Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Anima]

Blind faith? I think you may have finally discovered the difference between religious commandments, which are brandished with appeals to authority and supplemented by promises of reward and threats of punishment, and human morality, which actually entails formulating a system to live by that is most conducive to what a person believes will maximize their happiness and best avoid suffering. So, bravo.

Ha ha.  Do you think so poorly of theists?  Do you honestly think we did not considered the extent of the schema purposed and how its formulation as a system to live by?  I most assuredly gave it thorough consideration and found it to be in keeping with Platonic, Aristotelian, and Kantian schemas of morality.  

Indeed if you give proper analysis to schemas of morality they end up making an appeal of reward and punishment to an authority beyond the person (as appeal solely to the person results in subjective morality of the manner that I am speaking of where everything is moral).  If one does not comport to the conduct outlined by that schema they will suffer due to some supernatural/metaphysical influence.  As such the schema is the very authority you denigrate which promises reward and threats of punishment if not adhered to.   (Perhaps you are more comfortable with the ambiguous rather than the anthropomorphist.  Better the suffering is a result of the metaphysical mechanations of existence than of any particular personification of those mechanations.  Hmm…)

Plato appeals to the soul and its inherent divinity, as Stated by Plato:
“ Of all the things which a man has, next to the Gods, his soul is the most divine and most truly his own. Now in every man there are two parts: the better and superior, which rules, and the worse and inferior, which serves; and the ruling part of him is always to be preferred to the subject… every man, from his very boyhood, fancies that he is able to know everything, and thinks that he honours his soul by praising her, and he is very ready to let her do whatever she may like. But I mean to say that in acting thus he injures his soul, and is far from honouring her…  For such a preference implies that the body is more honourable than the soul; and this is false, for there is nothing of earthly birth which is more honourable than the heavenly, and he who thinks otherwise of the soul has no idea how greatly he undervalues this wonderful possession…” (Laws, Book V. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/laws.5.v.html)

Aristotle appeals to the soul and teleology of things, As Stated by Aristotle:
“To judge from the lives that men lead, most men, and men of the most vulgar type, seem (not without some ground) to identify the good, or happiness, with pleasure; which is the reason why they love the life of enjoyment. For there are, we may say, three prominent types of life- that just mentioned, the political, and thirdly the contemplative life. Now the mass of mankind are evidently quite slavish in their tastes, preferring a life suitable to beasts…  A consideration of the prominent types of life shows that people of superior refinement and of active disposition identify happiness with honour; for this is, roughly speaking, the end of the political life. But it seems too superficial to be what we are looking for, since it is thought to depend on those who bestow honour rather than on him who receives it, but the good we divine to be something proper to a man and not easily taken from him…  So the argument has by a different course reached the same point; but we must try to state this even more clearly. Since there are evidently more than one end, and we choose some of these (e.g. wealth, flutes, and in general instruments) for the sake of something else, clearly not all ends are final ends; but the chief good is evidently something final. Therefore, if there is only one final end, this will be what we are seeking, and if there are more than one, the most final of these will be what we are seeking…  Now if the function of man is an activity of soul which follows or implies a rational principle, and if we say 'so-and-so-and 'a good so-and-so' have a function which is the same in kind, e.g. a lyre, and a good lyre-player, and so without qualification in all cases, eminencein respect of goodness being added to the name of the function (for the function of a lyre-player is to play the lyre, and that of a good lyre-player is to do so well): if this is the case, and we state the function of man to be a certain kind of life, and this to be an activity or actions of the soul implying a rational principle, and the function of a good man to be the good and noble performance of these, and if any action is well performed when it is performed in accordance with the appropriate excellence: if this is the case, human good turns out to be activity of soul in accordance with virtue, and if there are more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete.”  (Nicomachean Ethics, Book I. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html)

