How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard

[LastPoet]

People forget that life has adapted to the surroundings, not that the rough-edged surroundings were pr-made. ID is shut down with the simplest understand of evolution. It is not science, It is lingering in doubt, instead of finding knowledge as any science does.

[robvalue]

Einstein observed that the universe appears to follow the abstract rule of e = mc^2. He didn't find it lying about under his bed. It doesn't literally exist. We are able to hold the concept of it in our brains, and our brains exist. Unless you have some evidence of rules existing independently, then we're all sorted. A rule applying is not the same as existing, unless you're using a very weird definition for existence. If you want to say God "applies" to the universe, and so God is the laws of nature, then be my guest.

You're right, we don't know everything about the brain. But that isn't license to make things up, just claim thoughts somehow manifest as real things that exist but are immaterial, then use that in a bizarre analogy to show God exists in the same way.

If everything in our brains literally existed when we thought about it, we'd all be living in a weird porn/samurai movie world.

[Alex K]

The rule E=mc^2 probably doesn't exist as an abstract entity anyway because it is probably not exact. It will break down at some point, will become part of something more complicated quantum-space-whatevery.

Take Newton's law of Gravity F = G m M/r^2

In the 19th century you could have thought this is a law of nature that somewhere sits in idea space as an actually existing abstract thingy. Today we know that it is an approximate property of curved spacetime, and thinking that it by itself was some kind of abstract entity with its own room in idea town would seem silly in retrospect. There is no reason why the same shouldn't be true for every single basic physical "law"

[robvalue]

Right, all of our models are bound to include some degree of simplification or localisation.

[Ronkonkoma]

Sure Boss, Math is definitely abstract, and uses abstractions but that does not give or take from the question of whether it actually exists or not. Did Einstein actually invent e=mc2? Or did he only recognize it? Are abstractions created by our brains, or recognized by our brains?

Oh... that slippery slippery slope where abstract ideas become things that actually exist... Where does it end?
Harry Potter?
Darth Vader?
Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Is a water wave something that exists? Or is it just water (let's assume water exists) with a particular coherent behavior which we've come to designate "wave"?

And speaking of the brain, we know precious little about what a thought IS. We may very well be like little kids standing in front of a radio set thinking the sound is coming from a small midget inside. Actually, the radio only registers the radio waves, but in order to know that, we have to know about radio waves. In terms of the brain, we don't have that basic knowledge know what a thought is. Values, longing for justice, a sense of purpose in life, freedom, personhood, human rights, responsibilities... are these all produced by our brains? How about collective values? Are they all produced by a giant mega-brain of many humans? Or are they only recognized and sensed?

Knowing you know little about a given thing should give you the hint required to withdraw judgement, until more accurate information is available.
Unless you want to just speculate... feel free, but be aware that any speculation is just that. Its bearing on reality is usually very slim.

You're right, fantasy is also an abstraction but there is a big difference between the fantasy of a schizophrenic and the fantasy of a famous movie producer. The difference is a basis on reality. I hate harry potter, but they say the book has values incorporated in them. So do the greatest literary works in history. They are an alchemy of human desire, of a purpotrator and a victim, of a human problem to be overcome. The book I just bought my nephews talks about forgiveness between two brother squirrels who grew apart. The theme is forgiveness. the values are brotherhood/solidarity/humility. These values can be actualized in the present. Once they are actualized by our behavior, they can never be undone because the past can't be undone. Darth Vader? "I am your father" - your long lost father you never knew; Paternity in a culture where kids grow up estranged from their parents. The flying spaghety monster? I have no Idea, I hear it refrained by Atheists.

-- Is a water wave something that exists? Or is it just water (let's assume water exists) with a particular coherent behavior which we've come to designate "wave"?
-- I think we named waves as such because they exists.

-- Knowing you know little about a given thing should give you the hint required to withdraw judgement, until more accurate information is available.
Unless you want to just speculate... feel free, but be aware that any speculation is just that. Its bearing on reality is usually very slim.
-- Speculation should be done by neuroscientists, psychiatrists, psychologists, and philosophers who are competent. I just go on living my day and read a book or two by them once in a  while. We are all midgets standing on the shoulders of giants.

