive. I will be in the future.
If you mean that particles and anti-particles pop into being and then recombine, destroying themselves, that is posited to occur due to the influence of the Quantum Field which permeates space. There is no effect that does not have a cause, even if a cause has not been identified. Using Quantum mechanics in a “proof” is hazardous to the proof because science is always contingent.
”Again, another non-response. Where is this 'mathematical analysis' that shows the universe is within time, instead of time being within the universe.”
Surely you’ve heard of the Hawking –Ellis-Penrose mathematics? You are using science as your tool, but you are not adhering to scientific principles, rather you are making things up to suit your purposes it strongly appears.
Here is some information that can be googled up should one take the time:
”"three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.
”I know what they claim but when are they going to provide this evidence?
It won’t walk up and ring your doorbell, you have to look for it.
”I believe I said I'd examine "any" evidence. So, what type? ANY.
Start with Martin’s suggestion, then. But given your statement, you can no longer reject based on material evidence requirements.
”I said: ”Time did not exist before the Big Bang, and that it is therefore impossible to speak of anything happening before the Big Bang.”
Reread anything and all you can about Hawking-Ellis-Penrose, and then tell us what we can and cannot think.
What did you think of MDM's comment?
"What did you think of MDM's comment?"
I think its a spoof.
Hard to say from my perspective...
Post a Comment