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

[I_am_not_mafia]

Is the car a Ford?

While Fords are clearly Telepathic it's irrational to assume they also have pixies without evidence.

You can't say that. Fords are partially unknowable. Have you ever tried to set the clock on a 2004 Ford C-Max even using the manual? They are unknowable because they are supernatural cars. Pixies are also supernatural, which also means unknowable. It is irrational to demand evidence for something that is unknowable. We just need to assume a-priori that they exist and then fill in the gaps however we can.

But if we do find even the slightest bit of evidence you can bet we'll be telling absolutely everyone about it.

In the meantime, personal anecdote will have to be passed off as evidence and we'll need to use logic to prove the existence of pixies even if we have no reason to assume that they do.

1. It is unknowable that we know everything that there is to know about anything that is known to exist.
2. Pixies are unknowable.
3. Therefore pixies exist.

[robvalue]

So I take it people have completely given up trying to disprove Odin?

[The Grand Nudger]

Spinoza's God........

...was a clever way to troll the religious when it was still dangerous and potentially lethal to just acknowledge one's atheism. 

Not that it fooled anyone for long.  By the late 1700s, "spinozist" was a term commonly used to smear a person on the grounds that they did not believe in god.

[SteveII]

I don't like the Wikipedia formulation. Here is the one I use:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

and what must that cause be like:

4. To stop an infinite regress of causes, the cause of the universe (or it's predecessor) is an "uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful." (from your quote above)

This avoids a misunderstanding of the argument and also eliminates parody attempts like above. 

The KCA is an inductive argument. This is an important point. "Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion.While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

Which number(s) do you think are false?

I'll start with the inconsistency in the use of the phrase, "begin to exist."
The argument can be reduced to this:

1 Everything that did A must have had B
2 C did A
3 Therefore C must have had B

In order for this argument to work, A must mean the same thing in both premise 1 and 2.  You use the phrase "that begins to exist" for A in both lines.  But, begin to exist does not mean the same thing in both lines.  

Line one refers to the type of coming into existence that we observe around us.  People are born, sedimentary rocks are formed, wood burns to ash, trees grow, houses are built, metal is cast, and so on.  None of these things involve new matter/energy coming into existence.  They all merely involve rearranging  existing matter into new configurations.  Matter might become energy or vice versa, but no new matter or energy is created out of nothing. This is the transformation of existing matter and energy only.  It is not an ultimate coming into existence. And each of these transformations of existing matter and energy follow the laws of the universe. No new physical laws are created by these transformations. So while, beginning to exist might be a good loose way of describing these transformations,  they don't involve new matter/energy comming into existence.  

It's intuitively obvious to us from observation that every transformation of  this kind has a, or more likely many, many causes.

But line two refers to the creation of all the matter and energy there is, plus all of the laws governing it. This is a completely different type of beginning to exist.  You and I have never seen anything begin to exist in this way.  Unlike "begin to exist" in line one which is really just a transformation, this really is beginning to exist.  It is nothing like the beginning to exist of line one. It is the difference between carving a stake out of a stick and having a stick magically pop out of the air made out of entirely new matter. Even that doesn't cover it unless the stick comes with its own brand new set of physical laws.

Extrapolating from our knowledge about the transformation of existing matter and energy to the actual creation of matter and energy is a leap because we know nothing about the actual creation of matter and energy except that it all came from a single point in space.

First, you can break any causal concept into four parts: material, formal, efficient, and final. 

• Matter: a change or movement's material "cause", is the aspect of the change or movement which is determined by the material that composes the moving or changing things. For a table, that might be wood; for a statue, that might be bronze or marble.
  
  
• Form: a change or movement's formal "cause", is a change or movement caused by the arrangement, shape or appearance of the thing changing or moving. Aristotle says for example that the ratio 2:1, and number in general, is the cause of the octave.
  
  
• Agent: a change or movement's efficient or moving "cause", consists of things apart from the thing being changed or moved, which interact so as to be an agency of the change or movement. For example, the efficient cause of a table is a carpenter, or a person working as one, and according to Aristotle the efficient cause of a boy is a father.
  