---

You can say that the Big Bang is the limit of our knowledge. I guess that's acceptable. But other evidence for the existence of God is the immensely huge improbability of life forming on earth given the  number of conditions that all need add up to make it possible.. Estimated that there are around 320 of these conditions, with each of their probabilities to be "just right" to support life and prevent the earth to implode, being less than 1%. Adding all of them up gives a probability for there to be life on earth at a staggering 10 to the power of 23. AllThat in a small window of time!

The fine tuning argument? oh boy... -.-'
How can anyone attribute such probabilities when their sample size is ONE?
hint: they can't - they're making it up - they're supposing things they can't suppose - the argument is flawed at the get go.
But thanks for playing.

I'm not playing. The sample size is said to be many by the string theorists. But there is no evidence that quantum mechanics applies to the macro-world. Some think this is because of gravity.

---

The rule E=mc^2 probably doesn't exist as an abstract entity anyway because it is probably not exact. It will break down at some point, will become part of something more complicated quantum-space-whatevery.

Take Newton's law of Gravity F = G m M/r^2

In the 19th century you could have thought this is a law of nature that somewhere sits in idea space as an actually existing abstract thingy. Today we know that it is an approximate property of curved spacetime, and thinking that it by itself was some kind of abstract entity with its own room in idea town would seem silly in retrospect. There is no reason why the same shouldn't be true for every single basic physical "law"

Suppose we are both looking at a cylinder. I'm looking at a cylinder form the side, and you're looking at it from the bottom. I see a square in two dimensions, and from the opposite side you see a two dimensional circle. They are both imperfect abstractions of the same cylinder. Just because they are parts of something bigger doesn't mean the square and circle don't exist.

[Ronkonkoma]

Yes, but the presupposing has no bearing on the arguments I gave and the science I talked about.

We live in the present. The future is full of possibilities. The past is impossible to reverse. How do we change reality in the present? Through our behaviors, and our behaviors are influenced by our values. Values are immaterial. Just like you can print money out of seemingly nothing. MS window existed as a stolen idea before it came into existence as software. 

You can say that the Big Bang is the limit of our knowledge. I guess that's acceptable. But other evidence for the existence of God is the immensely huge improbability of life forming on earth given the  number of conditions that all need add up to make it possible.. Estimated that there are around 320 of these conditions, with each of their probabilities to be "just right" to support life and prevent the earth to implode, being less than 1%. Adding all of them up gives a probability for there to be life on earth at a staggering 10 to the power of 23. AllThat in a small window of time!

Dude, seriously. What is with you theists and the word salads? Half of that first paragraph was Deepak Chopra sayings and the other half was simply untrue. MS Windows didn't "exist" simply because Gates copied the work of that lady at Xerox for a GUI. And none of that has anything to do with the OP. It's just like you decided to connect a string of random phrases.

Every event that has ever happened is statistically improbable. Try calculating the odds that, given our lifetimes and the myriad paths we could have taken in life, that I would meet my wife. Or that the lady who nearly killed me on my motorcycle would have been there, would have turned left the instant she did, or that I wasn't going 5mph faster/slower. Doesn't make it part of some divine plan.

The "just right" argument is bunk, as it presupposes a huge number of things that are massive post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies, or are simply not within our realm of knowledge to presuppose.

An example of the former is that conditions were shaped for life, rather than life being shaped by the conditions that exist.
An example of the latter is your implied claim that this is the only way things could have happened, that life is not going to occur in other forms, given other "settings" of the variables, and that the settings are even variable. None of that is known, nor can be supposed.

If you're going to try the teleological argument, at least present a better version of it. That's the other thing about you amateur apologists; you all show up at these atheism forums like we've never seen your arguments before. 

Good grief!

