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.

[achilles12604]

While you are correct about what I believe about God, I specifically made sure that God was not included in my argument until after the argument portion was complete. There are other possibilities. A multiverse where the laws of physics are different would work. This would include alternate characteristics.

So I wasn't specifically refering to God with this portion of #7. Does this make it any better?

Sorry, guess i was reading into it a little based on that i knew where you were going with the argument. Unfair I'll admit. let me rephrase my statement.

Here is where the special pleading argument comes in. You are saying that the laws that require LCE don't apply to said cause, but you give no reason why they shouldn't. LCE is being applied universally(sorry, couldn't resist ) to everything, including anything that would be outside the universe.

The same statement still applies.

I had written something else and then I re-read what you wrote and I don't think it was quite correct.

What reason is there to assume that LCE doesn't apply to the cause for this specific universe?

Well for THIS universe there is no reason to demand a source that doesn't comform to LCE. However, ultimately wouldn't there have to be something that didn't conform to this? Otherwise, if every cause for every cause had its own cause, then you run into an eternal problem without a starting point. Incidentally I think that sort of works for God's favor since this is what I am claiming of God anyway. But that is besides the point.

Don't we HAVE to run into a cause of some sort which exists in conditions outside of the laws of this universe specifically LCE?

Honestly I'm not sure. I don't see why we would have to, but im not certain that we wouldn't either. I'd say I'm more convinced that we wouldn't than that there exists something that is outside the laws that govern everything else. What makes an infinite regress impossible? The simple answer that it doesn't make sense is unacceptable. The non-sensiblility of something doesn't preclude it's truth.

Wouldn't an infinate regress be on par with an infinate God? I have been asked to prove that God didn't ever start, that he was infinate and until I did so, my argument was a special pleading.

How is an infinate regress different from an infiate God other than one is associated with religion while the other isn't?

Well, an infinite regress only posits an infinite period of time. and infinite god calls into existence a whole nother being(object) that defies many of the laws that apply to everything else. I don't see bringing a God into it as entirely justified, when a simpler explination would suffice.

Ok I can see your point of view. Obviously I disagree with the outcome but thats to be expected.

Now for the $20 question. . . Since neither an infinate regress nor a "god" can be proven, and both can fit the descriptions called for by the first cause and both defy the LCE, was my argument really a special pleading or is my analysis and conclusion simply unprovable?

[FinalEnigma]

Ok I can see your point of view. Obviously I disagree with the outcome but thats to be expected.

Now for the $20 question. . . Since neither an infinate regress nor a "god" can be proven, and both can fit the descriptions called for by the first cause and both defy the LCE, was my argument really a special pleading or is my analysis and conclusion simply unprovable?

LCE="For an effect to occur, something had to cause it." correct?

An infinite regress defies the LCE? There is a continuous chain of cause and effect back forever. I'm not sure where it would defy LCE.

[achilles12604]

Ok I can see your point of view. Obviously I disagree with the outcome but thats to be expected.

Now for the $20 question. . . Since neither an infinate regress nor a "god" can be proven, and both can fit the descriptions called for by the first cause and both defy the LCE, was my argument really a special pleading or is my analysis and conclusion simply unprovable?

LCE="For an effect to occur, something had to cause it." correct?

An infinite regress defies the LCE? There is a continuous chain of cause and effect back forever. I'm not sure where it would defy LCE.

Interesting thought.

So we have another possibility.

1) The universe was caused by something outside of LCE.

2) The universe is part of a totally unending chain of beginning universes which has gone on forever and ever.

Interesting.

Ok then here is another question. Is there anything we are aware of which has the ability to counter the entropy tendency and actually re-order the entire universe's energy? Since the tendency of entropy is to reach a state of equalibrium and chaos (pure heat energy without any from or order at all), what would cause totally expired energy to suddenly re-organize itself?

Now granted in other universes, LCE could be totally different and there may not need to be a reason for this re-organization to occur. But in with the laws of THIS universe, there would need to be one correct?

So are we in the final universe, or is there a method to re-organize purely chaotic energy back into matter? My physics is weak but I seem to recall that once energy reaches the total chaos of heat, it is useless as far as matter and organization are concerned. I could be totally off. I am simply brainstorming on this alternate hypothesis. Perhaps you could start a thread on the subject?

[achilles12604]

Ok I can see your point of view. Obviously I disagree with the outcome but thats to be expected.

Now for the $20 question. . . Since neither an infinate regress nor a "god" can be proven, and both can fit the descriptions called for by the first cause and both defy the LCE, was my argument really a special pleading or is my analysis and conclusion simply unprovable?

