The Cumulative Argument for the Whingdingdilly

[Ooberman]

In a debate with Edwin Curley, William Lane Craig said in his opening statement, "These reasons are independent of one another, so that if even one of them is sound, it furnishes good grounds for believing that God exists. Taken together, they constitute a powerful cumulative case that God exists."

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-exis ... z2JqYx3lbK

In that debate he used three arguments:

1. Kalam
2. Teleological
3. Moral

The first obvious criticism is that the moral argument and Kalam have nothing to do with each other. There is no "powerful" connection between the cause of the visible universe and moral values. After all, they could exist independently of each other, theoretically.

And, neither require a God.

So:


1.

The Kalam argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The theist then slips in, usually, "This cause we call God".

Well, the theist MAY call it whatever they want, but that doesn't mean it IS God.

That is, I call it the Cause of the Universe, and it fits perfectly within a naturalistic framework.

After all, for the Cause to be called "God" the theist needs to prove the Cause is ALSO tied to other aspects of God in a sufficient and necessary way.

It's not enough to declare "we know the universe had a cause" (Something science has verified, which means Kalam is now redundant.) and use it for God if it equally applies to other explanations.


Craig argues, "If the universe has a cause of its existence, then [we find that] an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.�

I argue, “If the universe has a cause of its existence, then [we find that] an uncaused, Cause of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.�

My argument sounds like a plausible sketch of how an event like a vacuum fluctuation in quantum foam could explain the observable universe. (The quick analogy is that our universe is like a bubble in a pot of water, sans pot, and the water is the infinite sea of undifferentiated energy)

That is, by using Kalam, we both arrive at a proof for our beliefs. Craig, however, tries to add "intelligent" which is a poorly defined term and certainly only makes sense if there is a Mind, and Minds only make sense if there are Brains. Brains only make sense if there is matter. Matter only makes sense if there is Time and Space.

And Intelligence only makes sense if there is Time.

This is one of those examples that Craig tries to overwhelm the audience by piling on too much and hoping they don't recognize his addition of the things he REALLY needs to prove: intelligence or some personal aspect.

His argument for the personal aspects of God, are, again, not part of Kalam, but a separate argument all together; the neck of the Whingdingdilly.


2.
WLC then moves to the teleological argument. Well, this is one of the least used arguments used, but Craig being a great orator uses it to great effect on people who are already theists.

Here, I am going to counter this argument for the Whingdingdilly's hind legs and point out that there is scientific evidence that people may be prone to belief in God due to brain activity, and not because there is a God. (Similarly some people believe in ghosts, phantoms and other non-existent beings because of the sense of agency and other psychological states, as well as confusion over data we get from the environment and our inability to properly assess it.)

For example, pareidolia is common. You can do it yourself. Find a richly patterned wallpaper and stare at it for a while. You will see "design" of faces in it.

Of course, there was no design of faces, but our human brains evolved to recognize faces, so we are exceptionally good at finding them.

This is what Craig preys on - he is hoping people use this evolved trait to extend to the natural world; design and agency.

Clearly, there is a reason ID (which was the most serious push of the teleological argument to date) is not taught in schools or is a serious field of study.

I don't feel the need to continue with a rebuttal of the teleological argument since it is becoming less used by theists in scholarly circles for good reason.

If someone wants to press it, I will continue.


3.
The moral argument, or the Whingdingdilly's head, is not a serious concern either and everyone calls it Craig's weakest argument.

The reason it is weak is because he presumes: "if objective morals exist, then god exists".

This is clearly contradicted by deontology and the vast majority of philosophers.

And, if that's not enough to stop Craig's argument, it's enough to point out that saying "objective morals SEEM to exist, therefore they exist". Yes, there need to be arguments to explain this seeming truth, but it would have been a lot harder for Craig to argue his "killing children just seems wrong" in ancient times when it was a normal practice.

And, I might add, the world today kills millions of children in the form of abortion and has legalized it. If "killing children" is objectively wrong, then we, collectively, don't seem to realize it.

This means the objectivist must add certain qualifiers, which under deontology are perfectly explainable.