I've never listened to Deepak Chopra and I don't intend to. The first part I took from Viktor Frankl. He was a holocaust survivor and psychiatrist. His ideas are based on the tradition of the german philosophers as opposed to the british empiricists.  

Every event is statistically improbable, sure, but some things are made more probable than others by our values. It is our responsibility as human beings to live according to our values. Values are an important tool for our brain, which is the organ of purpose. Much like the liver is producing bile, so the brain is producing a purpose to live for. Without that we will literally die (through direct or indirect suicide).

Ideas are very important because they affect behavior and behavior affects our material existence.

The "just right" argument is based on science and is really not beyond our capacity to understand. In fact, the sheer number of these conditions needed for life might be vastly understated for all we know, considering the fact that they multiply when we come to speaking about human life.

You can't reduce human existence to the material and strictly empiric, because that will undermine freedom, responsibility and human dignity, and lead to many more holocausts and breeches in human rights. That was my point I tried to express, doctor.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I've never listened to Deepak Chopra and I don't intend to. The first part I took from Viktor Frankl. He was a holocaust survivor and psychiatrist. His ideas are based on the tradition of the german philosophers as opposed to the british empiricists.  

Every event is statistically improbable, sure, but some things are made more probable than others by our values. It is our responsibility as human beings to live according to our values. Values are an important tool for our brain, which is the organ of purpose. Much like the liver is producing bile, so the brain is producing a purpose to live for. Without that we will literally die (through direct or indirect suicide).

Ideas are very important because they affect behavior and behavior affects our material existence.

The "just right" argument is based on science and is really not beyond our capacity to understand. In fact, the sheer number of these conditions needed for life might be vastly understated for all we know, considering the fact that they multiply when we come to speaking about human life.

You can't reduce human existence to the material and strictly empiric, because that will undermine freedom, responsibility and human dignity, and lead to many more holocausts and breeches in human rights. That was my point I tried to express, doctor.

I wasn't suggesting you read Chopra. In fact, I recommend no one do so. But he's famous for meaningless "word salads", to the point that there's a joke website that lets you make up random stuff he might have said.

I've read Man's Search for Meaning  and, while I found his psychiatric evaluation of the Nazi (and capo) behaviors fascinating and insightful, he too devolved into Chopra-esque "word salad" when he started talking about his ideas for the logotherapy treatment methods. Still, the ending paragraphs of that book are among the most profound things I have ever read.

And that brings me to my main point, here. Frankl was a non-religious (secular) Jew, a highly-trained medical scientist, and spoke of God only in passing, usually when talking about someone else's point of view. Yet he devoted an entire book to the "search for meaning". And while "the Problem of Pain" is not a true argument against the existence of God, it's well-known historically that a huge portion of the Jewish community became secularists in the wake of the Holocaust, feeling as though their God had abandoned them. Many continue the old traditions out of a sense of ethnic preservation, of course.

I think you can "reduce" the human experience to the material and strictly empiric, but that doesn't imply that this is all there is to life! The sunset is no less beautiful because I understand the physics of nuclear fusion and the diffraction of wavelengths of light passing through atmosphere! My wife is not less dear to me because I understand the neurochemistry of human pair-bonding. I do not think my love for her is magic; I do think it's pretty awesome!

I would argue that believing in magical causation, awaited saviors, Revealed morality, and a life after this one cheapens our respect for this life, and reduces our ability to make this world (and our lives) better. I would argue it strongly, as I have awakened from the mental darkness of religion and I can see clearly how tightly I had to squeeze my eyes shut, before, to hold many of the ideas I held as true because they were part of my sacred scriptures and/or faith-society traditions. You're right about one thing-- we do make the meaning by our values and our decisions. But I think the Secular Humanist position is not only the only defensible one, I outright fear the insanity that I see coming from those who accept the concept of Revealed Truths™ and base their moral definitions on the views of the priests of any Bronze Age desert tribal sheepherder-warrior people.

