Terrible Atheist Argument #1

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Now we both agree that in order for the argument to succeed, P1 must hold true. But about P1,
a) We can concede that it is epistemically possible,
b) We don't know that it is metaphysically possible.

Exactly.

But you also seem to be saying regarding MN (or God, in the MOA), that until MN (God) is shown to be incoherent, the proposition that it could be true (or the conception of God being coherent is true) is defensible, even though this only takes us to epistemic possibility.

So at best the MOA would say "So far as I'm aware, God exists" or the MN would say "So far as I'm aware, MN is true".

But in order to demonstrate metaphysical possibility, normally the appeal is to conceivability IIRC. I've seen some people frame the issue such that "Unless you can show some metaphysical incoherency, it is reasonable to believe it's possible."

But you seem to be saying something different. You're saying that the proponent has to bear a positive burden to show metaphysical possibility.

What exactly is the burden here? How can it be met, whether for God, or MN, or anything else?

Sorry, I've been a bit sloppy, but I think I can clear it up.

What I'm doing when I make the modal argument for atheism is showing that what theists are trying to do is fundamentally flawed. I'm not saying that they have to meet a burden of proof that metaphysical naturalists don't, I'm showing that if - like proponents of the MOA for God's existence - I treat P1) as metaphysically possibility rather than epistemic possibility (which is what both P1s only are), then the arguments stalemate.

So the point is neither side can use this kind of argument unless they've demonstrated beforehand that God's existence is metaphysically possible. But if they could or had done that, why would they need this MOA? The whole point of ontological arguments - from what I understand - is to essentially turn God's existence into an analytic judgement, i.e to make God's existence entailed by the very definition of God. If they had already coherently defined God into such, they wouldn't need the MO argument to show it because he would have to exist. I'd say Kant sort of ruined that kind of argument.

So, the main thing to get is that theists have to realize their are viable atheistic modal arguments as well that call into question this approach via stalemate (and if it doesn't, they can actually can go against religious theisms). Unfortunately, most Christian/Muslim apologists aren't usually told this by the bigger name apologists who wave around this argument as having established God's existence (William Lane Craig, as always; though he sometimes flip-flops on this). Funnily enough, there's this fairly popular YouTube theist called "InspiringPhilosophy" who claims the argument is irrefutable and that this particular objection is just philosophers "biting the epistemic bullet". What a crock.

---

In other words, these arguments don't establish metaphysical possibility, they have to be supplemented with further powerful arguments. Theists in the know will sometimes supplement it with Robert Madoyle's argument about "great-making" properties. I don't think his argument works either, partly because it's entirely subjective. A being with "great-making" properties cannot have "lesser-making" properties and such. -sigh-

I was away for a while, so when I came back I had to look over your arguments again to remind myself where we were.

But given you reductio ad absurdum:
P1) If metaphysical naturalism is possibly true, it is true and God does not exist.
P2) Metaphysical naturalism is possibly true.
C) Therefore, metaphysical naturalism is true and God does not exist.

I'm led to question whether this works because given S5, the key feature of the ontological argument is possible necessity. So your argument would need to be:

P1) If metaphysical naturalism is possibly necessary, it is true and God does not exist

From which the rest would follow.

After all, doesn't the mere possibility of a maximally great being entail non-contingency, therefore necessity?

---

Okay, so there are smart atheists and there are dumb atheists.

Some dumb atheists make some piss poor arguments. Here I'll deal with one that comes up a lot.

1) "If God created everything then who created God?"

This is one facepalmtastic objection. Typically the atheist is some 12 year old who thinks he's "refuted religion". If he is, it's no use trying to reason. But if there are smart atheists, they ought to know why this is a terrible argument:

a) There are various beings that are called "God", and they all have different features. But philosophically, the most rigorous concept of God is called the "Maximally Great Being", or a being that possesses all the categories of greatness to such a degree that nothing greater can be conceived. Such a being is almost always thought to be personal rather than impersonal.

b) One of the features of this maximally great being is it's role as the "First cause" or "uncaused cause". To understand what this is, you have to look at everything in the world in terms of cause-effect relations. Everything contingent has a cause that leads backwards in a causal chain. Does the causal chain go on infinitely, or is it finite? Theists argue that the causal chain is finite, and it begins at an uncaused cause, or first cause which was not itself caused by anything. This is God.

If you disagree with this idea, you can either:
i) Challenge the claim that the causal chain is finite, arguing that it is infinite in the past.
ii) Challenge the claim that the first cause must be God.