Kant appeals to the soul and objective moral truth, As Stated by Kant:
“Can it be thought that it is for any other reason that we are so ready to reduce it to the level of our familiar inclination, or that it is for any other reason that we all take such trouble to make it out to be the chosen precept of our own interest well understood, but that we want to be free from the deterrent respect which shows us our own unworthiness with such severity? Nevertheless, on the other hand, so little is there pain in it that if once one has laid aside self-conceit and allowed practical influence to that respect, he can never be satisfied with contemplating the majesty of this law, and the soul believes itself elevated in proportion as it sees the holy law elevated above it and its frail nature…  Respect for the moral law is, therefore, the only and the undoubted moral motive, and this feeling is directed to no object, except on the ground of this law. The moral law first determines the will objectively and directly in the judgement of reason; and freedom, whose causality can be determined only by the law, consists just in this, that it restricts all inclinations, and consequently self-esteem, by the condition of obedience to its pure law. This restriction now has an effect on feeling, and produces the impression of displeasure which can be known a priori from the moral law.”  (Critique of Practical Reason. http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/5683/pg5683.txt)


As I have said throughout this thread.  In order for one to move beyond ethical utility they will have to adopt an imaginary friend to serve as an authority of greater prominence.  This is to say to overcome quantity (argumentum ad numerum) they will have to resort to quality (argumentum ad auctoritate).  I further stated in regards to the theist that authority is not the self and for the atheist it is the self.  What I did not state is that when the authority is the self it leads to the form of whimsical subjective morality being discussed and when the authority is not the self it begins to approach objective morality initially by proxy and ultimately in actuality.

And yes, subjective morality as I have suggested from the start is "defined by the acceptance of a given subject of a given schema of morality," which is to say, one usually hears arguments pro and con for a given scenario and then determines what they think to be correct given the values they esteem. And for these, there are no objective measures by which a person can be shown to be wrong; there can only be agreement as to what constitutes human flourishing and concession that this is what humans are really concerned about.

This response is paradoxical.  First you say the subjective morality is the acceptance of the Subject of a given schema of morality.  Then you say in a given scenario they determine what they think to be correct given the values they esteem.  I assume the accepted schema generally comports with the values they esteem.  This is not to say the schema always comports with the esteem.  My question is when the schema and esteem do not comport, which one prevails.  If your answer is the esteem than I am saying you are wasting your time introducing a schema when underlying it is simply the Subject acting according to their esteem (or whim based subjective morality).

As I said much earlier in this thread, “A religion that consists only of the things you want is as useful as a diet of the same type.”  I would say the same thing about any moral schema as well.  Adoption of a schema is to be done in order to not let esteem serve as the determinate of quality of moral actions.  To this end the Subject must opt to follow the schema even when it does not comport with the esteem or must accept that action in opposition to the schema in regards to the esteem is wrong; such that the schema serves as the actual objective or proxy objective moral law determining the quality of actions.

Einstein isn't talking about values; he's talking about objective truth with regard to facts about the physical world as opposed to mere ideas. I'd be curious to know what evidence or arguments you have in support of this "objective reality or truth" that determines your evaluations of goods. In your lack of demonstration for this notion thus far, you seem to be conveying that you haven't got much.

Einstein’s entire theory is predicated on an unsubstantiated idea.  That nothing can travel faster than the speed of light (we will for the moment ignore quantum entanglement).  Thus there is an absolute (objective truth) to which everything else (even things not conceived of or experienced as of yet) are to be evaluated against.

The argument being made is for ANY subjective thing to have a value, the value of that thing cannot be determined by itself or subjectively.  The quality of the thing in question, whether physical or metaphysical, may only be determined by an appeal to an absolute objective reality (sometimes a proxy objective reality is used, but this proxy will ultimately be acceptable or dismissed based on its relation to the absolute objective reality).

Wow... it's kind of shocking that someone who claims Catholicism can feign utter ignorance at the barbaric notions of "righteous" household management and state governance that are contained in the Bible and the Qur'an, and their all too frequent insidious effects in the world both in the past and at present, with regards to, for example, the oppression of free thought, the promotion of superstition over science, xenophobia, sexism, slavery, etc. The list could go on but I'm not really interested in reiterating what anyone with even the slightest amount of intellectual honesty can easily discover for themselves.

As I have said numerous time and will say again.  History does not support this claim (and you do not want to be on the wrong side of history ).  I have already provided multiple links in substantiation of this defense.  These religions and their institutions are thousands of years old and have been the primary positive contributors to science, society, law, art, music, literature, and politics throughout that time.  You do not get the modern world without them (though I know you would like to think you would).  As you say, I could go on but I am not really interested in reiterating what anyone with even the slightest amount of intellectual honesty can easily discover for themselves.

