Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[I_am_not_mafia]

Seeing how I have made my case for why Odin cannot exist based upon evidence that he is a character based upon ancient pagan Babylonian religion, and that no evidence of Odin's existence has been presented PERIOD, I have no other choice but to declare myself the victor according to the predefined criteria.

But in doing so your logic told us that Jesus did not exist because it was another name for Odin.

Yep. Well done on that one.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-53753-p...pid1715101

[SteveII]

You are right that by definition God has no explanation. But your second phrase does not follow from the first part (or any other logic). In other words, there is nothing in the definition of God that even suggests that his existence cannot be demonstrated. For example, why couldn't God demonstrate his existence by coming to earth and telling everyone? 

Regarding your question "why should I take seriously...?" even if you don't believe, you should understand the concept that a good part of the world believes.

A clarification here because I realize my wording was unclear.  What I meant was, by definition, god needs no explanation.  Additionally, he cannot be demonstrated to exist.  

God could certainly demonstrate his existence by coming to earth and telling everyone.  I’m not sure why he doesn’t do it right now as I’m typing this. I’m not sure why he would do it just the one time, and then expect every human on earth going forward to simply accept the Bible at its word.  The Bible is not a demonstration of god.  It’s a claim about a god.  If god could be demonstrated to exist, we’d ALL be theists.

So, you’re asking me to rationally accept a thing that:

 1. cannot be demonstrated and...

First, I am not asking you to accept anything.

Second, you use the word 'demonstrate'. I have listed countless times reasons why people believe there is a God. These reasons 'demonstrate' the concept to be rationale. You cannot say any of them are false. So what you are actually saying is that these reasons (as you understand them--which is a very important point) haven't met your standards to believe. That's fine. But what you cannot say is that I have not demonstrated...period. What you mean is that I have not demonstrated sufficient for your belief. 

2.  cannot be coherently explained

There is nothing incoherent about the God of Christianity. If you think so, I will need a specific point to address. 

...as the explanation for all of reality?

Why would anyone do that?!

You can't get around it: If the God of Christianity exists, he would be the explanation of all our reality -- it follows by definition. There is no trick here. Any atheist philosopher would admit this. This puts you right back at the beginning of your question 1.

[I_am_not_mafia]

If the God of Christianity exists, he would be the explanation of all our reality -- it follows by definition.

But not much of an explanation because your god would be unknowable.

[possibletarian]

You can't get around it: If the God of Christianity exists, he would be the explanation of all our reality -- it follows by definition. There is no trick here. Any atheist philosopher would admit this. This puts you right back at the beginning of your question 1.

Yes if any entity with appropriately made up characteristics actually existed, then it would be the best explanation.

But I for one would expect some considerable proof, Here we have a mighty ruler of the whole universe, that created  us to be in communion with and worship him, to know his blessing and wants everyone to be saved.
and the proof for it's existence ...... 'hears crickets'  

Instead we have god(s) that are remarkably good at looking like they never existed or ever will, who is defined in such a way that non existence is exactly the same as existing.  Anyone can define into existence an unfalsifiable entity, the problem being that that's all we have ..definitions.

[Mister Agenda]

Steve is trying his best to take this thread off topic while i'm trying to give atheists that work...

Seeing how I have made my case for why Odin cannot exist based upon evidence that he is a character based upon ancient pagan Babylonian religion, and that no evidence of Odin's existence has been presented PERIOD, I have no other choice but to declare myself the victor according to the predefined criteria.

What about the Frost Giants being gone? What about the dream Odin sent me. What about the first hand account of him communicating directly which has been provided to you? Don't you get that Odin isn't based on a Babylonian god, he is the very same god with a Norse name? He accomplished what he wanted in Sumeria and moved on to Scandinavia. Whose eye do you think is at the top of the pyramid on the dollar bill?

[LadyForCamus]

A clarification here because I realize my wording was unclear.  What I meant was, by definition, god needs no explanation.  Additionally, he cannot be demonstrated to exist.  

God could certainly demonstrate his existence by coming to earth and telling everyone.  I’m not sure why he doesn’t do it right now as I’m typing this. I’m not sure why he would do it just the one time, and then expect every human on earth going forward to simply accept the Bible at its word.  The Bible is not a demonstration of god.  It’s a claim about a god.  If god could be demonstrated to exist, we’d ALL be theists.

So, you’re asking me to rationally accept a thing that:

 1. cannot be demonstrated and...

First, I am not asking you to accept anything.

Correct.  Sloppy choice of words on my part.  I know that you, as an individual, aren’t trying to convince me.  

My opinion is that the proposition of god as an answer, should be wholly unsatisfying to the human mind.  The positing of an entity, the substance and mechanics of which, by its very definition are not explainable, isn’t an actual explanation.  An answer that generates exponentially more questions in its wake should be considered woefully inadequate. To me, such a proposition is a placeholder for the unknown, not an explanation of it.

