Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(November 6, 2013 at 10:42 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:
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.
November 9, 2013 at 3:08 am (This post was last modified: November 9, 2013 at 3:09 am by Angrboda.)
(November 7, 2013 at 3:07 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: I don't have much problems with the OP.
"Some atheists make bad arguments?"
Quite.
Yeah, there was this atheist by the name of Vinny who used to make a bunch of really shitty arguments. It was embarrassing. I wonder what ever happened to him?
(November 9, 2013 at 3:08 am)apophenia Wrote: Yeah, there was this atheist by the name of Vinny who used to make a bunch of really shitty arguments. It was embarrassing. I wonder what ever happened to him?
Is he an atheist, though? Trolling can be a religion, when it's clung to as persistently and virulently as Vin clings to it.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
November 12, 2013 at 10:18 pm (This post was last modified: November 12, 2013 at 10:31 pm by Vincenzo Vinny G..)
I'm keeping my responses brief, since I have to make a lot of them.
(November 6, 2013 at 11:33 pm)Brakeman Wrote:
Adding god only adds a layer. Your argument always applies to the last layer, god or not.
What in the world are you talking about here?
(November 7, 2013 at 1:09 am)Ryantology Wrote:
i) God as first cause only works if the causal chain is not infinite. It has not been established as finite.
ii) Any explanation suggesting that God is uncaused just as easily suggests that the universe is uncaused.
iii) If "who created God" is an invalid question, "who created the universe" is even less valid because only the universe is demonstrable and it has no traits which can only be explained by intelligent design theory.
iv) Just because biased believers give their god attributes specifically designed to allow them to win any possible by-proxy dick-measuring contest imaginable doesn't mean that the first cause assertion is in any way a valid position.
Ryantology, your post was refreshing to read.
But what does "has not been established" mean? Do you expect scientists to get photographic evidence of the finitude of the past? Perform experiments to prove it? Show that a past-finite regress is logically necessary? Have atoms rearrange themselves to say "Past-finite-regress?"
The vagueness of your criteria makes me skeptical. It also raises the question of whether it is even relevant- perhaps one does not need to "establish" a past-finite chain at all, but merely to show that it's more rational to believe in finitude than infinitude. So why must finitude be established?
(November 7, 2013 at 2:15 am)max-greece Wrote:
I think there are more challenges than just those 2.
You might challenge the idea that causality applies outside the universe, or before the universe (if that concept has any meaning).
You might challenge the idea that an uncaused, first cause actually solves any of the problems in the first place. If we are using experience of the way things work down here on earth and trying to apply them to outside the universe we don't even have an example of an efficient cause without a material cause.
We may, however, have an example of a material cause without an efficient cause, which undermines the idea, or requirement for an intelligent God.
But why should we think causality doesn't apply outside of the universe? Isn't that ad hoc?
Usually this is tied to experience, and no surprise, you make that your second challenge. To that, I must ask whether a lack of experience of something renders it incoherent or illogical. If we have no empirical evidence of turtles in Antarctica, does that mean turtles cannot exist in Antarctica, or that turtles living in Antarctica is incoherent? When you think carefully about what you are arguing, you'll see that experience doesn't allow you to make the inference that things you haven't experienced don't exist.
By the way, your argument sounds very similar to something someone showed me from youtube. I'm glad you're at least thinking about this stuff instead of herp-derping about atheism and religion.
(November 7, 2013 at 5:13 am)Esquilax Wrote:
(November 6, 2013 at 10:42 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: 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.
I don't think it's a terribly wonderful objection either, but it does serve a purpose in demonstrating the lazy special pleading inherent in the Maximally Great Being concept.
Quote: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.
Incidentally, it's also an infinite concept itself, which is another problem with this argument: it solves exactly nothing. As I've mentioned in other threads, there's no upper limit on "maximally great," and so what you get is an endless chain of maximally great beings that can be surpassed the moment they're posited by simply adding a single additional positive trait onto the current link in the chain: "my maximally great being is the same as yours, only he can kill yours!"
Quote: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.
Two problems: sans evidence- which the theist never seems to provide- the argument that the causal chain is finite is hardly worthy of much additional contemplation, and just calling that first cause god is yet another unjustified assumption, since "finite causal chain," does not in any way imply a conscious being, let alone a specific divine one.
Quote: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.
Of course you can imply that; if your argument merely asserts that god is uncaused, then an equally bland assertion that god does need a cause is fair game. At the very least, it should hint at the problems in arguing by just defining whatever you need into existence.
