Guest Valk0010 Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Following the rabbit hole of a atheist experience article, I am reading a WLC article. And he has used a argument that i have never seen before 1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause). 2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. 3. The universe exists. 4. Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is God. Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/theistic-critiques-of-atheism#ixzz20BUcQFxN At first glance this seems like a redress of the cosmological arguement with some added, god gives us meaning for spice. The cosmological arguement is a failure for the various reasons that have already been addressed. Though this fails in many ways for its presupposition. Sure anything has a existence also has a explaination, but you would have to assume that there is good reasons to believe god exists. Otherwise its ex post facto reasoning.
Kaiser01 Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 I dont understand how they come to the conclusion the only prime mover must be YHWH.
centauri Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Following the rabbit hole of a atheist experience article, I am reading a WLC article. And he has used a argument that i have never seen before 1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause). 2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. 3. The universe exists. 4. Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is God. Read more: http://www.reasonabl...m#ixzz20BUcQFxN At first glance this seems like a redress of the cosmological arguement with some added, god gives us meaning for spice. The cosmological arguement is a failure for the various reasons that have already been addressed. Though this fails in many ways for its presupposition. Sure anything has a existence also has a explaination, but you would have to assume that there is good reasons to believe god exists. Otherwise its ex post facto reasoning. This seems to be similiar to other arguments that require an uncaused first cause. It assumes the conclusion and then eventually assigns it specifically to the Christian version of God. The God factor creeps in here: "either in the necessity of its own nature" This "necessity" is basically pulled out of thin air because Christian theology requires that its version of God cannot have an external cause. The universe that exists could also have been caused by aliens that have no creator. Just like the Christian God, they've always existed. Therefore the explanation for the universe is aliens. I doubt if Craig would be willing to apply his argument to that explanation, but it's just as good as the Christian version. He also declares that: God is by definition a being worthy of worship and only a being which is the source of all value is worthy of worship. By whose definition is this "God" worthy of worship....his definition? When you assign values to an almighty cardboard cutout, call it "God", and then worship it, all you're really doing is praising your ideas about the object of your worship. The worshipper is praising themselves through a surrogate that they designed to their specifications.
Guest Valk0010 Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Some more random thoughts about the article in general. I love how he seems to forget the argument from ignorance when it suits him. When he was defending the second premise of the cosmological argument. It was like he screamed, YOU MUST KNOW THE ANSWER TODAY IF NOT ITS GOD. The contingency argument fails because its a reworked version of the cosmological argument. I have many thoughts on his presentation of the problem of evil He talks about how, if anything its more probable that the christian god would allow evil then not. It seems like god, especially when its considered that he didn't have to create us at all(we were created of gods pleasure) and he is supposedly capable of doing all things logical and and its capable of knowing all the things that we know and what we don't about everything in a way analogous to intuition(using his definitions as I understand them) then if he is benevolent then he would not have created us. So craig is wrong there. He also says this. First, the chief purpose of life is not happiness, but the knowledge of God. One reason that the problem of evil seems so intractable is that people tend naturally to assume that if God exists, then His purpose for human life is happiness in this world. God's role is to provide a comfortable environment for His human pets. But on the Christian view, this is false. We are not God's pets, and the goal of human life is not happiness per se, but the knowledge of God—which in the end will bring true and everlasting human fulfillment. Many evils occur in life which may be utterly pointless with respect to the goal of producing human happiness; but they may not be pointless with respect to producing a deeper, saving knowledge of God. To carry his argument, the atheist must show that it is feasible for God to create a world in which the same amount of the knowledge of God is achieved, but with less evil—which is sheer speculation. It is sheer speculation by definition because this is the world we live in currently in