Eternity

[Diogenes]

Is it intellectually dishonest to claim "God has always existed, without beginning and without end;"
yet claim the universe must have had a beginning?

[historia]

You go through all of this, post after post, but don't address the central point, that 'God' alone is the only possible 'uncaused cause.'

If the "central point" you are trying to make here is simply that Aquinas and Craig believe that God is the First (or Uncaused) Cause of the universe, then we agree.

What I've been challenging here, in case you missed it, is your claim that that somehow constitutes "special pleading."

The fact that different things have different properties is not, in itself, special pleading. If, for example, I claim that every major celestial object in our solar system except for the Sun is orbiting a star, that is not special pleading.

If your favorites, Aquinas and WLC, or whomever, do NOT claim everything but 'god' has a cause

Let's be precise here: I said they don't claim "everything has a cause."

They claim, instead, that things that are changing have a cause, or things that begin to exist have a cause. Those qualifiers (the words in italics there) show that they are not claiming "everything has a cause," since there are things that don't meet those conditions: God and abstract objects don't meet either condition.

I repeat, who or what does Craig claim has no 'cause' besides God?

The kalam argument (like all cosmological arguments) does not address the cause, if any, of abstract objects.

In that way, God is not some kind of sole, weird exception to a universal principle here. These arguments (when properly understood) concern certain categories of things, which God and abstract objects are not part of.

This is why it is a special pleading.

Then it appears it is not special pleading.

[Diogenes]

You go through all of this, post after post, but don't address the central point, that 'God' alone is the only possible 'uncaused cause.'

If the "central point" you are trying to make here is simply that Aquinas and Craig believe that God is the First (or Uncaused) Cause of the universe, then we agree.

What I've been challenging here, in case you missed it, is your claim that that somehow constitutes "special pleading."

The fact that different things have different properties is not, in itself, special pleading. If, for example, I claim that every major celestial object in our solar system except for the Sun is orbiting a star, that is not special pleading.

Let's start (again) with what Craig actually says:

Now for those who are unfamiliar with the kalam cosmological argument, I'll first provide a brief summary of it. The argument is a simple syllogism:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/ ... de-them-up
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause" + "The universe began to exist" = everything has a cause
Then Craig enters Specialpleadingville and puts his 'God' outside the universe as The Cause:

Why does this contingent, four-dimensional spacetime thing exist rather than nothing? I think that will lead you then via Leibniz' reasoning to God as a metaphysically necessary sufficient reason for the existence of this spacetime block.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/ ... de-them-up

... and speaking of arguments "so bad I couldn't have made them up," and Leibniz, he's the guy who came up with the thesis that "the existing world is the best world that God could have created."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/best-o ... ble-worlds

[historia]

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause" + "The universe began to exist" = everything has a cause

That conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises.

Then Craig enters Specialpleadingville and puts his 'God' outside the universe as The Cause:

Positing something beyond the physical universe is not special pleading.

You may want to contend that it is untrue, but it is simply erroneous to claim, as you have been throughout this thread, that it is logically fallacious.

[Diogenes]

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause" + "The universe began to exist" = everything has a cause

That conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises.

Then Craig enters Specialpleadingville and puts his 'God' outside the universe as The Cause:

Positing something beyond the physical universe is not special pleading.

You may want to contend that it is untrue, but it is simply erroneous to claim, as you have been throughout this thread, that it is logically fallacious.

In one aspect I see your point and agree. Since God is a fictional character, you can describe and define it any way you want, including that it somehow is outside the universe. I contend this is a special pleading because you, Craig, Leibniz and whomever, simply 'posit' it anyway you want; in this case as an especially plead character to whom nothing applies.
But if you do more than posit academically and contend this mythic figure actually exists, then it is a 'specially plead' being.

This is what you've done in your example:

The fact that different things have different properties is not, in itself, special pleading. If, for example, I claim that every major celestial object in our solar system except for the Sun is orbiting a star, that is not special pleading,

In the example you are just making an unfounded claim. Of course the same goes for this 'god' character. It is an unfounded claim consisting of a nonexistent being you can define in any special way you want. If a 'special pleading' is an "argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view," what is being ignored is the fact a special, unique definition is used, a definition that (by definition) is special. That is a very 'special pleading.'

