Freethought & Rationalism Archive

helmvgod · 06-28-2007, 11:14 PM

You hear these debates from time to time. An atheist taking on a theist(usually christian) on the existence of god. The theist's arguments are almost entirely philosphical typically. Can we really consider a philosophical argument as evidence on its own? I mean loical proofs can logically defend all kinds of notions. It becomes a kind of puzzle; interesting, but not evidence. Why should a logical argument be considered as evidence?

KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Here is the initial premises annd conclusion:

Everything that has begun to exist has a cause

The Universe has begun to exist

THerefore, the universe has a cause

ON its face this seems circular, or at least, to be presupposing to me.
What is the universe?? Everything, no? SO...

everything that has begun to exist has a cause

everything has begun to exist

therefore, everything has a cause

nonsense, right? What else can the universe be? Those who push this argument will try to make the universe be something less than everything, which is pointless for them really. They attempt to use the scientific consensus on the Big Bang, while then saying that the consensus is wrong on the what the universe is.

make sense of it...
1. The kalam cosmological argument: We know that the universe is not infinite for many obvious and logical reasons. The sun has not burnt up, which would have already occurred if the earth had always been here. Also, we have arrived today. Look at today as the end of history; it is ridiculous to argue that the earth is infinite if we have arrived the end of history. You could never finish reading a book that had no starting point or no end. Fact 1 is that the universe began to exist. Fact #2 Nothing can cause itself to exist. Something cannot come from nothing. So whatever begins to exist must have a cause. So if the universe began to exist, it must have a cause. Fact#3 For logical reasons, at some point, you have to arrive at an uncaused first cause. If you say that something besides God caused the universe to come into existence, then you have to explain how that cause came into existence. Sooner or later, there has to be an uncaused first cause of everything. Let's call that first cause God. This uncaused cause must be intelligent and personal. This "God", as already stated, must be infinite and uncaused. Yet, it was able to create a universe in time and bring about conditions not previously present. From its will, a temporal universe came into being from an eternal cause. lots of holes, right?

check out this evidence for god...

2. John Barrow and Frank Tippler are the physicists that advanced the Anthropic principle. Both are quick to point out that they are not creationists. However they use science to prove that our very existence is statistically impossible. They point out that there have to be 10 crucial steps in our evolution and each one of these steps is so improbable that the sun would have burned out and incinerated the earth before it would occur. They estimate the odds against the assembly of the human genome at between (can't type exponents) 4 to the -180(110,0000) power and 4 to the -360(110,000). They have also proven that "for there to be enough time to construct the constituents of living beings, the universe must be at least 10 billion years old and therefore, as a consequence of its expansion, at least 10 billion light years in extent. In statitistical terms, there is a 0% chance that life arose independently on earth.

[I]3. Thomas Aquinas' Moral Argument: There are varying degrees of good/bad in the world. Some things are recognized as being more "good" or "noble" or "true" than other things. Consequently, there must be a standard that all of these ideas are judged against. There must be something that exists that is the most noble, true, good, etc.

4. Moral arugment: All can agree that some objective moral standards exist. Anyone that has ever had a philosophy or ethics class knows that moral relativism is a self defeating argument. For instance, I hope we can all agree that torturing babies for fun is always wrong, everywhere, and under any circumstance. Where do these objective morals come from? For any moral law, there must be a moral Lawgiver.[/I[

How is that EVIDENCE?

DMC · 06-28-2007, 11:33 PM

A philosophical argument is evidence of an argument. No argument is evidence of anything besides the components that make up the argument.

We will agree that torturing babies, or anyone else, is wrong. There are reasons why we agree to this, but it doesn't make wrong and right "objective". If you have fun doing it, then you don't consider it wrong. You might consider it taboo, but unless you are seriously mentally deranged, you probably don't enjoy what you consider to be wrong.

#4 is wrong. We cannot simply say that "all can agree" on something. Even if we all agreed, it doesn't make morality objective.

I suppose I am trying to figure out your question... :huh:

Can you sum up your post in a single paragraph and then pose your question?