People desire to project their subjective values onto others by calling them "imperfect representation of the actual objective morality," a'la Plato's "Good," of which any conception is still just as subject to how a person evaluates the "a life worth living" as it ever was.

I like that Aristotle quote... Where's it from?

Valuation requires subjective values to have some relation to an actual or proxy objective value.  Otherwise the value of any given thing is indeterminate since its value equals all values assigned to it by Subject or all Subjects.  Its value to a specific Subject is indeterminate without some scale of value for that Subject which will have a proxy objective value at each end of the scale.

That was my miss quote of the proper quote. I am do not remember where the proper quote is located but here it is:

“The search for truth is in one way hard and in another way easy, for it is evident that no one can master it fully or miss it wholly. But each adds a little to our knowledge of nature, and from all the facts assembled there arises a certain grandeur.” (Aristotle)

Maybe even a teleological theistic grandeur?  Huh?  Huuuuhhhh?  Anybody?  

Wow!  Atheist crowd here

Theists are as prone to the whims of their subjective moralities as anyone else is---except that portend the will (the absolute good!) of each of their competing deities!---but just take many Jews or Christians for example, as represented by their founding texts, the commentaries their theologians have written, and as exemplified by the monastic life throughout the history of Christendom (there was a good idea if I ever heard one! ): they divide the soul from the body, placing all importance in the former (being akin to the strong male, while the body is associated with femininity and weakness, and the cause of so many evils! i.e. pluck your eye out so as not to lust, as Jesus says) while the latter is to be rejected, even mutilated, so as to free one (i.e. disconnect) from the world and experience the "ecstasy" of crucifying all passions that aren't transfixed on the words of their deity (which is in truth, when not man-made scriptures, their own voices), relying completely on their god and their faith (themselves projected on to what you call an imaginary friend)... history is littered with Catholic monks and priests, like men and women (well, not Catholic priests, cause God wouldn't allow that!) of other religions, who tortured themselves, even to the point of death, to ensure the upkeep of purity demanded for "salvation." But yeah... this life is uber-meaningful for the rewards it can get you in the next one!

HA HA!  Theist are indeed as prone to whims as any other person.  And do you know what we call it when a theist person forsakes the schema adopted for their whims?  Sin!  To forsake the schema for one’s own whims or esteem is to effectively say that though one has adopted the schema as being a better determination of right and wrong than our subjective person, in this regard, at this time I want what I want even though it is determined to be wrong.  Now as a Catholic we are not all fire and brimstone so sin does not inherently lead to unhappiness or perdition.  Nonetheless it is a violation of ones oath to abide by the schema and to which reconciliation is to be sought by the violator.  This is to say you have to make restitution for breaking the rules.

Actually the masculine feminine divisions you are talking about were done by Plato and Aristotle not the church and are commonly expressed in Taoist and Buddhist teachings as well.   I have to say in my entire Christian life and throughout my various studies I have never heard of the soul body split that you describe.  It sounds very much like the split made by Plato in the charioteer where the whims of the body (feminine) are a dark deformed horse to be beaten into compliance with the white perfect horse of the spirit (masculine) by the reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul#Socrates_and_Plato).  

In keeping with this analogy the Christian view is more akin to the white horse of the soul or spirit being an ethereal guide through the forest of life.  As the guide through the forest of life for the charioteer it does not move the chariot at all.  The body is the only thing capable of moving the charioteer and would be a grey horse that is neither good nor bad, while the reason remains the charioteer whom steers.  Now if left to its own devices the grey horse of the body will take the easiest path through the forest, which is not necessarily the right path.  Thus, it falls upon the reason to guide the chariot/physical horse along the paths shown by the ethereal horse.  The body is of the utmost importance as it is the means by which actions are made and the will is manifest.  A choice devoid of any subsequent action is choice in name only.

You are not one of those Bible based Christians who take the thing literally…Are you?  Then the passage you refer to is akin to someone saying “think with you big head not your little one” or as I prefer the Batman the animated series Scarface version, “When the brawn starts thinking it’s the brains then it is time to amputate.”  I am sure you realize the point of statement is that one should not allow the whims of the body to delegate their life.  As stated above by Plato, Aristotle, and Kant rephrased in the Republic as:

“Meddling of one with another, or the change of one into another, is the greatest harm to the State, and may be most justly termed evil-doing… the greatest degree of evil-doing to one's own city would be termed by you injustice…each do their own business, that is justice, and will make the city just. When two things, a greater and less, are called by the same name, are they like or unlike in so far as they are called the same…The just man then, if we regard the idea of justice only, will be like the just State… a State was thought by us to be just when the classes in the State severally did their own business…so of the individual; we may assume that he has the same principles in his own soul which are found in the State; and he may be rightly described in the same terms, because he is affected in the same manner.”