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #159]

Invalid argument. Yes, 'Something from nothing' is ...not illogical exactly but counter -intuitive, because it is not what we are used to seeing. But you know (or should, as I've pointed it out) it was once considered that nobody could live on the 'underneath' of the earth because they'd fall off. That made perfect logic but is wrong because of limited human understanding.

All your argument does, is show that anything is logical, even a Creator of this universe.

Perhaps you might want to consider that thinking 'something can come from nothing' is itself a concept related to those days of lore you write of...when the earth was believed flat...et al

My argument is valid as you have not shown is isn't.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to William in post #165]
This post reminds me we might do well to step out of the limitations of labels and jargon. As I understand it, the 'Cosmological Argument' says something like 'We don't like infinite regression because you just keep going back to some prior cause, so... we will define an uncaused cause, something that exists outside of time and the universe. We will arbitrarily call that 'something' "a personal God" that is the prime cause (mover, or whatever).

Avoiding labels like "special pleading" or "intellectual dishonesty" we are still left with the problem for theists of simply calling this prime mover 'God,' not to mention somehow coming up with a 'personal' attribute of this God.

Stripping all the religious infection from the argument, we are back to either "something from nothing" or "something has always been." Of those two choices, the latter seems much more logical to me. To argue that we are limited to our own logic merely states the obvious, but to go beyond our own logic invites absolute and unfounded speculation that could point to anything at all. Words like 'magic' and 'mystery' come to mind.

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #166]

Specifically this is why I find it more appropriate to include the idea that what has always existed always had a mind.

If mind didn't exist, then yes - there would be no point in including it.

Sure, 'It' is a mystery but this does not infer any magic is involved.

Something being a 'mystery' - even such as "Mind" - need not be labelled under the 'jargon' "magic".

I was having this conversation a few minutes ago...viewtopic.php?p=1075706#p1075706

From the link;

William: Awakening in this universe, one is forced to accept the ignorance with which one arrived...
"Tonight the stars shine as I step out of time, as I step into the great unknown"
Judging it needs to be placed aside until one knows it enough, not to.
So - perhaps a case of not knowing whether to like it or not - but just accept it for what it is and for what it does.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #166]

Specifically this is why I find it more appropriate to include the idea that what has always existed always had a mind.

If mind didn't exist, then yes - there would be no point in including it.

"... and always had a mind?" Why?
That something has always been makes sense and is the starting point. But why include the attribute of 'mind?'

We understand that matter and energy can exist without mind. A piece of granite exists without 'mind,' without consciousness. The theist may argue that the rock is only here because of the mind that created it, but that is an extra premise, a speculative one, that is not necessary for the 'always existed' vs the 'was caused/began' argument.

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #168]

Specifically this is why I find it more appropriate to include the idea that what has always existed always had a mind.

If mind didn't exist, then yes - there would be no point in including it.
"... and always had a mind?" Why?
That something has always been makes sense and is the starting point. But why include the attribute of 'mind?'

Because mind exists within matter.

If mind didn't exist, then yes - there would be no point in including it.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #168]

Specifically this is why I find it more appropriate to include the idea that what has always existed always had a mind.

If mind didn't exist, then yes - there would be no point in including it.
"... and always had a mind?" Why?
That something has always been makes sense and is the starting point. But why include the attribute of 'mind?'

Because mind exists within matter.

If mind didn't exist, then yes - there would be no point in including it.

Can you support your claim that 'mind exists within matter?' Do you assert that, using my example, a chunk of granite possesses a mind? If so, how do you define 'mind' in that case?

We understand that human consciousness, or 'mind' presents itself due to matter, the 100 billion or so neurons of the brain, with each neuron having up to about 15,000 connections. These are staggering numbers and these trillions of connections project consciousness. We know this because when sections of our brain are damaged or removed, consciousness and other aspects of brain activity change. Ultimately, no neurons = no brain activity.

Last I checked, zero neurons (or their equivalent) have been observed in granite.

https://ideas.ted.com/mysteries-of-huma ... nesthesia/

A more detailed examination of the role between neurons and 'mind:'

Discovering and characterizing neural correlates does not offer a theory of consciousness that can explain how particular systems experience anything at all, or how and why they are associated with consciousness, the so-called hard problem of consciousness,[6] but understanding the NCC may be a step toward such a theory. Most neurobiologists assume that the variables giving rise to consciousness are to be found at the neuronal level, governed by classical physics, though a few scholars have proposed theories of quantum consciousness based on quantum mechanics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_co ... perception