-->
@Mopac
If no thing that has a beginning can be God and nothing observable is eternal wouldn't you then agree that we have no observational experience with anything that meets the basic requirements of your definition of God?
atheism and relativism.
Posts
Total:
322
-->
@secularmerlin
How does the cosmological argument commit a special pleading falllacy?
How are you not commiting a straw man fallacy when you make God something other than The Ultimate Reality?
A fallacy is a "a false or mistaken idea".
Created things have beginnings and ends. The Uncreated doesn't. God is a persistent existence.
The fact that you claim to believe in true things while at the same time denying God in itself is a fallacy because if there is no Ultimate Reality, nothing is ultimately true.
You can go around pointing the finger and going "logical fallacy" all you want, but as long as you are denying God, you have adopted an indefensible and foolish position that if taken seriously undermines everything you say.
You, after all, don't believe in The Truth.
-->
@secularmerlin
If something was eternal, you wouldn't be able to observe its eternity because you are not eternal.
Common sense.
So your inability to observe eternity does not negate its existence. I'm pretty sure they have a name for that fallacy too.
-->
@Mopac
I believe the truth must be demonstrated and that it cheapens the truth to ascert or accept without sufficient evidence. If you truly worshiped truth you would have more care with your speculation. I don't know is often the honest answer and always when you cannot demonstrate your claim even if you feel your claim is fundamental.
-->
@Mopac
So your inability to observe eternity does not negate its existence. I'm pretty sure they have a name for that fallacy too.
Our inability to observe eternity does negate our ability to make any claim about any eternal thing or force beyond speculation or bald assertion.
There is indeed a name for that fallacy. It is called a black swan fallacy but I did not claim that an eternal thing is impossible I only claim that we could never know if anything were and therefore it is not knowable if such a thing exists. Unless you can somehow demonstrate it I await your demonstration.
-->
@secularmerlin
Translation : Prove to me that it is true that there is truth!
Only a wicked generation demands a miracle to believe in The Truth.
-->
@Mopac
I only reject your definition of truth not truth itself.
-->
@secularmerlin
You of course would like to be able to bend reality to your whim, because yer a flippin wizard.
Duh
Ain't foolin me, Merlin.
-->
@secularmerlin
I'd say that mopac's idea is that everything has a 'why', and then you can ask 'why' about that 'why'...and so on.
Mopac claims that, finally, the 'why' is 'God' and there it has to stop because 'God is the ultimate reality'.
Deep and difficult it is not. If there is any more to it... well, that's for mop to tell me.
-->
@PGA2.0
And your morality is based entirely on the declarations of ignorant, primitive, superstitious, immoral savages. Not exactly what you claim is it?
-->
@Mopac
So as usual you base your beliefs on the words of men.
It's all right though will never know that, never.
-->
@PGA2.0
so it is not inspired and it is not objective
So it is not inspired and it is not objective just because some ignorant, primitive, superstitious bronze/iron age savages says so.
-->
@PGA2.0
Who says?Why God does not fit into your category is because God transcends His creation and He is self-existent.
-->
@secularmerlin
For his benefit, the special pleading is that god gets special treatment as being an exception to the general rule that everything has a beginning/cause etc.Mopac asked:How does the cosmological argument commit a special pleading falllacy?
Formally, God being uncaused is not a conclusion in the Kalam - it is an assumption made at the outset so that the argument goes through. That is to say that if I accept god is uncaused the argument seems valid, but I am not obliged to accept that god is causeless.
-->
@Mopac
Mopac the whole point is that we cannot simply make reality into things that it is not and it doesn't give any indication of being as you describe. If you could show me sufficient evidence then you will have instantly converted me. But beliefs are not a choice and I cannot simply choose to believe something that has not been demonstrated. I asked you before and I believe you agreed that faith can lead equally to contradictory positions. If that is the case then having faith does not guarantee that you believe in reality. If all you have to convince you of your position is faith how can you possibly have any confidence in your position? That is baffling to me.
