Being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean you're rational
138 replies, posted
You can't really make a similar argument for something like a fairy.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49799576]I really don't think you could. To posit God as the first cause is a logical extrapolation. There must be some uncaused thing, and that uncaused thing must start the chain of causation.
Neither a machine or abstract idea can fill that space (the cause of a machine would necessarily have to exist alongside the machine at all point into infinity, therefore not solving the problem, and abstract ideas can't be causes). So people throughout history have posited some kind of sentient being.[/QUOTE]
it really isn't
the premise is a baseless assertion, and the conclusion is textbook special pleading
like, whatever, believe whatever shit you want, but don't pretend it's logical
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49799588]it really isn't
it's textbook special pleading
like, whatever, believe whatever shit you want, but don't pretend it's logical[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, but I'm tired of arguing these ideas that are agreed upon by the vast majority of secular, non-religious, thinkers on the subject. You are the one welcome to think what you want, but you need to know that you're not standing alongside atheists who are a whole lot smarter than you.
There's a reason atheists don't respond in that way during real debates.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49799602]I'm sorry, but I'm tired of arguing these ideas that are agreed upon by the vast majority of secular, non-religious, thinkers on the subject. You are the one welcome to think what you want, but you need to know that you're not standing alongside atheists who are a whole lot smarter than you.
There's a reason atheists don't respond in that way during real debates.[/QUOTE]
I don't care if the king of the lollipop guild agrees with you
You start with an entirely unproven claim, that [I]all[/I] things [I]require[/I] something to "cause" them, and then supply an "unmoved mover" that contradicts that statement in the very next sentence. It's special pleading, back to front.
Take your arguments from authority and shove them up your ass.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49799524]The idea of a first cause (or first mover) God goes back to at least Plato. So, no, they weren't just trying to explain natural phenomena.[/QUOTE]
This actually counts for explaining natural phenomena. Ancient philosophers knew that things don't happen without a cause, so each event has to have a cause, and either that cause-effect chain is infinite, or something put it into motion. Even modern philosophers don't like dealing with infinite things, ancient ones liked it even less. Therefore, god. In a way, that would also be a way of explaining/understanding of natural world, just in a much bigger scope than before.
[QUOTE=gudman;49799634]This actually counts for explaining natural phenomena. Ancient philosophers knew that things don't happen without a cause, so each event has to have a cause, and either that cause-effect chain is infinite, or something put it into motion. Even modern philosophers don't like dealing with infinite things, ancient ones liked it even less. Therefore, god. In a way, that would also be a way of explaining/understanding of natural world, just in a much bigger scope than before.[/QUOTE]
My point is that it's a logical argument for God. It's based on the logical issue of infinity or infinite regress as opposed to it being based on a pure inability to provide a natural explanation.
In a sense it's still trying to explain the natural world, but in a very different way. To treat both types of explanations as equivalent is overly reductive.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49799587]You can't really make a similar argument for something like a fairy.[/QUOTE]
Of course I can. Fairies have to exist because there is a fairy in each of us. The fairy is the feeling of the "self" inside your mind, the "ghost in the machine," who makes decisions on the human end. How else could free will exist otherwise? Therefore, magical winged fairies exist.
Your invoking of Plato is a dodge because he was not the first person to believe in a god. The first people who thought up a god did so for reasons which we will never know. I believe it's much more likely that it was a post hoc explanation made by primitives who didn't know what the hell was going on. But sure, it's possible that hunter gatherer proto-humans were pondering about an unmoved mover. Or god is actually real, as you believe.
What I DO know is that people who lived alongside Plato were in fact invoking gods to explain various phenomena. He did live in Classical Greece, as you know. I'm sure you're aware of many of these claims.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49799626]I don't care if the king of the lollipop guild agrees with you
You start with an entirely unproven claim, that [I]all[/I] things [I]require[/I] something to "cause" them, and then supply an "unmoved mover" that contradicts that statement in the very next sentence. It's special pleading, back to front.
Take your arguments from authority and shove them up your ass.[/QUOTE]
Whatever, you are obviously smarter than every atheist I've ever seen debate the issue. So, congratulations, I guess.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49799662]Whatever, you are obviously smarter than every atheist I've ever seen debate the issue. So, congratulations, I guess.[/QUOTE]
Whether or not something is true is not decided by how smart the person making the argument is, it's decided by whether or not the argument is logical.
