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

[GrandizerII]

For Steve:

Logical Fallacy: Affirming the Consequent

[RoadRunner79]

I'm not sure how things went from Odin, to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.  However, sometimes I think that things can be lost in the back and forth such as here in the KCA.  So here are a few thoughts on the conversation. 

There are number of fallacious claims, that seem to be flung at the KCA.  Many of them are very much wrong, some plain bad.  I won't go over the bad claims.  One of the stronger claims of fallacy is perhaps the claim that there is equivocation in the phrase "begins to exist".  However I think that this is just a misunderstanding, and at least for myself, I am not using the phrase in two different ways.  The fallacy of equivocation is something like JimBob is Greek, Greek is a language, therefore JimBob is a language.  This is obviously wrong, and the problem comes in that the word "Greek" is no being used in the same way, and there isn't the relationship between the two  premises.  What I have seen (and what I mean) by "begins to exist"  is that it comes into being, or that it was not, and now is.  That which begins to exist, needs a reason or explanation for that beginning.

Now an issue of the discussion.  Steve had mentioned, that the argument is more likely than not.  From which a discussion became about the mathematics and probabilities.   Here I would argue, that there is an equivocation.   That "likely" or "probable" in an inductive or logical sense, is not the same as in the mathematical sense.  I can somewhat understand, the tendency to put numbers on confidence levels, but I have always thought it is a mistake to then take these numbers and start applying them in a math or science type scenario.   The number is based on something tangible but is little more than the persons sense of what is.  I don't think it is accurately representing the situation, to say that 3 our of 5 times the universe had a cause, and the other 2 it just poofed into being without reason. 

Which brings us to the question at hand.  Are things that begin to exist contingent (dependent on) something else for it's existence. Do things just poof into existence without cause or explanation?  What would keep things from poofing into being all the time?  Are there limits to what nothing can do?  For me, I would say that this is not just more likely, but it is close to a basic principle.  I would say, that I am beyond just skeptical of it.  To go agaisnt the principle of ex nihilo nihil fit and not just asking someone to accept a claim without reason or explanation; but, asking them to accept something that at it's core is without reason or explanation.  My belief is that of the early propagators of science, that the universe is logical and that things do not happen without reason (which would include the beginning of the universe).  I not only believe that an effects needs an explanation for the effect, but that it needs a sufficient cause.  This brings us back to the question of what are the limits of nothing? 

So the question is, which do you think is more likely?   Do things poof into existence without cause, or does everything that begins to exist have a reason for that beginning.  Does it make a difference, that this argument is used as part of a larger argument for God (a rhetorical question)? Would you be consistent if nothing was offered in an argument by a Christian?   If we allow for this, then what can we deny?  For me, to go against the principle from nothing; nothing comes, is going to be similar to accepting a contradiction.   Even if observations appear to indicate that this is so, it's just irrational, and there must be a mistake in what we think we are seeing, or our reasons.

[The Grand Nudger]

Wall of irrelevance.  I think that caused things have causes.  Get back to me when that has anything to do with a god.

[Succubus]

RoadRunner, I'm afraid whatever point you're trying to make is lost in verbosity.

[polymath257]

I'm not sure how things went from Odin, to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.  However, sometimes I think that things can be lost in the back and forth such as here in the KCA.  So here are a few thoughts on the conversation. 

There are number of fallacious claims, that seem to be flung at the KCA.  Many of them are very much wrong, some plain bad.  I won't go over the bad claims.  One of the stronger claims of fallacy is perhaps the claim that there is equivocation in the phrase "begins to exist".  However I think that this is just a misunderstanding, and at least for myself, I am not using the phrase in two different ways.  The fallacy of equivocation is something like JimBob is Greek, Greek is a language, therefore JimBob is a language.  This is obviously wrong, and the problem comes in that the word "Greek" is no being used in the same way, and there isn't the relationship between the two  premises.  What I have seen (and what I mean) by "begins to exist"  is that it comes into being, or that it was not, and now is.  That which begins to exist, needs a reason or explanation for that beginning.

