Is The New Atheist Literature Intellectually Frivolous?

[jeremyp]

An uncreated universe is on the same footing as an uncreated creator.

No it isn't. The Universe has an important argument in its favour in comparison to God: we are fairly certain it exists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

An uncreated universe is on the same footing as an uncreated creator.

No it isn't. The Universe has an important argument in its favour in comparison to God: we are fairly certain it exists.

Argumentum ad populum?

Yes Jeremy.....but is it a created universe or an uncreated universe?

You are just giving a warmed over version of the Russellian and Dawkinsian ''Let's not mind about the origin of the universe, it just is''

[jeremyp]

An uncreated universe is on the same footing as an uncreated creator.

No it isn't. The Universe has an important argument in its favour in comparison to God: we are fairly certain it exists.

Argumentum ad populum?

Do you understand what that phrase means? Clearly not.

Yes Jeremy.....but is it a created universe or an uncreated universe?

I don't know, but I am sure that the Universe exists and I'm fairly sure there is no god.

You are just giving a warmed over version of the Russellian and Dawkinsian ''Let's not mind about the origin of the universe, it just is''

I don't think either of those people would take that attitude. Saying "I don't know is different from saying "I don't care".

Furthermore the attitude is actually a Christian thing: "let's not mind about the origin of God, he just is".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

An uncreated universe is on the same footing as an uncreated creator.

No it isn't. The Universe has an important argument in its favour in comparison to God: we are fairly certain it exists.

Argumentum ad populum?

Do you understand what that phrase means? Clearly not.

Yes Jeremy.....but is it a created universe or an uncreated universe?

I don't know, but I am sure that the Universe exists and I'm fairly sure there is no god.

Non sequiter and just redolent of the intellectual cowardice of New Atheism.

You guys should be made to consider the question of the origin of the universe on a regular basis.

Mainly because it is meet,right and condign punishment for New Atheists but also because New Atheists scuttling from this is highly entertaining.

[Outrider]

The accusation of special pleading is straight out of the antitheists bumper book ......and wrong!

It's not unique to any anti-theists you might have come across, it's been the standard, obvious and entirely justified counter to the cosmological argument since it was initially raised.

An uncreated universe is on the same footing as an uncreated creator. Neither need be ''specially pled'' as long as the other remains an argument.

No. An uncreated universe can gradually develop. A creator can develop within that broader development, but that isn't the uncreated creator - that instantaneous complexity is special pleading if the premise is 'that which starts must have a cause'. An infinite universe can begin with simplicity, can go through periods of simplicity, but an uncaused creator requires instant complexity which is the untenable situation the cosmological argument depends upon to require a creator for the universe.

Is self creating matter untenable logically?

Yes.

Stenger and Krauss don't seem to think so. Their problem is that they try to explain it within the laws of physics......which leaves them actually with Nothing really being an unstable something.

No, they have matter emerging from quantum fluctuations - there is no 'nothing' in that model.

It is all up in the air of course but I move that the antitheist position at present is to duck the issue or to come up with a fix in which two conflicting ideas are held simultaneously. uncaused cause and cause and effect.

If I ever come across one of these anti-theists I'll let them know your concerns, but I suspect they'll be as disinterested in you claim there's no special pleading in the cosmological argument as everyone else is.

It's what the duallists call the ''give us one miracle and philosophical naturalism will explain the rest''.

Which 'duallists' would these be? Your slapdash generalisations of straw-man groups don't really help your cause, you know, any more than your flawed arguments.

O.

[Outrider]

You are just giving a warmed over version of the Russellian and Dawkinsian ''Let's not mind about the origin of the universe, it just is''

I'm curious as to your animosity towards that stance - you don't like them when they overstep arbitrary boundaries you decide they have no justification to comment on, but then you equally don't like it when they decide not to venture into areas they don't feel they have sufficient basis to discuss. It's almost like you are predisposed to dislike them...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The accusation of special pleading is straight out of the antitheists bumper book ......and wrong!

It's not unique to any anti-theists you might have come across, it's been the standard, obvious and entirely justified counter to the cosmological argument since it was initially raised.