which Christianity in itself responded too. It is also not technically speculation it is saying, if A is true, then C would be true. We don't see C, so we should doubt A. That is what the argument about god could have done the same thing better is more or less saying, if A(the Christian God exists) then C(a better life then we see would be in existence). If one could rationally argue that there can be a better world. We don't see C so we doubt A. Omnipotence would by his own definition makes this consideration irrelevant. As well he seems to be assuming his conclusion to make this point. Also if Craig is correct, god demands a situation akin to Stalin and the purges. He is desperate for followers. He makes people suffer to make people follow him. Second, mankind has been accorded significant moral freedom to rebel against God and His purpose. Rather than submit to and worship God, people have freely rebelled against God and go their own way and so find themselves alienated from God, morally guilty before Him, and groping in spiritual darkness, pursuing false gods of their own making. The horrendous moral evils in the world are testimony to man's depravity in this state of spiritual alienation from God. The Christian is thus not surprised at the moral evil in the world; on the contrary he expects it. That only works if the free will defence works. Third, God's purpose spills over into eternal life. In the Christian view, this earthly life is but a momentary preparation for immortal life. In the afterlife God will give those who have trusted Him for salvation an eternal life of unspeakable joy. Given the prospect of eternal life, we should not expect to see in this life God's compensation for every evil we experience. Some may be justified only in light of eternity. Fourth, the knowledge of God is an incommensurable good. To know God, the locus of infinite goodness and love, is an incomparable good, the fulfillment of human existence. The sufferings of this life cannot even be compared to it. Thus, the person who knows God, no matter what he suffers, no matter how awful his pain, can still truly say, "God is good to me!", simply in virtue of the fact that he knows God. If god is benevolent then there is no reason to believe,considering he ultimately wants us to up with him in heaven, that he wouldn't just create us in heaven. If he wants us there, just put us there. Also even if all the conventional arguments for god work, you can only get as far as deism because of the problem of evil and the fact that you need a loving theistic god for the arguments for biblical innerrancy to work. I say this bit about deism mostly because, deism doesn't require the creation of a perfect world. The moral argument is absurd because he seems to be fishing for something that isn't required. The fine tuning argument as he presents it, seems to be searching for more then what is there. Sure it may be a near miracle that we are here, but that doesn't mean anything other then its a near miracle that we are here. How you can require a cause from improbability is beyond me. Its also a argument from ignorance to assume that we have to know the cause today. Craig also tries to define atheism into a corner. Atheism can mean both, you know for a fact there is no god, or that you see no reason to believe in one. If there is no good rational reason to believe in the christian god, that god is effectively disproven. A god like that of a christian god even if he is concerned with winning souls more then proving his existence(a distinction without a difference) would have some evidence at least for his existence. And even if that isn't true, then god is a tyrant. Tyranny is not benevolence.
Guest wester Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 I have no patience for these temporal restrictions. If time is infinite then there can be only one existent - that is, you are not just part of the universe, you are the universe. And if you are indeed the universe as a singularity and time is infinite then who needs a god to kickstart the fireworks? These cats are so dichotomized, alienated and separated from themselves and the universe it is going to make my head explode. Now prove to me that time is not infinite. Cheers
Suzy Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 How does 2) follow from 1)? Admittedly I'm not very honed in philosophy but already going to 2) from 1) seems like hell of a quantum leap to me.
Guest Valk0010 Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 How does 2) follow from 1)? Admittedly I'm not very honed in philosophy but already going to 2) from 1) seems like hell of a quantum leap to me. I agree totally, its how I ended up realizing this was a redress of the kalam arguement.
Guest Xtech Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause). 2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is Cheetos Corn Chips. 3. The universe exists. 4. Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is Cheetos Corn Chips. Tastes good, too! WLC and similar use dishonest debating tactics. They set up rhetorical traps. To argue with him sucessfully I would say you need to not follow him down the rabbit hole, ie do not let the apologist frame the terms of the debate. BTW his logical 'proof' is beautiful.