  
• End or purpose: a change or movement's final "cause", is that for the sake of which a thing is what it is. For a seed, it might be an adult plant. For a sailboat, it might be sailing. For a ball at the top of a ramp, it might be coming to rest at the bottom.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

Since the argument is talking about 'cause' in a broader sense, the argument uses the concept of agent or efficient cause. Your whole objection deals with a material cause which when talking about things outside of our universe, is an inadequate concept. If it helps, you can just insert the word 'efficient' in front of cause in both (1) and (3)

I would reformulated lines one and two to better describe what is actually being described by, "beginning to exist."

1. Each transformation of one configureation of matter  and/or energy into a different cofigurations matter or energy has a cause or causes.
2. The universe began with the creation of all matter and energy
3. Therefore the universe has a cause or causes

Number three no longer follows from numbers one and two.

Instead you have:

1. Everything that did A had a B
2. C did D
3. Therefore, C had B

It is a broken syllogism.

As I explained above, you are zeroing in on one aspect of causation that is obviously too restrictive when talking about thing that may have happened prior to the first moments of the universe. 

1. Everything that begins to exist has an efficient cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has an efficient cause.

BTW, this is spelled out in the extensive writings on the KCA.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and still...as when you began, all of your work is ahead of you. Caused things have causes...for fucks sake..proceed.....lol?

[I_am_not_mafia]

As I explained above, you are zeroing in on one aspect of causation that is obviously too restrictive when talking about thing that may have happened prior to the first moments of the universe. 

1. Everything that begins to exist has an efficient cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has an efficient cause.

BTW, this is spelled out in the extensive writings on the KCA.

Oh look, another nebulous term that is not properly defined.

If it's not instantaneous then it doesn't matter if it's efficient or not.

[robvalue]

Why can't things begin to exist with no efficient cause? How can you possibly ever demonstrate that negative?

(Asking for a counter example is the argument from ignorance, when you're making blanket claims.)

Point 2 is just speculation.

[GrandizerII]

You say "efficient cause" is necessary because intuition, then I say "material cause" is also necessary because intuition!

Everything that begins to exist must have a material cause.

If the universe began to exist, then it must have had a material cause.

However, if the universe is "all there is", then it could not have had a material cause.

Therefore, the universe did not have a beginning to its existence.

Therefore, the universe is eternal (and necessary).

Therefore, no [logically problematic] Creator God needed.

[SteveII]

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


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?

I don't think Spinoza is who you want to consult for support, Steve. The same SEP article you quote says:

Spinoza allows for one unique item to be without a cause. In §70 of this treatise, Spinoza argues:

[T]hat Thought is also called true which involves objectively the essence of some principle that does not have a cause, and is known through itself and in itself. (II/26/33–4. Our emphasis)

That makes sense doesn't it. "One unique item" is without cause. But that is a rather unique an mysterious item that doesn't have a cause isn't it? We mortals could hardly fathom such a thing. The KCA places a god in the fog of our bewilderment. That's the whole problem with premise 4.

First, (4) is not a premise. I numbered it for reference, but clearly kept it separate from the 3-part argument that ended in a 'therefore'. It is the conclusion of what type of cause must be the first cause, because really, that is the point of this whole endeavor. In other words, the KCA seeks to show that a cause is needed for the universe. Only then, can we discuss what attributes that cause would have.

Regarding Spinoza's quick reference to God, all he has done is describe a necessary being (versus a contingent being). Since a necessary being never begins to exist, it, by definition, does not have a cause. You cannot infer any properties of God from that quick reference. The inference to what properties a cause of the universe might have is discussed down below. 

"To stop an infinite regress of causes, the cause of the universe (or it's predecessor) is an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful."

Where does one gather that this uncaused cause must have all these properties? Show me the logic. I simply don't see it.

I like Spinoza's version way better: "does not have a cause, and is known through itself and in itself." That's all. And, yes, Spinoza does call this principle God, but it isn't any God that theists talk about.