An uncreated universe is on the same footing as an uncreated creator. Neither need be ''specially pled'' as long as the other remains an argument.

No. An uncreated universe can gradually develop. A creator can develop within that broader development, but that isn't the uncreated creator - that instantaneous complexity is special pleading if the premise is 'that which starts must have a cause'. An infinite universe can begin with simplicity, can go through periods of simplicity, but an uncaused creator requires instant complexity which is the untenable situation the cosmological argument depends upon to require a creator for the universe.

So what you are saying is the ''you can be a little bit universe to begin with''.
Isn't that the same as saying ''you can be a little bit pregnant''.
An Uncreated universe is an uncreated universe whether it develops or not.......

...............back to square one i'm afraid.

Also you said that an infinite universe can begin..................In what sense?

Instaneous infinite complexity? Isn't that in the same league as timeless material which you comfortably proposed earlier on.

We know that maths is infinitely complex. Is that constrained by time or is it timeless?

Loving the dialogue ,hope to hear from you soon.

[Outrider]

So what you are saying is the ''you can be a little bit universe to begin with''.

I've never suggested anything else - I'm still waiting for some explanation for why an infinite reality is untenable.

Isn't that the same as saying ''you can be a little bit pregnant''.

Only if you've got an infinite term gestation period...

An Uncreated universe is an uncreated universe whether it develops or not.......

Which is why I didn't contradict the suggestion when you made it.

Also you said that an infinite universe can begin..................In what sense?

Excuse me, bad phrasing on my part. I mean that a universe can begin in an infinite reality.

Instaneous infinite complexity? Isn't that in the same league as timeless material which you comfortably proposed earlier on.

No, not even close.

We know that maths is infinitely complex. Is that constrained by time or is it timeless?

Mathematics, though, is an abstract conceptualisation, it has no actual correlate, it's an identification of patterns. It's not constrained by anything, that I'm aware of, everything can be represented by complex enough mathematics.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So what you are saying is the ''you can be a little bit universe to begin with''.

I've never suggested anything else - I'm still waiting for some explanation for why an infinite reality is untenable.

Isn't that the same as saying ''you can be a little bit pregnant''.

Only if you've got an infinite term gestation period...

An Uncreated universe is an uncreated universe whether it develops or not.......

Which is why I didn't contradict the suggestion when you made it.

Also you said that an infinite universe can begin..................In what sense?

Excuse me, bad phrasing on my part. I mean that a universe can begin in an infinite reality.

Instaneous infinite complexity? Isn't that in the same league as timeless material which you comfortably proposed earlier on.

No, not even close.

We know that maths is infinitely complex. Is that constrained by time or is it timeless?

Mathematics, though, is an abstract conceptualisation, it has no actual correlate, it's an identification of patterns. It's not constrained by anything, that I'm aware of, everything can be represented by complex enough mathematics.

O.

I think there exist a mathematics which describes multiverses. How can patterns be identified from an unobservable multiverse. Physics seems to be intimately related to maths.

[Outrider]

I think there exist a mathematics which describes multiverses. How can patterns be identified from an unobservable multiverse.

It's derived from possibilities identified in this universe and extrapolated to hypothetical other universes.

Physics seems to be intimately related to maths.

Modern physics typically relies heavily on mathematical models, especially as it explores areas that are outside of our natural cognitive understanding, because any descriptive methodology tends towards misconceptions as we find ourselves tending to revert to preconceptions.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think there exist a mathematics which describes multiverses. How can patterns be identified from an unobservable multiverse.

It's derived from possibilities identified in this universe and extrapolated to hypothetical other universes.

So, Not observed then.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

The accusation of special pleading is straight out of the antitheists bumper book ......and wrong!

Actually it has nothing to do with "anti-theism" and everything to do with logic. Whether or not you happen to believe in your (or any other) god, the cosmological argument is still hopeless reasoning for it. That's not to say that there couldn't be a coherent argument that does point to a god, but the cosmological argument isn't it - it just takes an unargued and unjustified assertion ("the universe is finite and so must have started") and uses contrary special pleading for the deity of choice ("therefore an uncaused, eternal creator god") to get it off the same hook.     

