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

[SteveII]

The KCA is an argument that applies to all reality. Not just our laws of physics that started a finite time ago.

OK let's recap here.

Your KCA argues that things begin to exist and everything has a cause.

I point out that things do not ever instantly begin to exist but gradually change over time. You ignore this point and talk about discrete causes instead. 

I rewrote your KCA as a continuous version rather than discrete.

You object to this by saying the continuous version fails because it makes assumption that the first two steps apply understanding of what happens inside the universe to what happens outside the universe.

You did not rewrite the KCA. You wrote another argument. Notice that you did not address the premises, show why they were wrong (a defeater) or why they might not be right (undercutting). 

I point out that the same argument applies to the discrete version that you think is correct.

You do not respond to that but instead continue making the assumption that there is more to the universe than matter and energy.

So tell me why the continuous version of the KCA is any less valid than the discrete version that you know and love.

Both versions assume that what happens inside the universe applies outside.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.

1. Every stable pattern of matter and energy in the universe first had to develop over time (continuous version of begins to exist) and this happened because of how it was shaped by a larger environment (continuous version of cause).
2. The universe itself first had to develop over time.

So answer without trying to logic meaningless concepts into existence and using nebulous words like 'being' which allow for equivocation. Tell me:

• a. Why assume that there is more to the universe than matter and energy?
  
• b. Why it is OK to argue things begin to exist in an instant in the real world when they never do?
  
• c. Why you can use this incorrect premise about how inside the universe works to argue how the outside works?
  
• d. Why you cannot use the correct premise that nothing begins in an instant inside the universe to argue how the outside works?

a. for this argument, I am not assuming there is more to the universe than energy and matter.
b. Why are you hung up on the word "instant"? It is not used in the argument.
c. I am talking about a principle of causation. It applies within the universe and it would apply to any other state prior to the universe. You keep getting bogged down in subjective descriptions of different states of matter.  Under your restrictive definitions nothing really begins to exist after the first moments of the universe. Fine. But you are making a distinction without a difference. In other words, I am talking about a concept of causation that, as far as we can tell, should apply to all of reality whether in this universe or not. 
d. If you address © this question resolves itself.

You have logical problems with anything material "always existing". You cannot have a series of causes/effects going back forever because you can't complete an actual infinity of steps

How do you know that you can't have an infinite number of steps? Isn't your whole belief system devoted to an idea of an eternity in Heaven or Hell?

Last thing first. Heaven/Hell are a potential infinity of moments. Not an actual infinity. You cannot get to an actual infinity by successive addition (by definition). 

Under any theory of time there is some sequence that is countable whether you call it causes/connection/light cones/changes in entropy/states of affairs/or whatever. I'll call it causal connections (but insert whatever you want).  Any timeline would show that the causal connections that created the present were preceded by causal connections which were preceded by causal connections for an infinite series in the prior-to direction. If you posit an infinite number of these causal connection going back, you have a problem. How could we have traversed through an infinite number of sequential causal connections to get to the one that caused the present (causal connection 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0)? There will always have to be infinite more causal connections that still need to happen (on the front end). We will never arrive at the present.

To illustrate it with a thought experiment, imagine a being who is counting down from eternity past to the present: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, now. How is that possible? Wouldn't he have an infinite amount more numbers to get through to get down to 3, 2, 1? If you insist that this could be done, why didn't he get done 1000 years earlier or for that matter, an infinite time ago?

---

While some properties of God are unknowable, some are not. He has reveals a great deal about himself in both the OT and the NT. Here is a great list.  There is also a ton of things we can infer from known characteristics (the result of a process of systematic theology).

You’re wandering a bit.

The claim is that god is the personal creator of the universe as we know it.  If god is real, he is the best explanation for the universe’s existence.  

When examining a possible explanation for a particular phenomenon (in this case, god as the cause of the universe), most rational people would think it important to know a few key specifics about this proposed explanation:
 
1. What is god made of?
2. By what mechanisms did he accomplish this?
3. How can we differentiate between god, and things that are not god?
4. What mechanisms underpin this timeless, changeless, spaceless state?

Your answers to this line of questioning so far have been, ‘category error,’ and ‘not knowable’.  