Could you explain how or why you think the MGB concept engages in special pleading?
I also think you're wrong about your use of "infinite concept"- I don't think mathematics has anything to do with it, so thinking in terms of an upper limit misses the point.
Also, "My MGB is the same as yours, except he can kill yours" seems to contain a contradiction. If a being can be killed, I assume it cannot be a MGB. So I think you don't understand the concept well enough. I hate to cite this guy, but I like his sweater:
Of course, his response raises the question, to me, of whether this concept inherently comes with some anthropocentric biases. He doesn't answer that in the video.
(November 7, 2013 at 3:02 pm)WesOlsen Wrote:
Quote: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".
Typically, the sort of person who says this is a 32 year old bible-humping cretin with the mental age of a 12 year old.
Quote: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.
So, we're back to Kalam's argument. Don't rush to pat yourself on the back too quickly, this is a muslim modification of one of Aristotle's arguments, which seems to have witnessed a resurgence amongst christian plonkers. It was picked apart yonks ago, but i'll do it for you any way, just so we can do the face palming because your causal chain is neither new nor useful.
Your argument is phrased in such a way that it assumes that god is the only thing that does not need a cause, or rather, he (god) is the only thing that can be allowed to "not begin to exist". We have no real experience with things that do not begin to exist nor can we promote anything hypothetical that does not begin to exist. Your argument simply begs the question. We know of nothing that transcends time at the moment, so there is nothing that can "not" begin to exist. If you wish to discuss the hypothetics of a realm that transcends the natural universe, then you leave many more questions than you have answered (attributes of this dimension, possibility for multiple deities etc). Basically, what criteria have you used to remove all other candidates for things that do not need a cause, or rather things that do not begin to exist? If god is an infinite being, but infinity can't be part of reality (as christians sometimes like to declare), then we have conflicting attributes; god can't exist.
If you describe god in temporal terms then he is within our universe. If he is outside of the universe then your use of terms such as "god created the universe" or "god chose X or Y" are not only assuming temporal human characteristics, they are also making wild assumptions about the nature of extra-universal conditions, which are purely hypothetical. They also suggest that god "chose" to create the universe, meaning he may have needs or desires, which an omnipitent being wouldn't necessarily have, were he already complete and perfect. Again, hypothetics though.
Basically, causality requires temporality. If the creator chose to create a universe, then the universe must have been created after the decision was made, so it was both causally and temporarily following the decision to create. This sets a precedent for temporal conditions in god's "world" (Let's just call it his chill-out pad) as well as our world. If god is not temporal and is outside of time, then could time be outside of god? And what mechanisms does he use to influence our universe? If god's world is temporal, then at what point did he and it begin to exist? Things that exist occupy space and time, and are measurable. We DO end up back at square one; where did god come from?
You may want to modify the question so that you claim that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Even then we usually end up with the same claim: "Everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause". This confuses "Every thing" and "universe" as if universe is just another thing. The universe is the sum-total of all things. Things can only be identified by being measured and distinguished from other things. If you and I wish to talk about the cup, we can say that it measures such and such, holds a volume, and is present here rather than in that cupboard over there. It can be distinguished from anything else in the universe providing we're both on the same wave-length. To say that the universe is just a thing means it would need something else to contrast it with, else we can't limit and define it. Since we don't know anything else, the universe isn't a thing, it's the sum-total of all things.
Kalam begs the question, and so do you.
Actually, I just cited the first big proponent of the Kalam in the video above.
But my post doesn't touch the Kalam whatsoever. Perhaps the Kalam is the only argument you know of, in which case all that time you spent writing up your post should be spent looking up other arguments from a first cause like Aquinas' argument, Leibniz's argument, Aristotle's argument and the like.
How can you make such confident statements while being so ignorant about other arguments from a first cause?
(November 7, 2013 at 4:24 pm)Faith No More Wrote:
What I find interesting is that you felt the need to repudiate a bad refutation to a bad argument, rather than the bad argument itself.
I'd rather you tell me why you think it's a bad argument. You seem so convinced, it should be easy to show, right?
(November 8, 2013 at 4:18 am)genkaus Wrote:
(November 6, 2013 at 10:42 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:
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.
I think the general problem with things like Maximally Great Beings is that what is 'great' is essentially subjective. If one's idea of what an MGB is contains the attribute of omnibenevolence, it would seem that an ontological argument could establish the existence of an MGB with that property inversed to be omnimalevolence. And it doesn't seem you could claim the benevolent one is inherently greater than the malevolent one, because then you're special pleading from your own set of values from what I can tell.
