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.

Let’s 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 let’s 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. Einstein’s 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]

I choose option two as described in the bible. Remember this is philosophy,
not science. Science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence. Similarly science can neither prove nor disprove God's eternal nature.

But when you refer to the laws of the universe, you are referring to science. Science is exactly what defines the universe. If philosophy is being used to describe God, then you create a comparison between cats and elephants.

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.

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".)

Then why can I not turn around and say that the universe has always existed? There is just as much proof for it as there is for God always existing.

Actually as of tonight, (and many thanks to Final Enigma) I have been further enlightened as to the possibility of an eternal something. However, our current universe is not one of them.

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.

My purpose of including Quote:
Also the design of God came BEFORE the criteria for creation.
this sentence was to counter a certain argument before it was ever presented.

Then you mislead those who wouldn't have considered the argument you are pre-empting. That alone can lead an OP astray.

I'm sorry. Please forgive me. You are right of course. I appreciate you finding this error and pointing it out so I had a chance to address it right away.

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.

QED wrote
achilles12604 -- As far as hypothesis go, in the absence of any other evidence, an eternal, uncaused God is fully interchangeable with an eternal, uncaused multiverse. This statement is made on the basis that both suspend the need for first cause while filling the need for our providence. If you disagree, then let's focus on your reason.

I see them both as candidate explanations. So how do we set about disambiguating the two notions without straying too far into the realms of imagination? Do we know of any complex entities (intelligences) that don't earn their prowess through some kind of evolution (take this as gradual change from lower to higher complexities)? I don't think so. Do we know of the existence of any "unseen universe"? Yes: One more light-year of our own universe comes into view every orbit round our star. In addition to this particular fact we have many pointers to our universe being other than unique coming out of physics. I'll grant you that we could do right now with the results from a number of more detailed investigations already planned, but I think you'll find very few cosmologists today (with perhaps the notable exception of Paul Davies) that don't accept the very high probability of our horizon cutting us off from some considerably larger state-space for physics.

I think there's a great deal of suspicion among theists who view the Big-Bang as defining the full extent of existence, towards talk of multiverses (hence re-introducing infinities and the absence of beginnings) but there really is no hard data concerning even the extent of our own universe. It may well have infinite extent despite being finitely old -- and nothing more would be required to set up the right Anthropic conditions for our otherwise unlikely existence. There's clearly a "process" at work when we consider the Big-Bang but it has absolutely nothing recognizable to science to label it as an act of God. It could be; equally it could be the work of highly advanced alien civilization -- or the product of some timeless re-genesis within a nexus of universal generation. When it comes to putting probabilities on all these ideas (and that is all they really are at the moment) I think we have to admit they all deserve some non-zero share. That's why Dawkin's resorts to "weasel words" like "almost certainly no God". He knows along with most other critical thinkers that we are in no position to rule in or out any of the hypotheses currently on the table.

But what token of respect does the theist pay to this situation? None, I'm afraid to say, by the very definition of theism.

I replied:

QED wrote:
achilles12604 -- As far as hypothesis go, in the absence of any other evidence, an eternal, uncaused God is fully interchangeable with an eternal, uncaused multiverse. This statement is made on the basis that both suspend the need for first cause while filling the need for our providence. If you disagree, then let's focus on your reason.


I agree wholeheartedly.
Quote:

I see them both as candidate explanations. So how do we set about disambiguating the two notions without straying too far into the realms of imagination? Do we know of any complex entities (intelligences) that don't earn their prowess through some kind of evolution (take this as gradual change from lower to higher complexities)? I don't think so.


True. However all entities available fur us to examine also were created by and through this universe. So we are unable to even test the possibility of complex entities outside of this universe.
Quote:

Do we know of the existence of any "unseen universe"? Yes: One more light-year of our own universe comes into view every orbit round our star.


Perhaps you could explain how this is a separate universe from the one we are currently in? I do not see how the examination of our own universe (or in this case our examination of the new areas of our universe) is equivocal to seeing a new universe. Seeing more of an expanding balloon does not equate to two balloons.


Quote:
In addition to this particular fact we have many pointers to our universe being other than unique coming out of physics. I'll grant you that we could do right now with the results from a number of more detailed investigations already planned, but I think you'll find very few cosmologists today (with perhaps the notable exception of Paul Davies) that don't accept the very high probability of our horizon cutting us off from some considerably larger state-space for physics.