I agree with you that descriptions like, “cannot be known”, and “does not require an explanation” are internally consistent with the definition of god. My point is, why would anyone accept a not-explainable thing as an answer?  I don’t understand this line of reasoning at all.

Second, you use the word 'demonstrate'. I have listed countless times reasons why people believe there is a God. These reasons 'demonstrate' the concept to be rationale. You cannot say any of them are false. So what you are actually saying is that these reasons (as you understand them--which is a very important point) haven't met your standards to believe. That's fine. But what you cannot say is that I have not demonstrated...period.

Oh, come now, Steve.  You know as well as I do that demonstrating a logical argument for the concept of an entity is not the same thing as demonstrating the entity itself.  You, yourself have said that you cannot logically argue things into existence.

There is nothing incoherent about the God of Christianity. If you think so, I will need a specific point to address.

What he’s made of, and how he functions are unknowable and not explainable.  Those are your words.

You can't get around it: If the God of Christianity exists, he would be the explanation of all our reality -- it follows by definition. There is no trick here. Any atheist philosopher would admit this. This puts you right back at the beginning of your question 1.

And, I think you are playing fast and loose with the definition of the word, “explanation”.

[SteveII]

I don't like the Wikipedia formulation. Here is the one I use:

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

and what must that cause be like:

4. To stop an infinite regress of causes, the cause of the universe (or it's predecessor) is an "uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful." (from your quote above)

This avoids a misunderstanding of the argument and also eliminates parody attempts like above. 

The KCA is an inductive argument. This is an important point. "Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion.While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

Which number(s) do you think are false?

Until I looked it up, I assumed the KCA was deductive (as most cosmological arguments are), but you are right. It's inductive. It wouldn't have killed WLC to use the word probably or likely. It's worded like deductive logic, so please forgive my error. It doesn't really matter though. My problem isn't with the conclusion.

Let's look at the part of the argument that deals with contingency first. I'll quote your post below, with my commentary in bold.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. This is true of things within the universe, yes.

Yes but why would you exclude things outside of our universe? The Principle of Sufficient Reason or even just any basic causal principle justifies thinking that causation is a feature of any possible reality. What argument do you think would be successful in undercutting this premise to a point to think it is probably not true (since this is an inductive argument). 

2. The universe began to exist. This is fine, though it isn't necessarily true.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. This does not follow because premise 1 is not necessarily true of the entire universe--composition fallacy.

It does follow unless you can show that (1) is unlikely true. Can you? 

I omitted the contingency part of the argument because in my first response because it has little to with the point I was trying to make--that the cosmological argument is god of the gaps argument. This part of the argument has no god of gaps reasoning, yet it is still problematic because of the composition fallacy. As a youtube video I once saw put it, the composition fallacy works in some cases but not all. If the individual bricks in a wall are red, it follows that the wall itself would be red. True enough. But what if the individual bricks are small? Would it follow that the wall that the wall itself would be small? Not necessarily. You could have a large wall made up of small bricks. https://youtu.be/ppBxkTTGoRQ

Bertrand Russell accused the cosmological argument of the composition fallacy:

But why should we think that the cosmos is contingent? Defenders of the view contend that if the components of the universe are contingent, the universe itself is contingent. Russell replies that the move from the contingency of the components of the universe to the contingency of the universe commits the Fallacy of Composition, which mistakenly concludes that since the parts have a certain property, the whole likewise has that property. Hence, whereas we legitimately can ask for the cause of particular things, to require a cause of the universe or the set of all contingent beings based on the contingency of its parts is mistaken.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmo...-argument/

(1) The premise does not limit itself to the universe or reason from experiences within the universe. You are imposing a limit, not me. The argument claims that it is a general principle, a feature of existence, an obvious metaphysical truth. 

Now for the second part:

4. To stop an infinite regress of causes, the cause of the universe (or it's predecessor) is an "uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful." (from your quote above)

I already explained this in my last post. Just take the words "personal creator" out and it still works. Some Hindus see God as an impersonal force from which all things emanate. Their concept, Brahman, would just as adequately satisfy this portion of the argument as Yahweh. Similarly, any other descriptor "beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless..." needn't be a property of this being. I'll give you "enormously powerful"... that's the only property required of such a force.

Taking all this into account, you could rephrase the premise like this:

4. To stop an infinite regress of causes, the cause of the universe (or it's predecessor) is an uncaused, enormously powerful force.

I don't see any materialist taking issue with the premise when worded like this. To reason any further than this is god of the gaps reasoning.

A cause of the universe must be:
Changeless/timeless: these go together. To be in a timeless state, there can be no change. Since time itself came into existence at the first moments of the universe, prior to that must be a timeless state. 
Immaterial: Since space came into existence at the first moments of the universe, the cause must not be made of at least the material in our universe. Material/physical object need space in which to exists. 
Personal: Rather than me reword WLC explanation of Ghazali's explanation, here it is:

Finally, Ghazali argued that this Uncaused First Cause must also be a personal being. It’s the only way to explain how an eternal cause can produce an effect with a beginning like the universe.