Now an issue of the discussion.  Steve had mentioned, that the argument is more likely than not.  From which a discussion became about the mathematics and probabilities.   Here I would argue, that there is an equivocation.   That "likely" or "probable" in an inductive or logical sense, is not the same as in the mathematical sense.  I can somewhat understand, the tendency to put numbers on confidence levels, but I have always thought it is a mistake to then take these numbers and start applying them in a math or science type scenario.   The number is based on something tangible but is little more than the persons sense of what is.  I don't think it is accurately representing the situation, to say that 3 our of 5 times the universe had a cause, and the other 2 it just poofed into being without reason. 

Which brings us to the question at hand.  Are things that begin to exist contingent (dependent on) something else for it's existence. Do things just poof into existence without cause or explanation?  What would keep things from poofing into being all the time?  Are there limits to what nothing can do?  For me, I would say that this is not just more likely, but it is close to a basic principle.  I would say, that I am beyond just skeptical of it.  To go agaisnt the principle of ex nihilo nihil fit and not just asking someone to accept a claim without reason or explanation; but, asking them to accept something that at it's core is without reason or explanation.  My belief is that of the early propagators of science, that the universe is logical and that things do not happen without reason (which would include the beginning of the universe).  I not only believe that an effects needs an explanation for the effect, but that it needs a sufficient cause.  This brings us back to the question of what are the limits of nothing? 

So the question is, which do you think is more likely?   Do things poof into existence without cause, or does everything that begins to exist have a reason for that beginning.  Does it make a difference, that this argument is used as part of a larger argument for God (a rhetorical question)? Would you be consistent if nothing was offered in an argument by a Christian?   If we allow for this, then what can we deny?  For me, to go against the principle from nothing; nothing comes, is going to be similar to accepting a contradiction.   Even if observations appear to indicate that this is so, it's just irrational, and there must be a mistake in what we think we are seeing, or our reasons.

Given what we know of quantum field theories, it is far more likely that things pop into existence without cause.

What limits this process? The size of Planck's constant. Subatomic particles are far more likely to pop into and out of existence than larger things. Electron-positron pairs are more likely to pop into existence than Z-particles or massive quarks.

And, this appears to be simply a fundamental aspect of 'nothing'--i.e, the vacuum. Other than the rather self-referential 'explanation' that the laws of physics say that such probabilities exist (which is more of a description, than a derivation), this seems to be a bare fact about the universe we live in.

Furthermore, we have good, observational and theoretical reasons to think this lack of causality is basic to the nature of our universe. Causality as most people think about it derives from an average of these probabilistic events and isn't itself fundamental.

[GrandizerII]

There are number of fallacious claims, that seem to be flung at the KCA.  Many of them are very much wrong, some plain bad.  I won't go over the bad claims.  One of the stronger claims of fallacy is perhaps the claim that there is equivocation in the phrase "begins to exist".  However I think that this is just a misunderstanding, and at least for myself, I am not using the phrase in two different ways.  The fallacy of equivocation is something like JimBob is Greek, Greek is a language, therefore JimBob is a language.  This is obviously wrong, and the problem comes in that the word "Greek" is no being used in the same way, and there isn't the relationship between the two  premises.  What I have seen (and what I mean) by "begins to exist"  is that it comes into being, or that it was not, and now is.  That which begins to exist, needs a reason or explanation for that beginning.

And yet, in the B-theory sense of time, "begins to exist" is different from "begins to exist" in the A-theory sense of time. Under the B-theory of time, it is possible for the universe to have a beginning to its existence without ever coming into being. Even WLC himself acknowledges this when he uses the analogy of a ruler to illustrate the point. Just because the ruler has a starting unit mark doesn't mean the ruler comes into being the moment the first unit is marked.

So keep this in mind if you still wish to avoid equivocating.

And the way Steve has defined "begins to exist", even your god itself had to have had a beginning to its existence.

So there are problems with the KCA, lots of problems, and neither you nor Steve seem ready to address them in an effective manner.