RAFH · 06-28-2007, 11:38 PM

What's your point?

All of these have been addressed and refuted. So?

What's your point?

Emil · 06-29-2007, 12:44 AM

1.

Quote:

This uncaused cause must be intelligent and personal.

Why?

2. Seems like the same old backwize calculating. Evolution isn't random. See this for an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2SVMKZhV2g

3. Why must there be an a priori most good etc. to be able to judge?

4. I don't. I'm a moral relativist. And I disagree, torturing babies for fun is not objectively wrong. It simply is.

Alf · 06-29-2007, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deleet

1.

Quote:

This uncaused cause must be intelligent and personal.

Why?

2. Seems like the same old backwize calculating. Evolution isn't random. See this for an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2SVMKZhV2g

3. Why must there be an a priori most good etc. to be able to judge?

4. I don't. I'm a moral relativist. And I disagree, torturing babies for fun is not objectively wrong. It simply is.

The move you linked to also show the importance of sex in this. Perhaps that is why the religious crowd has such problems with evolution. They have always learned that sex is a bad naughty thing you don't talk about and then scientists come along and say sex is important and indeed vital to our evolution and why we are the way we are.

Just a thought.

Alf

angelo · 06-29-2007, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helmvgod

You hear these debates from time to time. An atheist taking on a theist(usually christian) on the existence of god. The theist's arguments are almost entirely philosphical typically. Can we really consider a philosophical argument as evidence on its own? I mean loical proofs can logically defend all kinds of notions. It becomes a kind of puzzle; interesting, but not evidence. Why should a logical argument be considered as evidence?

KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Here is the initial premises annd conclusion:

Everything that has begun to exist has a cause

The Universe has begun to exist

THerefore, the universe has a cause

ON its face this seems circular, or at least, to be presupposing to me.
What is the universe?? Everything, no? SO...

everything that has begun to exist has a cause

everything has begun to exist

therefore, everything has a cause

nonsense, right? What else can the universe be? Those who push this argument will try to make the universe be something less than everything, which is pointless for them really. They attempt to use the scientific consensus on the Big Bang, while then saying that the consensus is wrong on the what the universe is.

make sense of it...
1. The kalam cosmological argument: We know that the universe is not infinite for many obvious and logical reasons. The sun has not burnt up, which would have already occurred if the earth had always been here. Also, we have arrived today. Look at today as the end of history; it is ridiculous to argue that the earth is infinite if we have arrived the end of history. You could never finish reading a book that had no starting point or no end. Fact 1 is that the universe began to exist. Fact #2 Nothing can cause itself to exist. Something cannot come from nothing. So whatever begins to exist must have a cause. So if the universe began to exist, it must have a cause. Fact#3 For logical reasons, at some point, you have to arrive at an uncaused first cause. If you say that something besides God caused the universe to come into existence, then you have to explain how that cause came into existence. Sooner or later, there has to be an uncaused first cause of everything. Let's call that first cause God. This uncaused cause must be intelligent and personal. This "God", as already stated, must be infinite and uncaused. Yet, it was able to create a universe in time and bring about conditions not previously present. From its will, a temporal universe came into being from an eternal cause. lots of holes, right?

check out this evidence for god...

2. John Barrow and Frank Tippler are the physicists that advanced the Anthropic principle. Both are quick to point out that they are not creationists. However they use science to prove that our very existence is statistically impossible. They point out that there have to be 10 crucial steps in our evolution and each one of these steps is so improbable that the sun would have burned out and incinerated the earth before it would occur. They estimate the odds against the assembly of the human genome at between (can't type exponents) 4 to the -180(110,0000) power and 4 to the -360(110,000). They have also proven that "for there to be enough time to construct the constituents of living beings, the universe must be at least 10 billion years old and therefore, as a consequence of its expansion, at least 10 billion light years in extent. In statitistical terms, there is a 0% chance that life arose independently on earth.

[I]3. Thomas Aquinas' Moral Argument: There are varying degrees of good/bad in the world. Some things are recognized as being more "good" or "noble" or "true" than other things. Consequently, there must be a standard that all of these ideas are judged against. There must be something that exists that is the most noble, true, good, etc.