An uncreated universe is on the same footing as an uncreated creator. Neither need be ''specially pled'' as long as the other remains an argument.

Flat wrong. The universe may or may not be "uncreated", but it is observably there. Frankly I'm not sure that our ability even to frame and articulate the right questions about how eternal it might be isn't so parochial as to make the task hopeless, but either way just inserting "God" to plug the gap requires the pouffing into existence of a whole extra "something" before you can get to the point of making claims that statements about "Him" are on the same footing as those made for the universe.   

Is self creating matter untenable logically? Stenger and Krauss don't seem to think so. Their problem is that they try to explain it within the laws of physics......which leaves them actually with Nothing really being an unstable something.

No they don't - I have the advantage of actually having read Krauss's book, and that's not what he says. I don't pretend to grasp all the physics but I know enough to know that you're misrepresenting him.

It is all up in the air of course but I move that the antitheist position at present is to duck the issue or to come up with a fix in which two conflicting ideas are held simultaneously. uncaused cause and cause and effect.

Then you "move" wrongly. The rationalist's (not the "anti-theist's") position is that there are competing hypotheses just now, but there's insufficient data to decide which, if any, is the correct one. "God" for this purpose is not even wrong - there's no definition, no parameters, no falsifiability test, no method for investigation, no anything to take seriously.   

It's what the duallists call the ''give us one miracle and philosophical naturalism will explain the rest''.

No it isn't, and you've had your "philosophical naturalism" mistake ransacked, dhansacked and thrown against a wall (copyright: John Cooper Clarke) so many time it's not even funny now.

By all means though finally prove me wrong and at least attempt to explain why your "whateverpopsintomyhead-ism" theory of objective fact about a god is qualitatively different from my "whateverpopsintomyhead-ism" theory of objective fact about baby-delivering storks.   

[Outrider]

I think there exist a mathematics which describes multiverses. How can patterns be identified from an unobservable multiverse.

It's derived from possibilities identified in this universe and extrapolated to hypothetical other universes.

So, Not observed then.

You don't think our universe is observed? As it is, some of the models do include means by which we could detect those other universes by their effects on ours.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think there exist a mathematics which describes multiverses. How can patterns be identified from an unobservable multiverse.

It's derived from possibilities identified in this universe and extrapolated to hypothetical other universes.

So, Not observed then.

You don't think our universe is observed? As it is, some of the models do include means by which we could detect those other universes by their effects on ours.

O.

No I think our universe is observed and that it is intimately related to maths. To the point where physicality has become inextricably linked to maths. But there is maths which is not so linked. However mathematical truths are not affected by physicality.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

   

An uncreated universe is on the same footing as an uncreated creator. Neither need be ''specially pled'' as long as the other remains an argument.

Flat wrong. The universe may or may not be "uncreated", but it is observably there. 

Non sequitur to an argument about whether there can be an uncreated anything.

If you allow that the universe could be uncreated then you cannot argue against God on the grounds that he is uncreated.

Mind you  have finally conceded that science has limits since we would now have a case of the uncreated.

The possibly of the uncreated remains the spectre at your feast.

Read this article for why not having a cosmological argument is problematic for the New Atheists;

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/naturalism-in-news.html

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

The accusation of special pleading is straight out of the antitheists bumper book ......and wrong!

Actually it has nothing to do with "anti-theism" and everything to do with logic. Whether or not you happen to believe in your (or any other) god, the cosmological argument is still hopeless reasoning for it. That's not to say that there couldn't be a coherent argument that does point to a god, but the cosmological argument isn't it - it just takes an unargued and unjustified assertion ("the universe is finite and so must have started")

Well there is an age of the universe and a set of conditions which are seemingly unobservable. It's called the big bang. Explain to us Hillside how we cannot possibly make an argument that the universe had a beginning. Since there is seemingly a point past which we cannot look beyond and which resembles a ''start''

If the universe having a beginning and being finite is completely unjustified....what is it that makes other arguments better. more justified and arguable? Which theory are you thinking of and why is it better?