LCE="For an effect to occur, something had to cause it." correct?

An infinite regress defies the LCE? There is a continuous chain of cause and effect back forever. I'm not sure where it would defy LCE.

I had an afterthought. Since all evidence collected by science holds that entropy of the universe is becoming increasingly disorganized and without an outside source this pattern does not change, wouldn't the claim of sudden re-organization of the energy be in itself a special pleading by the definition attached to my argument? It is a special pleading because we know of no instance where this would occur in nature and it goes against all data collected thus far.

Sorry, I am just shooting from the hip here.

[Schweppes]

In some ways, but in more it is the false dilemma you create. You say that everything must have a cause, nothing can come from nothing. So what is the cause of God (this is the special plea where you say that everything has a cause, but God requires no cause). The false dilemma is when you say the God was the cause to begin with.

God's eternal nature is not special pleading. The argument says that the chain of cause and effect must stop someplace. It must because an infinite causal regress is an arbitrary necessity, and thus a contradiction in logic. This means there must be some form of eternal necessary being. Some example of a thing that has no beginning and no end. That thing we call "God."

God doesn't need a because he doesn't have a begging.. when we say all things that begin need a cause obviously God would not be included, because he doesn't have a begging.

The charge of special pleading is meaingless because there is noting else to compare to. There are no other universes we can study to see if they are created or not.

[Schweppes]

Here is where the special pleading argument comes in. You are saying that the laws that require LCE don't apply to said cause, but you give no reason why they shouldn't. LCE is being applied universally(sorry, couldn't resist ) to everything, including anything that would be outside the universe.

But you see God and the univese are different. God is not contingent and the universe is. There has to be a final cause which itself by defition is not caused. That's what the arguement proves. That is what we call "God." That doesn't mean it's the God of the Bible. No God argument tries to prove which God. But some kind of God is necessary. This isn ot speical pleading, there is no speical pleading becasue we don't have another universe to comare this one to.

[achilles12604]

Here is where the special pleading argument comes in. You are saying that the laws that require LCE don't apply to said cause, but you give no reason why they shouldn't. LCE is being applied universally(sorry, couldn't resist ) to everything, including anything that would be outside the universe.

But you see God and the univese are different. God is not contingent and the universe is. There has to be a final cause which itself by defition is not caused. That's what the arguement proves. That is what we call "God." That doesn't mean it's the God of the Bible. No God argument tries to prove which God. But some kind of God is necessary. This isn ot speical pleading, there is no speical pleading becasue we don't have another universe to comare this one to.

Actually it was FinalEnigma who wrote this. Just for the record.

[Schweppes]

Here is where the special pleading argument comes in. You are saying that the laws that require LCE don't apply to said cause, but you give no reason why they shouldn't. LCE is being applied universally(sorry, couldn't resist ) to everything, including anything that would be outside the universe.

But you see God and the univese are different. God is not contingent and the universe is. There has to be a final cause which itself by defition is not caused. That's what the arguement proves. That is what we call "God." That doesn't mean it's the God of the Bible. No God argument tries to prove which God. But some kind of God is necessary. This isn ot speical pleading, there is no speical pleading becasue we don't have another universe to comare this one to.

Actually it was FinalEnigma who wrote this. Just for the record.

O sorry. I find it hard to follow all those boxes whent hey get down so small.

[Furrowed Brow]

It must because an infinite causal regress is an arbitrary necessity

First off - "arbitrary necessity" is an oxymoron.
Second off - there is only one person I know who can say that with a straight face and that is Metacrock. Is that you Metacrock?

[Schweppes]

It must because an infinite causal regress is an arbitrary necessity

First off - "arbitrary necessity" is an oxymoron.

O I am sorry. I used a technical term and forgot to explain what it means. Please forgive me. This is a term that is used in logic in dealing with these arguments. It means when a contingency is placed in the position of a non contingency to work in that regard. In other words, trying to assume that a contingent thing can do the work of a non contingent thing.

Second off - there is only one person I know who can say that with a straight face and that is Metacrock. Is that you Metacrock?

Well you never posted on CARM when Meta was regarded as the best. but there was a time, before the character assassins at the secular web began spreading lies about him when he was known to be the top Christian apologist. Go ask Bede or Millier or even the CADRE guys what they think of him.

You are making ad homs. you are relying upon character assassination. you should be ashamed.

I have known him for years and went to school with him. From what I've seen here you can't beat him. He's brilliant.