Right. However while this is entirely possible, it still falls in line with your original premise that God and multiverses are currently just as possible and un-testable.

1) I would add that as I have said before, even if a multiverse does exist, this does not negate God's existence.

2) Nor does it eliminate first cause unless and until it is established that totally different laws of physics exist within those universes which allow something from nothing and spontaneous events.

3) And to top it off, everyone of those universes has to exist. By this I mean that the possibility of a universe existing within out own set of physics laws is very minimal. One result of Hawking's calculations was to show us the margin of error for the creation of our own universe. Every one of those other universes would have to occur within some sort of margin of error as well.

Quote:
I think there's a great deal of suspicion among theists who view the Big-Bang as defining the full extent of existence, towards talk of multiverses (hence re-introducing infinities and the absence of beginnings) but there really is no hard data concerning even the extent of our own universe. It may well have infinite extent despite being finitely old -- and nothing more would be required to set up the right Anthropic conditions for our otherwise unlikely existence.


Actually this very thought was introduced to me tonight by re-reading (for the millionth time) the laws of thermodynamics and thinking about what I know of energy. I now can say that I admit the possibility of just what you wrote here. An infinite universe containing a finite existence. Before existence nothing but disorganized energy. Boggles the mind huh? I love this stuff.

I would add that as for my first cause, an infinite universe doesn't destroy my argument since as I wrote to FinalEnigma, if all the energy was in equilibrium and static, and suddenly the energy formed the universe, there must still be a causing factor for this occurrence, be it aliens from another universe, God or the great FSM.

Quote:

There's clearly a "process" at work when we consider the Big-Bang but it has absolutely nothing recognizable to science to label it as an act of God. It could be; equally it could be the work of highly advanced alien civilization -- or the product of some timeless re-genesis within a nexus of universal generation. When it comes to putting probabilities on all these ideas (and that is all they really are at the moment) I think we have to admit they all deserve some non-zero share.


This I agree to. The first cause does nothing at all to prove "god" was the unique creator of this universe. HOWEVER, it does prove that something happened and it also outlines necessities for this cause.

Again as I wrote to final enigma, I can never absolutely prove God's existence. I also can not prove that I exist in any fashion more than a dream. I can not prove that there isn't a pink unicorn flying overhead that only I can see.

However, I can take a fair analysis of the facts and investigate its plausibility with regard to theology and I feel this is exactly what I have done. I have taken plausible theories, (the universe did begin, the universe is expanding into nothingness, every action has a cause) and shown how they COULD point to the same God described in the bible.

I never said they must. Must is a science question and as I have said many times, science doesn't test God.


Quote:
That's why Dawkin's resorts to "weasel words" like "almost certainly no God". He knows along with most other critical thinkers that we are in no position to rule in or out any of the hypotheses currently on the table.

But what token of respect does the theist pay to this situation? None, I'm afraid to say, by the very definition of theism.


In fact this is exactly what I am trying to do. However I am at the unfortunate disadvantage of having my theories thrown out as impossible BEFORE they are ever examined to see if they are plausible.

Because science has no ability to test the supernatural, science impartially decreed that the supernatural must not exist and therefore any arguments stemming from the supernatural must be invalid.

So you see, I am simply trying to get my argument to be acknowledged as POSSIBLE. I am in no way trying to prove its correctness, nor can I through science, philosophy, theology or anything else at this time.

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.

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?

[The Duke of Vandals]

Achilles: If something exists there are two possibilities for this occurance.

1) it began to exist.

2) it always existed.

NizkorSpecial 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.

You have created an exemption for god by creating another category of thing: that which has always existed. You have no evidence god always existed other than the hastily invented definition Aquinas came up with. Your second category exists for the soul purpose of evading responsibility for explaining where god came from.

It is, in spite of your wordy evasions, a special pleading.

"Everything has a beginning except god."

"Why didn't god have a beginning?"

"Because!"

"lol"

[achilles12604]

Achilles: If something exists there are two possibilities for this occurance.

1) it began to exist.

2) it always existed.

NizkorSpecial 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.

You have created an exemption for god by creating another category of thing: that which has always existed. You have no evidence god always existed other than the hastily invented definition Aquinas came up with. Your second category exists for the soul purpose of evading responsibility for explaining where god came from.

It is, in spite of your wordy evasions, a special pleading.

"Everything has a beginning except god."

"Why didn't god have a beginning?"