What you cannot do is imply that God needs to be caused by something.

Special pleading.

"God created everything!"

"How do you know?"

"Nothing exists without a cause!"

"What caused God?"

"Nothing caused God!"

"So God has no cause?"

"Of course!"

"So God doesn't exist?"

"..."

Try again.

Mitch, you cannot have discussions like this if you are not able to find the problem in your post.

Actually i've gone back over your posts vincent and i've found very little with which to use, in all honesty. But here's what I've drawn up any way from the questions (and there are many of them) that you pose (and leave unanswered.)

Aquinas' argument - You mean the cosmological argument which ties in strongly with Kalam's assumptions, and uses much the same vague and poorly defined criteria for selecting things that need causes and selecting things that don't need causes. You make use of special pleading and you beg the question. Just because you can say "duh, i'm facepalming because it's obvious that god doesn't need a cause" doesn't mean that some hypothetical deity must therefore exist, JUST because you can think of it as existing in your head. I can conceive a great number of powerful beings in my brain if I want to, and likewise I can use a cosmological argument to "prove" the existence of Allah, Krishna, Thor and any other proposed deity simply by stating that he must be the obvious candidate for the uncaused cause, or the thing that doesn't begin to exist. The same debunking techniques to Kalam can be applied, namely that given that we have no real evidence yet of things that do not begin to exist then we rely purely on theoretical conceptions. These redundant logic loops go round and round and are useful for debating the potential for some sort of greater force, but they can never in themselves be used as proof, just as a theoretical case for dinosaurs could never have been worth a penny if it weren't for physical evidence such as the fossil record etc. Theories rise and fall with the discovery of new material evidence and as I said above, logical claims are only useful for debunking other logical claims or pondering. They do not constitute evidence. Also, given that theists can't even agree on the attributes of a god/gods then how can it be supposed that their excemption from requiring a designer is obvious?

Leibnez and the best possible world - Really? This constitutes your evidence, another redundant appeal for reason that is several centuries out of date? How can we be sure that this is the best possible world in the abscence of comparisons? Within our world we have competing belief and political systems, meaning that there is no universal consensus on how the rules of a perfect world work. This poses so many questions that there just isn't time to yap on about it.

Statle Waldorf said:

I walked into my kitchen the other day, and there was a freshly baked cake setting on the counter, and I asked aloud, “Who baked this cake?”
As I was asking the question I was half expecting an atheist to jump out of the closet shaking his finger, “No no no! You cannot ask that because then we would have to ask who baked the baker!” To think that some people actually think this is a legitimate objection is rather troubling.

This makes very little sense. By using an evidence based approach to the world we can show that cakes are typically baked by baker; we have numerous examples of the activity in action, we are familiar with the techniques as they are accessible to all, the actions can be REPLICATED by almost anyone and the results tested. In fact in cellular pathology many techniques are comparable to recipes that we'd cook at home. Every time we use an antibody or a special stain to highlight something at the cellular level we use a tried and tested technique that can be tested, re-tested and married up with a consistent mechanism of effect and thus a wider scientific theory/context.

No atheist would say that you cannot infer that a cake must have been baked by a human because there is no known evidence demonstrating a cake coming into existence by any other means (other than by a machine). We can also demonstrate that the baker came from either his mother or a surrogate, because from a scientific and rational perspective this is how humans reproduce and is the only means by which humans can be consistently shown to reproduce. Again this can be tested, re-tested and replicated by the majority of the adult population. If you have evidence from the real world showing humans popping in to existence without navals (presumably by the glory of the christian god) then by all means show us your evidence (and when I ask for evidence, I mean something that would satisfy contemporary scientific standards; if you're going to make scientific claims then please provide scientific evidence).

Presumably you believe, as Vinny does, that it is somehow painfully obvious that someone put the universe here because you've managed to limit and define it, just as with the cake, the baker or anything else that quite obviously must have been designed. Please see my first post on page 1 with regards to the trouble of limiting and defining 'the universe'.

This thread has presented nothing new or challenging in the debate for first cause. It's recycled redundant assumptions, most of which were crapped out centuries ago and have already been debunked. 99% of the material in this topic has been spoken countless times, with the same tired and exhausted theist claims being met with the same valid non-theist retorts. There is nothing here that even begins to constitute evidence, otherwise theists would have picked up their nobel prizes by now. Old hat.

It's been a while since I touched on that. What was your amazing irrefutable objection to the Kalam again?