tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post8484689506790182254..comments2024-03-29T03:30:25.637-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Friday atheist challenge: God Argument Laws of Nature and phsyicsJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-69423802076551521662016-08-01T13:26:38.839-07:002016-08-01T13:26:38.839-07:00that is not my principle. My principle is all we o...<b>that is not my principle. My principle is all we observe is P therefore we should assume P unless empirically contradicted.</b><br /><br />That is the same thing as my principle. You're saying that if we only observe P then we are justified in believing P. I worded it to say "If we never observe P then we are justified in believing ~P". That's the same thing, so you do believe in my principle. Perhaps my use of negation made it look like a different principle. <br /><br />Now the argument I posted wasn't a re-wording of yours. That was my parallel argument responding to your argument. <br /><br /><b>that doesn't follow</b><br /><br />Of course it follows. It follows logically and in the less strict sense of warrant as you might say.<br /><br />Remember the principle is this:<br /><br />Justification principle - for any P, if we have not observed P then we are justified in concluding ~P. <br /><br />1. We have no experience of any being with an efficient cause that is not a material cause.<br /><br />Following the justification principle, if we substitute "P" with "any being with an efficient cause that is not a material cause" then we find that we are justified in believing there is no being with an efficient cause that is not a material cause. So 2 follows from 1 by the justification principle. That is, if the principle is true then we are justified in believing 2 on the basis of 1. <br /><br />Ex-apologist, otherwise known as Felipe Leon, is a philosopher and he very clearly knows a lot about the philosophy of religion. "Classical theism" among Thomist bent philosophers might not define God as a "being", but their use of the term is definitely not standard. Most philosophers probably define classical theism as the theism of the philosophers and do not use terms such as "Theistic personalism" so Ex-apologist isn't doing anything not standard nor indicative of ignorance. <br /><br />You're sort of wrong that the argument is question begging, but it would obviously be circular to the theist. However, the whole point of the argument is to show a parallel reasoning that takes down particular theistic arguments. Ryan Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15738381414795204410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-89589335434889860642016-08-01T07:10:41.519-07:002016-08-01T07:10:41.519-07:00no one is talking about my argument no one has men...no one is talking about my argument no one has mentioned the premises of it., that ex apologist argument has huge flaws. Not the least of which is he can't anything my argument is talking about, he doesn't deal with laws just introduces magic formula the PMC that's taken care of all but he has no proof it exists, he;s only asserting thiat it must because we don't a picture of God at work.<br /><br />that's a real problem because he onlyi goes as far as atoms but sub atomic particles make up atoms we don't know what they are.l we can't say they are material there's a rel question about that, most of that argument turns upon ideological answers that prescribe how it;'supposed to be,Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-64579931479581003582016-08-01T06:58:20.821-07:002016-08-01T06:58:20.821-07:00I will write a blog piece against that guy's a...I will write a blog piece against that guy's argumemt but I',m booked up for a couple of weeks However the new argument I'm introducing should be relevant.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-12400999861798075092016-08-01T06:41:16.546-07:002016-08-01T06:41:16.546-07:00I guess makes me look stupid because I do not unde...I guess makes me look stupid because I do not understand arguments like this.<br /><br />The argument I’ll defend can be expressed as follows:<br />1. All concrete objects that have an originating or sustaining cause have a material cause of their existence.<br />2. If classical theismcvc is true, then the universe is a concrete object that has an originating or sustaining cause without a material cause of its existence.<br />3. Therefore, classical theismcvc is false.<br /><br /><b>all this proves is that if hie';s right hie's right,Ifs', right about God p1 is wrong, whist reason do I have blee e taht p1 is right?: i can't see omne,<br /><br />at best he's begging the question''another thing thiswill be more apparent on Wednesday, he defines classical theism's view of God as "a beoimg" meaning he;'s not eve n aware ov clasical Christian belief</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-84412584790294781562016-08-01T06:25:57.253-07:002016-08-01T06:25:57.253-07:001. We have no experience of any being with an effi...1. We have no experience of any being with an efficient cause that is not a material cause. (Premise)<br /><b>we should not expect to see it because we didn't exist at the time, he's through doing oit</b><br /><br /><br />2. There is no being with an efficient cause that is not a material cause. (From 1 and the principle Joe uses)<br /><br /><br /><b>that doesn't follow</b><br /><br />3. If theism is true and the universe exists then there is a being with an efficient cause that is not a material cause. (Premise)<br />4. It is not the case that theism is true (Conclusion)<br /><br /><b>you take something contradicted by 100% of our experience and make it into trith mnereltu because you can string some sentences together,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-1136350570555182342016-08-01T06:20:06.439-07:002016-08-01T06:20:06.439-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-40385796014745965502016-08-01T04:59:40.649-07:002016-08-01T04:59:40.649-07:00Principle - if we have no experience of P then we ...Principle - if we have no experience of P then we are justified in believing ~P.<br /><br /><b>that is not my principle. My principle is all we observe is P therefore we should assume P unless empirically contradicted.</b> <br /><br />1. We have no experience of any being with an efficient cause that is not a material cause. (Premise)<br />2. There is no being with an efficient cause that is not a material cause. (From 1 and the principle Joe uses)<br />3. If theism is true and the universe exists then there is a being with an efficient cause that is not a material cause. (Premise)<br />4. It is not the case that theism is true (Conclusion)<br /><br />It should be obvious how the conclusion is derived. Our experience seems to confirm premise 1, so by Joe's principle we are justified in believing 2. Since 3 is true, and the universe exists, then we are warranted (As Joe likes to say) in believing the conclusion that theism is false. <br /><br />Ex-apologist has an argument which makes use of parallel reasoning that I believe clearly undercuts Joe's arguments:<br /><br /><b>you keep re wording my arguments</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-63722709483170971462016-07-31T23:40:00.889-07:002016-07-31T23:40:00.889-07:00No the argument does the opposite. Theists accept ...No the argument does the opposite. Theists accept that there must be at least one efficient cause that is not a material cause. i.e. God creating the universe ex nihilo. If the above argument is sound then we can conclude that everything that beings to exist has an efficient material cause so theism would be false. This seems like a parallel argument to Joe's with respect to contingency and natural beings. Ryan Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15738381414795204410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-81021702082387085952016-07-31T18:36:35.635-07:002016-07-31T18:36:35.635-07:00Mike read my piece of a couple of days ago, the ti...<i>Mike read my piece of a couple of days ago, the tie breaker: I think your chaos is just a BF and My tie breaker gives us more.</i><br /><br />Well it might not be a "fact", but be more like a "brute potential" or along the lines of Deleuze's "irrational becoming?" Are those kind of entities "facts" or "things that exist" any more than (a Tillichian) "God" is ... um, or perhaps "isn't"? ;-)<br /><br />I'm also still wondering if you could align these ideas with the "primordial chaos" of any process theist, or are you now committed to a "creation ex nihilo?"Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-34241380632322536952016-07-31T14:19:52.409-07:002016-07-31T14:19:52.409-07:00Ryan, doesn't that syllogism of yours just set...Ryan, doesn't that syllogism of yours just set up Joe's 'mystical experience' arguments? -- ie "a non-material being that IS an effective cause?" ;-)Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-60613705193153557962016-07-31T12:12:23.234-07:002016-07-31T12:12:23.234-07:00"we do observe the result of one or the other..."we do observe the result of one or the other, I have more reasont othink it's the latter than the former, That's a warranted conclusion".<br /><br />Hold on, you're claiming we observe the result of either everything coming into existence from nothing or coming into existence by an eternal divine being. That is a false dichotomy though. <br /><br />Option 1 - the world popped into existence without an efficient cause. <br />OPtion 2 - the world came into existence with an atheistic, eternal efficient cause. <br />Option 3 - the world came into existence with a theistic, eternal efficient cause. <br /><br />There are far more options than just 1 through 3, but since there are more than 2 then we have a false dichotomy in your presentation. <br /><br />Again, by following your reasoning we can create the following parallel reasoning:<br /><br />Principle - if we have no experience of P then we are justified in believing ~P. <br /><br />1. We have no experience of any being with an efficient cause that is not a material cause. (Premise)<br />2. There is no being with an efficient cause that is not a material cause. (From 1 and the principle Joe uses)<br />3. If theism is true and the universe exists then there is a being with an efficient cause that is not a material cause. (Premise)<br />4. It is not the case that theism is true (Conclusion)<br /><br />It should be obvious how the conclusion is derived. Our experience seems to confirm premise 1, so by Joe's principle we are justified in believing 2. Since 3 is true, and the universe exists, then we are warranted (As Joe likes to say) in believing the conclusion that theism is false. <br /><br />Ex-apologist has an argument which makes use of parallel reasoning that I believe clearly undercuts Joe's arguments:<br /><br />http://exapologist.blogspot.ca/2014/12/theism-and-material-causality.htmlRyan Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15738381414795204410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-84845217929178411842016-07-31T11:40:56.274-07:002016-07-31T11:40:56.274-07:00another problem with chaos thing it's falsifia...another problem with chaos thing it's falsifiable. If we accented it we an discord sciece and philosophy.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-55600815730185152672016-07-31T11:39:37.397-07:002016-07-31T11:39:37.397-07:00Mike read my peiceof a couple of daysago the tie b...Mike read my peiceof a couple of daysago the tie breaker I think your chaos is just a bF and My tie breaker gives us more.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-60777002914872322162016-07-31T09:03:23.992-07:002016-07-31T09:03:23.992-07:00ICR is illogical for many reasons. That means it h...<b>ICR is illogical for many reasons. That means it had to either pop into existence or be eternal.</b><br /><br />Well, if all there really is is some form of chaos, many people have no trouble assuming it has existed eternally--"just stuff spinning around"--and Meillasoux would assert that that's the only eternal, necessary thing, the "hyperchaos." So why are you projecting an existing, eternal regularity from a merely finite sample of repeatable effects? There are other (arguable) cases of something "popping out from nothing" too, evolutionistically, not just the Big Bang, but also the emergences of consciousness and then of rationality.<br /><br />Why wouldn't even the laws of regularity themselves just be contingent too? Wouldn't that better satisfy Ockham?Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-59963618051190297722016-07-31T06:26:34.531-07:002016-07-31T06:26:34.531-07:00We also don't observe anything coming into exi...We also don't observe anything coming into existence by divine fiat, so by this reasoning, there is no reason to assume that can happen, either.<br /><br /><b>we do observe the result of one or the other, I have more reasont othink it's the latter than the former, That's a warranted conclusion.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-4382280195782604862016-07-31T06:16:17.959-07:002016-07-31T06:16:17.959-07:00Since we don't observe anything just popping i...<b>Since we don't observe anything just popping into existence there is no reason to assume it could.</b><br />We also don't observe anything coming into existence by divine fiat, so by this reasoning, there is no reason to assume that can happen, either.<br /><br />Eric Sotnakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162425851889399481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-80458642973225809932016-07-31T02:07:54.697-07:002016-07-31T02:07:54.697-07:00It is not based upon empirical observation so the ...It is not based upon empirical observation so the lenght of time observing has nothing to do with it. ICR is illogical for many reasons. That means it had to either pop into existence or be eternal. Since we don't observe anything just popping into existence there is no reason to assume it could. ok that depends upon our empirical observation but it's 100%. There are also background radiation arguments that back it up.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-77689483811963257202016-07-30T21:49:44.676-07:002016-07-30T21:49:44.676-07:00um, that should 'eternality' just above, n...um, that should 'eternality' just above, not externality. Stupid spellchecker....Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-79741629347853044632016-07-30T16:59:43.888-07:002016-07-30T16:59:43.888-07:00Now the secularist skeptic might argue evolution d...<b> Now the secularist skeptic might argue evolution demonstrates an organizing principle producing great complexity and in mindless fashion, While that might be the case the problem is evolution is surely the product of the law-like regularity and not it's cause. Presumably then we need laws to make evolutionary processes work and so we have not explained anything. even so the skeptic can always fall back on the fact that we don't have a world that we know is or is not designed by a mind to which we compare our own world</b><br /><br />Meillasoux's challenge, of course, is why you assume any 'eternal' regularity based on only 1.4 ^10 or so years of measurements--at the most? Then, why isn't M's concept of "surcontingency"--a type of chaos that's so chaotic it might even stay the same indefinitely--a better bet? As the principle of Induction has no rational, non-question-begging ground, where does that leave you, in regards to attempting to prove some externality based only on any finite--and so statement statisticallt insignificant--sample?<br /><br />You're right in that I also can't see why certain kinds of 'Enlightenment-oriented' atheists feel they're able to make some of the assumptions they make. But there's, for me, also a 18th/19th century flavour to your arg here too, upon which a lot of more recent 20th/21rst century science and thought seems to cast some pretty long shadows? <br /><br />WDYT? Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-48872126461713277072016-07-29T02:07:46.451-07:002016-07-29T02:07:46.451-07:00please remember that all of my God arguments are b...please remember that all of my God arguments are based upon not proving God's existence but upon warrant for belief, This is a justification argument belief is rational and warranted. This argument could be made on an abductive bass, as the best explanation. Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com