I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-06-2014, 04:51 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(02-06-2014 04:17 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  [quote='Jeremy E Walker' pid='585693' dateline='1401747251']

the evidence at our disposal indicates that the universe is not eternal in the past, but had a beginning a finite time ago. this means that the universe is a contingent entity.

the cause of the universe is one that must be able to bring about all of physical reality ex nihilo. the principle of parsimony (Ockham's Razor) enjoins us to posit as a cause, only that which sufficiently explains the data. hence we arrive at a powerful, immaterial, non-spatial, more plausibly personal efficient cause of the universe.

To reiterate:

Given Ockham's Razor, we are justified in positing only such causes as are necessary to explain the effect. Therefore it would be unjustified to postulate a plurality of causes.

The ball is now in your court: you have to give good reasons to think that timelessly existing entities must have causes—an assumption which is, as Daniel Dennett himself discerns, highly implausible and widely rejected by metaphysicians, whose ontologies often include uncaused, eternal entities like abstract objects.

In addition, in light of the success of the philosophical arguments against an infinite regress, we know that there must be a temporally first cause, which is therefore uncaused in the sense of having no temporally prior cause.

The argument against an actual infinite will necessitate that such a causal regress cannot be infinite and that one must therefore arrive at an absolutely uncaused first cause.

Infinite regress is not a logical impossibility, nor is solving it a logical necessity.[/quote]

I have never argued it was a logical impossibility, but rather that it is impossible to traverse an actually infinite number of past events.

We are talking about actual infinites not conceptual infinites i.e. mathematical or theoretical infinites which are used in mathematics. So this is really a red herring. The arguments against an actual infinite demonstrate that an actually infinite number of past events cannot be traversed. Hence, the universe cannot be past eternal.

(02-06-2014 04:17 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  In other words, if it occurs: Nothing happens. It doesn't cause a single problem.


[quote='rampant.a.i.' pid='585697' dateline='1401747460']An ad-hoc omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnitemporal, omniscient entity does not fit the bolded portion at all.

those attributes are not deduced from a conceptual analysis of the cause of the universe which is what the argument calls for.

I have never stated that the kalam proves that the cause is omnibenevolent for example. This is somthing that the Kalam cannot prove.

The kalam's conclusion gives us exactly what I stated earilier:

the cause of the universe is one that must be able to bring about all of physical reality ex nihilo. the principle of parsimony (Ockham's Razor) enjoins us to posit as a cause, only that which sufficiently explains the data. hence we arrive at a powerful, immaterial, non-spatial, more plausibly personal efficient cause of the universe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2014, 04:54 PM
I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(02-06-2014 04:48 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(02-06-2014 04:17 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  I have never argued it was a logical impossibility, but rather that it is impossible to traverse an actually infinite number of past events.

We are talking about actual infinites not conceptual infinites i.e. mathematical or theoretical infinites which are used in mathematics. So this is really a red herring. The arguments against an actual infinite demonstrate that an actually infinite number of past events cannot be traversed. Hence, the universe cannot be past eternal.


An ad-hoc omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnitemporal, omniscient entity does not fit the bolded portion at all.

those attributes are not deduced from a conceptual analysis of the cause of the universe which is what the argument calls for.

Right, they're simply presupposed, unsupported assertion. That's why the argument is circular. I feel... I feel like we've been over this before, do you not remember?


(02-06-2014 04:48 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I have never stated that the kalam proves that the cause is omnibenevolent for example. This is somthing that the Kalam cannot prove.

Then how does it indicate the Christian God?


(02-06-2014 04:48 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The kalam's conclusion gives us exactly what I stated earilier:

the cause of the universe is one that must be able to bring about all of physical reality ex nihilo. the principle of parsimony (Ockham's Razor) enjoins us to posit as a cause, only that which sufficiently explains the data. hence we arrive at a powerful, immaterial, non-spatial, more plausibly personal efficient cause of the universe.

An unsupported, unrelated ad hoc "solution" doesn't qualify.

Reminder: You lost 3 KCA debates here, 2 of which you failed to get Premise 1. off the ground, then went over to a Christian forum and lost another KCA debate.

Why are you using a failed argument as "evidence" for anything?

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
02-06-2014, 04:58 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(02-06-2014 04:51 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I have never argued it was a logical impossibility, but rather that it is impossible to traverse an actually infinite number of past events.

Why is impossible to traverse an actually infinite number of past events but not an actually infinite number of future events?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
02-06-2014, 05:01 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(02-06-2014 04:24 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(02-06-2014 04:14 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  the evidence at our disposal indicates that the universe is not eternal in the past, but had a beginning a finite time ago.

Wrong. We've been over this many times now.

The ball is in your court.

Shoot.

What evidence do you have that will negate the findings of contemporary astronomy and cosmology?


(02-06-2014 04:14 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  the principle of parsimony (Ockham's Razor) enjoins us to posit as a cause, only that which sufficiently explains the data.