"Because!"

"lol"

This is exactly the argument I discussed with confused on the previous page and which I tried to nip in the bud.

I was not the one who first said God was eternal nor did I invent this idea simply to fit the facts.

The idea of God's eternal nature preceeds this argument by thousands of years, so for you to say I am making it up simply to fit the facts doesn't really make sense.

Also, I don't have to prove God's eternal characteristics in order for my argument to work. Since you are equally unable to disprove it, it must be left as an unknown. This does not mean it is a negative. The only time it should be disregarded is if you can effectively show a negative. Otherwise, my hypothesis can still move forward.

Once again I refer you back to how e=mc2 was thought to be junk until we reach a point where we had the ability to test it.

Before this point, it was untestable, yet einstein was still able to mass many hypothesis based on this unproven formula which was rejected by his colleaues.

[The Duke of Vandals]

This is exactly the argument I discussed with confused on the previous page and which I tried to nip in the bud.

I was not the one who first said God was eternal nor did I invent this idea simply to fit the facts.

The idea of God's eternal nature preceeds this argument by thousands of years, so for you to say I am making it up simply to fit the facts doesn't really make sense.

Apologies for accusing you of originality?

Seriously, was there a rebuttal there? It doesn't matter when the argument was invented: it was wrong then and it's wrong now. Nor does it matter who stated it (it was Aquinas I believe...). If you support it then I have no problem referring to it as "your argument".

Also, I don't have to prove God's eternal characteristics in order for my argument to work. Since you are equally unable to disprove it, it must be left as an unknown.

This is a common and intellectually bankrupt defense used by theists. It's called shifting the burden of proof. It's a fallacy because you are the one claiming god doesn't have a beginning. It is your responsibility to support this claim.

Neither I nor any atheist contributor to this thread will entertain any more of this silliness.

This does not mean it is a negative. The only time it should be disregarded is if you can effectively show a negative. Otherwise, my hypothesis can still move forward.

Your hypothesis can move forward when you can provide evidence to support it.

Once again I refer you back to how e=mc2 was thought to be junk until we reach a point where we had the ability to test it.

What a desperate red herring?

E=mc2 can be demonstrated using mathmatics. It is logical and rational at every step of the way. Do not insult Einstein's memory by using his rationality to prop up your folk lore.




As it stands, it's very obviously a special pleading.

[achilles12604]

This is exactly the argument I discussed with confused on the previous page and which I tried to nip in the bud.

I was not the one who first said God was eternal nor did I invent this idea simply to fit the facts.

The idea of God's eternal nature preceeds this argument by thousands of years, so for you to say I am making it up simply to fit the facts doesn't really make sense.

Apologies for accusing you of originality?

Seriously, was there a rebuttal there? It doesn't matter when the argument was invented: it was wrong then and it's wrong now. Nor does it matter who stated it (it was Aquinas I believe...). If you support it then I have no problem referring to it as "your argument".

As it stands, it's very obviously a special pleading.

Ok one step at a time.

1) God is viewed as eternal by his followers.

2) Many years later we learn about physics, cause and effect and we note that everything has causes.

3) Certain causes require certain characteristics. In otherwords DNA must the the cause of an embryo. Planting a seed in the dirt will never yield a baby.

4) I put forth an argument for the cause of the universe

5) I NOTICE that this cause also reflects on God.



You are saying my conclusion is invalid simply because it happens to fit the criteria for cause of the universe?

[achilles12604]

This does not mean it is a negative. The only time it should be disregarded is if you can effectively show a negative. Otherwise, my hypothesis can still move forward.

Your hypothesis can move forward when you can provide evidence to support it.

AH!! Perfect.

This is exactly where I thought you were comming from.


Please note that this particular thread is not one of absolute PROOF!

I am not trying to prove the correctness of my hypothesis. I am only trying to show that it is valid as a hypothesis.

So I don't need evidence to prove my hypothesis is correct.

[Furrowed Brow]

Hi Achilles,

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.

Well I think it can be shown that you 1st assumption is questionable. I started a thread a whle back Is it really possible to get something from nothing?

Def 1: nothing = no things and no principles.
Def 2: nothing = no things and the principle "you cannot get something from nothing".

The first question is: where did the "you can't get owt from nowt" rule come from? Is this a principle that belongs to logic or empiricism?

I say it is empirical.

The second question: is not def 1 a more minimal possibility than Def 2 and therefore closer to being absolute nothing.
I say it is.

