(August 2, 2024 at 7:05 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(August 1, 2024 at 5:55 pm)Belacqua Wrote: All of them make clear that additional information about that first cause, e.g. that it must be the God of the Bible, are not included in the argument, and must be argued through other means. 

Anselm and Augustine both use it to argue their god. As you point out, that is indeed a non sequitur.

Many Christians use a First Cause argument to show that there is a first cause. 

Of course they think that the first cause is God. However, to show that God could be a first cause requires additional arguments.

It's obvious that the Kalam argument is Muslim. (Kalam is a kind of Islamic medieval Aristotelian theology.) These thinkers thought it applied to the Muslim God. Craig needs additional arguments to show that a Kalam-style first cause argument applies to the Christian God.

(August 2, 2024 at 7:13 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Many Christians use a First Cause argument to show that there is a first cause. 

Of course they think that the first cause is God. However, to show that God could be a first cause requires additional arguments.

It's obvious that the Kalam argument is Muslim. (Kalam is a kind of Islamic medieval Aristotelian theology.) These thinkers thought it applied to the Muslim God. Craig needs additional arguments to show that a Kalam-style first cause argument applies to the Christian God.

And what of it. Whether wielded by Christians or Muslims it still has special pleading and non sequitur baked into it. Even a Phi101 student can see the rubbish.

Neither Craig, nor Augustine, nor Anselm, nor the Muslims can connect those two dots. That's not because one religion is right and the other wrong, that's because the argument is based on specious premises.

(August 2, 2024 at 7:28 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: And what of it. Whether wielded by Christians or Muslims it still has special pleading and non sequitur baked into it. Even a Phi101 student can see the rubbish.

Neither Craig, nor Augustine, nor Anselm, nor the Muslims can connect those two dots. That's not because one religion is right and the other wrong, that's because the argument is based on specious premises.

Well, they're all based on Aristotle's arguments as to why a chain of causation has to end somewhere. 

And remember that Aristotle believed the universe was eternal, with no beginning. The cause we're talking about here is not the beginning of a temporal chain.

Can you point out the flaws in Aristotle's argument to me?

(August 2, 2024 at 7:38 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(August 2, 2024 at 7:28 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: And what of it. Whether wielded by Christians or Muslims it still has special pleading and non sequitur baked into it. Even a Phi101 student can see the rubbish.

Neither Craig, nor Augustine, nor Anselm, nor the Muslims can connect those two dots. That's not because one religion is right and the other wrong, that's because the argument is based on specious premises.

Well, they're all based on Aristotle's arguments as to why a chain of causation has to end somewhere. 

And remember that Aristotle believed the universe was eternal, with no beginning. The cause we're talking about here is not the beginning of a temporal chain.

Can you point out the flaws in Aristotle's argument to me?

Sure -- believing the universe was eternal without any evidence.

Next question?

ETA: I'm not sure who appointed Aristotle the Authority™ on this stuff. Could you tell me why you think he's right and everyone else in history must accept his pronuciamientos?

Be specific.

(August 2, 2024 at 7:50 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(August 2, 2024 at 7:38 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Well, they're all based on Aristotle's arguments as to why a chain of causation has to end somewhere. 

And remember that Aristotle believed the universe was eternal, with no beginning. The cause we're talking about here is not the beginning of a temporal chain.

Can you point out the flaws in Aristotle's argument to me?

Sure -- believing the universe was eternal without any evidence.

Next question?

ETA: I'm not sure who appointed Aristotle the Authority™ on this stuff. Could you tell me why you think he's right and everyone else in history must accept his pronuciamientos?

Be specific.

Please try to read what I say, and not accuse me of things I have never said and would not say. 

"X said this" is not equivalent to "therefore you must believe it." 

If we want to understand first cause arguments, we have to read what they actually say.

(August 2, 2024 at 7:02 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(August 1, 2024 at 2:54 pm)Ivan Denisovich Wrote: Let's agree with it and then ask what caused god to exist. Super god obviously. What caused super god to exist? Ultra god perhaps. What caused ultra god to exist? ... It's the turtles all the way down and anyone who takes this crap of an "argument" seriously is simply delusional.

Put shortly, it's special pleading. An arbitrary line for "must have been created" has been drawn at this god-thingy. Somehow he's exempt.

Of course it is special pleading. I however expect nothing else from theists - if they would be able to see how dumb this "argument" is there would be a pretty good chance for them not being theists in the first place.

(August 2, 2024 at 8:10 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Please try to read what I say, and not accuse me of things I have never said and would not say. 

"X said this" is not equivalent to "therefore you must believe it." 

If we want to understand first cause arguments, we have to read what they actually say.

Well, many of us have, myself included.

You here are arguing they may have some point. I never wrote that you argued they must be believed (a fallacy itself, a strawman), but I sure as hell want to know why you think that because Aristotle said something, it should be accorded some status despite its logical fallacy embedded.

So, to the point, do you not think the fallacies embedded in those arguments -- be they from Ari, or Augie, or whomever -- don't you think the simple fallacies themselves kill the argument no matter whose name is on the paper? I know what Aristotle and Augustine wrote. I think it's plain that both have sloppy thinking in there (Aristotle with the Composition fallacy, Augustine with both that and special pleading).

Take their names off, and explain to us how their reasoning is tight and not sloppy.

(August 2, 2024 at 11:22 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I never wrote that you argued they must be believed (a fallacy itself, a strawman)

But you did write this: 

Quote:Could you tell me why you think he's right and everyone else in history must accept his pronuciamientos?

Despite your accusation, and your apparent backing away from it now, I have never argued that he is right, or that everyone else in history must accept what he said. 

(August 2, 2024 at 6:56 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(August 2, 2024 at 6:39 pm)Sheldon Wrote: If everything must have a cause, then any deity must axiomatically have a cause. 

If one claims a deity can transcend time and space, then one cannot rationally claim nothing else can.

You have to watch out with this...

None of the First Cause arguments argues that everything must have a cause. This is true of the Kalam one as well.

I missed out begins to exist, which of course is still not objectively demonstrated, since it is only true of things we have understood within the physical temporal universe, and in every single case they are natural causes, despite this Lane Craig's version then posits an unevidenced deity using supernatural magic, not only does this not follow from the first premise, it has no explanatory powers whatsoever. It also violates Occam's razor, involves question begging and what looks suspiciously like a special pleading fallacy.