4. Moral arugment: All can agree that some objective moral standards exist. Anyone that has ever had a philosophy or ethics class knows that moral relativism is a self defeating argument. For instance, I hope we can all agree that torturing babies for fun is always wrong, everywhere, and under any circumstance. Where do these objective morals come from? For any moral law, there must be a moral Lawgiver.[/I[

How is that EVIDENCE?

Tippler's argument does not hold up. We are here aren't we? Yes life is probably very rare in the cosmos, but give it the right conditions, and it will emerge. The number of countless galaxies that exist will ensure, out of the sheer numbers that life will start elsewhere. Moral arguments don't hold either.
Morality was needed for the species to survive. Natural instincts would ensure that babies are looked after, not bashed to death. The argument that there is morality, therefore there's a god is often used by theist; but it does not hold water with Darwinian evolution.

Oxymoron · 06-29-2007, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

The argument that there is morality, therefore there's a god is often used by theist; but it does not hold water with Darwinian evolution.

It doesn't hold water PERIOD!

The vast majority of humans have two arms. This means that we share "having two arms" in common, not that there is some objective rule stipulating there have to be two arms, as most octopuses will testify to. We have two because that's what our genes code for and we pass our genes on to our offspring.

So if we had common morality that would be that. Of course, we don't even have that. Eg: some African cultures still practice female circumcision. Where is "objective morality" now?

helmvgod · 06-29-2007, 07:56 AM

I am surprised you guys are letting the thing about the earth and the sun go. I thought that was pretty stupid. I was curious to know what you thought about my refutation of tKCA. I also wanted to know the other refutations of the other arguments. That is all.

helmvgod · 06-29-2007, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAFH

What's your point?

All of these have been addressed and refuted. So?

What's your point?

Sorry. I haven't seen those specifically. I just have my own.

Wayne Delia · 06-29-2007, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helmvgod

check out this evidence for god...

OK, will do.

Quote:

2. John Barrow and Frank Tippler are the physicists that advanced the Anthropic principle. Both are quick to point out that they are not creationists. However they use science to prove that our very existence is statistically impossible. They point out that there have to be 10 crucial steps in our evolution and each one of these steps is so improbable that the sun would have burned out and incinerated the earth before it would occur. They estimate the odds against the assembly of the human genome at between (can't type exponents) 4 to the -180(110,0000) power and 4 to the -360(110,000). They have also proven that "for there to be enough time to construct the constituents of living beings, the universe must be at least 10 billion years old and therefore, as a consequence of its expansion, at least 10 billion light years in extent. In statitistical terms, there is a 0% chance that life arose independently on earth.

I'm a mathematician, and that kind of irresponsible leap of faith really infuriates me. (I realize this isn't actually your argument, but it is commonly put forward.)

"In statistical terms," the astronomical odds against a particular event only indicate that event is extremely statistically improbable, not statistically impossible.

Odds against a particular event = 1 in (A very large number of chances) = 'extremely statistically improbable.'

Odds against a particular event = 0 in (Any positive number of chances) = 'statistically impossible.'

What is often overlooked is that astronomically long odds against something happening appear to be... well, astronomical, because it represents the odds against a particular outcome happening in a single chain of trials where only one trial is happening at a time. We know that there are millions, perhaps billions of these strings of trials happening at any given time - and that the instances of time stretch out over millions, perhaps billions of years. Each of those factors reduce the astronomically long odds against the event happening down to more realistic levels.

