d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Official Atheist / Agnostic Thread
Prev1187188189190191193Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 31317Replies: 1923Track Topic
Member
Posts: 49,289
Joined: Jun 18 2006
Gold: 11.77
#1881
Jan 9 2017 11:22am
Every time I revive this thread it brings the lulz. :D
Member
Posts: 63,058
Joined: Jul 15 2005
Gold: 152.00
#1882
Jan 9 2017 11:23am
Quote (Scaly @ Jan 9 2017 12:18pm)
I'm saying that if you define God only as 'the original uncaused cause' then you are ignoring all the other properties that God is almost universally endowed with. Omniscience, consciousness, an interventionist interest in humanity etc. You might as well call a teacup God in that case.


The definition of God as the creator of the universe and everything is one of the most basic conceptions of God theists have had for millennia (and it is the entirety of the conception of God in deism). That's the whole reason the argument sets out to prove a first cause, because that's already how theists and deists defined God beforehand.

As I said, there are other arguments which can then, afterwards, be used to attempt to prove various other qualities of God. But you are again attacking a strawman, as the argument's conclusion never claimed any property of God except first cause, nor does WLC claim it does.
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 286.00
#1883
Jan 9 2017 11:24am
Quote (Scaly @ Jan 9 2017 12:18pm)
I'm saying that if you define God only as 'the original uncaused cause' then you are ignoring all the other properties that God is almost universally endowed with. Omniscience, consciousness, an interventionist interest in humanity etc. You might as well call a teacup God in that case.


I'm not a Christian. I'm only interested in deism in terms of this argument and I'm not a deist; I'm an atheist. And deism to theism is leap of faith.

But the assumption would be the uncaused cause would be independent and not-contingent on the rest of the universe. What WLC is getting at is that a universe without a god is like a consciousness without a body; internally it is missing something. ]

I firmly believe the truth is out of our grasp, and everytime we've undoubtfully said something was true in the past it has turned out to be wrong, just over a matter of time, or as material reality itself changes as it does, since reality itself is an incomplete process.
Member
Posts: 40,852
Joined: Sep 17 2011
Gold: 0.00
#1884
Jan 9 2017 11:27am
Quote (Voyaging @ 9 Jan 2017 17:13)
Lol I'm a college drop out bud.

You seem to think that you are capable of having a conversation about a topic you've never even studied. You seem to think you are informed enough to argue against WLC's arguments despite never having read one of his books.

It's not my fault you're so arrogant to think you can understand a subject before even attempting to learn about it. You remind me a lot of climate change deniers. You think you're somehow an expert despite being completely wrong and think those who disagree are propagandists.

Your rebuttals of Craig's argument have mostly been attacking a strawman (because you refused to inform yourself of his actual arguments), or were from a misunderstanding of the argument (such as your analogy to a teacup).

People deserve to be called out when they refuse to inform themselves about a topic, then still have the nerve to act like they know better and to attack the person who disagrees due to your own misunderstanding. Just like climate change deniers, just like religious fundamentalists, just like yourself.


I misunderstood his argument how? He presents the Kalam as proof of his version of God. It isn't. It is, if you accept all the premises, only proof of an uncaused cause. It does not follow that that cause is a deity unless you define a deity, 'god', as nothing more than simply 'the first uncaused cause'. If we're simply attaching the label of God to anything we want I may as well attach it to my teacup.

But you know - strawman, minuscule understanding, hurr durr etc.
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 286.00
#1885
Jan 9 2017 11:30am
Quote (Scaly @ Jan 9 2017 12:27pm)
I misunderstood his argument how? He presents the Kalam as proof of his version of God. It isn't. It is, if you accept all the premises, only proof of an uncaused cause. It does not follow that that cause is a deity unless you define a deity, 'god', as nothing more than simply 'the first uncaused cause'. If we're simply attaching the label of God to anything we want I may as well attach it to my teacup.

But you know - strawman, minuscule understanding, hurr durr etc.


A teacup is an object contingent on existence not independent from it. The argument is that if something caused creation, it has to be a timeless, non-object (it would have agency) not contingent on everything else. A teacup is obviously not timeless, it is contingent on the rest of existence because it has the property of extension (metaphysics). And without the human mind to give meaning to that schema to being with, a teacup does not exist.

Your refutation is incorrect. I don't know about omniscience, interested in humanity, etc, and I never ever thought about there realistically being an anthropomorphic god like the one represented by Christian mythology.

But I'm an existential nihilist through and through, and due to the nature of the universe itself being completely absurd, I rule out nothing :lol: I recognize that this last part isn't even an argument. At the end of the day its intransigence.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jan 9 2017 11:37am
Member
Posts: 40,852
Joined: Sep 17 2011
Gold: 0.00
#1886
Jan 9 2017 11:34am
Quote (Voyaging @ 9 Jan 2017 17:23)
The definition of God as the creator of the universe and everything is one of the most basic conceptions of God theists have had for millennia (and it is the entirety of the conception of God in deism). That's the whole reason the argument sets out to prove a first cause, because that's already how theists and deists defined God beforehand.

As I said, there are other arguments which can then, afterwards, be used to attempt to prove various other qualities of God. But you are again attacking a strawman, as the argument's conclusion never claimed any property of God except first cause, nor does WLC claim it does.


No he doesn't, you're right. That's why he's such a dishonest and sneaky little conman. He doesn't need to claim it. He just needs to present it in that manner.

