Argument from causal Necessity

This is an argument I recently had on a atheist web site, Here"You" is the atheist AndyF2.



Dialogue with AndyF2 aka"you" https://oncreationism.blogspot.com/2020/06/hinmans-cosmological-argument.html

my argument

1. Something exists.
2. Whatever exists does so either because it exists eternally or because it's existence is dependent upon some prior cause or set of circumstances.
3.If all things that exist are dependent for their existnece there is no actual explanation of causes
4. Therefore, there exists at least one  eternal thing
5. The  one eternal thing is the logical explanation for all causally dependent things
6.Any eternally existing cause of all things is worthy of the appellation "God."
7. Therefore God exists.
The False Dichotomy:

YOU: "The first issue is that 2 is a false dichotomy. For example, it may be that the universe appeared spontaneous. Joe objects to this because there is no precedence for things appearing spontaneously. However, the same is also true of something existing eternally."

ME: Show me an example of anything that pops into existence out of nothing! This is a contradiction to everything we  know and suspect, That we have no example of it just underscores the logic of the case that it is a contradiction to reality; Your answer to my argument is based upon the assumption tat  all  of science is wrong.  all logic is wrong, and we everything we observe in reality is wrong,  You basically  relay on magic to oppose God.



YOU: "Of course, in Joe's head, that is quite different, because he starts from the assumption that God exists - but of course that is exactly what he is trying to prove."

ME:--No I started from the assumption that things need causes a notion you apparently have yet to grasp. But it's an assumption made by all of science as nowhere in science do we find a principle of something from nothing,

You: "The simple fact is that we have no precedents for the start of the universe; going on common experience is a bad guide here."

ME:--that doesn't mean magic is a beter guide


His second attack "something eternal."

YOU: "Joe claims anything that is eternal should be called God. but this is just Joe injecting his own idea of how the universe started. If the laws of nature are eternal, would Joe worship them? Of course not!"

Me: --This is proven in the logic of the argument, you have not even addressed the argument,

YOU: "Okay, Albert's object is valid - depending on what Krauss meant by nothing. But so what? This does not prove the universe could not appear spontaneously, only that Krauss' theory is not that, so Joe's objection fails.

Me:--You have yet to give a reason why we should believe in something from nothing Apparently your only reason is to avoid  belief in God. We never see causal popping into existence,why should we accept it? No scientist does, No theory in science proposes the universe just popped up out of nothing. There's always the assumption of a prior structure, yet i;ts never accounted for.
YOU:"Furthermore, if we allow Krauss' theory, but acknowledge the framework within which quantum mechanics might work was eternal, then we have a very real possibility for how the university began. 

Me: So you drop something from nothing? Where did the frame work come from?

YOU"Sure, we cannot explain the framework within which quantum mechanics, but Joe cannot explain God. And the framework within which quantum mechanics is FAR more parsimonious. Joe's objection fails again."

Me: Sure we both work from unknowns but God is a more logical assumption than acausal popping. Notice you never acutely addressed the logic of the argument  which proves that there must be one logical eternal necessary origin and thus this is worthy of being thought God.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Joe: Show me an example of anything that pops into existence out of nothing! ...

If we take a survey of all the universe-creating events we come up with:

Don't know: 1

And yet from those statistics you confidently proclaim the only two possibilities are creation by God or eternal. Quite the leap.

Joe: No I started from the assumption that things need causes a notion you apparently have yet to grasp. But it's an assumption made by all of science as nowhere in science do we find a principle of something from nothing,

If we take a survey of all the universe-creating events we come up with:

Don't know: 1

Hmm, same again. And yet from those statistics you confidently proclaim that all universes need a cause. Another leap... of faith?

Joe: This is proven in the logic of the argument, you have not even addressed the argument,

And it is, of course, beyond you to copy-and-paste that here or even to link to it...
Kind of like it does not really exist.

Joe: You have yet to give a reason why we should believe in something from nothing

Irrelevant to the point being made, which is that there are different degrees of nothing, and it could be that there was a lesser degree of nothing originally, and that that may even have been what Krauss refered to.