-->
@keithprosser
It was like pulling teeth but I finally got a more complete definition. The ultimate reality you see must be eternal and outside the universe or It is not in fact what Mopac means. So if nothingbis eternal or exists outside the universe then his god does not exist. When he says that his god is whatever reality there actually is he is giving an incomplete definition and committing an equivalency fallacy.
-->
@keithprosser
The first premise is that. everything that began to exist has a cause.
Not
Everything has a cause
So no special pleading.
But you are right that God isn't the necessary conclusion of the KCA. However, God is without cause and the cause of everything, and this is evident by accepting that God is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, and meditating on the implications of what that means.
All atheist arguments can only stand by making God something other than God. Arguing against God necessitates the use of a straw man, or as I'd rather say, a false god, an idol. It's easy to smash idols, monotheists have been doing it for thousands of years!
-->
@Mopac
So, accept an irrational, illogical and unreasonable idea, then naval gaze it. Gotcha.But you are right that God isn't the necessary conclusion of the KCA. However, God is without cause and the cause of everything, and this is evident by accepting that God is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, and meditating on the implications of what that means.
-->
@secularmerlin
If you don't believe that The Ultimate Reality, you don't believe in reality.
Think for a moment and realize this is the self evident truth, and it's all on you to make sense of it at this point.
-->
@Mopac
I don't know what you mean by self evident since it is not evident to me but if ultimate reality is not just reality then you must demonstrate it. I can accept reality I do not accept that the universe requires a cause. You are either unable or unwilling to demonstrate that though you seem able to baldly assert it just fine.
-->
@Mopac
Think for a moment and realize this is the self evident truth, and it's all on you to make sense of it at this point.
That's the point, it is you who is not thinking.
-->
@Mopac
That god did not begin to exist is not a conclusion of the argument as Keith said. It is an assumption madevatbthe outset of the argument so that the argument goes through. Unless you can demonstrate that anything that exists did not begin to exist it is a case of special pleading.everything that began to exist has a cause.
-->
@PGA2.0
C.S. Lewis did provide a list, loosely based on The Ten Commandments that he identified as operational in almost all societies that appear universal (applying to every culture) in its nature. I have an answer why. We are made in the image and likeness of GodThat's your opinion - not to be confused with an objective basis for morality.It was C.S. Lewis' opinion, but I agree with it.
The opinion I was referring to is that man is made in the image of god.
In most any culture or sub-culture there is a sense of fairness. The question is why should it be there based on evolution?
There is not "should", only what is, and this is easily explained by natural selection. Fairness contributes to the individual (and the population) being more fit for a broader range of environments and more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass on successful traits including fairness (or a proto-fairness).
Not really. If someone doesn't think human life is special, then they likely have been or will be removed from the human population through self inflicted or societal exile/death.Take a look at all the dictators and oligarchies around the world that do just fine by exploiting and devaluing human life.
I don't consider this a valid point. We're not talking about extremes, but your average persons. Even still, I think you can find such people have a concern for other persons, but that that concern is stunted or the in-group is very limited.
Evolution doesn't build morality, but through it our nature has been shaped. Actions which contribute to well being of the individual and/or group make it more likely for an individual within a social species to reproduce. Continue this for millennium and it's not hard to see how a social species can revere beneficial acts and a proto-morality begins to form. We can observe these proto-moralities in other primates, dolphins, canines, felines, etc., and I bet you'll not argue these were made in the 'image of godWell-being in whose mind? Kim Jong-un's?
Extreme examples addressed above. Since you've not addressed it, how do you explain morality in non-human (not created in the image of God) animals?
Ok. So what? Morality is not law. It is a description, not a prescription.Without justice, what is good about it?
Some individuals may be able to commit immoral acts without justice, but in the broad picture this is insignificant. Moral actions have a net positive affect on humanity, and immoral actions a net-negative. Also, there is justice but it, much like its purveyors, is not perfect.
It is not necessary to know what the 'hottest' bath water you can tolerate is before you can know too much heat to your bath is bad for you. In other words, no best or worst is needed to understand good and bad.Again, hot and cold are not moral issues. They deal with quantitative values, not qualitative. There is a fixed measure.