"It's wrong to torture babies for no reason". Well, but on naturalism, we have reasons not to do things for no reason, whether it's torturing babies, killing witches, or stoning children, or maintaining realms of eternal torture.



All in all, the arguments for God all seem to be flawed, and, even if they are persuasive in any one area, they don't seem to get us to the argument the the Whingdingdilly (God) exists.

That is, let's say the Moral argument works. It only shows, then, that there may be a God of Moral Values that was created when the universe was created.

Or, if Kalam is an argument for God, it only shows that the God that created the universe was capable of creating a universe, not making it appear designed (after all the Kalam God could be a Cause-maker, and he eternally pumps out causes that, in this one case, caused this universe).

Or, if teleological argument is true, it only shows that the cause of the universe may have caused something to design a universe...


So, my challenge to the theist is prove the actually Whingdingdilly exists, not each of it's attributes, which can be used to prove more mundane and naturalistic claims.

Yes, the elephant, giraffe, camel, rhino and reindeer exist.
The Whingdingdilly is what needs to be argued for.

So far I have not, to date, seen any theist argue why each argument must support the other. I have seen no argument the the "cumulative argument" is sound.

Can someone provide a logical argument for why the "cumulative argument" should be considered seriously?

[S.T. Ranger]

When you respond to my question in "The Problem with Suffering" I will respond to this.

God bless.

No. Now, forgive me and lets move on.

Nothing to forgive. You have not made me to suffer, my friend.



God bless.

[PhiloKGB]

You imply that because one could get rich and famous by developing knowledge on a subject that this means that if something were worth pursuing...it would be done.

And that despite the fact that I gave secular links that deny this. Two links in fact.

Two whole links? Well, I'm sure that's the be all and the end all. No doubt they're genuine instances of worldwide scientific conspiracies.

It is right. Read the links provided. Are you going to say they too are pseudoscientists?

I might. Where are these links?

Look at the condescension you employ when talking about it. I can tell you this, my friend, from observation...prayer works.

Yes, of course it does. Just not when scientists are studying it under controlled conditions, I suppose.

With advances in technology studies today could breatly surpass past results, just because we have a better capability to examine areas we could not before.

But it is this kind of condescending attitude that hinders a serious study of a number of things. Is funding going to be readily available for those that are accepted in the scientific community? Sure, about as much as funding to deny God's existence is going to be in Christian scientific research.

Right. It's terribly discriminatory that agencies don't just throw money at every idea that comes along. They want you to provide hypothetical mechanisms, falsifiability criteria. It's just so unfair.

What did the article say, "...anythiing with the word 'prayer' attached had no chance," or something to that effect?"

Why would it say something like that if prayer studies have been done?

So you see this as a secluded incident, is that it? Just a few scientists that want to explore areas that might fall under a paranormal header.

It seemed to me that such study was viewed as ludicrous. But is it?

Looks like it. You could, however, start by proposing a testable mechanism by which prayer might function.

Consider, Philo, apart from the thiest/atheist position, that man can through the use of his mind affect the outcomes of events. From an unbiased position, which is how science should be approached (right?) to discover the true nature of a matter, why would this not be a field which would garner the attention of more than a few scientists?

You're acting like these things haven't been studied at all. How in the world do you come to this conclusion?

I have seen some pretty remarkable recoveries through the years concerning people diagnosed with serious diseases, some terminal, who have recovered. While you may consider such incidents as coincidence, what have you, there still remains the fact that this is common among people of prayer.

Is it? There are a lot of stories, but precious little corroboration in the medical literature. With all the anecdotes from folks like you, one would think the journals would be simply overflowing with examples.

You don't have the authority, looking in from the outside, to make an unqualified statement like this.

This is a statement based upon assumption. You know me well enough to say I am completely ignorant about scientific processes?

You've been desperately trying to portray the scientific community as some tight-knit shadow council that suppresses any legitimate evidence that contradicts evolution and geology.

I'd say you absolutely don't know what you're talking about.