Finally, in regards to those who “tortured” themselves.  This is an application of the fallacy of Composition, by which you infer a condition of a particular subset as the condition of the whole.  For example there are approximately 8 Billion people who eat in this world.  At any given time there are approximately 5% of those people (400 Million) who suffer from anorexia nervosa.  So by your argument the world is anorexic for the very biological, psychological, or social logic reasons anorexics are such.  That does not seem right.  At present there are 1.3 Billion Catholics, 0.5 Billion Orthodox Christians, 0.01 Billion Jews, and 1.7 Billion Muslims.  I am willing to bet of the total 3.51 Billion followers of the Abrahamic religions there are less than 1.0% (35.1 Million) whom “torture” themselves.  This is at one time.  Over an extended period of time I am sure this number gets substantially smaller simply because people are not inclined to torturing themselves and these faiths are not asking them to do so!

Let's just work this out in practical terms. Say rule X is that it is wrong to lie. The evaluation of the subject is that the well-being of sentient creatures, by which we can include health, freedom, social relationships, and the other basic constituents that some would argue comprise our ontological needs, are what ultimately matter for the duration of a person's lifetime. We might also add that within his evaluation is that one should strive to live according to a rational framework that considers the most up-to-date empirical data. So, the initial adoption is that morality relates to these factors which define the wellness or misery of human beings. When the subject finds himself in a situation in which lying would actually promote the well-being of another, then he will reason as to whether or not, given the situation, it would be right to adjust rule X so as to allow for exceptions when similar occurrences take place. That doesn't negate the importance of rule X anymore than if one were to view smoking as harmful and yet find occasions when they allow themselves to enjoy a cigar. The same applies with virtually everything else. This is the point of raising ethical dilemmas in philosophy. Is it right to steal food from someone whom you know has an abundance in storage if your child is on the verge of death from hunger and you have no other means of providing them sustenance, and you know that if you don't steal then your child will die within a few days? Yes. Does that mean that it is pointless to regard stealing, all other things being equal, as in principal wrong? No.

I like your example but think it fails to consider the practicality of things of Rule X is lying is wrong.  

First I must inquire as to how Rule X was determined.  If I am to apply Hitchen’s razor it cannot be asserted without evidence as it may be discarded without evidence (I will talk about this further below).  I would imagine that you will say the evidence of the rule is derived from subjective empirical evidence (experience).  Now if we consider the impact of lying from the experience of the Subject we may say the Subject lied when it was in there interest and it was beneficial.  We may further state the Subject did not like being lied to directly to their detriment or another's unjust enrichment.  We may even give penultimate example the Subject did not like being lied to indirectly (lie was to someone they were dependent upon or cared about) to their detriment or another’s unjust enrichment.  From this experience we may determine the Rule X as “it is good to be the initiator of a lie, but not the recipient of one”; different than the rule you purpose.

However, let us consider the rule as your purpose it where Rule X is lying is wrong (ignoring the Subjective determination of this rule) and we shall even concede further that the Subject has decided the well-being of sentient beings is what ultimately matters in a person’s life time (once more ignoring the Subjective determination of this rule) calling this Rule Y.  From this point your argument diverges in a manner that does not logically follow.  Based on the prepositions supplied it would seem that when Rule X and Rule Y directly conflict that Rule Y shall prevail.  As evidenced by your example of the Subject lying for well-being of another.  Now based on the most up-to-date empirical evidence violation of Rule X facilitates adherence to Rule Y.  Thus the next logical step is to consider the impact of violation of Rule X when there is no conflict with Rule Y.  Now if violating Rule X facilitates Rule Y than we may say Rule X is invalid given that Rule Y is the ultimate rule.  