The universe is either created......problematical for you. or uncreated .........problematical for science and antitheism since you would need to borrow uncreatedness from the stock of theology or ditch the necessity of cause and effect.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

Non sequitur to an argument about whether there can be an uncreated anything.

Now you’ve learnt to spell non sequitur, could you perhaps trouble yourself further to find out what it means?

That wasn’t the argument at all – rather it was that you cannot put “God” (whatever you think you mean by the term) on the same footing as “the universe” when discussing eternality, not least because you need to suppose this god in the first place whereas you do not need to suppose the universe.

If you allow that the universe could be uncreated then you cannot argue against God on the grounds that he is uncreated.

Straw man - you’re missing it again. The argument against god isn’t that “He” is uncreated – it’s that you need to establish the hypothesis in the first place before troubling yourself with whether not it’s eternal. If you think otherwise, I may as well argue that you cannot argue against Stan the Stork on the basis that he’s “uncreated” or for that matter against "yg84d748to84gy" on the same basis.

Mind you  have finally conceded that science has limits since we would now have a case of the uncreated.

Why finally? I’ve always said that (axiomatically) science can only deal with that which science can deal with. So what?

If you seriously think that there are phenomena which science could not address, then finally demonstrate such a thing and propose a method to investigate your claims.

Something?

Anything?

The possibly of the uncreated remains the spectre at your feast.

Not so long as you don’t overreach again and keep it as just a “possibility” it doesn’t.

Read this article for why not having a cosmological argument is problematic for the New Atheists;

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/naturalism-in-news.html

Had a quick look – it’s full of mistakes. Is it really my job to tell you why?

Well there is an age of the universe and a set of conditions which are seemingly unobservable. It's called the big bang. Explain to us Hillside how we cannot possibly make an argument that the universe had a beginning. Since there is seemingly a point past which we cannot look beyond and which resembles a ''start''

You’re confusing “a” beginning with “the” beginning, and attempting yet another argument from personal incredulity to boot.

Apart from that though…

If the universe having a beginning and being finite is completely unjustified....what is it that makes other arguments better. more justified and arguable? Which theory are you thinking of and why is it better?

It’s “better and more justified” because your contender (“God”) doesn’t even have its trousers on as an hypothesis. What on earth do you even think you mean by the term?

The universe is either created......problematical for you.

Actually, “problematic” for anyone – why would you think it to be your god wot did it rather then something else entirely?

…or uncreated .........problematical for science and antitheism since you would need to borrow uncreatedness from the stock of theology or ditch the necessity of cause and effect.

Wrong again. If (as seems likely) time itself is a property of the universe your folkloric grasp of these things breaks down entirely in any case.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

Incidentally, by way of a coda curiously Feser seems to rely on many of the tactics that you use - straw men, ad homs etc. As one of his complaints is that the "new atheists" deal with the cruder arguments for theism but not with their better arguments, maybe you'd like to set out what those supposedly better arguments are so we can address them?

We know for example that the cosmological argument is a bad one for deism and a non-existent one for theism, but that's not to say that there aren't some arguments for either worthy of the name it is?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

Non sequitur to an argument about whether there can be an uncreated anything.

Now you’ve learnt to spell non sequitur, could you perhaps trouble yourself further to find out what it means?

That wasn’t the argument at all – rather it was that you cannot put “God” (whatever you think you mean by the term) on the same footing as “the universe” when discussing eternality, not least because you need to suppose this god in the first place whereas you do not need to suppose the universe.

If you allow that the universe could be uncreated then you cannot argue against God on the grounds that he is uncreated.

Straw man - you’re missing it again. The argument against god isn’t that “He” is uncreated – it’s that you need to establish the hypothesis in the first place before troubling yourself with whether not it’s eternal. If you think otherwise, I may as well argue that you cannot argue against Stan the Stork on the basis that he’s “uncreated” or for that matter against "yg84d748to84gy" on the same basis.

Mind you  have finally conceded that science has limits since we would now have a case of the uncreated.

Why finally? I’ve always said that (axiomatically) science can only deal with that which science can deal with. So what?