Perhaps the laws of nature are eternal (or at least some fundamental subset), and the universe spontaneously appeared within that framework. That is consistent with science, and we see a precedent for spontaneous events in quantum mechanics with virtual particles.

If you want to question what caused the laws of nature in the first place, well I will just use whatever BS you come up with for God. Brute fact, or just eternal, or necessary, or whatever.

Joe: Sure we both work from unknowns but God is a more logical assumption than acausal popping.

To you it is, because you start from the assumption God exists.

Joe: Notice you never acutely addressed the logic of the argument which proves that there must be one logical eternal necessary origin and thus this is worthy of being thought God.

If you want to worship a subset of the laws of nature as a god just because they are eternal, you go for it. What that has to do withe the Trinity and a guy dying on the cross, however, is absolutely zero.

Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: Show me an example of anything that pops into existence out of nothing! ...

If we take a survey of all the universe-creating events we come up with:

Don't know: 1

And yet from those statistics you confidently proclaim the only two possibilities are creation by God or eternal. Quite the leap.

Joe: No I started from the assumption that things need causes a notion you apparently have yet to grasp. But it's an assumption made by all of science as nowhere in science do we find a principle of something from nothing,

If we take a survey of all the universe-creating events we come up with:

Don't know: 1

Hmm, same again. And yet from those statistics you confidently proclaim that all universes need a cause. Another leap... of faith?

so? you have not one example you merely beg the question

Joe: This is proven in the logic of the argument, you have not even addressed the argument,

And it is, of course, beyond you to copy-and-paste that here or even to link to it...
Kind of like it does not really exist.


Here's an experiment to prove things need causes, take a pan of water. set it on table. watch it until a universe emerges form it. call me when it does.

Joe: You have yet to give a reason why we should believe in something from nothing

Irrelevant to the point being made, which is that there are different degrees of nothing, and it could be that there was a lesser degree of nothing originally, and that that may even have been what Krauss refered to.

different degrees of noting? that is stupid. 0 = 0, 0 x4 is exactly the same as 0 x 87

Perhaps the laws of nature are eternal (or at least some fundamental subset), and the universe spontaneously appeared within that framework. That is consistent with science, and we see a precedent for spontaneous events in quantum mechanics with virtual particles.
Or maybe there's a God you are begging the question

If you want to question what caused the laws of nature in the first place, well I will just use whatever BS you come up with for God. Brute fact, or just eternal, or necessary, or whatever.

Joe: Sure we both work from unknowns but God is a more logical assumption than acausal popping.

To you it is, because you start from the assumption God exists.

Joe: Notice you never acutely addressed the logic of the argument which proves that there must be one logical eternal necessary origin and thus this is worthy of being thought God.

If you want to worship a subset of the laws of nature as a god just because they are eternal, you go for it.

more like worshipping the law giver

What that has to do with the Trinity and a guy dying on the cross, however, is absolutely zero.

why do you think there are laws of nature? if things can pop into existence with out cause then why assume there are any laws? things happen without laws.



atheists really hate thinking
Anonymous said…
Joe: so? you have not one example you merely beg the question

Correct. And neither do you.

We only have one precedent, and we do not know how that started. And yet you seem to think that is evidence for your pet theory.

Joe: Here's an experiment to prove things need causes, take a pan of water. set it on table. watch it until a universe emerges form it. call me when it does.

Are you seriously suggesting that that mimics the conditions of the birth of a universe?

You are so clueless in cosmology.

Joe: different degrees of noting? that is stupid. 0 = 0, 0 x4 is exactly the same as 0 x 87

Get a box, and take all the stuff out. What is inside it? Nothing. That is one level.

Get a suitable vessel and pump out the air. What is inside? Nothing. That is another level.

Then there is potentially a nothingness except the laws of nature.

Then there is the hypothetical absolute nothing.

Joe: Or maybe there's a God you are begging the question

No I am not begging the question. My position is that we do not know.