I don't care if someone "smart" agrees with you, I care if your argument is logically sound, and it plainly isn't.
The fact that you have to appeal to authority in a vain attempt to bolster the credibility of your argument just tells me you have no actual defense to fall back on.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49799647]My point is that it's a logical argument for God. It's based on the logical issue of infinity or infinite regress as opposed to it being based on a pure inability to provide a natural explanation.
In a sense it's still trying to explain the natural world, but in a very different way. To treat both types of explanations as equivalent is overly reductive.[/QUOTE]
There's no logical arguments for the existence of god. None. Each and every one opens a can of very big worms. Where before you had "How long does this chain go" you have "what is a god?", "what is the nature of a god?", "why doesn't it require a cause?" and "why is it exempt from universal laws?", "is it living?", "is it sentient?", "what are its intentions if it is?". God is not an answer, it's dodging the question.
"There has to be something without a cause that was the cause of everything" is an assumption. Logical and reasonable thing to say in case of you not knowing something is to say "I don't know and have no way of knowing". Saying "god" instead of "I don't know" is not logical in any way.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49799684]Whether or not something is true is not decided by how smart the person making the argument is, it's decided by whether or not the argument is logical.
I don't care if someone "smart" agrees with you, I care if your argument is logically sound, and it plainly isn't.
The fact that you have to appeal to authority in a vain attempt to bolster the credibility of your argument just tells me you have no actual defense to fall back on.[/QUOTE]
You sound like a climate change denier. The vast majority of people in the field disagree with you, but hey, you must be smarter than them all!
I've learned my lesson about trying to make nuanced philosophical arguments on FP. There are some people intellectually honest and rigorous enough to actually debate, but there are too many people who are totally ignorant of basic logical and philosophical thought who quickly run it into the ground. All the while thinking they're the bastion of intelligence.
[editline]23rd February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=gudman;49799727]There's no logical arguments for the existence of god. None. Each and every one opens a can of very big worms. Where before you had "How long does this chain go" you have "what is a god?", "what is the nature of a god?", "why doesn't it require a cause?" and "why is it exempt from universal laws?", "is it living?", "is it sentient?", "what are its intentions if it is?". God is not an answer, it's dodging the question.
"There has to be something without a cause that was the cause of everything" is an assumption. Logical and reasonable thing to say in case of you not knowing something is to say "I don't know and have no way of knowing". Saying "god" instead of "I don't know" is not logical in any way.[/QUOTE]
I would be the first to admit that the first cause argument, along with a few others, goes no further than to postulate some being capable of thought, and absolutely nothing more. Like I said, there are logical reasons to postulate a thoughtful being, but that's about it. I would also fully admit that they are not proofs. They are arguments for justified belief.
Any more specific ideas must come from theology, not purely logical conclusion.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49799732]You sound like a climate change denier. The vast majority of people in the field disagree with you, but hey, you must be smarter than them all!
I've learned my lesson about trying to make nuanced philosophical arguments on FP. There are some people intellectually honest and rigorous enough to actually debate, but there are too many people who are totally ignorant of basic logical and philosophical thought who quickly run it into the ground. All the while thinking they're the bastion of intelligence.[/QUOTE]
right, I'm the one who doesn't know anything about philosophy
hey if you have anything to say that isn't just appealing to authority or ad hominem, I'm all ears
I'm sorry I don't agree with you just because the "smart guys" allegedly think you're right
[QUOTE=sgman91;49799732]
I would be the first to admit that the first cause argument, along with a few others, goes no further than to postulate some being capable of thought, and absolutely nothing more. Like I said, there are logical reasons to postulate a thoughtful being, but that's about it. I would also fully admit that they are not proofs, but arguments for justified belief.
Any more specific ideas must come from theology, not purely logical conclusion.[/QUOTE]
That's the exact reason it's not a logical argument. Because it's literally this situation:
1. I have a problem.
2. I don't know how to solve the problem.
3. I present some bollocks.
4. I say that it takes some other school of thought to explain the nature of bollocks that I made up.
5. Problem solved, I guess?
That's delegating your original problem to someone else to solve. At no point was it ever a solution.