So I think on a point of logic that for "anything to begins to exist must have a cause" is questionable. The assumption relies on the principle "you can't get something to exist from nothing". But that principle in turn relies on the principle "anything that exists must have a cause". That piece of reasoning being circular.

However I suggest the "you can't get something from nothing rule" is merely putative, and places a restriction on "nothing" the legitimacy of which is not proved, nor is it actually needed. Thus Occam's razor can be applied.

To stave off Occam's razor I think you will need to do more work to support your assumption and show it is necessary. Otherwise I'll stick to my guns :2gun: and say not everything that begins to exist is caused.

[achilles12604]

Quote:
Also, I don't have to prove God's eternal characteristics in order for my argument to work. Since you are equally unable to disprove it, it must be left as an unknown.


This is a common and intellectually bankrupt defense used by theists. It's called shifting the burden of proof. It's a fallacy because you are the one claiming god doesn't have a beginning. It is your responsibility to support this claim.

Neither I nor any atheist contributor to this thread will entertain any more of this silliness.

I think that this is where we are missing each other.


I do not even mention GOD until I compare him to the other criteria I have established.


If I left out God entirely and substituted in the plausibility of a multiverse where other universes had different laws of physics I doubt you would fight me so hard. Yet this option yields the same result in my hypothesis as God does and contains the same amount of evidence for its existence as God does.


Remember I am not trying to prove my theory is the one true correct one. Only that it is as plausible as any other that is out there currently.


I am not shifting any burden of proof because my invoking of God is NOTHING more than the very simple observation that the criteria for the cause of the unvierse is met with the biblical description of God.

[achilles12604]

Hi Achilles,

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.

Well I think it can be shown that you 1st assumption is questionable. I started a thread a whle back Is it really possible to get something from nothing?

Def 1: nothing = no things and no principles.
Def 2: nothing = no things and the principle "you cannot get something from nothing".

The first question is: where did the "you can't get owt from nowt" rule come from? Is this a principle that belongs to logic or empiricism?

I say it is empirical.

The second question: is not def 1 a more minimal possibility than Def 2 and therefore closer to being absolute nothing.
I say it is.

So I think on a point of logic that for "anything to begins to exist must have a cause" is questionable. The assumption relies on the principle "you can't get something to exist from nothing". But that principle in turn relies on the principle "anything that exists must have a cause". That piece of reasoning being circular.

However I suggest the "you can't get something from nothing rule" is merely putative, and places a restriction on "nothing" the legitimacy of which is not proved, nor is it actually needed. Thus Occam's razor can be applied.

To stave off Occam's razor I think you will need to do more work to support your assumption and show it is necessary. Otherwise I'll stick to my guns :2gun: and say not everything that begins to exist is caused.

Ok thats cool

Can you give me an example of something which began but was uncaused? If so I will drop this entirely right now.

[The Duke of Vandals]

1) God is viewed as eternal by his followers.

Irrelevant. God can be viewed as the king of Vanuatu by his followers. That doesn't make him royalty. People once knew the Earth was flat.

You need to provide evidence god is eternal.

2) Many years later we learn about physics, cause and effect and we note that everything has causes.

We learned a great many things about science which demonstrate just how impossible and silly the notion of god is. We learn how energy doesn't just pop into existence. We learn how ancient bronze age folklore is completely wrong about the origins of the universe.

Modern day theists, such as yourself, still cling to vestiges of this folk lore and do your best to reconcile it with actual knowledge. Unfortunatly, that's impossible for you to do without resorting to an arm full of fallacies.

3) Certain causes require certain characteristics. In otherwords DNA must the the cause of an embryo. Planting a seed in the dirt will never yield a baby.

Red herring.

4) I put forth an argument for the cause of the universe

You did no such thing.

In the god hypothesis thread we established that a divine entity is an invalid hypothesis for the origin of the universe.

5) I NOTICE that this cause also reflects on God.

Of course it doesn't. God is the thing invented to account for the gaps in our understanding. This has all the intellectual honesty of stating "Zeus creates lightning & storms."

You are saying my conclusion is invalid simply because it happens to fit the criteria for cause of the universe?

Your conclusion is invalid because it's (as you've tried to evade here) is a special pleading. We don't need a valid hypothesis to discard an invalid one. Unless you can provide evidence as to why this thing called god doesn't have a beginning your argument fails utterly.