That is some “explanation”, Steve.  Further, I don’t understand how you can call the definition of god as, “not needing an explanation”, any kind of definition at all.  God is what, then?   I’ll-defined by definition?  Why would any rational person accept a theory that is unexplainable by definition, as an explanation for real phenomena?

Our definition of God is incomplete. Given the subject matter, I would say that is to be expected. That you want to draw some conclusion about that is a misguided. You cannot develop any logical problems from this. Actually, not even an inconvenience to the Christian. 

You continue to ignore the fact that I have a list of real life reasons to think the concept is true.

What you have is your belief that the Bible is true, and personal experience.  If that’s enough for you, fine.  But you must be able to see how this is not even close to enough for many of us here.

”God-did-it because the Bible says so”, as the explanation for existence is never going to be enough for me.

God did it because we believe the people who testify to the events. The way you think it works is circular reasoning.

[Angrboda]

Under any theory of time there is some sequence that is countable whether you call it causes/connection/light cones/changes in entropy/states of affairs/or whatever. I'll call it causal connections (but insert whatever you want).  Any timeline would show that the causal connections that created the present were preceded by causal connections which were preceded by causal connections for an infinite series in the prior-to direction. If you posit an infinite number of these causal connection going back, you have a problem. How could we have traversed through an infinite number of sequential causal connections to get to the one that caused the present (causal connection 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0)? There will always have to be infinite more causal connections that still need to happen (on the front end). We will never arrive at the present.

You claim that under any theory of time there exists a set of causal relationships. But then you go on to put forth descriptions and arguments which are necessarily tied to the A theory of time and so are not in fact applicable "under any theory of time." Both you and Roady commit this same error. Either way, you don't appear to have thought this through particularly well. Perhaps there exists an argument to be made based upon the nature of causation but I'm inclined to believe that if there is, you do not possess it.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Stevell, your whole method of 'debating' is to forget about what we've been talking about but to equivocate with nebulous terms that need defining and serve as a distraction from the original argument. It's a typical theist tactic because it means that so much gets talked about that anyone reading it is left with the impression that the issue is too complex to be resolved. So I am not going to repeat myself. I'll just provide quotes and let you remember that this has already been discussed. I shall not bother answering again if it just means repeating myself.

You did not rewrite the KCA. You wrote another argument. Notice that you did not address the premises, show why they were wrong (a defeater) or why they might not be right (undercutting).

I rewrote the KCA so that it does not equivocate with 'begins to exist' as discussed here:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Which number(s) do you think are false?

The KCA fails at the first premise.

Name something that began to exist and tell us the exact moment this would have happened and the cause.

Your examples refuted here.


But then you forget it again later on when answering points b & c:

b. Why are you hung up on the word "instant"? It is not used in the argument.

Under your restrictive definitions nothing really begins to exist after the first moments of the universe. Fine. But you are making a distinction without a difference.

It does make a difference because of:

This shows that the Kalam Cosmological argument only works because it uses simplistic every day language to gloss over the specific details. It only convinces you if you think about the problem simplistically. It gives the illusion of providing an explanation but only if you refuse to ask any more questions.

a. Why assume that there is more to the universe than matter and energy?

a. for this argument, I am not assuming there is more to the universe than energy and matter.

The universe includes all energy and matter. Yet you said:

Yes but why would you exclude things outside of our universe?

You also assume that there are laws acting on energy that are not understood by saying that your god is supernatural and that thermodynamics does not apply.

[SteveII]

You have set up a false dichotomy. It is not one of the other. There is no argument you could make to even suggest it.

So you are claiming that your god is partly unknowable [YES], yet is still the best explanation for the known universe [YES] and its known laws by presupposing the existence of another external universe with different yet unknowable laws even though there is absolutely no evidence for it or your god. [NO]

Agreed?

Answers above

Where did you get this other universe from?

[I_am_not_mafia]

So you are claiming that your god is partly unknowable [YES], yet is still the best explanation for the known universe [YES] and its known laws by presupposing the existence of another external universe with different yet unknowable laws even though there is absolutely no evidence for it or your god. [NO]

Agreed?

Answers above

Where did you get this other universe from?