Wlc never offers proof for his version of God and yet he presents himself as if he is defending a rational belief in the Christian God. That's why he's all but unknown in the philosophical field and his books aren't bought by, or his lectures attended by, philosophy students but by Christians. That's why his website, selling all his books and dvds, caters to a Christian belief in God.
Member
Posts: 40,852
Joined: Sep 17 2011
Gold: 0.00
#1887
Jan 9 2017 11:38am
Quote (Skinned @ 9 Jan 2017 17:30)
A teacup is an object contingent on existence not independent from it. The argument is that if something caused creation, it has to be a timeless, non-object (it would have agency) not contingent on everything else. A teacup is obviously not timeless, it is contingent on the rest of existence because it has the property of extension (metaphysics). And without the human mind to give meaning to that schema to being with, a teacup does not exist.

Your refutation is incorrect.


Why would the first cause have to have agency?

I'm aware of the differences between the first uncaused cause and a teacup. I know you think I'm retarded but believe me, even I can manage that. My objection is to the application of the label of God to either.
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 286.00
#1888
Jan 9 2017 11:41am
Quote (Scaly @ Jan 9 2017 12:34pm)
No he doesn't, you're right. That's why he's such a dishonest and sneaky little conman. He doesn't need to claim it. He just needs to present it in that manner.

Wlc never offers proof for his version of God and yet he presents himself as if he is defending a rational belief in the Christian God. That's why he's all but unknown in the philosophical field and his books aren't bought by, or his lectures attended by, philosophy students but by Christians. That's why his website, selling all his books and dvds, caters to a Christian belief in God.


The argument as I understand it, and I'm C/P from Wikipedia:

Quote
Craig states the Kalam cosmological argument as a brief syllogism, most commonly rendered as follows:[3]

Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;

Therefore:

The universe has a cause.

From the conclusion of the initial syllogism, he appends a further premise and conclusion based upon ontological analysis of the properties of the cause:[4]

The universe has a cause;
If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;

Therefore:

An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

Referring to the implications of Classical Theism that follow from this argument, Craig writes:

"... transcending the entire universe there exists a cause which brought the universe into being ex nihilo ... our whole universe was caused to exist by something beyond it and greater than it. For it is no secret that one of the most important conceptions of what theists mean by 'God' is Creator of heaven and earth."[5]


He's a very good theologian, but a very poor philosopher :lol: He is basically the theist version of Richard Dawkins in the since that their conclusions go way past what should follow their premises.

The Kalaam argument is old, and I'm pretty was produced by Arab logic during the Christian Dark Age period, when they were keeping Greek wisdom safe from the complete abandonment from the City of Man and retreat into the City of God and the sociological failure that happened during those couple centuries. It is all based on the Prime Mover argument of Aristotle. But you're 100% correct that it is a huge leap from deistic prime mover status to Christian sky-daddy status.
Member
Posts: 63,058
Joined: Jul 15 2005
Gold: 152.00
#1889
Jan 9 2017 11:44am
Quote (Scaly @ Jan 9 2017 12:27pm)
I misunderstood his argument how? He presents the Kalam as proof of his version of God.


No, he does not. He presents it as an argument of a creator God, which is what the conclusion of the argument is. He does implies that conceptual analysis reveals that there are requisite qualities in order for a being to be the creator of everything, which he outlines in other arguments, which you can read on his website.

Quote (Scaly @ Jan 9 2017 12:27pm)
If we're simply attaching the label of God to anything we want I may as well attach it to my teacup.


Sure, if your teacup is the immaterial, all-powerful creator of the world.

Quote (Scaly @ Jan 9 2017 12:27pm)
But you know - strawman


Yep, glad you noticed.

Quote (Scaly @ Jan 9 2017 12:34pm)
No he doesn't, you're right. That's why he's such a dishonest and sneaky little conman. He doesn't need to claim it. He just needs to present it in that manner.

Wlc never offers proof for his version of God and yet he presents himself as if he is defending a rational belief in the Christian God. That's why he's all but unknown in the philosophical field and his books aren't bought by, or his lectures attended by, philosophy students but by Christians. That's why his website, selling all his books and dvds, caters to a Christian belief in God


Actually, he presents plenty of arguments about his specific Christian theism. It's not his fault you don't understand his arguments. You could read his website or books if you're interested.

Quote (Skinned @ Jan 9 2017 12:41pm)
He's a very good theologian, but a very poor philosopher :lol: He is basically the theist version of Richard Dawkins in the since that their conclusions go way past what should follow their premises. .


No, none of his conclusions do not follow from his premises. To compare him to Dawkins is laughable, Craig is a vastly, vastly better philosopher.

While he assumes a lot of premises to be true that I think are unlikely to be true, none of his logic is invalid. It'd be pretty obvious if a professional philosopher fucked up basic logic.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Jan 9 2017 11:46am
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 286.00
#1890
Jan 9 2017 11:48am
Quote (Scaly @ Jan 9 2017 12:38pm)
Why would the first cause have to have agency?

I'm aware of the differences between the first uncaused cause and a teacup. I know you think I'm retarded but believe me, even I can manage that. My objection is to the application of the label of God to either.


Maybe it doesn't have agency. That might be reaching beyond the premises as well. When you start adding qualitative knowledge based on empirical data to logic it all falls apart IMO. It is the mixing of inductive knowledges and deductive knowledges without individuals understanding the differences between them and then equivocating them in one logical system that causes all the epistemological dissonance.

A triangle has three sides (inductive) and there are white swans (deductive) are just different and have different justifications. And even saying there is something and there is not something has drastic logical asymmetries.

That is why linguistics, logic, and philosophy suck, they lead down black holes where reality has no bottom. That is why I quit trying to make sense of it all and am just rebelling against the universe by creating my own meaning and value where there otherwise is none. I know the hills and winds are real, and the struggle alone is enough to fill a man's heart.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1187188189190191193Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2026 d2jsp  Contact