Is man getting too big for the world?

[Stranger]

That we've addressed it regularly is mentioned I take it you are not going to demonstrate how it begs the question or pointing out which  argument for why there is anything is not fallacious.

I tried looking for reasons why the KCA was a fallacy but the top answer was from the a-unicornist who is one of your motley crew.......though at least it wasn't the most inappropriately named Rational Wiki.

OK, it's always good for a laugh... The KCA.

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

http://tinyurl.com/242h4wm

Item (4) is either an assumption or a definition. If it is a definition, this is not an argument for any god of any religion that I'm aware of (including your own idea of god as something you have experienced). If it's an assumption, then it is indeed a case of begging the question.

In addition, the first two premises are both questionable.

[Stranger]

No, I am saying that because you get inter subjective agreement you cannot claim that that is objectively true.

Being intersubjectively testable is as close to objectivity as we can get.

"I shall therefore say that the objectivity of scientific statements lies in the fact that they can be inter-subjectively tested."

-- Karl Popper The Logic of Scientific Discovery

I'm not proposing to at all. You are. And whether 1, 100, 1000 or everybody agrees, that's merely the ad populum writ large.

Except that gets you nowhere. If everybody experiences the "objective" world, then even if it isn't real, it might as well be. We are all forced to live by the rules of the "objective" world, whether be believe it to be real or not. I might be a "brain-in-a-vat" but that is a dead end position.

Having said all that, winding back through this conversation, I have to agree that the idea that the universe was caused by something is an assumption, not a fact.

[Nearly Sane]

Being intersubjectively testable is as close to objectivity as we can get.

"I shall therefore say that the objectivity of scientific statements lies in the fact that they can be inter-subjectively tested."

-- Karl Popper The Logic of Scientific Discovery

Except that gets you nowhere. If everybody experiences the "objective" world, then even if it isn't real, it might as well be. We are all forced to live by the rules of the "objective" world, whether be believe it to be real or not. I might be a "brain-in-a-vat" but that is a dead end position.

Having said all that, winding back through this conversation, I have to agree that the idea that the universe was caused by something is an assumption, not a fact.

I don't disagree with much of this but it does not mean that if everyone agreed on something then it would be close to being objective. It"s the point of having a methodology that works.
I also think you have to be careful with Popper's use of objective here. It's an internal objectivity based on the assumption of the scientific method. It isn't an external objectivity absenting that method. Leonard's statements about non naturalistic claims are by definition external to a naturalistic method.

[Andy]

That we've addressed it regularly is mentioned I take it you are not going to demonstrate how it begs the question or pointing out which  argument for why there is anything is not fallacious.

I tried looking for reasons why the KCA was a fallacy but the top answer was from the a-unicornist who is one of your motley crew.......though at least it wasn't the most inappropriately named Rational Wiki.

Make a list of the things you believe don't begin to exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

OK, it's always good for a laugh... The KCA.

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

http://tinyurl.com/242h4wm

Item (4) is either an assumption or a definition. If it is a definition, this is not an argument for any god of any religion that I'm aware of (including your own idea of god as something you have experienced). If it's an assumption, then it is indeed a case of begging the question.

In addition, the first two premises are both questionable.

Your formula here seems to be a Kalam cosmological argument for God
rather than a Kalam cosmological argument which I thought had been summarised by items 1 to 3.

I take it you are not against THAT argument?

If you state the universe has a cause then God is of course a possibility, the other being some unconscious, supernatural, non physical thing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

In which Trollboy fails to grasp that his "God" and my "leprechauns" are precisely as ridiculous as each other as conjectures about objective truths...

Hillside merely asserted once again............Your never going to explain why are you?.......let alone give any warrant for it.

In which Trollboy (who incidentally will always vanish when asked for a method to distinguish his assertions about "God" from just guessing) thinks it reasonable to edit out the part of a post with the answer, and then to complain that he hasn't had the answer.

Utterly fucking shameful.

Here it is again before Trollboy took his scissors to it:

In which Trollboy fails to grasp that his "God" and my "leprechauns" are precisely as ridiculous as each other as conjectures about objective truths for the same reason that Arsenal and Spurs are each precisely football teams, even though there are significant differences between them - colour of shirts etc. Bluehillside has now concluded that Trollboy is pathologically incapable ever of grasping that category error does not require the objects to be identical in every respect but only in respect of the issue relevant to the point being made (no method of any kind to get you from the subjective to the objective for "God" and "leprechauns" equally for example) and as there's no point even attempting to educate the ineducable I'll leave him to his trolling.