Vigile Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Following the rabbit hole of a atheist experience article, I am reading a WLC article. And he has used a argument that i have never seen before 1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause). 2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. 3. The universe exists. 4. Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is God. Read more: http://www.reasonabl...m#ixzz20BUcQFxN At first glance this seems like a redress of the cosmological arguement with some added, god gives us meaning for spice. The cosmological arguement is a failure for the various reasons that have already been addressed. Though this fails in many ways for its presupposition. Sure anything has a existence also has a explaination, but you would have to assume that there is good reasons to believe god exists. Otherwise its ex post facto reasoning. Premises 1 and 2 are ridiculous. What do they mean by explanation? Plenty of things exist that we don't even know about yet, therefore have no explanation. Premise 2 is just silly.
Xerces Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause). 2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is BOB BARKER. 3. The universe exists. 4. Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is BOB BARKER. FTFY 2
Thought2Much Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause). 2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is BOB BARKER. 3. The universe exists. 4. Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is BOB BARKER. FTFY <golf clap>
3DollarBill Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 1. Everything that exists has an explanation. 2. If thunder has an explanation, that explanation is god. 3. Thunder exists. 4. Therefore god. B-b-b-b-but we know for a FACT that thunder is the sound accompanying atmospheric electrical discharges! It has nothing to do with Gawd! Yeah, well, it wasn't always that way, was it? In fact we had a very poor understanding of thunder and lightning up until the last 100 years or so. Quite a few folks throughout the ages lived their whole lives thinking it was some god or another throwing rocks around or swinging a hammer. Sooner or later we'll figure out where the universe came from, too. And though we don't have a definite explanation right now, we do have some pretty good, scientifically valid, ideas...and none of them involve gods.
centauri Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 He also says this. First, the chief purpose of life is not happiness, but the knowledge of God. One reason that the problem of evil seems so intractable is that people tend naturally to assume that if God exists, then His purpose for human life is happiness in this world. God's role is to provide a comfortable environment for His human pets. But on the Christian view, this is false. We are not God's pets, and the goal of human life is not happiness per se, but the knowledge of God—which in the end will bring true and everlasting human fulfillment. Many evils occur in life which may be utterly pointless with respect to the goal of producing human happiness; but they may not be pointless with respect to producing a deeper, saving knowledge of God. To carry his argument, the atheist must show that it is feasible for God to create a world in which the same amount of the knowledge of God is achieved, but with less evil—which is sheer speculation. Knowledge of God is secondary. According to Christianity, the chief purpose of life is to glorify God, and the clay pots have no right to question God. Craig has also endorsed evil if serves some mystical higher purpose. There's also the irony-o-meter that explodes with his last words about "sheer speculation". The master of sheer speculation accuses others of engaging in it. WLC con't Second, mankind has been accorded significant moral freedom to rebel against God and His purpose. Rather than submit to and worship God, people have freely rebelled against God and go their own way and so find themselves alienated from God, morally guilty before Him, and groping in spiritual darkness, pursuing false gods of their own making. The horrendous moral evils in the world are testimony to man's depravity in this state of spiritual alienation from God. The Christian is thus not surprised at the moral evil in the world; on the contrary he expects it. Craig assumes that universal "significant moral freedom" exists. He wants to blame evil on the creation rather than the creator. The Bible itself severly undermines these assumptions and it teaches that God manipulates human behavor and predestines according to his will. The creation was also wiped out by a flood, and that didn't solve the problem. God not only created evil but was inept in devising a solution to remedy it. He ignores the Bible when it teaches against his personal doctrine. WLC con't: Third, God's purpose spills over into eternal life. In the Christian view, this earthly life is but a momentary preparation for immortal life. In the afterlife God will give those who have trusted Him for salvation an eternal life of unspeakable joy. Given the prospect of eternal life, we should not expect to see in this life God's compensation for every evil we experience. Some may be justified only in light of eternity. Fourth, the knowledge of God is an incommensurable good. To know God, the locus of infinite goodness and love, is an incomparable good, the fulfillment of human existence. The sufferings of this life cannot even be compared to it. Thus, the person who knows God, no matter what he suffers, no matter how awful his pain, can still truly say, "God is good to me!", simply in virtue of the fact that he knows God. Yep, standard Christian apologetics at work here. The apologist simply assumes that which he needs to prove. His message to humanity is : Just shut up and don't complain because the more you suffer on earth, the greater you'll be rewarded in heaven (by my version of God). Of course, Craig can't even establish that his version of God exists or that people will be transported to a magical land of joy when the die. If the God of the Old Testament is real, then Craig and his Christian brothers need to get down on their knees and pray for forgiveness because Christianity is exactly the type of religion what this deity told his people to avoid.