Because of this:

Yes but why would you exclude things outside of our universe?

You may not call it an external universe but a spiritual or supernatural realm, or Heaven or whatever. Feel free to suggest a name that you are happy with. So let's rephrase my original question:

So you are claiming that your god is partly unknowable [YES], yet is still the best explanation for the known universe [YES] and its known laws by presupposing the existence of a supernatural realm with different yet unknowable laws external to our known universe even though there is absolutely no evidence for it or your god?

[SteveII]

There is no "continued problem with interpretation" concerning the nature of God. That only exists in your head. 


Go ahead, knock yourself out. 


So you ask a question about God, I answer. Then your reply is "well, you haven't proven God". You are a discussion genius. I can't match your skills. Unless you say something especially new or interesting, don't expect an answer in the future.

Yes very nice of you, but can you prove your definitions are true ?
I understand that you are frustrated by people asking you to justify you definitions and/or belief in god, I understand the questions are not new. I'm not asking in this instance for you to prove god, I already know from the past few months you cannot do that. I'm asking why you believe your definitions to be rational or true.  For instance when god is claimed to bless, curse, make crops grow, bring calamity, make rain and bring drought how are you meant to tell the difference between that and nature happening ?

There's the "can you prove" thing again. What exactly do you mean by "prove"? It seems there are different kinds of proof.

* Scientific proof
* Historical proof
* Logical proofs (both deductive and inductive)
* Proof resulting from personal experience

There also also different thresholds of proof:

* Possible
* More likely than not (preponderance of the evidence)
* Beyond reasonable doubt
* Absolute certainty

These lists result in 16 different combinations alone (and I'm sure I missed some). In my experience, a discussion like the one you are intending is a long series of shifting the goal post until you arrive at demanding something akin to absolute certainty resulting from scientific proof for a specific belief. The problem is that this is not the standard necessary for a rational belief. Regarding the question of the existence of God, it has been proven to my satisfaction. 

When people push you on them you claim much is unknowable, and then claim they are being unreasonable in holding back belief in your assertions, for all your lengthy answers you do what many Christians do and fall back on an unknowable, mysterious, unprovable god, you are in effect saying 'god did it' that's what I already believe, and unless you can prove me otherwise then i will continue to believe that.

Since I have not made any of those arguments, none of that applies to me. To bring it up is a strawman. I have always said that there is nothing unreasonable about atheism. 

The reason why Christians are faced with a barrage of 'not new' questions is really simple, they have not given unbelievers sufficient reason to believe their faith in definitions of their god, or god himself resides outside their own mind. If you don't wish to reply to any of my posts further then that's fine, I will certainly continue to comment on yours

My intention was never to convince. I correct mischaracterizations, point out bad reasoning, and generally try to create a discussion so your side is better informed about the thing they feel so free to rail against but really only have about an inch deep understanding of. Of course this has had mixed results.

[possibletarian]

Yes very nice of you, but can you prove your definitions are true ?
I understand that you are frustrated by people asking you to justify you definitions and/or belief in god, I understand the questions are not new. I'm not asking in this instance for you to prove god, I already know from the past few months you cannot do that. I'm asking why you believe your definitions to be rational or true.  For instance when god is claimed to bless, curse, make crops grow, bring calamity, make rain and bring drought how are you meant to tell the difference between that and nature happening ?

There's the "can you prove" thing again. What exactly do you mean by "prove"? It seems there are different kinds of proof.

* Scientific proof
* Historical proof
* Logical proofs (both deductive and inductive)
* Proof resulting from personal experience

There also also different thresholds of proof:

* Possible
* More likely than not (preponderance of the evidence)
* Beyond reasonable doubt
* Absolute certainty

These lists result in 16 different combinations alone (and I'm sure I missed some). In my experience, a discussion like the one you are intending is a long series of shifting the goal post until you arrive at demanding something akin to absolute certainty resulting from scientific proof for a specific belief. The problem is that this is not the standard necessary for a rational belief. Regarding the question of the existence of God, it has been proven to my satisfaction. 

