I'm sure most people here are familiar with Thunderf00t and his videos. Recently, he posted one on the subject of the apologist's use (or perhaps misapplication) of philosophical arguments crafted to reach a desired conclusion. He points out that one of the main problems with this line of "proof" is that the universe is not under any obligation to conform to our concepts of what makes sense and all the conjecture about the unknown can't substitute for empirical testing and research.





I've posted before that abstract philosophy, theoretical constructs and pure conjecture, even if they all seem sound, can't substitute for hard evidence and certainly don't rise to meet the massive burden of proof called for by the extraordinary claims of Christianity. The fact that apologists can only offer philosophical arguments to make their case means that they fail before their arguments can even be examined.

Can't argue with your theory there DP ...it does seem sound.

Hence the reason Stat keeps harping on "logic" whenever we say we require evidence? He can't give evidence, so he falls back into mental masturbation.

Quote:so he falls back into mental masturbation.

Probably an improvement.

Interesting video. However, I'm not sure that the analogy holds between his "spam" argument and Craig's Kalām argument (which I'm not especially enamoured with, at least as an argument for the existence of God).

Here's Craig's Kalām argument:
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Here's the parody argument:
(1') Objects when pushed move faster. (I take it that by "object" he means a concrete, physical object.)
(2') A tin of spam is an object.
(3'): Therefore, a tin of spam at speed c will move faster when pushed.

It seems to me that the spam argument fails as a parody because it fails to match up the premises correctly. (1) is a metaphysical claim, while (1') is a scientific claim. And, (2) is a scientific claim, while (2') is a metaphysical claim (that a tin of spam is an object and not, say, a mental construct, a property, a proposition, etc.).

Given this observation, his analysis of (1) by comparing it to (1') doesn't seem to work. He explains that general relativity has demonstrated, scientifically, that (1') is false. But is it possible that science could, even in principle, demonstrate that (1) is false? No, because it is not a scientific claim, but a metaphysical one.

Rather than comparing (1) with (1'), he should compare (2) with (1'). But here, his reasons seem to fall flat - Craig would readily admit that if scientific evidence demonstrated that the universe didn't begin to exist, then his argument would fail. He argues that the universe began to exist based from scientific results, after all.

Finally, his whole argument seemed to boil down to the idea that 'the scientific method' (if it even makes sense to speak of such a thing) is just better than philosophical argumentation. Well, better at what? Unsurprisingly, the use of the scientific method is better at establishing claims within the various scientific fields of study. But equally unsurprisingly, the use of philosophical argumentation is better at establishing conclusions within various philosophical fields of study. In fact, it's not even a case of better or worse - metaphysical claims and the like simply can't be established by scientific enquiry. (However, I don't think that the converse - that philosophical argumentation can't establish scientific claims - is true, as some scientific claims could be metaphysically necessary or impossible.)

In the end, the question of whether God exists or not is not a scientific question (and indeed, that is true of all questions about whether something exists). It is a metaphysical question, and that means philosophical argument is required to establish it. There seems to be a curious trend against the use of philosophical argument; I am reminded in particular of Stephen Hawking's claim that "philosophy is dead" (followed, even more curiously, by a philosophical discussion about a highly contested view within the philosophy of science). The very fact that there is a field called the philosophy of science should make us wary of making such generalisations about philosophical argumentation; the very success of the scientific method depends on a number of metaphysical and epistemological assumptions that can not be established by the scientific method itself. This is neither a failing of those assumptions nor of the proposition that "God exists".

Quote:(1) is a metaphysical claim,

Which is exactly the problem with it.

(December 5, 2011 at 1:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:(1) is a metaphysical claim,

Which is exactly the problem with it.

Do you have a problem with all metaphysical claims, then? How about (2')?

In any case it doesn't point to any god, only to a cause. And it begs the question, when assigning that cause to god and everything has a cause what caused god? Is god the only possible way for the universe to begin? That's alot to provide evidence...

(December 5, 2011 at 2:57 pm)LastPoet Wrote: In any case it doesn't point to any god, only to a cause. And it begs the question, when assigning that cause to god and everything has a cause what caused god? Is god the only possible way for the universe to begin? That's alot to provide evidence...

Indeed god is the least likely of the pre-big bang theories that i 've heard.

There are quite a few you know.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7440217.stm

Problem about the 'what caused the universe' thing, is that you can assert not only that a god did it but anything. Santa caused the universe, the tooth fairy, ect. The argument can be applied to anything.
Prometheus
Atlas
Dione
Gaea
Thea
Ect ect.
Problem about making assertions and assuming the improbable is that it will take more explanations which makes it more complex and you'll be multiplying explanations beyond what's necessary to explain the event.
So it's far better to stick to Occam's Razer and simply state the universe exists and we don't know where it all came from. Removing the endless and unnecessary explanations altogether.