You are the one begging the question; you are the one asserting your pet theory on the most dubious of reasoning.

Joe: more like worshipping the law giver

In the scenario we are discussing where the the laws of nature are eternal, there is no law giver, so you are worshipping a figment of your imagination, based on faulty reasoning.

Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: so? you have not one example you merely beg the question

Correct. And neither do you.

I didn't make the argument, My point wa yo have no example of something from nothing, It's irrelevant that I have no example although i do, you!

We only have one precedent, and we do not know how that started. And yet you seem to think that is evidence for your pet theory.

Yes because It means I have an explanation and you don't.

Joe: Here's an experiment to prove things need causes, take a pan of water. set it on table. watch it until a universe emerges form it. call me when it does.

Are you seriously suggesting that that mimics the conditions of the birth of a universe?

If you hi you now of special something from nothing conditions tell me how you know what they are?

You are so clueless in cosmology.

You have already admitted you have no example. The world we know can't be proof because its what is in question


Joe: different degrees of noting? that is stupid. 0 = 0, 0 x4 is exactly the same as 0 x 87

Get a box, and take all the stuff out. What is inside it? Nothing. That is one level.

Get a suitable vessel and pump out the air. What is inside? Nothing. That is another level.

sorry that is not a deeper level of nothing. The first condition is a box of air. air is not nothing,

Then there is potentially a nothingness except the laws of nature.


You are Just making up levels that are not levels of nothingness but you call them that. I fail to see what this proves in terms of origins.



Then there is the hypothetical absolute nothing.


how did something ever emerge from it?

Joe: Or maybe there's a God you are begging the question

No I am not begging the question. My position is that we do not know.

HOW DOES NOT KNOWIMG ENTITLE YOU TO RULE OUT GOD THE ONLY HYOTHEISS SO FAR?



You are the one begging the question; you are the one asserting your pet theory on the most dubious of reasoning.


Well I grant you it;s not scientific as a box full of air but I am not the I'm not the one said we have to start with levels of nothing

Joe: more like worshipping the law giver

In the scenario we are discussing where the the laws of nature are eternal, there is no law giver, so you are worshipping a figment of your imagination, based on faulty reasoning.

Problematic, The laws are eternal but they are contingent upon the law giver, As Aquinas said if you have an eternal flautist his music is eternally contengent,
Anonymous said…
Joe: I didn't make the argument, My point wa yo have no example of something from nothing, It's irrelevant that I have no example although i do, you!

That is interesting that you feel you have a point if I cannot provide an example, and yet it is irrelevant if you cannot. A great illustration of how you have tilted the playing field in your favour.

Also curious that you say I am myself an example of something God created. That seems to be pre-supposing God created the universe, which is surely what you purport to prove. A little circular, I think.

Joe: Yes because It means I have an explanation and you don't.

I do have an explanation. The laws of nature are eternal, the universe formed spontaneously from them.

Joe: If you hi you now of special something from nothing conditions tell me how you know what they are?

Well for one thing, prior to the universe existing, there was no universe.

Joe: You have already admitted you have no example. The world we know can't be proof because its what is in question

And yet that is exactly what you did, earlier in this post - "It's irrelevant that I have no example although i do, you!"

Joe: sorry that is not a deeper level of nothing. The first condition is a box of air. air is not nothing,

And yet people routinely say an empty box has "nothing" in it.

Joe: how did something ever emerge from it?

I do not know, but that does not rule it out. However, that is not what I am proposing.

Joe: HOW DOES NOT KNOWIMG ENTITLE YOU TO RULE OUT GOD THE ONLY HYOTHEISS SO FAR?

It does not. And I ever said it does.

Joe: Problematic, The laws are eternal but they are contingent upon the law giver, As Aquinas said if you have an eternal flautist his music is eternally contengent,

Ah the old laws-imply-a-law-given nonsense.

This is category error. The reality is that the laws of nature are of a very different character to the laws of the land. The laws of the land are optional, which is to say, you can choose to keep them or not, and people routinely break them. The laws of the land are local in both space and time. Different countries have their own laws, and so do different era. Te laws of the land apply to people only.