Akheia Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Following the rabbit hole of a atheist experience article, I am reading a WLC article. And he has used a argument that i have never seen before 1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause). 2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. 3. The universe exists. 4. Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is God. I want you to know I've been looking for an hour for these 4 proofs thing you mentioned in your status! Oh I'm a goof. Love you man. I was expecting a little better than that if this was the Christians' awesome PROOF FOR GOD. As others have said, there's no real way to get from 1 to 2, and he doesn't really explain what he means by "an explanation" anyway. Nor does he explain why Yahweh is the only option for this "god" who "explains" the universe. Why not Zeus? He's a lot nicer, plus he fucked LOTS of girls so there's no messy Messiah shit to get confused about eons later, and he has never once drowned the world in a snit so there's that.* All the rest of the shit you're talking about is just them trying to argue something into existence. There's no evidence for God, so all they *can* do is utilize increasingly-desperate irrational arguments. If there were evidence, they'd just lay it on the table; that they have not yet is quite telling. I really pity someone who converts based on anything this lame. ETA: Rushing to Hesiod to make sure of that last bit.
Spectrox Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 There is one sure way of testing the honesty behind the intention of this argument. Did WLC reason this out from first principles and then believe in God or was he already a believer and then used this disingenuous argument to bolster his faith and pander to his own pseudo-intellectual ego? WLC has invested too much of his life on apologetics to even consider that he might be fooling himself (and others). It's a bag o' shite.
oddbird1963 Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Following the rabbit hole of a atheist experience article, I am reading a WLC article. And he has used a argument that i have never seen before 1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause). 2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. 3. The universe exists. 4. Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is God. Read more: http://www.reasonabl...m#ixzz20BUcQFxN At first glance this seems like a redress of the cosmological arguement with some added, god gives us meaning for spice. The cosmological arguement is a failure for the various reasons that have already been addressed. Though this fails in many ways for its presupposition. Sure anything has a existence also has a explaination, but you would have to assume that there is good reasons to believe god exists. Otherwise its ex post facto reasoning. 2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is squigglemuffin . 3. The universe exists. 4. Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is squigglemuffin . Or . . . 2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is gnarfsnukkets . 3. The universe exists. 4. Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is gnarfsnukkets . "God" is just a filler word here. It's a word with all sorts of cultural baggage, but it's really just a filler. Using a filler word that could mean anything, especially when you don't know the nature of that explanation does not prove anything.
oddbird1963 Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Nor does he explain why Yahweh is the only option for this "god" who "explains" the universe. WLC's tactic when presented with this question is to say something like "this is not the venue to demonstrate that the God of the Bible is the God that created the universe. I will do that elsewhere at a later time but for now this just provides solid reasons to believe that a God must exist." I guess that is moving the goal post or something. He separates "does God exist?" from "does the God I worship exist " (when he has to).
ToonForever Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 How does 2) follow from 1)? Admittedly I'm not very honed in philosophy but already going to 2) from 1) seems like hell of a quantum leap to me. Exactly. #2 is fallacious, an unsupported assumption. Now, you could *name* the cause of the universe's existence god, but it does not follow that whatever god is fits any human, let alone Christian, definition of god. You would likely be calling a natural force/process we don't yet understand "god" but that doesn't make it YHWH...