So does lying facilitate “health, freedom, social relationships, and the other basic constituents that some would argue comprise our ontological needs, are what ultimately matter for the duration of a person's lifetime.”  To health we might say no and we might say yes.  Lying will not facilitate our physiological health but it will facilitate our psychological health; let us consider that a wash.  Does lying facilitate our freedom?  To this we may say yes (unless are freedom is freedom from lies ).  When our freedom is not threatened lying has no impact upon it and when it is lying is certainly a way to maintain or protect it.  Does lying facilitate our social relationships?  I think we may agree that lying generally facilitates our social relationships.  Does lying facilitate our other basic ontological needs?  Again I think we may agree that lying does facilitate our other basic ontological needs.  Indeed we may even go so far as to state that lying provides us with a greater reward profile than not lying in regards to our basic ontological needs.  Overall it would seem that lying either is of no consequence or is of benefit in facilitating Rule Y even when the Rule Y does not directly conflict with Rule X.  Based on the up-to-date empirical information Rule X is invalid when in direct conflict with Rule Y and when it is not in conflict with Rule Y.  Based on the up-to-date empirical evidence it would seem that holding lying as being wrong is pointless; so if we wish to maintain that assertion it shall be for a reasons not supported by empirical evidence.

I prefer to use words that I have some sense of what it is I'm speaking about. To use the term "god," when one is speaking of the "totality of existence," or anything that is lacking intelligence or personality, is misguided, in my opinion. It's confusing and gives shelter to an overwhelming number of idiotic concepts. Besides, we already have a word for what you're speaking about in such a case: The universe. Nature also works too.

HA!!  You are on a roll today!!  Is some sense all that is needed?  Because I doubt you, myself, or anyone else has a full grasp of love, right, wrong, good, bad, totality, or even existence.  So some sense is all we are really ever going to have.

I really like this, “it is confusing and gives shelter to an overwhelming number of idiotic concepts.  Besides, we already have a word for what you are speaking about in such a case. The Universe. Nature works too.”  So I am okay with anthropomorphizing the Universe (the universe seeks, does, tries, wants) or Nature (seeks, does, tries, or wants) but not in using the term God or anthropomorphizing that to seek, do, try, or want.  By that argument could we not say we already had a term for the Universe and/or Nature it was called God or God(s) long before it was called the Universe or Nature

If you want to discuss consciousness (or what you call metaphysical consciousness), I might suggest making another thread as there are other people here far more informed and knowledgeable about the different theories of how consciousness may possibly emerge from neural networks than I am. I'll just say that I find physical theories more compelling given the available data at this point, aside from my personal experience of consciousness developing with age and being altered in unison to brain states. Your suggestion that consciousness need not be present to match input is akin to saying that objects need not be animate simply because molecular structures form cells, tissues, organs, and functional systems... well that's actually just what being animate means. I think it's more likely than not that, to put it quite simply, to be a vast network of 100 billion nerve cells transmitting electrochemical signals is to be conscious... comparing it to a calculator and saying, "see, that isn't conscious so the brain must not be sufficient for consciousness" is a bit of a misnomer.

I did not say that cells, tissue, and organs are inanimate structures.  Rather I would say they are defined as animate structures in and of themselves.  However, I would not equate animate to conscious though living and consisting of a peripheral nervous system that feeds a central nervous system.  Otherwise I would be compelled to say that every cell in my body is conscious.  My general statement is that one does not have explicit direct empirical proof/evidence of consciousness in order to assert its existence.  At best one has implicit circumstantial empirical proof/evidence of consciousness (you know the same proof that exist for the G-O-D).

I fail to see how 100 billion nerve cells transmitting electromechanical signals is more akin to consciousness than a couple trillion transistors or sensors sending electromechanical signals.  Clearly your argument is not quantity based so is your argument because the cells are carbon based as opposed to silicate?  Does such an assertion even remotely help your argument?  Otherwise, it would seem that your argument is because you have consciousness and are comprised of billions of nerve cells than nerve cells must give rise to consciousness.  Which is an insufficient argument as you have yet to prove or evidence you have consciousness or that the presence of nerve cells contributes to that consciousness which you may not have.

Remember, the scientific method only establishes relation not causation.  Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this) is a logical fallacy.  So because your brain changed with your consciousness is not sufficient to say your consciousness changed because your brain changed or your brain changed because your consciousness changed.  All that may be said scientifically is that the two may be inferred as having some metaphysical relation with one another.