[QUOTE=gudman;49799762]That's the exact reason it's not a logical argument. Because it's literally this situation:
1. I have a problem.
2. I don't know how to solve the problem.
3. I present some bollocks.
4. I say that it takes some other school of thought to explain the nature of bollocks that I made up.
5. Problem solved, I guess?
That's delegating your original problem to someone else to solve. At no point was it ever a solution.[/QUOTE]
Infinite regress in definitely a problem. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
[QUOTE]right, I'm the one who doesn't know anything about philosophy
hey if you have anything to say that isn't just appealing to authority or ad hominem, I'm all ears[/QUOTE]
"the smart guys" don't all think I'm right, but they also know your response is a bad one. You're working off the idea that the argument includes the premise "everything has cause." If that were the case, then you would be right. Claiming that something arbitrarily exists without cause would be special pleading. The problem, of course, is that that isn't a premise in the argument. The premise is instead: "everything that begins to exist has a cause." Defining something that doesn't begin to exist as an explanation doesn't in any way contradict or need special pleading.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49799812]Infinite regress in definitely a problem. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
"the smart guys" don't all think I'm right, but they also know your response is a bad one. You're working off the idea that the argument includes the premise "everything has cause." If that were the case, then you would be right. Claiming that something arbitrarily exists without cause would be special pleading. The problem, of course, is that that isn't a premise in the argument. The premise is instead: "everything that begins to exist has a cause." Defining something that doesn't begin to exist as an explanation doesn't in any way contradict or need special pleading.[/QUOTE]
How do you prove that the universe "began"? So far as I'm aware, no one actually knows anything about the state of the universe pre big bang. So on what do you base your assertion that the universe "began" and needs the aid of something that didn't "begin"?
[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49799510]winged creatures with wands is something we have literally no concept of, to dismiss it entirely is just as foolish as believing it entirely.
[/QUOTE]
Not true at all. Don't know why you hold this view.
[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49799510]
the existence of some sort of magical, winged creatures with wands is something we have literally no concept of, to dismiss it entirely is just as foolish as believing it entirely.
[/QUOTE]
we literally know that the stories of fairies come from things like will-o-wisps
if you want to ignore that then its fine man but like ive already explained this
[QUOTE=sgman91;49799812]Infinite regress in definitely a problem. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not trying to say anything, I think I've been quite blunt in that "god assumption" is not the solution to anything, specifically infinite regress in this case. It's just an unwelcome and uncalled for assumption, there's nothing logical about it. It would be kind of "logical" if it was solving the problem. Instead, it creates more.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;49799879]we literally know that the stories of fairies come from things like will-o-wisps
if you want to ignore that then its fine man but like ive already explained this[/QUOTE]
we literally know that the stories of gods come from things like volcanoes and lightning
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49799833]How do you prove that the universe "began"? So far as I'm aware, no one actually knows anything about the state of the universe pre big bang. So on what do you base your assertion that the universe "began" and needs the aid of something that didn't "begin"?[/QUOTE]
Well, there's scientific reasons like those presented in the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin (all atheists and top cosmologists, I believe) paper. ([URL]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf[/URL])
[editline]23rd February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49799911]we literally know that the stories of gods come from things like volcanoes and lightning[/QUOTE]
How do we "literally know that" when even ancient peoples gave reasons other than those for their belief in a god?
[QUOTE=sgman91;49799990]Well, there's scientific reasons like those presented in the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin (all atheists and top cosmologists, I believe) paper. ([URL]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf[/URL])
[editline]23rd February 2016[/editline]
How do we "literally know that" when even ancient peoples gave reasons other than those for their belief in a god?[/QUOTE]
So far as I can tell, this paper is a refutation of certain theories about the nature of the universe that imply it is past complete.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of this appears to be evidence that the universe necessarily "began", only that there are flaws in current theoretical models.
You still have yet to prove that the universe had a "beginning" and requires an "unmoved mover", which is the crux of your argument. And even if you [I]did[/I], you have yet to explain how this "unmoved mover" exists outside the limitations of the universe.