WMD

06-28-2007, 11:14 PM	#1
helmvgod Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Georgia Posts: 203	Evidence of God? You hear these debates from time to time. An atheist taking on a theist(usually christian) on the existence of god. The theist's arguments are almost entirely philosphical typically. Can we really consider a philosophical argument as evidence on its own? I mean loical proofs can logically defend all kinds of notions. It becomes a kind of puzzle; interesting, but not evidence. Why should a logical argument be considered as evidence? KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT Here is the initial premises annd conclusion: Everything that has begun to exist has a cause The Universe has begun to exist THerefore, the universe has a cause ON its face this seems circular, or at least, to be presupposing to me. What is the universe?? Everything, no? SO... everything that has begun to exist has a cause everything has begun to exist therefore, everything has a cause nonsense, right? What else can the universe be? Those who push this argument will try to make the universe be something less than everything, which is pointless for them really. They attempt to use the scientific consensus on the Big Bang, while then saying that the consensus is wrong on the what the universe is. make sense of it... 1. The kalam cosmological argument: We know that the universe is not infinite for many obvious and logical reasons. The sun has not burnt up, which would have already occurred if the earth had always been here. Also, we have arrived today. Look at today as the end of history; it is ridiculous to argue that the earth is infinite if we have arrived the end of history. You could never finish reading a book that had no starting point or no end. Fact 1 is that the universe began to exist. Fact #2 Nothing can cause itself to exist. Something cannot come from nothing. So whatever begins to exist must have a cause. So if the universe began to exist, it must have a cause. Fact#3 For logical reasons, at some point, you have to arrive at an uncaused first cause. If you say that something besides God caused the universe to come into existence, then you have to explain how that cause came into existence. Sooner or later, there has to be an uncaused first cause of everything. Let's call that first cause God. This uncaused cause must be intelligent and personal. This "God", as already stated, must be infinite and uncaused. Yet, it was able to create a universe in time and bring about conditions not previously present. From its will, a temporal universe came into being from an eternal cause. lots of holes, right? check out this evidence for god... 2. John Barrow and Frank Tippler are the physicists that advanced the Anthropic principle. Both are quick to point out that they are not creationists. However they use science to prove that our very existence is statistically impossible. They point out that there have to be 10 crucial steps in our evolution and each one of these steps is so improbable that the sun would have burned out and incinerated the earth before it would occur. They estimate the odds against the assembly of the human genome at between (can't type exponents) 4 to the -180(110,0000) power and 4 to the -360(110,000). They have also proven that "for there to be enough time to construct the constituents of living beings, the universe must be at least 10 billion years old and therefore, as a consequence of its expansion, at least 10 billion light years in extent. In statitistical terms, there is a 0% chance that life arose independently on earth. [I]3. Thomas Aquinas' Moral Argument: There are varying degrees of good/bad in the world. Some things are recognized as being more "good" or "noble" or "true" than other things. Consequently, there must be a standard that all of these ideas are judged against. There must be something that exists that is the most noble, true, good, etc. 4. Moral arugment: All can agree that some objective moral standards exist. Anyone that has ever had a philosophy or ethics class knows that moral relativism is a self defeating argument. For instance, I hope we can all agree that torturing babies for fun is always wrong, everywhere, and under any circumstance. Where do these objective morals come from? For any moral law, there must be a moral Lawgiver.[/I[ How is that EVIDENCE?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-28-2007, 11:33 PM	#2
DMC Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Upstairs Posts: 3,803	A philosophical argument is evidence of an argument. No argument is evidence of anything besides the components that make up the argument. We will agree that torturing babies, or anyone else, is wrong. There are reasons why we agree to this, but it doesn't make wrong and right "objective". If you have fun doing it, then you don't consider it wrong. You might consider it taboo, but unless you are seriously mentally deranged, you probably don't enjoy what you consider to be wrong. #4 is wrong. We cannot simply say that "all can agree" on something. Even if we all agreed, it doesn't make morality objective. I suppose I am trying to figure out your question... :huh: Can you sum up your post in a single paragraph and then pose your question?

06-28-2007, 11:38 PM	#3
RAFH Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Kahaluu, Hawaii Posts: 6,400	What's your point? All of these have been addressed and refuted. So? What's your point?

06-29-2007, 07:56 AM	#8
helmvgod Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Georgia Posts: 203	I am surprised you guys are letting the thing about the earth and the sun go. I thought that was pretty stupid. I was curious to know what you thought about my refutation of tKCA. I also wanted to know the other refutations of the other arguments. That is all.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.