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.

[Confused]

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.

[achilles12604]

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.

This is where most people misunderstand what I write.

I never wrote

Everything must have a cause.



I never wrote everything must have a cause.

One more time . . . .

I never wrote everything must have a cause.






What I wrote was everything THAT BEGINS TO EXIST, must have a cause and this is still true.

If God did not begin to exist, then he doesn't require a cause.


This distinction is very important.


Is there a difference between these two sentences?

1) All toyotas must be red.

2) All cars must be red.


What is the difference? There is a big difference between these two sentences as well.

1) Everything must have a cause.

2) Everything which begins to exist must have a cause.

[Confused]

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.

This is where most people misunderstand what I write.

I never wrote

Everything must have a cause.



I never wrote everything must have a cause.

One more time . . . .

I never wrote everything must have a cause.






What I wrote was everything THAT BEGINS TO EXIST, must have a cause and this is still true.

If God did not begin to exist, then he doesn't require a cause.


This distinction is very important.


Is there a difference between these two sentences?

1) All toyotas must be red.

2) All cars must be red.


What is the difference? There is a big difference between these two sentences as well.

1) Everything must have a cause.

2) Everything which begins to exist must have a cause.

Woa there cowboy. It is just as easy to say " you misunderstood X and Y and this is why". The whole hollering thing is pretty bad when I can hear it through words.

Ok: let me re-evaluate here a couple of seconds...1....2.....3....4....5.....6.....7.... ok, it was more than a couple:

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.

Here is where the first issue comes up for me.. You say anything that begins to exist must have a cause. Are you implying God never began to exist? If He never began, then He never existed. You then counter with:

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.

Now if the design of God came before the criteria for creation, then who designed God and how was He created to created the criteria for the creation? If you put him outside of time and space, then you put Him outside of existence. When did He begin to exist and how? YOu follow with something like this:

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

If you cannot answer it with a rational and logical answer, then you are creating a special plea. You can't follow a logical argument in real world physics and then back out of reality and jump into theology to suit your purpose. If you are going to debate with logic, you must stick with logic throughout your entire debate. You can't go from the physical to the metaphysical and expect it to not create a fallacy.

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.

You can't combine the laws of the universe with the laws of God and then say they are completely independent of each other unless you can prove that God existed prior to the universe, in which case you would need to show where He was, and then when He came to exist.

[achilles12604]

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.

This is where most people misunderstand what I write.

I never wrote

Everything must have a cause.



I never wrote everything must have a cause.

One more time . . . .

I never wrote everything must have a cause.






What I wrote was everything THAT BEGINS TO EXIST, must have a cause and this is still true.

If God did not begin to exist, then he doesn't require a cause.


This distinction is very important.


Is there a difference between these two sentences?

1) All toyotas must be red.

2) All cars must be red.


What is the difference? There is a big difference between these two sentences as well.

1) Everything must have a cause.

2) Everything which begins to exist must have a cause.

Woa there cowboy. It is just as easy to say " you misunderstood X and Y and this is why". The whole hollering thing is pretty bad when I can hear it through words.

Ok: let me re-evaluate here a couple of seconds...1....2.....3....4....5.....6.....7.... ok, it was more than a couple:

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.

Here is where the first issue comes up for me.. You say anything that begins to exist must have a cause. Are you implying God never began to exist? If He never began, then He never existed. You then counter with:

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.

Now if the design of God came before the criteria for creation, then who designed God and how was He created to created the criteria for the creation? If you put him outside of time and space, then you put Him outside of existence. When did He begin to exist and how? YOu follow with something like this:

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

If you cannot answer it with a rational and logical answer, then you are creating a special plea. You can't follow a logical argument in real world physics and then back out of reality and jump into theology to suit your purpose. If you are going to debate with logic, you must stick with logic throughout your entire debate. You can't go from the physical to the metaphysical and expect it to not create a fallacy.

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.

You can't combine the laws of the universe with the laws of God and then say they are completely independent of each other unless you can prove that God existed prior to the universe, in which case you would need to show where He was, and then when He came to exist.

Wow. I must be horrible at articulation.

I am reading what you wrote and we are not connecting at the same places here. I will create a post for each section you brought up.

[achilles12604]

Woa there cowboy. It is just as easy to say " you misunderstood X and Y and this is why". The whole hollering thing is pretty bad when I can hear it through words.

Ok: let me re-evaluate here a couple of seconds...1....2.....3....4....5.....6.....7.... ok, it was more than a couple:

Quote:
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.

Here is where the first issue comes up for me.. You say anything that begins to exist must have a cause. Are you implying God never began to exist? If He never began, then He never existed.

For the record, I never hollar. I was using the tecnique of repitition designed to eliminate misreadings and increase exact understanding of a position which might otherwise be misread or misinterpreted (as this one so oft is).

No hollaring. Promise.

Now as for the rest of what you wrote let me clear this up.

Are you implying God never began to exist? If He never began, then He never existed.

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".)

But because he didn't begin to exist does not mean he doesn't exist. It simply means just that. He didn't begin to exist.

If something exists there are two possibilities for this occurance.

1) it began to exist.

2) it always existed.

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.

[achilles12604]

You then counter with:

Quote:
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.


Now if the design of God came before the criteria for creation, then who designed God and how was He created to created the criteria for the creation? If you put him outside of time and space, then you put Him outside of existence.

Actually my wording here sucked. I don't blame you for being confused on this one. Let me try again.

My purpose of including

Also the design of God came BEFORE the criteria for creation.

this sentence was to counter a certain argument before it was ever presented.

Without actually going and looking it up, I remember someone writing something like
[center]

So you have simply created a God which fits the facts

[/center]

This idea is what I wanted to nip in the bud. So I included a sentence which indicates that I could not have created a "god" which fit the facts because my particular idea of God originated before there were any facts to make it fit to.

This was all I was implying with my very poorly placed sentence. Sorry.

[achilles12604]

YOu follow with something like this:
Quote:
Did God begin to exist? Scientifically there is no answer. The only answer can be found in theology and that answer is no.


If you cannot answer it with a rational and logical answer, then you are creating a special plea. You can't follow a logical argument in real world physics and then back out of reality and jump into theology to suit your purpose. If you are going to debate with logic, you must stick with logic throughout your entire debate. You can't go from the physical to the metaphysical and expect it to not create a fallacy.

since this section was preceeded by my very poorly worded and placed sentence I'm not sure what part to respond to as I don't know how you will react to my attempt at clearing up the confusion.

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.

[achilles12604]

Quote:
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.

You can't combine the laws of the universe with the laws of God and then say they are completely independent of each other unless you can prove that God existed prior to the universe, in which case you would need to show where He was, and then when He came to exist.

1) Where he was: in existence. Without a universe for reference, the question of "where" and "when" are not valid questions. They are nonapplicable to a time and place without a universe.

2) He never came into existence. He always was.

[Confused]

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 refering 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.

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.

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 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. 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? 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.

Perhaps I am completely misinterpreting the point you are trying to make. I am often good at such. However, based on logic: I have to say that if you are going to define parameters for the universe using logic, then you must define parameters for God using logic as well or you create a false dilemma and invoke special plea.