If you seriously think that there are phenomena which science could not address, then finally demonstrate such a thing and propose a method to investigate your claims.

Something?

Anything?

The possibly of the uncreated remains the spectre at your feast.

Not so long as you don’t overreach again and keep it as just a “possibility” it doesn’t.

Read this article for why not having a cosmological argument is problematic for the New Atheists;

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/naturalism-in-news.html

Had a quick look – it’s full of mistakes. Is it really my job to tell you why?

Be my guest.........(This'll be a laugh )

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

Non sequitur to an argument about whether there can be an uncreated anything.

Now you’ve learnt to spell non sequitur, could you perhaps trouble yourself further to find out what it means?

That wasn’t the argument at all – rather it was that you cannot put “God” (whatever you think you mean by the term) on the same footing as “the universe” when discussing eternality, not least because you need to suppose this god in the first place whereas you do not need to suppose the universe.

If you allow that the universe could be uncreated then you cannot argue against God on the grounds that he is uncreated.

Straw man - you’re missing it again. The argument against god isn’t that “He” is uncreated – it’s that you need to establish the hypothesis in the first place before troubling yourself with whether not it’s eternal. If you think otherwise, I may as well argue that you cannot argue against Stan the Stork on the basis that he’s “uncreated” or for that matter against "yg84d748to84gy" on the same basis.

Mind you  have finally conceded that science has limits since we would now have a case of the uncreated.

Why finally? I’ve always said that (axiomatically) science can only deal with that which science can deal with. So what?

If you seriously think that there are phenomena which science could not address, then finally demonstrate such a thing and propose a method to investigate your claims.

Something?

Anything?

The possibly of the uncreated remains the spectre at your feast.

Not so long as you don’t overreach again and keep it as just a “possibility” it doesn’t.

Read this article for why not having a cosmological argument is problematic for the New Atheists;

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/naturalism-in-news.html

Had a quick look – it’s full of mistakes. Is it really my job to tell you why?

Well there is an age of the universe and a set of conditions which are seemingly unobservable. It's called the big bang. Explain to us Hillside how we cannot possibly make an argument that the universe had a beginning. Since there is seemingly a point past which we cannot look beyond and which resembles a ''start''

You’re confusing “a” beginning with “the” beginning, and attempting yet another argument from personal incredulity to boot.

Apart from that though…

If the universe having a beginning and being finite is completely unjustified....what is it that makes other arguments better. more justified and arguable? Which theory are you thinking of and why is it better?

It’s “better and more justified” because your contender (“God”) doesn’t even have its trousers on as an hypothesis. What on earth do you even think you mean by the term?

The universe is either created......problematical for you.

Actually, “problematic” for anyone – why would you think it to be your god wot did it rather then something else entirely?

…or uncreated .........problematical for science and antitheism since you would need to borrow uncreatedness from the stock of theology or ditch the necessity of cause and effect.

Wrong again. If (as seems likely) time itself is a property of the universe your folkloric grasp of these things breaks down entirely in any case.

Hillside this has less content in it than usual...mind you 50% of fuck all is still fuck all.

There is one resort to ''Oh well God isn't proved anyway.''

Perhaps you're missing the whole point of the debate having crashed in half way through.

A universe existing tells us nothing about whether it created itself or whether it was created as you seem to make out.

That means you haven't even got an argument Son.

[jeremyp]

Non sequiter and just redolent of the intellectual cowardice of New Atheism.

Wrong as usual.

You guys should be made to consider the question of the origin of the universe on a regular basis.

I do. So far the answer is still "don't know". But adding a god into the equation just makes it harder.

By the way, I think you Christians should be made to consider the question of the origin of God on a regular basis. You seem to be adept at sweeping it under the carpet.

Mainly because it is meet,right and condign punishment for New Atheists but also because New Atheists scuttling from this is highly entertaining.

The bounds of your self delusion are limitless. You think of considering the origins of the Universe as a punishment?

Anyway, tell me about the origins of your god.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Non sequiter and just redolent of the intellectual cowardice of New Atheism.

Wrong as usual.