The relevant point that Darwin did demonstrate is that given natural selection in conjunction with the eons of time that have elapsed, molecular structures and the systems in living organisms that they develop into are able to multiply and diversify. Evidence of that would be the evolution of reptiles to mammals and then humans, which gave us a triune brain that contains the complexes of each while the former examples only possess those features in common that were acquired in the preceding stages.

Darwin did not demonstrate this either.  Forgive me for asking, but have you read the Origin of Species or are you basing your statements on hearsay?  If not I recommend it as an excellent read and I think you will be surprised at what he is saying versus what people have said he was saying as well as how theistic his argument is.  But Darwin demonstrates/evidences very little in his actual works.  However, he did provide an excellent mechanism by which what was observed may be explained.  Given the time required for most evolutionary process to take place it is very difficult if nearly impossible for one to make demonstration (as records are likely to be question by skeptics in later generations).  In either case an excellent work and one which provides an excellent explanation.

Are you asking me to prove a negative? That's just... amateurish.

Is it?  I was to understand that in accordance with the Hitchen’s razor that one may not make an assertion without evidence.  Thus, if you wish to assert that something is foolish or not the case you must provide some evidence in favor of this assertion.  Otherwise your assertion is made without evidence and to be discarded without evidence.

I thought this Hitchen’s razor was interesting. (I had to read about it and its relation to presuppositional apologetics as I had never heard of it before).  The goal of which is to place the burden of proof on the other party by claiming whoever makes the greater claim needs to prove that claim.  The razor assumes the affirmative claim is the greater claim.  

However, if the claim is X and the other does not accept that claim than it may be said their claim is !X.  Now it must be said that X and !X are equal logical states (thus no claim is greater) whereby both parties should present evidence or support for their assertion or negation.  Or in accordance with Parmenides of Elea, “There is, there is no is not.  What is not is not to talk about” the negation of the affirmative is a greater claim as it is predicated upon the affirmative followed by the subsequent application of negation to that affirmative (!X = (X)(-1)).  Thus, it may be said the negative assertion is the greater claim and the burden of proof is upon the disclaimant rather than the claimant.

Naturally I agree the claim of X and claim of !X are equal logical states and each party should have to present proof or evidence in support of their claims.  I think to say otherwise is to allow one side or the other to count on argumentum ad ignorantiam where they assert their X or !X claim is correct because the other party has not disproven their claim while making no effort to prove their own claim.  This will result in the invincible ignorance both of us cannot abhor (think climate denier.  Their argument may simply be that the claimants have not met their threshold of proof and the onus of proof is on the claimant.)

Not valid inferences, but I'm more than happy to say "it just might be" too. It just might be the case that we're in a computer simulation created by mad scientists.

Inferences valid in accordance with synthetic aprori and aposteriori!

It is possible.  And in the words of one Sherlock Holmes, “Once you remove the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth” – Arthur Conan Doyle

I would never discount the importance of creativity, including fiction and mythology, in the human experience. It's one of the reasons I love reading the Greeks. And sure, that can definitely inspire wonderful art and even ideas that later prove useful in science. But I try not to confuse the two, that is, reality and fiction. That's all I'm saying.

Agreed!!  And in so doing try not to make the mistake of limiting reality to empiricism denying humanity the faculty of synthetic apriori while relegating all knowledge to synthetic aposterori.  In the former lies the realm of logical inference and mathematics, which has led to great discoveries in science and mathematics.  In the latter is solely what happens to “me”, wherein lies prejudice, superstition, and anecdotal evidence.  In short it is by means of synthetic apriori that synthetic aposteriori becomes transcendental.

I'll give you one example that is often cited as an "inference" for God and let's see if you can find its flaws.
P1. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause.
P2. The universe began to exist.
C. The universe must a cause.
Inference. The cause is god.

The other alleged inferences are no better for the same reasons that I anticipate you will be able to cite.

Nice!!  I love this!!  However, it is incomplete.  The argument generally takes the following form:
P1. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause.
P2. The universe began to exist.
C1. The universe must have a cause.

P1.  Nothing can exist as an infinite regression.
P2.  Causes exists
C2.  Causes cannot exist as an infinite regression.