But this illustrates my point, which I guess is being completely ignored: you, like most, take a position that a layman or someone not formally trained in a specific area can analyze an issue and come to a right conclusion. While you do not place yourself in this category, I am sure (which is typical for most, and that is not meant as an insult, Philo) you yourself can see that you deny this position by your denial of God and that which is taught in scripture.

I don't know what this means. In any case, the teachings of Christianity, at least these days, are far more the words of preachers than they are of Scripture.

THe fact is...you CAN have a basic understanding of Christianity and faith in God, you can have a basic understanding of geology, you can have a basic understanding of physics, and with that basic understanding, like most scientists that went on to prove a theory, you can make a basic statement as to why something is reasonable and why it is not.

Most scientists have far more than a "basic understanding" of the field in which they specialize.

My knowledge and my experience may not make me an authoritative voice on a number of issues, however, I am not so ignorant that I have to buy into something because...there is a popular opinion about it.

Don't you, though? I mean, unless you've gone out and looked at sediments yourself, you're simply relying on other creationists to give you their so-called interpretations. Only difference is they're telling you what you want to hear.

A parallel in religious history would be removing the average man's access to scripture itself. Reliance on the set doctrine of those in power.

And you cannot see this as applied to the mindset that appeals to "The Scientific Community."

"This is what everyone says is true...it must be."

No. Science says, "These are the facts. If you wish to dispute them, here is what you must do." As long as you insist that science parallels religion, you will make this mistake.

Want to tell me you are certified to be an expert witness...in all of the sciences? Or do you rely on what you have been told by others? This is one of the primary reasons why many that call themselves Christians cannot give a reasonable answer to every man...because they do not know it themselves because they have themselves done the actual study, but they rely on someone else as having told them the truth.

So while my scientific knowledge, ability, and efforts may not cover all fields of study, to say that I do not understand how science works is not entirely true.

Then why do you keep insisting that it's just a bunch of people sitting around deciding what's true and what isn't? Scientists do actual work. They publish their methods. They invite others to recreate the results. It's not perfect, but I can't see how it can get any more transparent.

That's all I have the patience for.

[S.T. Ranger]

You imply that because one could get rich and famous by developing knowledge on a subject that this means that if something were worth pursuing...it would be done.

And that despite the fact that I gave secular links that deny this. Two links in fact.

Two whole links? Well, I'm sure that's the be all and the end all. No doubt they're genuine instances of worldwide scientific conspiracies.

It is right. Read the links provided. Are you going to say they too are pseudoscientists?

I might. Where are these links?

Look at the condescension you employ when talking about it. I can tell you this, my friend, from observation...prayer works.

Yes, of course it does. Just not when scientists are studying it under controlled conditions, I suppose.

With advances in technology studies today could breatly surpass past results, just because we have a better capability to examine areas we could not before.

But it is this kind of condescending attitude that hinders a serious study of a number of things. Is funding going to be readily available for those that are accepted in the scientific community? Sure, about as much as funding to deny God's existence is going to be in Christian scientific research.

Right. It's terribly discriminatory that agencies don't just throw money at every idea that comes along. They want you to provide hypothetical mechanisms, falsifiability criteria. It's just so unfair.

What did the article say, "...anythiing with the word 'prayer' attached had no chance," or something to that effect?"

Why would it say something like that if prayer studies have been done?

So you see this as a secluded incident, is that it? Just a few scientists that want to explore areas that might fall under a paranormal header.

It seemed to me that such study was viewed as ludicrous. But is it?

Looks like it. You could, however, start by proposing a testable mechanism by which prayer might function.

Consider, Philo, apart from the thiest/atheist position, that man can through the use of his mind affect the outcomes of events. From an unbiased position, which is how science should be approached (right?) to discover the true nature of a matter, why would this not be a field which would garner the attention of more than a few scientists?

You're acting like these things haven't been studied at all. How in the world do you come to this conclusion?

I have seen some pretty remarkable recoveries through the years concerning people diagnosed with serious diseases, some terminal, who have recovered. While you may consider such incidents as coincidence, what have you, there still remains the fact that this is common among people of prayer.

Is it? There are a lot of stories, but precious little corroboration in the medical literature. With all the anecdotes from folks like you, one would think the journals would be simply overflowing with examples.