Now an issue of the discussion.  Steve had mentioned, that the argument is more likely than not.  From which a discussion became about the mathematics and probabilities.   Here I would argue, that there is an equivocation.   That "likely" or "probable" in an inductive or logical sense, is not the same as in the mathematical sense.  I can somewhat understand, the tendency to put numbers on confidence levels, but I have always thought it is a mistake to then take these numbers and start applying them in a math or science type scenario.   The number is based on something tangible but is little more than the persons sense of what is.  I don't think it is accurately representing the situation, to say that 3 our of 5 times the universe had a cause, and the other 2 it just poofed into being without reason.

So you're not comfortable with numbers. Big deal. People need not cater to your weaknesses and insecurities in order to point out the flaws in an argument.

Which brings us to the question at hand.  Are things that begin to exist contingent (dependent on) something else for it's existence. Do things just poof into existence without cause or explanation?  What would keep things from poofing into being all the time?  Are there limits to what nothing can do?  For me, I would say that this is not just more likely, but it is close to a basic principle.  I would say, that I am beyond just skeptical of it.  To go agaisnt the principle of ex nihilo nihil fit and not just asking someone to accept a claim without reason or explanation; but, asking them to accept something that at it's core is without reason or explanation.  My belief is that of the early propagators of science, that the universe is logical and that things do not happen without reason (which would include the beginning of the universe).  I not only believe that an effects needs an explanation for the effect, but that it needs a sufficient cause.  This brings us back to the question of what are the limits of nothing?

Shall I remind you it's not atheists, but theists, arguing that things can come from literal "nothing" (in the philosophical sense). You tell me what the limits of "nothing" are. I'm all too willing to play by the rules of human intuition in addressing the argument, yet you theists seem to be ok with the prospect of things arising without material cause, which itself is unintuitive. So what's the point of arguing from intuition for premise 1 when you are ok with being selective of which intuitive ideas to assert as always true and which to dismiss as not always true? Really, it's not intuition that is the main mover (pun intended) behind your defense of premise 1. It's the overall desperate need to have your god exist that is driving you to defend premise 1 (and the whole argument).

[RoadRunner79]

---

I'm not sure how things went from Odin, to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.  However, sometimes I think that things can be lost in the back and forth such as here in the KCA.  So here are a few thoughts on the conversation. 

There are number of fallacious claims, that seem to be flung at the KCA.  Many of them are very much wrong, some plain bad.  I won't go over the bad claims.  One of the stronger claims of fallacy is perhaps the claim that there is equivocation in the phrase "begins to exist".  However I think that this is just a misunderstanding, and at least for myself, I am not using the phrase in two different ways.  The fallacy of equivocation is something like JimBob is Greek, Greek is a language, therefore JimBob is a language.  This is obviously wrong, and the problem comes in that the word "Greek" is no being used in the same way, and there isn't the relationship between the two  premises.  What I have seen (and what I mean) by "begins to exist"  is that it comes into being, or that it was not, and now is.  That which begins to exist, needs a reason or explanation for that beginning.

Now an issue of the discussion.  Steve had mentioned, that the argument is more likely than not.  From which a discussion became about the mathematics and probabilities.   Here I would argue, that there is an equivocation.   That "likely" or "probable" in an inductive or logical sense, is not the same as in the mathematical sense.  I can somewhat understand, the tendency to put numbers on confidence levels, but I have always thought it is a mistake to then take these numbers and start applying them in a math or science type scenario.   The number is based on something tangible but is little more than the persons sense of what is.  I don't think it is accurately representing the situation, to say that 3 our of 5 times the universe had a cause, and the other 2 it just poofed into being without reason. 

Which brings us to the question at hand.  Are things that begin to exist contingent (dependent on) something else for it's existence. Do things just poof into existence without cause or explanation?  What would keep things from poofing into being all the time?  Are there limits to what nothing can do?  For me, I would say that this is not just more likely, but it is close to a basic principle.  I would say, that I am beyond just skeptical of it.  To go agaisnt the principle of ex nihilo nihil fit and not just asking someone to accept a claim without reason or explanation; but, asking them to accept something that at it's core is without reason or explanation.  My belief is that of the early propagators of science, that the universe is logical and that things do not happen without reason (which would include the beginning of the universe).  I not only believe that an effects needs an explanation for the effect, but that it needs a sufficient cause.  This brings us back to the question of what are the limits of nothing? 