Finally, the "just right" argument is not "based on science", it's a misrepresentation of what is known and not known in science. There are a few religiously-inclined scientists who have tried to make the teleological argument (most famously, the geneticist Dr. Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project), but scientists with more expertise in cosmology have laughed him down and pointed out his fallacies. You cannot say "it is based on science" when the top cosmologists and astrophysicists are literally writing books explaining why it is not science. If you really want to know why it doesn't work like you think it works, read this.

[Ronkonkoma]

I've never listened to Deepak Chopra and I don't intend to. The first part I took from Viktor Frankl. He was a holocaust survivor and psychiatrist. His ideas are based on the tradition of the german philosophers as opposed to the british empiricists.  

Every event is statistically improbable, sure, but some things are made more probable than others by our values. It is our responsibility as human beings to live according to our values. Values are an important tool for our brain, which is the organ of purpose. Much like the liver is producing bile, so the brain is producing a purpose to live for. Without that we will literally die (through direct or indirect suicide).

Ideas are very important because they affect behavior and behavior affects our material existence.

The "just right" argument is based on science and is really not beyond our capacity to understand. In fact, the sheer number of these conditions needed for life might be vastly understated for all we know, considering the fact that they multiply when we come to speaking about human life.

You can't reduce human existence to the material and strictly empiric, because that will undermine freedom, responsibility and human dignity, and lead to many more holocausts and breeches in human rights. That was my point I tried to express, doctor.

I wasn't suggesting you read Chopra. In fact, I recommend no one do so. But he's famous for meaningless "word salads", to the point that there's a joke website that lets you make up random stuff he might have said.

I've read Man's Search for Meaning  and, while I found his psychiatric evaluation of the Nazi (and capo) behaviors fascinating and insightful, he too devolved into Chopra-esque "word salad" when he started talking about his ideas for the logotherapy treatment methods. Still, the ending paragraphs of that book are among the most profound things I have ever read.

And that brings me to my main point, here. Frankl was a non-religious (secular) Jew, a highly-trained medical scientist, and spoke of God only in passing, usually when talking about someone else's point of view. Yet he devoted an entire book to the "search for meaning". And while "the Problem of Pain" is not a true argument against the existence of God, it's well-known historically that a huge portion of the Jewish community became secularists in the wake of the Holocaust, feeling as though their God had abandoned them. Many continue the old traditions out of a sense of ethnic preservation, of course.

I think you can "reduce" the human experience to the material and strictly empiric, but that doesn't imply that this is all there is to life! The sunset is no less beautiful because I understand the physics of nuclear fusion and the diffraction of wavelengths of light passing through atmosphere! My wife is not less dear to me because I understand the neurochemistry of human pair-bonding. I do not think my love for her is magic; I do think it's pretty awesome!

I would argue that believing in magical causation, awaited saviors, Revealed morality, and a life after this one cheapens our respect for this life, and reduces our ability to make this world (and our lives) better. I would argue it strongly, as I have awakened from the mental darkness of religion and I can see clearly how tightly I had to squeeze my eyes shut, before, to hold many of the ideas I held as true because they were part of my sacred scriptures and/or faith-society traditions. You're right about one thing-- we do make the meaning by our values and our decisions. But I think the Secular Humanist position is not only the only defensible one, I outright fear the insanity that I see coming from those who accept the concept of Revealed Truths™ and base their moral definitions on the views of the priests of any Bronze Age desert tribal sheepherder-warrior people.

Finally, the "just right" argument is not "based on science", it's a misrepresentation of what is known and not known in science. There are a few religiously-inclined scientists who have tried to make the teleological argument (most famously, the geneticist Dr. Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project), but scientists with more expertise in cosmology have laughed him down and pointed out his fallacies. You cannot say "it is based on science" when the top cosmologists and astrophysicists are literally writing books explaining why it is not science. If you really want to know why it doesn't work like you think it works, read this.