C2 -> P1.  Causes cannot exist as an infinite regression.
C1 -> P2.  The universe must have a cause.
C3.  The universe must have a cause that cannot exist as an infinite regression (or a cause without cause.  Which Aristotle considers “The immortal unchanging being and prime mover” and Aquinas considers “The necessary existence known to be god”.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

As I said earlier; through philosophy you can determine the existence of the god of philosophy.  But you cannot get to the personification of a particular God.

I'm sure you've heard many historians cite, as an aside to their arguments for the existence of Jesus, that virtually no one in academia ascribes to the mythicist theory. So, do you also consider them to be committing an argumentum ad populum when they state that fact? Can you imagine any idea why they would do so? Do you think one might be wise to ask themselves why it is that---whether it's a majority, or most, or nearly all---experts who have considered the data or arguments find agreement on that point? Or are you just being dense?

I am not sure what you are saying here.  Are you asking if I consider it argumentum ad populum for historians to state as a fact that the majority of them do not ascribe to the mythicist theory of Jesus?  If your question is that then the answer is no.  Simply because it is a fact the majority do not ascribe to that theory.  I am not saying that consensus cannot be met.

However, if your question is to say the mythicist theory is not true simply because the majority of historians do not ascribe to that theory, then I would say that is argument ad populum.  In the previous case you simply said the many modern philosophers find the previous philosophical inference of God onerous.  From this statement alone it is implied the inference is wrong (or likely wrong) simply because many modern philosophers find it onerous.  That would be argumentum ad novitatem and populum.  Since no other information was provided about why, in what regard, or how they have determined the inference is invalid your comment is taken as them finding it onerous being sufficient in and of itself as explanation (because many find it onerous now it is likely invalid).  If there was further clarification to avoid the aforementioned imposition than I await such clarification and shall amend my response accordingly.

---

The Catholic Church does the best job of obfuscating this issue (with sophistic gymnastics) .... when in reality, it shouldn't matter how much Catholic scholars like Aristotelian ethics or metaphysics, when the entire claim that underlies the existence of the Catholic Church (and all churches), is bullshit. 

You got proof it is bullshit? If not how do we know you are not full of shit?

I mean, we don't need the Catholic Church to like Aristotle, we can just read Aristotle for ourselves (although his view of causation i.e. his four causes, is grossly outdated ... but I digress).

Indeed you can and I highly recommended. And to consider it out dated. For shame.

"Francis Bacon wrote in his Advancement of Learning (1605) that natural science "doth make inquiry, and take consideration of the same natures : but how? Only as to the material and efficient causes of them, and not as to the forms." According to the demands of Bacon, apart from the "laws of nature" themselves, the causes relevant to natural science are only efficient causes and material causes in terms of Aristotle's classification, or to use the formulation which became famous later, all nature visible to human science is matter and motion. Using the terminology of Aristotle, he divided knowledge into physics and metaphysics in The New Organon.

From the two kinds of axioms which have been spoken of arises a just division of philosophy and the sciences, taking the received terms (which come nearest to express the thing) in a sense agreeable to my own views. Thus, let the investigation of forms, which are (in the eye of reason at least, and in their essential law) eternal and immutable, constitute Metaphysics; and let the investigation of the efficient cause, and of matter, and of the latent process, and the latent configuration (all of which have reference to the common and ordinary course of nature, not to her eternal and fundamental laws) constitute Physics. And to these let there be subordinate two practical divisions: to Physics, Mechanics; to Metaphysics, what (in a purer sense of the word) I call Magic, on account of the broadness of the ways it moves in, and its greater command over nature. Francis Bacon The New Organon, Book II, Aphorism 9, 1620

Bacon's position became the standard one for modern science."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

At the end of the day, Catholic apologetics is no more compelling than that of any other faith system. They almost all use some sort of cosmological argument to (in their mind) prove the existence of god (but cosmological arguments are also outdated, and just grossly flawed for a whole host of reasons). But from there, it's all about showing the utility of religion (e.g. religion instills morality, it provides a sense of purpose, without religion we would all collectively turn to nihilism, etc. etc.). In other words, who cares if it's bullshit, as long as it's beneficial bullshit. 

Umm... We would care if it were bullshit. If the threshold were only beneficial we would adopt subjective morality or ethical utility alone just like everyone else. We would not bother to further constrain the conduct permitted by the ethical law with the moral law.