(November 12, 2013 at 10:18 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Could you explain how or why you think the MGB concept engages in special pleading?
Not the maximally great concept specifically, but this entire argument: "Everything requires a cause, except for this set of things that I, by definitional fiat, have set aside as not requiring a cause."
It also invalidates the first premise, since what you're really saying is that, except for those things that don't require a cause, everything requires a cause. It's a nothing statement.
Quote:I also think you're wrong about your use of "infinite concept"- I don't think mathematics has anything to do with it, so thinking in terms of an upper limit misses the point.
Also, "My MGB is the same as yours, except he can kill yours" seems to contain a contradiction. If a being can be killed, I assume it cannot be a MGB. So I think you don't understand the concept well enough. I hate to cite this guy, but I like his sweater:
As for the rest, well, I'm not thinking in terms of mathematics, just in terms of the fact that qualitative determinations can always be one upped, in this case. You're right in saying that a being that can be killed isn't maximally great, but the counterargument to that is that a being that can do the impossible and kill an immortal being is much greater than that being, and that's why the first entity is not maximally great.
That's the issue: the moment we begin speculating on the MGB, we can make it greater and greater just by adding on more of what we've determined to be great in the first place. A being one inch taller, a little wiser, etc etc. If an actual MGB appeared before us, we could immediately think of things to improve it, merely by now having the initial being as a jumping off point.
Your video brings to light a broader point, too, which is that conceptual isn't the same as physical, and you can't just think a being into existence by believing that existence is necessitated by the properties you've imagined. "I think this thing needs to exist in order to fulfill the properties I've imagined it having, and therefore it does," isn't an incredibly potent argument. All you can honestly say is that you think such a being could exist because of your imagination.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
(November 12, 2013 at 10:33 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: I think the general problem with things like Maximally Great Beings is that what is 'great' is essentially subjective. If one's idea of what an MGB is contains the attribute of omnibenevolence, it would seem that an ontological argument could establish the existence of an MGB with that property inversed to be omnimalevolence. And it doesn't seem you could claim the benevolent one is inherently greater than the malevolent one, because then you're special pleading from your own set of values from what I can tell.
That was my response. Only I use the word anthropomorphism, because I think it's a human-centric notion of greatness.
But what if you make a substitution, replacing the word "great", which refers to a subjective concept, with something else? Like "taerg", where taerg represents nothing antropocentric or subjective, but only a set of properties (like omnipotence, omniscience, etc)?
That seems to escape the subjectivity, right?
(November 12, 2013 at 10:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote:
(November 12, 2013 at 10:18 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Could you explain how or why you think the MGB concept engages in special pleading?
Not the maximally great concept specifically, but this entire argument: "Everything requires a cause, except for this set of things that I, by definitional fiat, have set aside as not requiring a cause."
It also invalidates the first premise, since what you're really saying is that, except for those things that don't require a cause, everything requires a cause. It's a nothing statement.
Quote:I also think you're wrong about your use of "infinite concept"- I don't think mathematics has anything to do with it, so thinking in terms of an upper limit misses the point.
Also, "My MGB is the same as yours, except he can kill yours" seems to contain a contradiction. If a being can be killed, I assume it cannot be a MGB. So I think you don't understand the concept well enough. I hate to cite this guy, but I like his sweater:
As for the rest, well, I'm not thinking in terms of mathematics, just in terms of the fact that qualitative determinations can always be one upped, in this case. You're right in saying that a being that can be killed isn't maximally great, but the counterargument to that is that a being that can do the impossible and kill an immortal being is much greater than that being, and that's why the first entity is not maximally great.
That's the issue: the moment we begin speculating on the MGB, we can make it greater and greater just by adding on more of what we've determined to be great in the first place. A being one inch taller, a little wiser, etc etc. If an actual MGB appeared before us, we could immediately think of things to improve it, merely by now having the initial being as a jumping off point.
Your video brings to light a broader point, too, which is that conceptual isn't the same as physical, and you can't just think a being into existence by believing that existence is necessitated by the properties you've imagined. "I think this thing needs to exist in order to fulfill the properties I've imagined it having, and therefore it does," isn't an incredibly potent argument. All you can honestly say is that you think such a being could exist because of your imagination.
This assumes that the definition of God is just made up by people. To be fair, this is true, but if you start off by affirming such a position, you're begging the question against theism to begin with, aren't you?
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
![[Image: Ip4ZfOm.png]](https://i.imgur.com/Ip4ZfOm.png)
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