1. Spinoza's God is not personal. It does not care about the affairs of mankind. It isn't self-aware of itself in the sense that we are. It doesn't care about your life or anyone else's.
2. It is not a creator. It is "nature being nature." It is itself all that is. It did not deliberately create the cosmos. God just "happened" and we are all part of it.
3. As for beginingless, I cannot say. I'd have to look it up.
4. Spinoza's God is not changeless. It changes.
5. Spinoza's God is not immaterial. In fact, Spinoza's God literally is all material. It's not just material. It is infinite and encompasses all things whether material or immaterial. But to Spinoza, the coffee cup in your hand is God. So is every one of your pubic hairs.
6. Timeless I don't know. What does timeless even mean in this context? Put this one down for a maybe.
7. Spinoza's God is not spaceless. It is space and everything within it. And anything that might exist outside spacial dimensions is also God.
8. I'll give you enormously powerful again because Spinoza's God is all power everywhere. Since it actually is all power, it follows that "enormously powerful" is an appropriate descriptor.

So out of 8 qualities, 2 might match up to Spinoza's conception. Like I said, Spinoza doesn't really help your case. In fact, he obliterates premise 4 by postulating an entity with virtually none of the qualities listed in it.

Where did this list of properties in premise 4 come from? Where are they demonstrated to be necessary in the argument? You see my problem. Give me some logic.

I answered this directly to you in Post#2546:

A cause of the universe must be:

Changeless/timeless: these go together. To be in a timeless state, there can be no change. Since time itself came into existence at the first moments of the universe, prior to that must be a timeless state. 
Immaterial: Since space came into existence at the first moments of the universe, the cause must not be made of at least the material in our universe. Material/physical object need space in which to exists and then you have the question that if space exists, then time exists. 
Personal: Rather than me reword WLC explanation of Ghazali's explanation, here it is:

Finally, Ghazali argued that this Uncaused First Cause must also be a personal being. It’s the only way to explain how an eternal cause can produce an effect with a beginning like the universe.

Here’s the problem: If a cause is sufficient to produce its effect, then if the cause is there, the effect must be there, too. For example, the cause of water’s freezing is the temperature’s being below 0 degrees Celsius. If the temperature has been below 0 degrees from eternity, then any water around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless. So why isn’t the universe permanently there as well? Why did the universe come into being only 14 billion years ago? Why isn’t it as permanent as its cause?

Ghazali maintained that the answer to this problem is that the First Cause must be a personal being endowed with freedom of the will. His creating the universe is a free act which is independent of any prior determining conditions. So his act of creating can be something spontaneous and new. Freedom of the will enables one to get an effect with a beginning from a permanent, timeless cause. Thus, we are brought not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe but to its Personal Creator.

[possibletarian]

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.

---

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. 

I was kind of hoping for a proof of a god, not a video telling us how improbable life (as we know it) is, a fact we already knew. Even when i was a Christian I had discarded this as evidence of anything but chance. Especially as there is growing consensus of a type of string theory, which if true could possibly mean that life is not only probable, but inevitable.

The main argument seems to have been arguing that without multiple conditions being met then life would or could not have come to being, that there would not have been.

No Stars
No Planets
No life

Well unfortunately that's exactly where the universe is heading (except the planets perhaps)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/2015060...iverse-end

Not what one would expect of an intelligent design, the universe will only contain human (and maybe other) life for a fraction of it's existence, long before our lovingly created planet alone gets swallowed by a red giant life will cease to be.
https://www.space.com/22471-red-giant-stars.html

The universe in fact looks more like it obeys natural laws rather than intelligently designed ones i will spare you the usual lecture about how insignificant we are, supposedly in a universe created just for us. We are not even at its centre. Who creates something so spectacular that they love it so much ''that the very hairs on our head are numbered' and 'not a sparrow falls' and then makes it so insignificant that the numbers make your eyes water

'astronomers put current estimates of the total stellar population at roughly 70 billion trillion (7 x 1022)'. AND COUNTING !!
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy...are-there/

I'm sorry Steve you are simply using a 'god of the gaps' argument, you cannot simply toss a god in there whenever you come across numbers that make your eyes water. In order for the fine tuning argument to hold water we would not only have to have great improbability, but the universe should look like it's intelligently designed, rather than be the chaos it is. In any case this is not scientific proof of anything, other than the odds are great, and that's after making lots of assumptions as outlined in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR79HDEf...e=youtu.be