Disagree. Can you show me on a thermometer where I can find "Hot"? Hot is a subjective qualitative label, nonetheless, it's generally agreed upon.
Back as far as Plato and Aristotle, both recognized the objective best was how the good was measured. The measure of morality if it is relative is not fixed. How you get to objective morality from a subjective mindset with no outside directive is beyond me.
I think that view is misguided and demonstrably false in the age of science. Scientific methodologies allow for there to be no "best knowledge" while unquestionably move away from ignorance.
-->
@secularmerlin
It proves itself.
As for why you can't accept God, the scriptures I accept as being valid witness(which you don't, and I'm not trying to argue that) make it clear to me why this is the case.
So I know it has very little to do with me explaining things and everything to do with the state of your heart.
So what can I do? All I can do is pray for your God realization.
Not only did I not dispute this, I agreed with Keith.That god did not begin to exist is not a conclusion of the argument as Keith said. It is an assumption madevatbthe outset of the argument so that the argument goes through.
Not relevent
-->
@Mopac
Of course that is the obstacle! I grew up in a non-religious (NOT anti-religious) atmosphere and was never exposed to the idea that the bible is authoratative. All my school mates were the same as me and I only met real religious types when I went to uni. I didn't get why they belived in it then and I don't know why people believe in it now!Mopac wrote:the scriptures I accept as being valid witness(which you don't, and I'm not trying to argue that) make it clear to me why this is the case.
To quote Porgy and Bess,
The things that you lib'le
To read in the bible...
It ain't neccessarily so.
-->
@secularmerlin
God transcends His creationCan you demonstrate this? If you cannot it invalidates the rest of your argument although even if you can prove that something exists transcendent of time and space (whatever that means) and that this thing whatever it Is caused something that lead to the causal chain that set off the big bang the rest of your argument still makes a lot of assumptions and is on shaky ground.
It depends on what you would call proof. Is common sense and logic acceptable? If He is the Creator of the universe then He would have to preexist and be apart from it; He would have to exist before it to give it its existence. Next, how do you measure time from an eternal perspective? Time needs a starting point or please allow me to see you start counting down infinity. Impossible, right? Without beginning or end would signify eternity or infinity.
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God
And he swore by him who lives
for ever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it, and said, "There will be no more delay!"
Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty..."
Then Moses said to God, "Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you.' Now they may say to me, 'What is his name?' What shall I say to them?" God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you'
God did not say He was or is going to be, but that He IS. He lives in the eternal now. The past, present, and future would be continually before God since He transcends time. He was before time if you could make such a contradictory statement. Time or the beginning of the physical universe (space/time continuum) started with Him.
For you, I could show that it is reasonable and logical to believe in the biblical God by giving you evidence and proof. Whether you accept that is not up to me but up to you.
that this thing whatever it Is caused something that lead to the causal chain that set off the big bang the rest of your argument still makes a lot of assumptions and is on shaky ground.
Any argument of origins would leave a lot of assumptions because we were not there. I say your arguments for origins are on shakier grounds. My argument can make sense of beginnings. Your has no sense (nonsense) in beginnings.
-->
@keithprosser
With blind indifference chance happenstance, there is no reason or logic.There is always the possibilty that there is no reason or logic.
But you continue to find it when you discuss origins. It is woven into the fabric of the universe. We discover there is a way in which things work and a causal pattern to their existence.
Plus you continue to use it.
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm not pleading for infinite regression.I agree you are not pleading infinite regression. You have chosen to go with a special pleading fallacy instead. The cosmological argument must contain one or the other. Also in order to use it as an argument for a specific god concept comits a black and white fallacy.
With special pleading, you would have to show me my argument is not logical. Go ahead.
With the black and white fallacy, list other alternatives that you think are reasonable and logical. Go ahead.
-->
@secularmerlin
My version of the cosmological arguiment runs along the lines that the origin of the universe is damned odd, but you can use 'god' to explain it by using an adjective of no more than 3 syllables, such as 'infinite' or 'transcendent'.
i think it would be better to forget about the kca and discuss hawking's ideas that involve imaginary time and the 'no boundary condition', but I'm unsure many people are very familiar with it.