Humm, ok, very good, I see that you're honest. I read into the post and will read some more before I can answer it. In terms of the fine tuning, I didn't even know this argument existed. I guess I learn as we go. I don't really think in terms of categories of arguments. As such, I'm a little weary of a site that argues for the sake of debunking Christianity. In terms of the numbers, I was actually quoting from an Astro-physicist Hugh Ross at UBC who claims he was an atheist before the recent developments in Astronomy in the past 15 or 20 years, and it was the evidence of the beginning of time by Dawkin that convinced him. He said there was a lot of weight on that finding in Astronomy because the "first clause" argument depend on it, and he explains how, in a way I don't have much time to list.

I don't claim to defend Astronomy so well because I'm neither an astronomer, just a dumb country doc who doesn't know his elbow from a pimple from his ass. I'm not a fundamentalist Christian, though, I'm a Catholic. I also know about the neurobiology of bonding, and the development of personality through mother-infant bonding, which I'm so impressed about as to write an article.

On the other hand I was also impressed by the short stories of one of the greatest Russian authors, Leon Tolstoy, "what men live by". He writes about human pain and what keeps people going just like Frankl wrote about meaning. The short story starts with a fallen angel on the side of the road, naked and cold, who is taken into the home of a poor Russian peasant family, thinking he is just a man. The story ends with a demonstrations of three things that the angel had to learn about humanity. One of them was that men live by love just as they live on bread. I find this so true. And I think of those Syrian Muslim refugees traveling through Eastern Europe, coming to the Christian countries, expecting compassion and solidarity, and finding only resentment and hostility. And a dead boy washing on the shores of Greece. Died of  a lack of love as people were hearded into tiny boats at gunpoint and sent to sea with no food and water.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

You're quite right to be skeptical of a "debunking Christianity" site. Take it with whatever sized grain of salt you prefer. We encourage that sort of thing, around here!

I linked to it because he provides (as tends to be our tradition) a lot of citations and links to other things to read on the subject, and provides a (to my point of view, which I confess may not be entirely neutral, despite my best efforts) good summary of the issues.

And I could not agree more with the last part you wrote. As a Humanist, I believe that human compassion and love are what make this world tolerable, and that we suffer or prosper in direct proportion to how we are taught to show (and are shown) love.

Take a moment to blank your mind of what you think you know about the Parable of the Good Samaritan, and go read it again. It's my favorite thing that Jesus (is alleged to... I have to throw that in there so no one things I'm suggesting that I think the Gospels are accurate transcripts of anything the man said in real life) taught. And, unfortunately, most people get the point of that parable wrong. If more Christians really did grasp what he was saying, I think you'd find that more of us nonbelievers were on your side on most issues, or rather, you'd be on our side more often.

Hint: if you do not already know, it helps to know exactly what a Samaritan was, and what the Judean Hebrews thought of them in the first century. It may be worth a separate Google search before you start the Bible reading.

[Ronkonkoma]

You're quite right to be skeptical of a "debunking Christianity" site. Take it with whatever sized grain of salt you prefer. We encourage that sort of thing, around here!

I linked to it because he provides (as tends to be our tradition) a lot of citations and links to other things to read on the subject, and provides a (to my point of view, which I confess may not be entirely neutral, despite my best efforts) good summary of the issues.

And I could not agree more with the last part you wrote. As a Humanist, I believe that human compassion and love are what make this world tolerable, and that we suffer or prosper in direct proportion to how we are taught to show (and are shown) love.

Take a moment to blank your mind of what you think you know about the Parable of the Good Samaritan, and go read it again. It's my favorite thing that Jesus (is alleged to... I have to throw that in there so no one things I'm suggesting that I think the Gospels are accurate transcripts of anything the man said in real life) taught. And, unfortunately, most people get the point of that parable wrong. If more Christians really did grasp what he was saying, I think you'd find that more of us nonbelievers were on your side on most issues, or rather, you'd be on our side more often.

Hint: if you do not already know, it helps to know exactly what a Samaritan was, and what the Judean Hebrews thought of them in the first century. It may be worth a separate Google search before you start the Bible reading.

Thanks, will do, and comment on it. Just need some time. I just came from hungary.