When people push you on them you claim much is unknowable, and then claim they are being unreasonable in holding back belief in your assertions, for all your lengthy answers you do what many Christians do and fall back on an unknowable, mysterious, unprovable god, you are in effect saying 'god did it' that's what I already believe, and unless you can prove me otherwise then i will continue to believe that.

Since I have not made any of those arguments, none of that applies to me. To bring it up is a strawman. I have always said that there is nothing unreasonable about atheism. 

The reason why Christians are faced with a barrage of 'not new' questions is really simple, they have not given unbelievers sufficient reason to believe their faith in definitions of their god, or god himself resides outside their own mind. If you don't wish to reply to any of my posts further then that's fine, I will certainly continue to comment on yours

My intention was never to convince. I correct mischaracterizations, point out bad reasoning, and generally try to create a discussion so your side is better informed about the thing they feel so free to rail against but really only have about an inch deep understanding of. Of course this has had mixed results.

Well yes I've seen your cut and paste many times as unconvincing as it is, however what I'm asking in this instance is do you have any reason to believe your definitions are true, in other words are they more than simply in your mind ?  What you call mischaracterisations are simply you not really explaining what you mean, you seem to be all over the place as others have noted on this thread, lets see if we can have a conversation without it becoming so complex that it hides the simplicity of the question.

For instance
1) Ability to fly
2) Ability to see through things (expect lead)
3) As tough as steel
4) Super strong
5) believes in justice (and the American way of course)

These are all definitions of superman, and if someone asked me for a definition of superman, i could quote these. I do not however believe superman exists mostly because the definitions themselves are unbelievable  (and I know he's a comic character).  
So when someone talks about Timeless, changeless,  etc.... I get the same oozy unrealistic feeling in my stomach.

Having said that, lets try and put some clarity into the conversation.

Lets start with number one on your list, what scientific proofs of god/s and your definitions do you have ?
Lets start at the threshold of more likely than not, so in other words it is reasonable to believe it's true rather than not.

[SteveII]

The PSR is a universally accepted concept within our universe. 

No, that's not actually true.  In addition, there are multiple PSRs depending upon specifically what one does or does not want to exempt from the rule.  But I'm used to your penchant for exaggeration by now, so I'll just let that slide.

What I do find troubling is that you are justifying "being comes only from being" via ex nihilo nihil fit, as that seems to be an axiom rather than a justified truth, so asserting its complement ("being only comes from being") appears to be nothing more than begging the question.  I'd like to see the statement justified, not simply assumed.  You implied that you could provide examples from "reality."  That at least would provide you with the basis of an inductive argument, but given your last reply, it doesn't seem that you are able to do that.  Is ex nihilo nihil fit an a priori truth?  I don't think it is.  Therefore I'd appeal to Hitchens' razor, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Well, Spinoza thought it was an axiom (Axiom 7). In fact, I read in some places he says it is a necessary truth. 

In a brief explanatory note to this axiom, Spinoza adds:

Since existing is something positive, we cannot say that it has nothing as its cause (by Axiom 7). Therefore, we must assign some positive cause, or reason, why [a thing] exists—either an external one, i.e., one outside the thing itself, or an internal one, one comprehended in the nature and definition of the existing thing itself. (Geb. I/158/4–9)[3]

Axiom 7, to which Spinoza appeals in the explanation, is a variant of the “ex nihilo, nihil fit” (“from nothing, nothing comes”) principle, and stipulates that an existing thing and its perfections (or qualities) cannot have nothing or a non-existing thing as their cause. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/

In all of our observations, something has never come from nothing. Everything as always come from something. Is that enough evidence for the principle: being comes from being?

As far as a priori, perhaps. Robert Koons came up with something like this: 

Start with the observation that once we admit that some contingent states of affairs have no explanations, a completely new sceptical scenario becomes possible: No demon is deceiving you, but your perceptual states are occurring for no reason at all, with no prior causes.

Moreover,objective probabilities are tied to laws of nature or objective tendencies, and so if an objective probability attaches to some contingent fact, then that situation can be given an explanation in terms of laws of nature or objective tendencies.  Hence, if the PSR is false of some contingent fact, no objective probability attaches to the fact. 