You don't have the authority, looking in from the outside, to make an unqualified statement like this.

This is a statement based upon assumption. You know me well enough to say I am completely ignorant about scientific processes?

You've been desperately trying to portray the scientific community as some tight-knit shadow council that suppresses any legitimate evidence that contradicts evolution and geology.

I'd say you absolutely don't know what you're talking about.

But this illustrates my point, which I guess is being completely ignored: you, like most, take a position that a layman or someone not formally trained in a specific area can analyze an issue and come to a right conclusion. While you do not place yourself in this category, I am sure (which is typical for most, and that is not meant as an insult, Philo) you yourself can see that you deny this position by your denial of God and that which is taught in scripture.

I don't know what this means. In any case, the teachings of Christianity, at least these days, are far more the words of preachers than they are of Scripture.

THe fact is...you CAN have a basic understanding of Christianity and faith in God, you can have a basic understanding of geology, you can have a basic understanding of physics, and with that basic understanding, like most scientists that went on to prove a theory, you can make a basic statement as to why something is reasonable and why it is not.

Most scientists have far more than a "basic understanding" of the field in which they specialize.

My knowledge and my experience may not make me an authoritative voice on a number of issues, however, I am not so ignorant that I have to buy into something because...there is a popular opinion about it.

Don't you, though? I mean, unless you've gone out and looked at sediments yourself, you're simply relying on other creationists to give you their so-called interpretations. Only difference is they're telling you what you want to hear.

A parallel in religious history would be removing the average man's access to scripture itself. Reliance on the set doctrine of those in power.

And you cannot see this as applied to the mindset that appeals to "The Scientific Community."

"This is what everyone says is true...it must be."

No. Science says, "These are the facts. If you wish to dispute them, here is what you must do." As long as you insist that science parallels religion, you will make this mistake.

Want to tell me you are certified to be an expert witness...in all of the sciences? Or do you rely on what you have been told by others? This is one of the primary reasons why many that call themselves Christians cannot give a reasonable answer to every man...because they do not know it themselves because they have themselves done the actual study, but they rely on someone else as having told them the truth.

So while my scientific knowledge, ability, and efforts may not cover all fields of study, to say that I do not understand how science works is not entirely true.

Then why do you keep insisting that it's just a bunch of people sitting around deciding what's true and what isn't? Scientists do actual work. They publish their methods. They invite others to recreate the results. It's not perfect, but I can't see how it can get any more transparent.

That's all I have the patience for.

lol...while my patience amounts to more than my time does, I will say just this: the links are in this thread somewhere, and if you care to look at them fine, if not, fine.

The point I have tried to make has been reiterated over and over and yet I see no real discussion about it. This will likely result in the question, "What is your point?" to which I will be obligated to reiterate my point/s again to which I will likely receive the same repsonses I have received thus far. lol

So you can have this round, my friend, I claim defeat, and will award you the reward of victor. Or something like that, lol.

One thing I will respond to:

Science says, "These are the facts. If you wish to dispute them, here is what you must do."

Think about that for a minute, would you? What are some of the facts that have been presented certain people in the scientific community that have turned out to be in error. Would you be good enough to suggest a few?

Then you might begin to understand my point, my friend.

God bless.

[PhiloKGB]

Think about that for a minute, would you? What are some of the facts that have been presented certain people in the scientific community that have turned out to be in error. Would you be good enough to suggest a few?

Then you might begin to understand my point, my friend.

Let's see.

Dinosaurs were thought to be sluggish, cold-blooded oafs until the late 1960s.

Light was believed to travel through a medium until the turn of the 20th century.

The universe was believed to exist in a steady state until the 1920s.

How many are you looking for?

[Ooberman]

Think about that for a minute, would you? What are some of the facts that have been presented certain people in the scientific community that have turned out to be in error. Would you be good enough to suggest a few?

Then you might begin to understand my point, my friend.

Please be more clear. It appears you are saying that since people have been wrong about things, Jesus is Lord.

Can you connect the dots a bit? Because as I recall, Christianity has made quite a few changes over the years, too.