Akheia Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Nor does he explain why Yahweh is the only option for this "god" who "explains" the universe. WLC's tactic when presented with this question is to say something like "this is not the venue to demonstrate that the God of the Bible is the God that created the universe. I will do that elsewhere at a later time but for now this just provides solid reasons to believe that a God must exist." I guess that is moving the goal post or something. He separates "does God exist?" from "does the God I worship exist " (when he has to). I dunno, that seems like a pretty fundamental part of his proposition, doesn't it? If he's asking us to take it as a given that this "god" means "that very particular god I like best," that sounds suspiciously like he's hoping that we'll forget about that part before he manages to snow us into buying the rest of the argument. I'd take this "proof" a lot more seriously if it just aimed to prove the existence of the supernatural in general. But he's clearly doing something intellectually dishonest here if he's insisting that he doesn't need to prove that god=Yahweh quite yet.
Weetie Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause). 2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is Cheetos Corn Chips. 3. The universe exists. 4. Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is Cheetos Corn Chips. I believe this is known as Argumentum ad Deliciis (arguement from deliciousness) and was first proposed by St. Chester of Cheetah.
Akheia Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Weetie: Plz to be posting more often kthx. That made me laugh
SusanStoHeli Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 1. Everything that exists has an explanation. 2. If god has an explanation, that explanation is Me. 3. God exists. 4. Therefore I am more powerful than god! If everything that exists has an explanation, God is not exempt from their own reasoning. That's generally the type of problem they have with these arguments - they want to say that God is exempt from the rules. If God is - then why not the universe?
Carolorado Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 This is one of thousands of reasons I quit. This is a circular argument. This guy assumes that God is the ONLY answer to the question. As others have pointed out, each of us or our dogs or cats or cars or homes or trees or mosquitos could be substituted for this guy's god. Typical xian logic. I left them long ago, I wish to heck they would accept that some of us just refuse to believe their bs anymore, we are not going back and we were fools to believe in the first place. And quit coming up with such easily refutable questions. Use some logic, xians. But that would be an oxymoron, wouldn't it? Duh... 2
Guest Valk0010 Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 This is one of thousands of reasons I quit. This is a circular argument. This guy assumes that God is the ONLY answer to the question. As others have pointed out, each of us or our dogs or cats or cars or homes or trees or mosquitos could be substituted for this guy's god. Typical xian logic. I left them long ago, I wish to heck they would accept that some of us just refuse to believe their bs anymore, we are not going back and we were fools to believe in the first place. And quit coming up with such easily refutable questions. Use some logic, xians. But that would be an oxymoron, wouldn't it? Duh... ditto
Guest Valk0010 Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Following the rabbit hole of a atheist experience article, I am reading a WLC article. And he has used a argument that i have never seen before 1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause). 2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. 3. The universe exists. 4. Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is God. I want you to know I've been looking for an hour for these 4 proofs thing you mentioned in your status! Oh I'm a goof. Love you man. I was expecting a little better than that if this was the Christians' awesome PROOF FOR GOD. As others have said, there's no real way to get from 1 to 2, and he doesn't really explain what he means by "an explanation" anyway. Nor does he explain why Yahweh is the only option for this "god" who "explains" the universe. Why not Zeus? He's a lot nicer, plus he fucked LOTS of girls so there's no messy Messiah shit to get confused about eons later, and he has never once drowned the world in a snit so there's that.* All the rest of the shit you're talking about is just them trying to argue something into existence. There's no evidence for God, so all they *can* do is utilize increasingly-desperate irrational arguments. If there were evidence, they'd just lay it on the table; that they have not yet is quite telling. I really pity someone who converts based on anything this lame. ETA: Rushing to Hesiod to make sure of that last bit. Ohh the four step proof for god isn't this, its this http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm Ohh and centauri thank you, you always seem to be able to make stuff like this seem like mince meat with zero effort. Thanks
Recommended Posts