So the question is, which do you think is more likely?   Do things poof into existence without cause, or does everything that begins to exist have a reason for that beginning.  Does it make a difference, that this argument is used as part of a larger argument for God (a rhetorical question)? Would you be consistent if nothing was offered in an argument by a Christian?   If we allow for this, then what can we deny?  For me, to go against the principle from nothing; nothing comes, is going to be similar to accepting a contradiction.   Even if observations appear to indicate that this is so, it's just irrational, and there must be a mistake in what we think we are seeing, or our reasons.

---

Given what we know of quantum field theories, it is far more likely that things pop into existence without cause.

What limits this process? The size of Planck's constant. Subatomic particles are far more likely to pop into and out of existence than larger things. Electron-positron pairs are more likely to pop into existence than Z-particles or massive quarks.

And, this appears to be simply a fundamental aspect of 'nothing'--i.e, the vacuum. Other than the rather self-referential 'explanation' that the laws of physics say that such probabilities exist (which is more of a description, than a derivation), this seems to be a bare fact about the universe we live in.

Furthermore, we have good, observational and theoretical reasons to think this lack of causality is basic to the nature of our universe. Causality as most people think about it derives from an average of these probabilistic events and isn't itself fundamental.

It seems that you appeal to a number of things as causes in this. As well, you by nothing (like L. Krauss) you seem to mean something rather than no thing. Where I would quibble, is that I do not believe that the laws of physics is a thing in and of it self. It is a description for the logical way in which things behave (Note: not nothing... well perhaps for some people).

I'm going to need more than a claim, to drop the belief in causality. I'm not willing to just take it on faith, because as we can see, there is some equivocating which is sometimes taken advantage of. Personally, I need a testimony of what was done, what was observed, and then specifics as to how it is determined to be without cause. For some skeptics I have heard, even the testimony of others would not be enough for such an extraordinary claim. Some may not believe, if they saw it themselves. The problem I have, is that this is the type of claim, that involves more than simple observation.

[GrandizerII]

I'm going to need more than a claim, to drop the belief in causality.

You already have, lol. You don't believe that things "that begin to exist" need material to arise from. Why do you reject causality?

[Amarok]

I'm going to need more than a claim, to drop the belief in causality.

You already have, lol. You don't believe that things "that begin to exist" need material to arise from. Why do you reject causality?

Roads power to shoot himself in the foot strikes again 

And we don't need more than a claim to drop causality. It's steve and road making boastful proclamations about were causality must apply .

[downbeatplumb]

Given what we know of quantum field theories, it is far more likely that things pop into existence without cause.

What limits this process? The size of Planck's constant. Subatomic particles are far more likely to pop into and out of existence than larger things. Electron-positron pairs are more likely to pop into existence than Z-particles or massive quarks.

And, this appears to be simply a fundamental aspect of 'nothing'--i.e, the vacuum. Other than the rather self-referential 'explanation' that the laws of physics say that such probabilities exist (which is more of a description, than a derivation), this seems to be a bare fact about the universe we live in.

Furthermore, we have good, observational and theoretical reasons to think this lack of causality is basic to the nature of our universe. Causality as most people think about it derives from an average of these probabilistic events and isn't itself fundamental.

It seems that you appeal to a number of things as causes in this.  As well, you by nothing (like L. Krauss) you seem to mean something rather than no thing.  Where I would quibble, is that I do not believe that the laws of physics is a thing in and of it self.  It is a description for the logical way in which things behave (Note: not nothing... well  perhaps for some people).  

I'm going to need more than a claim, to drop the belief in causality.  I'm not willing to just take it on faith, because as we can see, there is some equivocating which is sometimes taken advantage of.  Personally, I need a testimony of what was done, what was observed, and then specifics as to how it is determined to be without cause.   For some skeptics I have heard, even the testimony of others would not be enough for such an extraordinary claim.  Some may not believe, if they saw it themselves.  The problem I have, is that this is the type of claim, that involves more than simple observation.

You alleged "god" is supposedly a sentient thing with powers, where did it come from and how did it acquire the powers and the stuff and time make the universe? Where did it exist before it did all that?

Positing a god only adds questions that I have never seen any theist even try to answer.