You guys should be made to consider the question of the origin of the universe on a regular basis.

I do. So far the answer is still "don't know". But adding a god into the equation just makes it harder.

By the way, I think you Christians should be made to consider the question of the origin of God on a regular basis. You seem to be adept at sweeping it under the carpet.

Mainly because it is meet,right and condign punishment for New Atheists but also because New Atheists scuttling from this is highly entertaining.

The bounds of your self delusion are limitless. You think of considering the origins of the Universe as a punishment?

Anyway, tell me about the origins of your god.

always been there so not really right to talk about origins Jeremy.

[BeRational]

Non sequiter and just redolent of the intellectual cowardice of New Atheism.

Wrong as usual.

You guys should be made to consider the question of the origin of the universe on a regular basis.

I do. So far the answer is still "don't know". But adding a god into the equation just makes it harder.

By the way, I think you Christians should be made to consider the question of the origin of God on a regular basis. You seem to be adept at sweeping it under the carpet.

Mainly because it is meet,right and condign punishment for New Atheists but also because New Atheists scuttling from this is highly entertaining.

The bounds of your self delusion are limitless. You think of considering the origins of the Universe as a punishment?

Anyway, tell me about the origins of your god.

always been there so not really right to talk about origins Jeremy.

The universe has always been there then.

That was easy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Non sequiter and just redolent of the intellectual cowardice of New Atheism.

Wrong as usual.

You guys should be made to consider the question of the origin of the universe on a regular basis.

I do. So far the answer is still "don't know". But adding a god into the equation just makes it harder.

By the way, I think you Christians should be made to consider the question of the origin of God on a regular basis. You seem to be adept at sweeping it under the carpet.

Mainly because it is meet,right and condign punishment for New Atheists but also because New Atheists scuttling from this is highly entertaining.

The bounds of your self delusion are limitless. You think of considering the origins of the Universe as a punishment?

Anyway, tell me about the origins of your god.

always been there so not really right to talk about origins Jeremy.

The universe has always been there then.

That was easy

There's just the small matter of the big bang........or was that just the cosmic equivalent of a discrete but audible Botty pop?

.......That was easy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

Be my guest.........(This'll be a laugh )

Oh no no no…given your track history here of deep, deep dishonesty you don’t seriously think you can just post a link and then have me critique it only to be met with your usual cocktail of dull incomprehension, straw men and abuse do you?

Do you?

Well then, here’s the deal: you set out the arguments you think to be persuasive and I’ll tell you why you’re wrong.

Look, I’ll even help you along a little: Feser commits a series of basic logical fallacies that you deploy in your own efforts here. I suggest you try at least to avoid repeating them if you seriously think you finally have an argument to make.     

Hillside this has less content in it than usual...mind you 50% of fuck all is still fuck all.

That you fail utterly to grasp and so just ignore the “content” says nothing to the fact that there is in fact plenty of it. It’s clearly set out, albeit that you just respond with your usual avoidance and evasion. I told you for example why “God” and “the universe” are not on an even footing when discussing possible non-creation. Why did you just dodge that?

Seriously, why?

There is one resort to ''Oh well God isn't proved anyway.''

“Proved”? Try getting out of the ghetto into which you’ve painted yourself of "not even wrong" before worrying about proof.

Really – why not finally tell us the method you propose to get you off the hook of your “whateverpopsintomyhead-ism” notion of objective fact?

Surely you must have something more in the locker than mindless assertion mustn’t you?

Mustn’t you?

(Cue sound of Vlad disappearing yet again out of the nearest fire exit.)

Perhaps you're missing the whole point of the debate having crashed in half way through.

A universe existing tells us nothing about whether it created itself or whether it was created as you seem to make out.

And perhaps you have. No it doesn’t, but the bonkers cosmological argument with which you’re in thrall positively asserts that it did have a beginning, so the burden of proof (another idea you’ve never understood) is entirely with you to make the case for it.

Good luck!   

That means you haven't even got an argument Son.

Actually it means that you’ve been buried by several arguments, only you’re too slow or too dishonest to rebut them..

You choose.

Son.