None of this is true of the laws of nature. That does not rule out a law maker, but it destroys the argument for one.

In my scenario the laws of nature are necessary and eternal.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: I didn't make the argument, My point wa yo have no example of something from nothing, It's irrelevant that I have no example although i do, you!

That is interesting that you feel you have a point if I cannot provide an example, and yet it is irrelevant if you cannot. A great illustration of how you have tilted the playing field in your favour.


ah example of your ignorance of argumentation. You assert an argument I am merely discussing your inability to prove your argument I have nothing to prove

Also curious that you say I am myself an example of something God created. That seems to be pre-supposing God created the universe, which is surely what you purport to prove. A little circular, I think.
I don't claim to prove anything, I don't care what you believe

Joe: Yes because It means I have an explanation and you don't.

I do have an explanation. The laws of nature are eternal, the universe formed spontaneously from them.

you can't explain why there are laws or where they come from

Joe: If you hi you now of special something from nothing conditions tell me how you know what they are?

Well for one thing, prior to the universe existing, there was no universe.

how ere there laws

Joe: You have already admitted you have no example. The world we know can't be proof because its what is in question

And yet that is exactly what you did, earlier in this post - "It's irrelevant that I have no example although i do, you!"

I am not trying to prove anything

Anonymous said…
Joe: ah example of your ignorance of argumentation. You assert an argument I am merely discussing your inability to prove your argument I have nothing to prove

And now shifting the burden of proof.

If you look at the original post, you will see it is titled "Argument from causal Necessity". A few days ago you posted that as an attempt to prove God. How quickly you abandon that!

That said, I guess we can agree you have no real argument.

Joe: you can't explain why there are laws or where they come from

Duh! They are necessary and eternal, so I do not have to.

Pix
Joe: sorry that is not a deeper level of nothing. The first condition is a box of air. air is not nothing,

And yet people routinely say an empty box has "nothing" in it.

Most of those people would not have gotten past the first paragraph of this discussion.

Joe: how did something ever emerge from it?

I do not know, but that does not rule it out. However, that is not what I am proposing.


Yes it does, its not a scientific explanation if you don't know how it could be

Joe: HOW DOES NOT KNOWIMG ENTITLE YOU TO RULE OUT GOD THE ONLY HYOTHEISS SO FAR?

It does not. And I ever said it does.

Joe: Problematic, The laws are eternal but they are contingent upon the law giver, As Aquinas said if you have an eternal flautist his music is eternally contengent,

Ah the old laws-imply-a-law-given nonsense.

you can see the sheer stupidity of your position? you really think I don't know is an exploitation? you have no position you have no idea you are merely rejecting God

This is category error. The reality is that the laws of nature are of a very different character to the laws of the land.

whats the category? yo don' really understand category mistake


The laws of the land are optional, which is to say, you can choose to keep them or not, and people routinely break them. The laws of the land are local in both space and time. Different countries have their own laws, and so do different era. Te laws of the land apply to people only.

sure but since you have no theory of what physical laws are or where they come from you really have no issue you are not proposing a scientific a explanation vs God you are really proposing "I don't know vs God.



None of this is true of the laws of nature. That does not rule out a law maker, but it destroys the argument for one.

I didn't advance one



In my scenario the laws of nature are necessary and eternal.

you have no laws you have a set if I don;t know

Pix
in other words you take Deus ex machina and counter pose the God with the machine. but machines don't make themselves.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: ah example of your ignorance of argumentation. You assert an argument I am merely discussing your inability to prove your argument I have nothing to prove

And now shifting the burden of proof.

there can only be a burden of proof if one is trying to prove

If you look at the original post, you will see it is titled "Argument from causal Necessity". A few days ago you posted that as an attempt to prove God. How quickly you abandon that!

wrong. I never attempt to prove God. I proved there's a rational warrant to believe, I did prove that, you have no argument that over turns it, my argument only proves the validity of belief,

That said, I guess we can agree you have no real argument.


yo counter it with "I don't know.' an imaginary set of laws you don't understand,

Joe: you can't explain why there are laws or where they come from

Duh! They are necessary and eternal, so I do not have to.

If yo don't know what they are or where they come fro, how do yo no they are eternal?

hey think about it man, you have an imaginary set of laws you can't prove what they are or where they come from but you still want them to outweigh belief in god. Even so you are still trying to put something in the top slot to explain thing but you don't know what that is.

Minds make laws. laws don't make themselves
Anonymous said…
Joe: Most of those people would not have gotten past the first paragraph of this discussion.

Sure, but that does not mean the conventional use of "nothing" is wrong. It is just different to how you use it.

Joe: Yes it does, its not a scientific explanation if you don't know how it could be

Wrong. Newton how no idea why gravity exists or how it works, but his law was still science.

Joe: you can see the sheer stupidity of your position? you really think I don't know is an exploitation? you have no position you have no idea you are merely rejecting God

I am rejecting the assumption of God.

Joe: whats the category? yo don' really understand category mistake

You are claiming the laws of nature are of the same category of things as the law of the land. They are not. Hence, category error.

Joe: sure but since you have no theory of what physical laws are or where they come from you really have no issue you are not proposing a scientific a explanation vs God you are really proposing "I don't know vs God.

But I do have a hypothesis. The laws of nature are eternal and necessary!

That said, I am not saying we know it is right, so yes, what I advocate is "We do not know".

Pix: None of this is true of the laws of nature. That does not rule out a law maker, but it destroys the argument for one.

Joe: I didn't advance one

No you did not. You presented as a fact and just assumed it was true.

At least you are honest enough to admit that.

Joe: you have no laws you have a set if I don;t know

?

Joe: in other words you take Deus ex machina and counter pose the God with the machine. but machines don't make themselves.

The machine in "Deus ex machina" was a crane used to lift an actor playing a god over the stage. To be clear, I am not suggesting there is such a crane.

If you object that I am being overly literal, well, okay, you are right. However, if you have a real point here you will be able to make it without using that phrase. I think if you do that the flaws will be obvious even to you, so let us see what you have.

Joe: there can only be a burden of proof if one is trying to prove

So we all agree your "Argument from causal Necessity" does not prove anything. Great.

Joe: yo counter it with "I don't know.' an imaginary set of laws you don't understand,

There is a lot more evidence for the laws of nature than there is for God.

Joe: If yo don't know what they are or where they come fro, how do yo no they are eternal?

I do not know it. I am proposing it as a possibility.

My position is "We do not know".

Joe: hey think about it man, you have an imaginary set of laws you can't prove what they are or where they come from but you still want them to outweigh belief in god. Even so you are still trying to put something in the top slot to explain thing but you don't know what that is.

And you have an imaginary God; you cannot prove he exists or where he came from, but you still want that to outweigh belief in the laws of nature.

Joe: Minds make laws. laws don't make themselves

Still a category error, Joe.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: Most of those people would not have gotten past the first paragraph of this discussion.

Sure, but that does not mean the conventional use of "nothing" is wrong. It is just different to how you use it.

Joe: Yes it does, its not a scientific explanation if you don't know how it could be

Wrong. Newton how no idea why gravity exists or how it works, but his law was still science.

that is wrong. Newton had a pretty good idea and he had theory,



Joe: you can see the sheer stupidity of your position? you really think I don't know is an exploitation? you have no position you have no idea you are merely rejecting God

I am rejecting the assumption of God.

what's the distention?

Joe: whats the category? yo don' really understand category mistake

You are claiming the laws of nature are of the same category of things as the law of the land. They are not. Hence, category error.



No I'm not. I am assuming, however, the term law is used for a meaningful reason. not because it's passed by a legislature but because it is binding, all encompassing, regular ad consistent




Joe: sure but since you have no theory of what physical laws are or where they come from you really have no issue you are not proposing a scientific a explanation vs God you are really proposing "I don't know vs God.

But I do have a hypothesis. The laws of nature are eternal and necessary!


that tells us nothing, knowing they are eternal and necessary does no tell us how they came to be. Moreover we don't know that they are eternal or necessary, you have no way to know that, you can't observe them eternally you can only theorize that and since you know nothing about them you have no basis for theory,

That said, I am not saying we know it is right, so yes, what I advocate is "We do not know".

so you lose the basis for ruling out God

Pix: None of this is true of the laws of nature. That does not rule out a law maker, but it destroys the argument for one.

no it doesn't it's still our best shot at answers.

Joe: I didn't advance one

No you did not. You presented as a fact and just assumed it was true.

At least you are honest enough to admit that.

U have a level of knowledge deeper than than science

Joe: you have no laws you have a set if I don;t know

?
Anonymous said…
Pix: Newton how no idea why gravity exists or how it works, but his law was still science.

Joe: that is wrong. Newton had a pretty good idea and he had theory,

You are so clueless about science, Joe. We still do not know how gravity works. It could be particles called gravitons, it could be gravitational waves, but no one knows, and Newton was not aware of either of those ideas.

Joe: what's the distention?

I can state that your argument is wrong because it assumes God. Thus, I am rejecting the assumption of God.

However, I acknowledge that the universe could be the creation of an intelligent being, so I am not rejecting God.

Joe: that tells us nothing, knowing they are eternal and necessary does no tell us how they came to be. Moreover we don't know that they are eternal or necessary, you have no way to know that, you can't observe them eternally you can only theorize that and since you know nothing about them you have no basis for theory,

Right. My theory suffers all the flaws your theory does. But you ignore the flaws in your theory because you want it to be true.

Joe: so you lose the basis for ruling out God

I am not ruling God out, only pointing out your argument is flawed.

Joe: no it doesn't it's still our best shot at answers.

You make it sound as though we should use this as our working theory as it will help get answers. What questions do you think we will be able to answer?

Pix
Pix: Newton how no idea why gravity exists or how it works, but his law was still science.

Joe: that is wrong. Newton had a pretty good idea and he had theory,

You are so clueless about science, Joe. We still do not know how gravity works. It could be particles called gravitons, it could be gravitational waves, but no one knows, and Newton was not aware of either of those ideas.

It's either a particle or a wave, that sounds so scientific! the fact is you don't know shit about Newton. I studied him as part of PhD dissertation. You don't ,know what he thought,
as it so happens i had reference to his theory of matter as the sensorium of
God.That is how he exclaimed action at a distance which was part of his theory of gravity





Joe: what's the distention?

I can state that your argument is wrong because it assumes God. Thus, I am rejecting the assumption of God.

Yes you can do that but it's a dumb move



However, I acknowledge that the universe could be the creation of an intelligent being, so I am not rejecting God.

make up your mind

Joe: that tells us nothing, knowing they are eternal and necessary does no tell us how they came to be. Moreover we don't know that they are eternal or necessary, you have no way to know that, you can't observe them eternally you can only theorize that and since you know nothing about them you have no basis for theory,

Right. My theory suffers all the flaws your theory does. But you ignore the flaws in your theory because you want it to be true.

wrong my theory has existential validation yours does not.

Joe: so you lose the basis for ruling out God

I am not ruling God out, only pointing out your argument is flawed.


You just said you have the same flaw, you are wrong your theory has no existential component, but you have the same flaw. My theory makes demands only on me as it's subscriber your theory calls for alliance of everyone as a 'fact'


Joe: no it doesn't it's still our best shot at answers.

You make it sound as though we should use this as our working theory as it will help get answers. What questions do you think we will be able to answer?


why are we here? what is he meaning of our being here why does it matter?

Pix
12/21/2020 04:44:00 AM

Popular posts from this blog

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Why Christian Theism Is Almost Certainly True: A Reply to Cale Nearing

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

The Genre of the Gospel of John (Part 1)

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

Luke, the Census, and Quirinius: A Matter of Translation

Scientifically Documented Miracles