All you're doing is pointing to a hole in scientific understanding and filling it in with God. As has been the modus operandi of religious apologists throughout all of human history.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49800094]So far as I can tell, this paper is a refutation of certain theories about the nature of the universe that imply it is past complete.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of this appears to be evidence that the universe necessarily "began", only that there are flaws in current theoretical models.[/QUOTE]
The paper says that (essentially) all inflationary models are past-incomplete. They all must have some starting point.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49800191]The paper says that (essentially) all inflationary models are past-incomplete. They all must have some starting point.[/QUOTE]
The problem here is you're playing fast and loose with the term "began".
The big bang was the "starting point" of the universe as we know it, but it wasn't the point at which the universe began to exist. Similarly, though there must be a starting point for all inflationary models, that doesn't imply that that is the point at which those structures came into existence.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49799732]Like I said, there are logical reasons to postulate a thoughtful being, but that's about it.[/QUOTE]
Okay, then show us the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_logic"]logic[/URL]. What are the facts, and how can you deduce a thoughtful being from those facts?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49800201]The problem here is you're playing fast and loose with the term "began".
The big bang was the "starting point" of the universe as we know it, but it wasn't the point at which the universe began to exist. Similarly, though there must be a starting point for all inflationary models, that doesn't imply that that is the point at which those structures came into existence.[/QUOTE]
According to Vilenkin, one of the authors, the paper applies all the way down to quantum gravity. He's also argued that it can be applied to an expanding and contracting model.
Yes, there are hypotheses that avoid the BGV paper's assumptions, but those have literally zero evidentiary support. So they don't really provide any real sort of answer to it's conclusions.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49800265]According to Vilenkin, one of the authors, the paper applies all the way down to quantum gravity. He's also argued that it can be applied to an expanding and contracting model.
Yes, there are hypotheses that avoid the BGV paper's assumptions, but those have literally zero evidentiary support. So they don't really provide any real sort of answer to it's conclusions.[/QUOTE]
Again, all you're arguing is that current models fail to properly explain what we observe about the universe. I'm not about to dispute that.
But there is a leap from "current models are not past complete" to "the universe requires an unmoved mover".
Just because other theories may be flawed does not mean your pet theory becomes true by default. This is the foundational problem with all religious apologetics.
Deus ex machina hypotheses are unfalsifiable and indemonstrable. They're illogical by nature. This is why the only way to argue in favor of them is to argue against other explanations.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49800322]Again, all you're arguing is that current models fail to properly explain what we observe about the universe. I'm not about to dispute that.
But there is a leap from "current models are not past complete" to "the universe requires an unmoved mover".
Just because other theories may be flawed does not mean your pet theory becomes true by default. This is the foundational problem with all religious apologetics.
Deus ex machina hypotheses are unfalsifiable and indemonstrable. They're illogical by nature. This is why the only way to argue in favor of them is to argue against other explanations.[/QUOTE]
It's not that "current models fail." It's that current models suggest a beginning that requires an explanation.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49800361]It's not that "current models fail." It's that current models suggest a beginning that requires an explanation.[/QUOTE]
And what suggests that that beginning requires some outside extra-universal force to have occurred?
[QUOTE=sgman91;49799732]You sound like a climate change denier. The vast majority of people in the field disagree with you, but hey, you must be smarter than them all![/QUOTE]Except climate change has mounds of scientific data and evidence to support it whilst God has literally zero
[QUOTE=sgman91;49799732]You sound like a climate change denier. The vast majority of people in the field disagree with you, but hey, you must be smarter than them all!
I've learned my lesson about trying to make nuanced philosophical arguments on FP. There are some people intellectually honest and rigorous enough to actually debate, but there are too many people who are totally ignorant of basic logical and philosophical thought who quickly run it into the ground. All the while thinking they're the bastion of intelligence.[/QUOTE]
You don't seem intellectually robust enough to be able to debate Mr. Scorpio on his opinion, and instead just cite how other people might disagree with him.
Besides, you tend to enter threads like this only to ignore questions that just make you uncomfortable anyway.
You can go on all you like about who or what created the universe, but while you're sitting in your philosopher's armchair pretending that you are not just trying to justify something that has never been observed, and therefore as arbitrary as any other untruth, there are real people conducting real and effective research that will make you move your goalposts every. Single. Time.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.