About special pleadings.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-10-2014, 02:16 AM
RE: About special pleadings.
More dishonest argumentation. Your whole intention here is to misrepresent and mislead, Heywood. You were a better person once.

"When a theist claims that God is un-caused it is not a special pleading"
It is special pleading if the theist claims that a god is the only thing that could be the uncaused cause of the universe. It is also special pleading if the theist is unable to justify why or how the god could be uncaused or why it is easier for a god to be the uncaused cause of a thing rather than a natural uncaused cause. It is special pleading if the theist expects acceptance of a complex uncaused cause while ridiculing the possibility of a simple uncaused cause.

The universe does not need to be caused, but if it is caused there is no reason why the cause cannot be natural. To assume an uncaused god while excluding without evidence the possibility of an uncaused natural cause is pretty much the definition of special pleading. Hiding the special pleading within the so-called rule or in word games does not lessen the theist's dependance on that pleading.

Quote:Special pleading is a formal logical fallacy where a participant demands special considerations for a particular premise of theirs. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency — in a lot of cases, this will be the fact that their argument contradicts past arguments or actions. Therefore, they introduce a "special case" or an exception to their rules.
While this is acceptable in genuine special cases, it becomes a formal fallacy when a person doesn't adequately justify why the case is special.

Structure:
A person accepts a certain set of criteria for judging something, and applies this in a way appearing consistent and completely exhaustive. Said person finds themselves somehow restricted by their own criteria, and declares their own case "special" without any real justification and excludes themselves from their own criteria to make their case.
This is a fallacy because they are claiming that they are exempt from certain principles or standards, yet they provide no good reason for their exemption. A real exception would either be easily justifiable or apparent in the conditions they make in the first place, such as "these standards apply to x, y, and z because of a, b and c" and people can then agree with this and the reasoning. Simply demanding that an exception be made is not enough.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Claiming that a god is uncaused is special pleading until you have a valid answer to Sagan:




Only when you adequately address his questions you will have escaped your special pleading trap.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Hafnof's post
04-10-2014, 07:20 AM
RE: About special pleadings.
(02-10-2014 11:01 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  A special pleading occurs when someone attempts to cite an exception to a generally accepted rule without any justification.

For instance consider the following rule. Everything that comes into existence must have a cause.

If you go on to claim that the universe came into existence, but had no cause....then you are making a special pleading if you do not justify why it is an exception to the rule, Everything that comes into existence must have a cause.

When a theist claims that God is un-caused it is not a special pleading. Why? Because the rule applies to those things which come into existence. An eternal God is something that does not come into existence and therefore is not governed by the rule, Everything that comes into existence must have a cause
.

If you argue that the universe is something which always existed. It is not a special pleading to then go on to claim the Universe was un-caused.

Word games are the lowest form of debate. it shows the debater knows he/she doesn't have a leg to stand on, so they start playing with definitions...

You cannot state with any degree of validity that the first causal theory doesn't apply to the mythical egocentric abrahamic god because you have the unique opinion he is the "eternal god", thus wasn't "caused". How did you arrive at that thought? How did you ascertain your version of "god" is eternal? Which god by the way? There are so many, yet each fan club thinks their god is the only god, the true god and the only true religion. The irony of that kills me.

The major premise of the argument, ""everything had a cause," is contradicted by the conclusion that "god did not have a cause." You can't have it both ways. If everything had to have had a cause, then there could not be a first cause. If it is possible to think of a god as uncaused, then it is possible to think the same of the universe.

Some theists, observing that all "effects" need a cause, assert that god is a cause but not an effect. But no one has ever observed an uncaused cause and simply inventing one merely assumes what the argument wishes to prove. If a god can be thought eternal, then so can the universe. The word "cause" is a transitive verb. Causality requires temporality. If god exists outside of time, he cannot cause anything.

The latest spin on this position by christian philosophers like William Lane Craig is that:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This may be seductive to those who already believe in a god. To me, it seems awfully suspicious. The clause "Everything that begins to exist" sounds artificial. It is not a phrase we hear outside the context of theistic philosophy. It appears to be an Ad Hoc construction designed to smooth over earlier apologetic efforts.

Nice try though.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
04-10-2014, 09:28 AM
RE: About special pleadings.
(04-10-2014 02:16 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  More dishonest argumentation. Your whole intention here is to misrepresent and mislead, Heywood. You were a better person once.

More stupidity on your part. This is thread is not an argument about God. It is an argument about what is a special pleading and what isn't. I have said that several times now but you and others can't seem to get it thru you overly thick skulls.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2014, 10:02 AM (This post was last modified: 04-10-2014 10:11 AM by Drunkin Druid.)
RE: About special pleadings.
(02-10-2014 11:01 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  A special pleading occurs when someone attempts to cite an exception to a generally accepted rule without any justification.