(02-06-2014 04:24 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  All the data.

The data at our disposal for that is what we are concerned with.

(02-06-2014 04:24 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  I was waiting for Occam's razor to be brought up. Occam's razor tells us that there is no god and that the universe has always existed in one form or another.

Interesting, how so?

(02-06-2014 04:24 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  This is because using God as an explanation brings up more questions than it solves and therefore is not the simplest solution.

This is a line that Dawkin's used and it is hilariously misguided.

Philosopher's of science know that in order to recognize that an explanation (x) is
the best explanation for a set of data, one does not have to have total knowledge or an explanation for the explanation! To use this line is to render the entire scientific method impotent, for you would never be able to explain anything! you would always be looking for an explanation of the explanation and an explantion for the explanation of the explanation.

In fact, these questions that are raised by positing God should spur you on to dig in deeper and encourage honest and sincere research into these matters.

It would be very unscientific Doctor, to just throw your hands up in the air and say:

"Alas, poor me! I now have questions that I need to try to find answers to, my life is over!"

This line is simply untenable and leads to one searching for explanations forever i.e an infinite regress.


(02-06-2014 04:24 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  Questions which have been raised a multitude of times already and which you cannot answer.

For example, what God is made of if not energy or matter and how it can interact with the world, how God can be omnipresent, omniscience and omnipotent, how an intelligent sentient being such as God can always exist.

These are theological questions and in order to have answers, you must take up the disciplines of metaphysics and theology. Empiricism is impotent here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2014, 05:01 PM
I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(02-06-2014 04:58 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(02-06-2014 04:51 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I have never argued it was a logical impossibility, but rather that it is impossible to traverse an actually infinite number of past events.

Why is impossible to traverse an actually infinite number of past events but not an actually infinite number of future events?

Because WLC says so.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig...mith1.html

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2014, 05:03 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(02-06-2014 04:58 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(02-06-2014 04:51 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I have never argued it was a logical impossibility, but rather that it is impossible to traverse an actually infinite number of past events.

Why is impossible to traverse an actually infinite number of past events but not an actually infinite number of future events?

I never said it was possible to traverse an actually infinite number of future events.

This is a red-herring.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2014, 05:04 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(02-06-2014 05:01 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(02-06-2014 04:58 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  Why is impossible to traverse an actually infinite number of past events but not an actually infinite number of future events?

Because WLC says so.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig...mith1.html

once again, this is a red-herring.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2014, 05:05 PM (This post was last modified: 02-06-2014 05:09 PM by rampant.a.i..)
I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(02-06-2014 05:01 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  These are theological questions and in order to have answers, you must take up the disciplines of metaphysics and theology. Empiricism is impotent here.

And yet the only Epistemologist you pay attention to is Plantinga, ignoring coherentism and every other possible view.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic...s_of_truth

Regress doesn't matter.

You want to talk about a red herring?

You've failed to show why the KCA is logically valid 4 times and have no other argument, so you keep repeating the conclusion anyway.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
02-06-2014, 05:12 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(02-06-2014 04:54 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Right, they're simply presupposed, unsupported assertion. That's why the argument is circular. I feel... I feel like we've been over this before, do you not remember?

not presupposed at all. what I have listed as minimum requirements for the cause of the universe is not controversial. Matter could not create all matter. A temporal being could not create time. A being in space could not create the space-time manifold for in each scenario, said cause would have had to exist before it existed.


(02-06-2014 04:48 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I have never stated that the kalam proves that the cause is omnibenevolent for example. This is somthing that the Kalam cannot prove.

(02-06-2014 04:54 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Then how does it indicate the Christian God?

by pointing to a timeless, immaterial, space-less, more plausibly personal efficient cause of the entirety of the space-time manifold.

This give you a place to start and takes you from atheism to theism. Other arguments are then introduced for the God of the Judeo-Christian worldview i.e. monotheism


(02-06-2014 04:54 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  An unsupported, unrelated ad hoc "solution" doesn't qualify.

It is not ad hoc at all, nor is it unsupported. It is an inductive inference to a cause of the universe via conceptual analysis of the minimum requirements of the cause of the universe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2014, 05:14 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(02-06-2014 05:01 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(02-06-2014 04:24 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  Questions which have been raised a multitude of times already and which you cannot answer.

For example, what God is made of if not energy or matter and how it can interact with the world, how God can be omnipresent, omniscience and omnipotent, how an intelligent sentient being such as God can always exist.

These are theological questions and in order to have answers, you must take up the disciplines of metaphysics and theology. Empiricism is impotent here.


And this is why I can dismiss absolutely everything that you say. This is why you can't argue for the existence for a god any more than you argue against me stating that there is no god. This is also why your argument is no more valid than all the other mythologies out there.

Why are you attempting, and failing to use Occam's razor if you aren't interested in empiricism?

Sorry but I am only interested in reality, not your own personal fantasy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: