Does the first cause theory depend on special pleading?

[achilles12604]

No less than 3 (cog,goat and duke) non -theists have accused me of using a logical fallacy of special pleading with regard to my idea of the first cause theory.

HISTORY:

From The God Hypothesis

Concerning this topic I put forth the following:

If the universe did begin, it must have had a cause. Nothing comes from nothing. If nothing happened or existed, then nothing would be the result. Obviously something happened because we are here. So something changed. Changes require causes.

This cause had to have certain requirements.

1) It must have been space less or at the very least outside of the confines of this universe.

2) It must have been timeless. Time it is shown by Einstein and others after him directly interacts with matter and space inside this universe. It is a factor which exists inside this universe. If there was no universe then there would be nothing to interact with. Hence the cause of the universe must be timeless.

I followed this with :

First you need to define a person. Then define the start of the person.

then you can identify the cause of that start. What you have done is list a series of results of different causes. But each of these steps had a cause which allowed it to be so. Likewise each of these steps would not have occurred except that something took place. Without that something, the step would not have occurred.

Lets say (because I am personally against abortion) that a person exists after conception. Before conception it is not a person but rather two sets of genes.

The genes come together and combine DNA which begins the growth process.

Strictly speaking the combining of the DNA is what caused the person to exist.

Quote:
Why must the existence of the universe have a cause? I'm not particularly well versed on universe theory, but I am aware that there is a line of thought whereby this universe is one in a long line of universes that expand, collapse, expand, collapse. Do they need a cause?


I am familiar with this theory. It is no longer accepted by scientists in every secular area of society (not to mention Christian).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_theory

Each step has a cause all the way back to the formation of the universe. So we are back at the "first cause".

I am making one assumption. That the universe did have a cause. However I am making this assumption based on 100% of the observable data ever collected or witnessed by mankind since our existence. There has never been an occurrence which did not have a cause.


If the universe was uncaused, and yet began, then you must explain how nothing changed, and yet the universe changed. It is a logical impossibility. Either the universe (or something which became the universe) changed, or nothing happened. But we know something happened, so something changed. Changes require causes. And around we go.

To this I received the following replies:

Cogitoergosum wrote:
What caused God to exist?
Or are you going to invent a special plea for GOD.

achilles12604 wrote:

Now if the universe began to exist and thus needed a cause, this cause had to meet certain criteria.

Criteria that you will invent to fit GOD.

Duke of Vandals wrote:

Cogitoergosum wrote:
What caused God to exist?
Or are you going to invent a special plea for GOD.

Cogi has asked an important question one which Christians do create special pleas for.

Goat Wrote:
You then declare God to be the one thing that 'always' existed, thereby giving
God an attribute that is not given to anything else. Because you say evertying was 'caused' to exist but god, you are using the logical fallacy of "Special Pleading".

From http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... ading.html

Quote:
Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


You are giving the special attribute to God of 'not being caused', and evertying else to 'have a cause'. There is no reason to do that, except to try to 'define' god into place.

So lets investigate the possibility of me using a special pleading in my logic.


Using Goats link to special pleading fallacies we get the definition of special pleading.

Description of Special Pleading

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
2. Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
3. Therefore A is exempt from S.

The person committing Special Pleading is claiming that he is exempt from certain principles or standards yet he provides no good reason for his exemption. That this sort of reasoning is fallacious is shown by the following extreme example:

1. Barbara accepts that all murderers should be punished for their crimes.
2. Although she murdered Bill, Barbara claims she is an exception because she really would not like going to prison.
3. Therefore, the standard of punishing murderers should not be applied to her.

This is obviously a blatant case of special pleading. Since no one likes going to prison, this cannot justify the claim that Barbara alone should be exempt from punishment.

Using their breakdown I will hence forth apply it in this manner:

G = God
U = Universe
CTC = criteria for cause


The claim made by these three non-theists is that I am using special pleading in reference to God.

The case I made about the universe is that anything which begins to exist must have a cause. Despite goat's demands that I prove this, it is a universally accepted scientific theory. If goat wants to debate this universally accepted fact then start a thread on it and I would like Goat to back up his demand for proof with at least ONE scientific source (author, magazine, anything at all) which agrees with him claim that something can in fact come from nothing and that things spontaneously occur without any reason what so ever.

Moving on with THIS topic, I made the following claims:

1) Anything which begins to exist, must have a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

3) Therefore the universe must have a cause.

So long as my one assumption (anything that begins to exist must have a cause) is correct, this logic follows along correctly. So there is no fallacy here.

Next I wrote that the cause for the universe must have several attributes.

(disclaimer: before beginning I would like to point out that I am aware of the multiverse theory and that this totally unproven theory allows for the cause of THIS universe to be within another space and time. But then the problem is simply moved out one more universe so for the sake of moving the topic at hand along, I am going to assume only this universe exists)

1) It must be space less. By this I mean it must be outside the confines of the universe it created. This is because the cause of the universe can not depend on the universe's existence. Since the universe (remember my disclaimer) encompasses all matter, anything without anything, (no matter, space,etc) can be defined as space less.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_a ... 0902a.html

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/as ... AST224.HTM
Author: janette l gubala
What is beyond space?

Response #: 1 of 1
Author: asmith
Nothing! Either space goes on forever (is infinite) or it comes back around
in some kind of closed loop, but the way we understand space right now, it
is impossible for it to have any edges, and so there is no direction you
could point and say "50 yards in that direction space ends". Since there
are not any ends, there is not really any way to understand what "beyond"
means. But there could be other things that "exist" that are somehow
outside our own universe - parallel universes!

2) It must be timeless since without reference to space, time is meaningless. Einsteins theories show us the direct correlation of time and matter.

Now the universe does not fit these two criteria for obvious reasons. Therefore going back to my original point, the universe (U) can not fit the criteria for the cause of the universe (CFC).


Christian theology presents a God which does fit these criteria however. We portray him as both outside space and timeless. Also the design of God came BEFORE the criteria for creation.

So the argument we are just designing God to fit the criteria isn't valid since God pre-dates the criteria.

We can not be molding the criteria to fit God because the criteria for the cause of the universe is fixed. For example I could not make the claim that being 5'5" was a criteria for the cause of the universe because it invalidates the logical order of things because for anything to be 5'5" it must have something to compare to and it must already exist, both of which are impossible without the universe's existence.

So we Christians present a God whose characterizes were in existence before the question about the criteria for cause of the universe was asked. It is just a happy coincidence that the criteria of God and the criteria for the cause of the universe are the same. (or is it?)



IS MY ARGUMENT SPECIAL PLEADING?

The person committing Special Pleading is claiming that he is exempt from certain principles or standards yet he provides no good reason for his exemption.

This is the key sentence in deciding if I am guilty of special pleading or not. The standards I have set for the universe and deny for God fall into my first premise:

[center]Whatever begins to exist requires a cause[/center]

I say that this premise DOES apply to the universe and it DOES NOT apply to God.

Here is my reasoning for this.

Why it does apply to the universe:

Within this universe, every experience and experiment conducted by mankind shows that if nothing happens, then nothing happens. If you do not plant a seed, then a tree will not grow. However if a tree does grow, then a seed MUST have been planted. There is no alternative. Since this rule is consistent throughout the entire universe, it is logical to think that this same law applies to the universe itself. In addition to this we have evidence of such a beginning. We have discovered the once hypothetical background radiation which would have followed an explosive beginning to the universe. Red light shift indicates that all other galaxies are moving away from us. This would be very likely if the universe did have an explosive beginning but unlikely if the universe always was.

Why it does not apply to God:

Did God begin to exist? Scientifically there is no answer. The only answer can be found in theology and that answer is no.

It is important to remember here that I am not changing or reinventing God so he fits with the criteria of this argument. The idea that God was eternal dates back to at least the writing of genesis which is well before the BCE./CE switch. So I am not fitting the facts to God, not am I fitting God to the facts. They are both the same.

Once again the CFC of the universe is fixed. If the universe began (which is an accepted analysis of science), then its cause must fall within certain guidelines, which I established. The fact that the God described in the bible happens to fit these guidelines is not the product of theology but rather of coincidence.


CONCLUSION:

With my reasons for applying the criteria to the universe and not to God in mind I can safely say that I have not committed the logical fallacy of special pleading.

The only case in which I would have done this is if God was supposed to be held to the same standards as everything else within this universe. From Goat's source :

[center]2. Person A is in circumstance(s) C.[/center]

But the God of Christianity does not fit into the circumstances applied to the universe. The laws of the universe don't apply to God simply due to his nature.

Looking at this from the other side, if the laws of this universe applied to God, then god could not have been the first cause because he would be dependent on the universe. But then we are still left with the problem of the cause of the universe.

In essence what I am trying to say in as lengthy manner as possible is that whatever caused the universe, IS NOT bound by the laws of this universe. Therefore, I can not be guilty of special pleading because person A (God) is not in the circumstances described for and applied to the universe itself.

[The Duke of Vandals]

ONE MORE GENERAL QUESTION FOR NON-THEISTS

The entire premise for a special pleading fallacy is that both item A and item B have the same criteria.

However, the first cause argument DEMANDS that item A (the universe) and item B (The multiverse,God,Aliens,Etc) have extreamly different characteristics.



How on earth can this result in a special pleading?

More evidence of your interest in evading and arguing dishonestly. It's been explained quite clearly to you by multiple individuals that the special pleading at issues is your claim that god has no cause. You have not established that it's possible for things to not have a cause. You must do this with your next post or concede the debate.

[The Duke of Vandals]

the only thing that needed to exist was the DESCRIPTION of him to compare to the criteria for the universe.

Evidence the criteria in your next post to this thread or you concede.

Your ability to conceptualize a thing does not evidence that thing nor prove it possible.

[MrWhy]

Is there an option overlooked here that changes the premise?

Is the Big Bang the point where the universe begin to exist, or is it the point where is begin to exist in the current state? For the premise to be sound, don't we have to accept the assumption that the universer came, or was created from nothing.

If we are going to speculate about beginnings (god or the universe) why not speculate that the current universe is a change of state instead of a beginning or creation from nothing. We have no info on what the other state may have been, but we also don't have any info on a god.

Is this a debate about which conjecture is based on the least ignorance?

[Confused]

Achilles:

My entire argument consists of two phases. The physical, and then my hypothesis. Is this not how science itself tests things? It takes the known and then creates a hypothesis about an unknown.

Ok, the scientific method is where this whole thing is failing in my eyes. The method begins with the observation of FACTS. These observations are then put in the format of a HYPOTHESIS. The hypothesis is then tested and retested to determine its validity and reliability. It then becomes a THEORY. A hypothesis is a prediction of the cause, outcome, relationship, etc... of one or more OBSERVED facts. Your hypothesis is failing on the priciple of mixing a testable observation with a nontestable observation but saying that this is ok because it is accepted amongst theology. No, it isn't. It is a special plea at best, a false dilemma for sure. I have attempted to find some sort of blend between science and theology without resorting to the weak concept of the anthropic principle, but it isn't possible because religion sets its beliefs on what is common in scripture. Unproven, mostly untestable information. You can accept God had no beginning, but I cannot. Not unless you can back that assertion with something that is credible and non-biased. In other words, scripture cannot logically prove scripture.

Yes. This is exactly what I am implying. God never began to exist. He ALWAYS existed. Just as FinalEnigma believes that energy always existed (a theory which I actually find interesting and possible even within the confines of my theological "box".)

Ok, when FinalEnigma can prove to me that energy has always existed, then we can discuss that on another thread. But I require proof of your assertion that God never began to exist if you are to use logical reasoning and/or attempt to move from the physical to the metaphysical (theological) realm and not create fallacies.

There are MANY indicators which imply and even necessitate a beginning to this universe. The entropy of the universe is one of them. If the universe was eternal then the state of entropy of this universes energy would be constant and even. But this is not the case which necessitates that THIS universe had a beginning. Background radiation discovered indicates and matches up with the big bang therom perfectly (in fact it was predicted long before it was discovered). The red light shift of all galaxies proves that every other galaxy is moving away from us at a high rate of speed. One possible cause for this is the big bang which again necessitates a beginning.

But doens't necessitate a cause to begin. Only the result of one.

I am only making one jump from the physical to the metaphysical and that is at the point of the beginning of the universe. And at this point, that jump is not only appropriate, but necessary since we go from talking about the physical to the metaphysical.


Regardless of whether or not the jump was needed, you can't jump from the physical to the metaphysical without providing a means for doing so.


My means was hypothesis. I made this just as a hypothetical explanation for the cause of the universe. Perhaps my very recent conversation with QED will clear up my claims a bit.

But your hypothesis is used in the context of the scientific method which can only describe the natural and testable. We cannot know if God had a beginning or a cause because we cannot test this.



I will leave your debate with QED to him. It doesn't realy answer how you can make the jump from a supernatural realm to a natural realm without proof.

Quote:
If you cannot explain how God can exist outside of time and space (outside of the physical) then how can you postulate anything about Him coming into existence or not?

True but now you are demanding that I provide scientific evidence for a theological viewpoint that I don't hold.

I am not arguing wholly from science, and I am not arguing wholly from theology.

I am showing that using logic I can take the known facts from science . . . .

And the premises offered in Christian theology . . . .

and provide a POSSIBLE identity for the cause of the universe.

True, but as you say, science isn't meant to be used to prove theology. You can't just assume a scientific proposition and apply it to a nonscientific proposition and expect the logic to make sense.

Quote:
You can only hypothesize that He has always existed without anything to back that assertion outside of philosophy. Ok, once again, physical to metaphysical without any point of reference.

This is true. However it is also not necessary for my argument. I don't have to prove the existence of God before suggesting how it can fit in with the universe.

Take my signature man for example. He knew the equations he spouted were true and accurate. But he couldn't prove them to be so. E=MC2 wasn't even able to be tested until after his death. Originally it was thought to be total junk by many of his colleagues.

So why is it I must prove God's plausibility before I can use the ideas of him presented in the bible in a hypothesis?

Because Einsteins equation was able to be tested. The ideas of God in the bible will never be testable because they weren't meant to testable.