Thus we cannot even say that violations of the PSR are improbable if the PSR is false. Consequently, someone who does not affirm the PSR cannot say that the sceptical scenario is objectively improbable.  It may be taken to follow from this that if the PSR were false or maybe even not known a priori, we wouldn’t know any empirical truths.  But we do know empirical truths.  Hence,the PSR is true, and maybe even known a priori.

from Blackwells Companion to Natural Theology. I don't have the exact reference since I had this chapter in Evernote. I can get it upon request.

---

There's the "can you prove" thing again. What exactly do you mean by "prove"? It seems there are different kinds of proof.

* Scientific proof
* Historical proof
* Logical proofs (both deductive and inductive)
* Proof resulting from personal experience

There also also different thresholds of proof:

* Possible
* More likely than not (preponderance of the evidence)
* Beyond reasonable doubt
* Absolute certainty

These lists result in 16 different combinations alone (and I'm sure I missed some). In my experience, a discussion like the one you are intending is a long series of shifting the goal post until you arrive at demanding something akin to absolute certainty resulting from scientific proof for a specific belief. The problem is that this is not the standard necessary for a rational belief. Regarding the question of the existence of God, it has been proven to my satisfaction. 


Since I have not made any of those arguments, none of that applies to me. To bring it up is a strawman. I have always said that there is nothing unreasonable about atheism. 


My intention was never to convince. I correct mischaracterizations, point out bad reasoning, and generally try to create a discussion so your side is better informed about the thing they feel so free to rail against but really only have about an inch deep understanding of. Of course this has had mixed results.

Well yes I've seen your cut and paste many times as unconvincing as it is, however what I'm asking in this instance is do you have any reason to believe your definitions are true, in other words are they more than simply in your mind ?  What you call mischaracterisations are simply you not really explaining what you mean, you seem to be all over the place as others have noted on this thread, lets see if we can have a conversation without it becoming so complex that it hides the simplicity of the question.

For instance
1) Ability to fly
2) Ability to see through things (expect lead)
3) As tough as steel
4) Super strong
5) believes in justice (and the American way of course)

These are all definitions of superman, and if someone asked me for a definition of superman, i could quote these. I do not however believe superman exists mostly because the definitions themselves are unbelievable  (and I know he's a comic character).  
So when someone talks about Timeless, changeless,  etc.... I get the same oozy unrealistic feeling in my stomach.

Having said that, lets try and put some clarity into the conversation.

Lets start with number one on your list, what scientific proofs of god/s and your definitions do you have ?
Lets start at the threshold of more likely than not, so in other words it is reasonable to believe it's true rather than not.

Fine tuning argument. 

[LadyForCamus]

@steve, no one is obligated to offer defeaters to your premises. It’s on you to demonstrate they are true, or more likely to be true than not.

[SteveII]

Under any theory of time there is some sequence that is countable whether you call it causes/connection/light cones/changes in entropy/states of affairs/or whatever. I'll call it causal connections (but insert whatever you want).  Any timeline would show that the causal connections that created the present were preceded by causal connections which were preceded by causal connections for an infinite series in the prior-to direction. If you posit an infinite number of these causal connection going back, you have a problem. How could we have traversed through an infinite number of sequential causal connections to get to the one that caused the present (causal connection 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0)? There will always have to be infinite more causal connections that still need to happen (on the front end). We will never arrive at the present.

You claim that under any theory of time there exists a set of causal relationships.  But then you go on to put forth descriptions and arguments which are necessarily tied to the A theory of time and so are not in fact applicable "under any theory of time."  Both you and Roady commit this same error.  Either way, you don't appear to have thought this through particularly well.  Perhaps there exists an argument to be made based upon the nature of causation but I'm inclined to believe that if there is, you do not possess it.

That's nit picking. Anyone can rewrite that with ambiguous B-theory-friendly terms. But at least you got a couple of Kudos from your fans. Glad I could help.

---

@steve, no one is obligated to offer defeaters to your premises.  It’s on you to demonstrate they are true, or more likely to be true than not.

First, that smells a little defeatist to me. 

Second, while it seems to me the premises are self evidence, I did offered in the very first post on the KCA which premises you wanted me to defend. Only Vulcan took me up on it. So...there's that...

Since I have the site open...