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

[RoadRunner79]

---

Because not doing so would be a composition fallacy, lol. What a silly question.


No. You don’t get to ‘logic’ into existence the scientific underpinnings of reality.  This argument fails at premise 1.  Full Stop.  You have no way of demonstrating that it is more likely true than not true.  



He doesn’t have to.  You need to demonstrate that it is more likely true than not true, and with some actual evidence.  Philosophy alone isn’t going to cut it. 

That is the ONLY option. You cannot talk about "scientific" for things prior to the first moments of the universe. Full Stop. All of our intuitions about reality (not just our universe) screams out a causal principle. There is no way around this and for this reason alone, Premise (1) is more likely true than not. 

It’s true because it’s obvious?  That’s a pretty tight circle, right there.

Steve, the problem (as I see it) with your reasoning throughout this thread, and your debate style in general, is this:

You flip your position on what is knowable beyond our universe depending on which argument is being discussed.  So, when atheists appeal to facts about our observable universe to explain how your god (as he’s often described) can’t logically or scientifically exist, it’s a category error.  He’s supernatural.  We’re making a mistake in our reasoning when we try to apply truths about our known reality to god, and the unknowable state he exists in.

But then out the other side of your mouth, whenever premise 1. of the KCA comes up, atheists are ‘placing unnecessary restrictions’ on what we can know about reality beyond our universe.  All of a sudden you can make predictions, have certain knowledge of “obvious truths”, and reason your way across an obvious category distinction.  We don’t have to provide a defeator for premise 1. because you already did.  It’s a category error. Those are your words.  

So, which is it?

Regarding your first point about category error, yes--comparing God to physical laws is an obvious and silly category error and shouldn't be done. This is not that.

Regarding you second point, is there any reason whatsoever to think that causal principles only apply within the universe? Why are scientist talking about string theory, multiverses, etc.? Because they seem to think there is such a thing. Why? Because it seems like an objective feature of reality--no matter what physical conditions you find yourself in. These are the points you must answer to be successful in refuting the KCA--not complaining that you can't win after bringing up weak arguments.

---

This is why I like the KCA!  I think that the range and depth of the rebuttals are somewhat humorous.  I've seen the same person argue, that things don't need a cause to begin to exists.  Which one may point out, that the causal principle is foundational to the study of science.  If nothing is a cause, then what are the limits of nothing?   The Causal Principle is not only used to deduce what will happen when some change is introduced, but is also used to infer a cause based on the effect.  And not only must there be a cause to produce an effect, this cause must be sufficient for the effect.  It begs the question how one determines that nothing a cause (how would one falsify it)?

From here, the same person may change up; and say it's the fallacy of composition.   That the things within the universe no require a cause, but the universe does not.   Which leads us to ask why is that?  How is the universe being defined, that makes it different?   First I don't think that it is explicit in the premise (everything that begin to exist; must have a cause) that the whole has the same attributes as the parts.  I do not see anyone making this argument.  It may be said, that this is based on our observation from within the universe.  However if this is true; then, how can a cosmologist say anything about the origin of the universe (which is half of their job description).  If the claim is that the universe doesn't require a cause whereas, that which makes up the universe does.  I ask why is that? 

It is natural to look for a cause for an effect.  It is natural to expect a sufficient cause for a given effect, even if that cause cannot be demonstrated.  We may even infer certain properties about a cause that is unknown based on what we see in the effect.  I am curious for those who invoke nothing as a cause, how often you would accept this in any other circumstance?   Many here are fond of quoting "that which is given without reason, can be dismissed without reason".  Apparently until it comes to the universe and everything in it, then... one doesn't need a reason (at least if the alternative might be something like God).