[Stranger]

Your formula here seems to be a Kalam cosmological argument for God
rather than a Kalam cosmological argument which I thought had been summarised by items 1 to 3.

I take it you are not against THAT argument?

If you state the universe has a cause then God is of course a possibility, the other being some unconscious, supernatural, non physical thing.

As you would have seen, if you'd been paying attention, I said that both of the first two premises are questionable - we cannot state either with certainty.

The terms are a bit vague and need better defining, but I see no reason to suppose, if the universe does have a cause, that it is either supernatural or non-physical.

[Andy]

Your formula here seems to be a Kalam cosmological argument for God
rather than a Kalam cosmological argument which I thought had been summarised by items 1 to 3.

I take it you are not against THAT argument?

If you state the universe has a cause then God is of course a possibility, the other being some unconscious, supernatural, non physical thing.

God isn't a possible option up until the point you can demonstrate in some way that a god is possible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

If you state the universe has a cause then God is of course a possibility, the other being some unconscious, supernatural, non physical thing.

In which Trollboy fails to grasp again that:

1. "God" cannot be an answer any more that "uh776y078o7t" can be until he's able to tell us finally what he means by the term (and for that matter what on earth he means by "supernatural").

2. That deciding that "the universe" must have had a beginning and therefore a cause is unknowable, and moreover that deciding too that "God" (whatever he means by it) did not have a beginning and a cause is both arbitrary and special pleading.

3. That even if the argument wasn't hopeless, it would tell him nothing whatever about which god did it - ie, it's deism at best.

Apart from that though...

[Leonard James]

That suggests a) that there is a definition or definitions you are prepared to accept b)You might have decided from the get go to dismiss any definition of God.

Go and boil your head. You are a dismal waste of space and time.

[Leonard James]

What does that mean? Has there ever been anytime when everyone has agreed on a method for finding truth? And even were there to be such a time how do we avoid the possibility of everyone being wrong?

So there is no such thing as an objective truth.

[Maeght]

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Why God with a capital G - suggesting the God as per the Christian Bible? No reason to assume that.

The only thing this argument achieves is to define God as the cause of the universe and nothing more. It says nothing about the likelyhood of the non-material entity which features in the Christian Bible existing.

[Leonard James]

Len
Having followed your dialogue with Nearly Sane I would hazard that you would like to declare a belief that theists were deliberately making it all up, polity though demands from you that you moderate that to only guessing.

The originators of all god beliefs either thought their "god" was putting such thoughts into their heads, or was communicating directly with them.

If they were all in agreement about the "god" and its message, I might consider it a possibility. Sadly, such is not the case.

[Nearly Sane]

So there is no such thing as an objective truth.

again no, we just don't have a method for determining such a thing

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

again no, we just don't have a method for determining such a thing

In strict epistemic terms that's true, but if these words are to be useful we generally accept that "objective" and "subjective" are qualitatively different things, and that intersubjective experience is the way we distinguish one from the other. If we insist on absolutes we collapse into Trollboy's hall of mirrors reality ("morality must be objective to be "real"" etc) that's wrong in practice and that leads nowhere.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As you would have seen, if you'd been paying attention, I said that both of the first two premises are questionable - we cannot state either with certainty.

The terms are a bit vague and need better defining, but I see no reason to suppose, if the universe does have a cause, that it is either supernatural or non-physical.

I tend to agree and you are right to state that the first two premises are uncertain....But, only if you are prepared to go beyond the observed universe......At which point one does not have the luxury of claiming that the scientific method is good for all things.

If the universe has a physical and natural cause then surely that suggests that the physical and natural are uncaused.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

In strict epistemic terms that's true, but if these words are to be useful we generally accept that "objective" and "subjective" are qualitatively different things, and that intersubjective experience is the way we distinguish one from the other. If we insist on absolutes we collapse into Trollboy's hall of mirrors reality ("morality must be objective to be "real"" etc) that's wrong in practice and that leads nowhere.

Perhaps you need to read the bit of thread I was dealing with and stepping away from Vlad for a while. Leonard James had been taking the opinion that those who could not show that their beliefs were objective were being less than honest, and also took the position that it is unanimity, something that I am unsure ever exists, was useful in determining what was objective.


In the context of that discussion the strict epistemic sense is relevant, as this is not about a method but merely an ad populum.