[Confused]

GENERAL QUESTION TO ALL NON_THEISTS


Why do I have to prove God's existence before I can show that the criteria for the first cause MATCHES the description of him in the bible?

Becaue the first cause is being applied to the natural, you can't compare the natural and supernatural without facts, not assumptions. If you wish to do it logically, then you must logically show why God has always existed, then show logically, the first cause of the universe.

[Confused]

ONE MORE GENERAL QUESTION FOR NON-THEISTS

The entire premise for a special pleading fallacy is that both item A and item B have the same criteria.

However, the first cause argument DEMANDS that item A (the universe) and item B (The multiverse,God,Aliens,Etc) have extreamly different characteristics.



How on earth can this result in a special pleading?

Because you are comparing them as if they were. You are saying that the universe had a first cause, but God didn't have to. You are making God exempt from your criteria demanding a first cause.

[Confused]

Is there an option overlooked here that changes the premise?

Is the Big Bang the point where the universe begin to exist, or is it the point where is begin to exist in the current state? For the premise to be sound, don't we have to accept the assumption that the universer came, or was created from nothing.

If we are going to speculate about beginnings (god or the universe) why not speculate that the current universe is a change of state instead of a beginning or creation from nothing. We have no info on what the other state may have been, but we also don't have any info on a god.

Is this a debate about which conjecture is based on the least ignorance?

Good questions. What existed prior to the big bang. Something had to be here in order to release the materials required to make the universe, so was the big bang really the beginning?

No, I don't think it is about the least ignorance, I think it is more about one wanting to win or force the other to lose rather than learning and adapting. But what do I know?

[FinalEnigma]

Ok, when FinalEnigma can prove to me that energy has always existed, then we can discuss that on another thread.

I dont even think i can prove the eternal existence of energy. Also, i am so far quite stumped by the entropy problem. Even within the confines of a limited universe, eventually it would seem that everything would reach a state of equilibrium where all energy is evenly distributed. Which would make it difficult to explain certain things(like suns...).

But I require proof of your assertion that God never began to exist if you are to use logical reasoning and/or attempt to move from the physical to the metaphysical (theological) realm and not create fallacies.

Indeed, i think this is where we are at now, achilies. You are asserting that the description of god in the bible matches the description of the possible first cause.
We are saying, "Wait a minute...that description doesnt make sense!"
We are doubting that something can have the description attributed to God in the bible. And stating that we cant accept your theory untill you can prove that something is capable of having that description.
(I think that is basically it)

[achilles12604]

But I require proof of your assertion that God never began to exist if you are to use logical reasoning and/or attempt to move from the physical to the metaphysical (theological) realm and not create fallacies.

Indeed, i think this is where we are at now, achilies. You are asserting that the description of god in the bible matches the description of the possible first cause.
We are saying, "Wait a minute...that description doesnt make sense!"
We are doubting that something can have the description attributed to God in the bible. And stating that we cant accept your theory until you can prove that something is capable of having that description.
(I think that is basically it)

Ok this is so far and by far the best summation of your (non-theists) arguments. Thank you for finally presenting the non-theists stance in a manner I am able to grasp with my tiny mind.

Ok let me (for the moment) grant that there is absolutely nothing that exists with this description.

I will admit that under this scenario my argument would be pointless, however I still contest that it would be special pleading. The fact that the result of my argument doesn't exist does not mean the argument was fallacious. It would simply mean that the argument was logically correct, but pointless wouldn't it?

Remember all THIS thread is supposed to investigate is if THIS argument relies on special pleading. I am not trying to evaluate the testability or the argument here.

we cant accept your theory until you can prove that something is capable of having that description.

You can not accept the theory as a valid theory or as a testable and provable theory?

I admit fully that my theory is unprovable at this point. However, this does not necessitate that it is an invalid theory. There is a difference between provable (testable) and logical isn't there?

[Confused]

achilles:
Remember all THIS thread is supposed to investigate is if THIS argument relies on special pleading. I am not trying to evaluate the testability or the argument here.

But to evaluate if this fallacy was created, I need to look at your argument. I am not attempting to determine if your hypothesis is valid or not, only if a fallacy is being presented in your hypothesis and in your assertions to back this hypothesis. By using physical standards to evaluate a first cause, then saying that the second part of your hypothesis doesn't need to meet the physical standards of the first, you create a special plea. It wouldn't be if you weren't asserting that the second part was even remotely related to the first part. But you are. You are saying everything that comes to exist has a cause, but God has always existed so He requires no cause. Logically, you cannot back this assertion. You can logically work through your first cause theory, but logic cannot be applied to God having no first cause. You can only use scripture to back this claim. Your special plea is that the universe had to come into existence so it had to have a first cause, but God doesn't because Christian doctrine says He has always existed.

Logically explain to me how God has always existed and I will gladly accept no false dilemma or special plea has been created.