Here’s the problem: If a cause is sufficient to produce its effect, then if the cause is there, the effect must be there, too. For example, the cause of water’s freezing is the temperature’s being below 0 degrees Celsius. If the temperature has been below 0 degrees from eternity, then any water around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless. So why isn’t the universe permanently there as well? Why did the universe come into being only 14 billion years ago? Why isn’t it as permanent as its cause?

Ghazali maintained that the answer to this problem is that the First Cause must be a personal being endowed with freedom of the will. His creating the universe is a free act which is independent of any prior determining conditions. So his act of creating can be something spontaneous and new. Freedom of the will enables one to get an effect with a beginning from a permanent, timeless cause. Thus, we are brought not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe but to its Personal Creator.

[SteveII]

I don't like the Wikipedia formulation. Here is the one I use:

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

and what must that cause be like:

4. To stop an infinite regress of causes, the cause of the universe (or it's predecessor) is an "uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful." (from your quote above)

Let's rewrite this argument without the simplistic everyday words that assumes that the universe is made up of discrete states that instantaneously switch from one to another. Let's rewrite it in a way that acknowledges that the universe is made up of many persistent patterns of matter and energy that change gradually over time.

1. Every stable pattern of matter and energy in the universe first had to develop over time (continuous version of begins to exist) and this happened because of how it was shaped by a larger environment (continuous version of cause).

First, like I said before, all that is needed for this premise is a causal principle.

Second, your rewriting significantly reduces the scope of the premise by making it about things inside the universe. This makes it useless to talk about things outside the universe. I will bring this back up below.

2. The universe itself first had to develop over time.

Nope. There is no such thing as a partial universe, partial spacetime or even a partial singularity. There are only two choices: the universe came into being or the universe always was. 

3. Therefore the universe itself is part of a larger environment shaping it.

Does not follow from (1) or (2). You shifted from "in the universe" in (1) and now in (3) you talk about the "universe itself..in a larger environment". Depending on your underlying reasoning, this is either a composition fallacy or just bad logic. Since (3) is not a valid conclusion, the rest of your argument falls completely apart. 

4. To stop an infinite extension of the universe, this larger environment of the universe is an environment that either:

4a: came about in an instant
4b: has always existed unchanging
4c: has always existed but continually changes.

4a and 4b does not explain how this larger environment the universe exists in came about. It just poses more questions that we cannot answer.
4c on the other hand means that there doesn't need to be a larger environment that the universe exists in.

This shows that the Kalam Cosmological argument only works because it uses simplistic every day language to gloss over the specific details. It only convinces you if you think about the problem simplistically. It gives the illusion of providing an explanation but only if you refuse to ask any more questions. This is why christians argue that after a while you need to stop asking questions and just have faith. If you have the right answer, you don't need faith, you can continue asking more questions, testing your answers and refining your understanding. This is how the scientific process works.

And that very last sentence is your problem. This is not a question of science. It is a metaphysical question. Now we can use science in support of or to undercut a premise, but this is not a science problem. You have got to learn the difference as well as learn the limitations of science or you will keep stumbling on this stuff.

[I_am_not_mafia]

First, like I said before, all that is needed for this premise is a causal principle.

And please explain why all that is needed for this premise is a causal principle rather than name dropping philosophical terms that can be used to magic into existence a non existent being through logic alone. That way .... <drum roll> we can examine your working and test each assumption rather than apply some off the shelf armchair philosophy to create an excuse to allow you to believe what the hell you like.

Second, your rewriting significantly reduces the scope of the premise by making it about things inside the universe. This makes it useless to talk about things outside the universe.

But this is precisely what the KCA does that you like so much

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.

Everything inside the universe begins to exist so everything outside the universe must also begin to exist. That's 2 / 3 of your argument right there. Why is it any different for a continuous version compared to a discrete version of the argument?

2. The universe itself first had to develop over time.

Nope. There is no such thing as a partial universe, partial spacetime or even a partial singularity. There are only two choices: the universe came into being or the universe always was. 

Agreed. So is it 4a, 4b or 4c for the environment of the universe?

4a: came about in an instant
4b: has always existed unchanging
4c: has always existed but continually changes.

And that very last sentence is your problem. This is not a question of science. It is a metaphysical question. Now we can use science in support of or to undercut a premise, but this is not a science problem. You have got to learn the difference as well as learn the limitations of science or you will keep stumbling on this stuff.

Sorry. I forgot that you can't differentiate between reality and your armchair philosophy.

Metaphysics right. OK, that means imaginary physics which is undetectable and can only be discerned by mental masturbation.

If it's real then why shouldn't we be able to investigate it using the scientific method?

[LadyForCamus]

If it's real then why shouldn't we be able to investigate it using the scientific method?

The answer to this question falls into that, ‘awfully convenient for real problems in my arguments’ category of:

We don’t know; we can’t know; that’s just how god works!

How nice that people take the liberty of filling gaps in their reasoning with little more than air pockets.