[Nearly Sane]

I tend to agree and you are right to state that the first two premises are uncertain....But, only if you are prepared to go beyond the observed universe......At which point one does not have the luxury of claiming that the scientific method is good for all things.

If the universe has a physical and natural cause then surely that suggests that the physical and natural are uncaused.

No the first falls down because of the problem of induction.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Trollboy (who incidentally will always vanish when asked for a method to distinguish his assertions about "God" from just guessing)

Since there is no method of distinguishing whether a deeply held view or even conviction on anything from guessing. One could be forgiven for just ignoring demands to come up with one.

I have said in the past that there may not be a method that establishes the truth of a statement but examination of your demand shows it to be different from that.

You have made a category error in your terms since you can assert a guess. So the demand to distinguish between an assertion and a guess is meaningless.

Your response that I have not answered you so you are not going to answer me but only I am the fucking disgrace because I don't answer is completely illogical.

If neither you nor I answer ones questions then either we are both a fucking disgrace or neither of us are...........in that context of course.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No the first falls down because of the problem of induction.

Can you expand on that, please?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The originators of all god beliefs either thought their "god" was putting such thoughts into their heads, or was communicating directly with them.

If they were all in agreement about the "god" and its message, I might consider it a possibility. Sadly, such is not the case.

But that suggests you will only accept something and refute something if somebody has done so before. How can you then discover something, for yourself?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Perhaps you need to read the bit of thread I was dealing with and stepping away from Vlad for a while. Leonard James had been taking the opinion that those who could not show that their beliefs were objective were being less than honest, and also took the position that it is unanimity, something that I am unsure ever exists, was useful in determining what was objective.

In the context of that discussion the strict epistemic sense is relevant, as this is not about a method but merely an ad populum.

As I understood it Len was commenting on the inability of the religious to show their beliefs in deities to be objective in the sense that, say, the speed of light in a vacuum is objectively known. As Some noted, none of this does away from the brain in a vat issue but pragmatically there's clearly a difference between the subjective and the objective. The dishonesty Len sees derives from conflating the two in respect only of "God" - "my subjective opinion on the matter is objectively true for you too" - as they would not for any other conjecture that lacked a method to go from the subjective to the objective.

As for the ad populum, I'm not sure that Len was saying "it's true because everyone thinks so" so much as alluding to the pragmatic intersubjective experience paradigm, but no doubt he'll tell us after his post prandial snooze.           

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps you need to read the bit of thread I was dealing with and stepping away from Vlad for a while.

Yes....I am not the only shining beacon in the firmament........Nearly Sane sparkles too.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

As I understood it Len was commenting on the inability of the religious to show their beliefs in deities to be objective in the sense that, say, the speed of light in a vacuum is objectively known. As Some noted, none of this does away from the brain in a vat issue but pragmatically there's clearly a difference between the subjective and the objective. The dishonesty Len sees derives from conflating the two in respect only of "God" - "my subjective opinion on the matter is objectively true for you too" - as they would not for any other conjecture that lacked a method to go from the subjective to the objective.

As for the ad populum, I'm not sure that Len was saying "it's true because everyone thinks so" so much as alluding to the pragmatic intersubjective experience paradigm, but no doubt he'll tell us after his post prandial snooze.         

Remember that Leonard used the examples of love and hate as facts, that does not equate to a method, and it implies that if everyone believed in a god that too would be a fact, god would be objective because if that belief. That is clearly an ad pop.

I get bored by the double standards applied to those who agree on a subject being less stringent than to those who people disagree with. If anything causes the problems on your is it worth it thread, it's that.

[Stranger]

I tend to agree and you are right to state that the first two premises are uncertain....But, only if you are prepared to go beyond the observed universe...

It's not actually important to the argument but no, we don't actually need to do that. Quantum mechanics certainly predicts that some events have no specific cause. It provides a statistical framework but events such as one particular radioactive atom decaying at a particular time have no cause.

Relativity also makes it questionable whether the universe had a "beginning to its existence". Time, or rather space-time, is part of the universe. If we take relativity seriously, the universe is a four-dimensional object that contains time.

...At which point one does not have the luxury of claiming that the scientific method is good for all things.

Which matters not a jot. The point is that we have no reason to believe any story that goes beyond the evidence, whether it involves a god, many gods, bands of magic fairies, universe creating spotty teenagers or none of the above, it's all just guessing.

As was stated before, most atheists are not arguing that there cannot possibly be a god, just that there is no reason to believe that there is.