For instance consider the following rule. Everything that comes into existence must have a cause.

If you go on to claim that the universe came into existence, but had no cause....then you are making a special pleading if you do not justify why it is an exception to the rule, Everything that comes into existence must have a cause.

When a theist claims that God is un-caused it is not a special pleading. Why? Because the rule applies to those things which come into existence. An eternal God is something that does not come into existence and therefore is not governed by the rule, Everything that comes into existence must have a cause
.

If you argue that the universe is something which always existed. It is not a special pleading to then go on to claim the Universe was un-caused.
How do you know everything that comes into existence must have a cause? I'll admit that everything in our day to day lives have a cause but reality is often counterintuitive.
Anyway perhaps the universe does actually have a cause. But why should anyone accept your god as that cause. Maybe it was another god or no God at all. Maybe there's a naturalistic cause.
Wow what a crazy idea. A naturalistic cause rather than a magical cause. Hmm naturalistic causes does seem to be a common explanation for things.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2014, 10:12 AM (This post was last modified: 04-10-2014 10:15 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: About special pleadings.
(04-10-2014 10:02 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  How do you know everything that comes into existence must have a cause? I'll admit that everything in our day to day lives have a cause but reality is often counterintuitive.

What you are doing here is challenging the argument on the basis that one of its premises might not be true. There is nothing wrong with doing that. Just keep in mind that if you find a premise suspect, that doesn't mean a special pleading fallacy has occurred. A special pleading fallacy occurs when the conclusion is excepted from one of the premises without any justification. Consider these two slightly different arguments:

Argument 1:
Everything that exist has a cause.
The Universe exists.
Therefore there must be some prime mover or God.

Argument 2:
Everything that comes into existence must have a cause.
The universe came into existence.
Therefore there must exist some eternal prime mover or God.

Argument 1 contains the special pleading fallacy because the conclusion is an exception to the first premise. Argument 2 does not contain a special pleading fallacy because the premise only applies to things which come into existence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2014, 10:14 AM
RE: About special pleadings.
(04-10-2014 10:12 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-10-2014 10:02 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  How do you know everything that comes into existence must have a cause? I'll admit that everything in our day to day lives have a cause but reality is often counterintuitive.

What you are doing here is challenging the argument on the basis that one of its premises might not be true. There is nothing wrong with doing that. Just keep in mind that if you find a premise suspect, that doesn't mean a special pleading fallacy has occurred. A special pleading fallacy occurs when the conclusion is excepted from one of the premises without any justification.

Argument 1:
Everything that exist has a cause.
The Universe exists.
Therefore there must be some prime mover or God.

Argument 2:
Everything that comes into existence must have a cause.
The universe came into existence.
Therefore there must exist some eternal prime mover or God.

Argument 1 contains the special pleading fallacy. Argument 2 does not.

You are actually just kicking the pleading back a step with the second example. The special pleading is why God does not need a cause yet the universe does.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2014, 10:23 AM (This post was last modified: 04-10-2014 10:29 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: About special pleadings.
(04-10-2014 10:14 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  You are actually just kicking the pleading back a step with the second example. The special pleading is why God does not need a cause yet the universe does.

No...No...No.

When you ask the question "Why does God not need a cause yet the universe does?", what you are doing is challenging the second premise. There is no special pleading fallacy in the second argument because the conclusion is not an exception of one of the premises. Is this next argument a special pleading?

Everything that comes into existence requires a cause.
Revenant77x came into existence.
Therefore there must exist an eternal universe.

This argument does not contain a special pleading fallacy. Why? Because the conclusion is not an exception (without justification) to one of the premises.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2014, 10:30 AM
RE: About special pleadings.
This argument is useless. Either everything has a cause only some things need a cause.
If everything that exists must have a cause then your god does not exist because it has no cause. If your god has a cause then you are worshipping the wrong god. You should be worshiping gods god.
But then gods god must also have a cause so you would still be worshiping the wrong god. You should be worshiping gods gods god.
But then gods gods God must also have a cause so.......
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2014, 10:34 AM
RE: About special pleadings.
(04-10-2014 10:30 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  This argument is useless. Either everything has a cause only some things need a cause.
If everything that exists must have a cause then your god does not exist because it has no cause. If your god has a cause then you are worshipping the wrong god. You should be worshiping gods god.
But then gods god must also have a cause so you would still be worshiping the wrong god. You should be worshiping gods gods god.
But then gods gods God must also have a cause so.......

I won't comment on this because this isn't a thread about God, it is a thread about what is and what isn't a special pleadings.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2014, 10:44 AM
RE: About special pleadings.
There's a point in there. I'm not to surprised you missed it. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Drunkin Druid's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: