MarsCydonia
New Member
Good day everyone,
It has been a while since I have posted but I a recent online discussion about the cosmological argument that made me wish for your opinions and advice.
Some of you may be familiar with Aron Ra's response video, "Theism is not rational", to a video from an apologist from Prager University, Peter Kreeft, titled "God vs. Atheism: Which is More Rational?"
In the comments, an apologist mocked that atheist often ask "what caused God" and that the cosmological argument is a valid argument. devoid of special pleading. I personally have two main problems with it:
1) The premise that the universe cannot be an infinite, that there cannot be an infinite chain of events to and from the universe but that God can and is infinite.
2) That the universe requires a cause but God does not
(There are also "Why a god" and "Which god" questions)
I engaged with the apologist in the comment section and though I should have known better (not in the sense that I expected him to review his conclusions but in the quality of the exchange), I thought I would try my hand and at least learn from the experience.
If you wish to contribute, please do so, I would like to know what I did well, what I did wrong and most importantly: why .
Here is the exchange:
----------------------------------------------
Now, you may have noticed that I refer to other comments in our exchange, since this was a youtube comment section. Here are the comments I was referring to:
The assertion that atheists are always wrong and the implication that the only honest debaters he encountered are those who admitted defeat to him are the reasons I called his confidence arrogant.
I didn't even try to discuss his "morality does not exist under atheism" or "atheism is magic" assertions as you can see where just trying to focus on the cosmological argument lead.
So thank you for anything you wish to contribute.
It has been a while since I have posted but I a recent online discussion about the cosmological argument that made me wish for your opinions and advice.
Some of you may be familiar with Aron Ra's response video, "Theism is not rational", to a video from an apologist from Prager University, Peter Kreeft, titled "God vs. Atheism: Which is More Rational?"
In the comments, an apologist mocked that atheist often ask "what caused God" and that the cosmological argument is a valid argument. devoid of special pleading. I personally have two main problems with it:
1) The premise that the universe cannot be an infinite, that there cannot be an infinite chain of events to and from the universe but that God can and is infinite.
2) That the universe requires a cause but God does not
(There are also "Why a god" and "Which god" questions)
I engaged with the apologist in the comment section and though I should have known better (not in the sense that I expected him to review his conclusions but in the quality of the exchange), I thought I would try my hand and at least learn from the experience.
If you wish to contribute, please do so, I would like to know what I did well, what I did wrong and most importantly: why .
Here is the exchange:
----------------------------------------------
John Abad
Many atheists here like to make the following objection: what caused God? That is an absurd objection... The God in the cosmological argument is by definition, uncaused, first cause. Atheists here are making the following absurd question: What caused the uncaused cause? The question makes no sense.
Further, some atheists actually believe that the argument is guilty of special pleading, but they confuse special pleading with circular reasoning, of which, the argument is not guilty, due to the distinct rationale of the various premises that lead to the conclusion... These are all simple beginner errors from people that know very little about logic and philosophy (even if they were to have advanced degrees in philosophy, which would obviously be a cause of concern, due to such ignorance of basic metaphysics)...
If you were to require evidence for why God is the uncaused cause, which AronRa did not refute in any way (sorry Aron, you can't compete with Dr. Kreeft, intellectually that is), Dr. Kreeft explained this by giving the first cause argument. Typical atheist objections like radioactive decay and the multi-verse were soundly laid to rest, as the multi-verse still needs a creator, and quantum events are not known to be uncaused, as this cannot be observed, etc...
TheMarsCydonia
Are there things that can exist without a cause?
John Abad
God exists without a previous cause... Why are you asking this? It's in all the different types of cosmological arguments.
TheMarsCydonia
So there can be things that exist without causes. Could the universe exist without a cause?
John Abad
No... Not things, a being... There can only be a first cause that is uncaused, not multiple uncaused beings. The universe contains multiplicity, and potentiality since it is made of matter, and thus, cannot be uncaused.
TheMarsCydonia
Contains multiplicity?
John Abad
The universe? Yes... What's the problem?
TheMarsCydonia
What does contain multiplicity and potentiality mean and why does it mean that the universe requires a cause?
Is there anything in the universe that does not require a cause? Or is it "everything except God requires a cause"?
John Abad
As I stated, those properties are inherent in our universe... Every physical phenomena requires a previous cause... This is the law of causality. Science itself presupposes this law.
"Is there anything in the universe that does not require a cause? Or is it "everything except God requires a cause"?"
No, that would violate the law of causality. Everything except God requires a previous cause for it's existence... I think the first cause argument explains this clearly enough, take a look at it. Or look at the video again, since Dr. Kreeft uses the first cause argument.
TheMarsCydonia
Why does God require no cause? Why is God the exception to the law of causality?
John Abad
I think you need to look at the first cause argument and point out any objections with the premises, as these substantiate the conclusion, God is the first cause... otherwise, you're just ignoring the premises provided that substantiate it. In other words, every effect needs a cause, this cannot go into infinity, and thus needs a first cause for any secondary cause to exist...
TheMarsCydonia
Why can't it go into infinity? Why doesn't God need a cause?
John Abad
Because entropic heat death would have occured already. You can't traverse an actual infinite, you cannot add successive events onto an actual infinite, and you cannot observe an infinite amount of beings into the past, and further, all cyclical models thus far have been proven false, because not enough mean mass in the universe has been found capable to reverse entropy... Among other reasons let's say.
TheMarsCydonia
Why couldn't it be a potential infinity? Doesn't God possess actual infinite attributes such as being eternal? So God had a beginning? And will have an end? Why does God escape the law of causality?
John Abad
No... how does having the property of being actually infinite imply having a beginning? That is logically contradictory, and shows you do not know what an actual infinite really is.
If the universe were infinite in the past, how could you arrive to a present, if every event in the past extended to infinity? To arrive to a present, you need a starting point... This contradicts our experience of reality... "the present event could not arrive if its arrival had to be preceded by the successive arrival of an infinite number of prior events.” William Lane Craig
Again, you continually are ignoring the argument provided... Every effect requires a cause, this cannot go into infinity (for reasons explained which you failed to respond to with a substantial argument), thus this requires a first cause... Please try actually responding to the premises given, instead of giving the same, already refuted rebuttals please...
PAY ATTENTION: ARGUMENT:
Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
A causal loop cannot exist.
A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
Therefore, a First Cause must exist.
Please do not continue to ask the same refuted objections, such as, why must God be uncaused, why can't the universe be infinite, etc... All of those objections have been refuted already.
TheMarsCydonia
Sorry, let me be clearer:
"how does having the property of being actually infinite imply having a beginning? That is logically contradictory, and shows you do not know what an actual infinite really is."
It doesn't, it was a follow-up question once you've claimed that "You can't traverse an actual infinite". Since a common theist claim is that God extended infinitely in the past and extends infinitely in the future, if you can't traverse an actual infinite, how do you reach a point where God creates the universe? Even more so, as you wrote "If the universe were infinite in the past, how could you arrive to apresent, if every event in the past extended to infinity?", can we not say then "If the God is infinite in the past, how could He arrive to a present/creation moment, if his existence in the past extended to infinity?"
Thus, if there is no actual infinite and as such God is not eternal, follow-up questions would be "So God had a beginning? And will have an end"? which were my questions. If you disagree as you appear to be, why does it make sense for God and not for anything else? Again, why is God the exception?
""the present event could not arrive if its arrival had to be preceded by the successive arrival of an infinite number of prior events.” William Lane Craig"
Why should we rule it out? Because it contradicts our experience of reality? Is the universe limited to our experience of it?
"Every effect requires a cause, this cannot go into infinity (for reasons explained which you failed to respond to with a substantial argument)"
I am not trying to respond to your arguments, I am interested if you are able to make one. Unfortunately, your claims were statements of "you can't" and not "you can't and the reason why is" which is the reason I am asking these questions. You say that we have to rule out infinity for the universe (existed infinitely in the past or infinite causal chain) but not why we have to rule it out in the case of the universe but make an exception for God.
"Every finite and contingent being has a cause."
How do you know the universe is actually finite? How do you know the universe is contingent? Why make the exception that God requires no cause? Will you say because "he is infinite and not contingent" but isn't infinity potentially a problem as shown above? Why is God excluded but not the universe?
"A causal loop cannot exist".
Why?
"A causal chain cannot be of infinite length".
Why?
Therefore, a First Cause must exist."
Why should the first cause be God? Do you have anything more substantial than "by definition, he is the uncaused, first cause"? I still do not see why God escapes the law of causality but the universe cannot.
"All of those objections have been refuted already".
Have not all of yours claims? So far, I am unconvinced.
John Abad
God is eternal, every moment God acts, is the present. There is no beginning or ending point. The universe is finite and contingent, the fact you ask why is sad... I already provided cosmological evidence and philosophical refutation to your belief that it's infinite in the past in the previous posts. Provide something relevant please...
As for properties of God, omnipotent, as created universe from no previous matter, person because God chose to create universe and thus has will, omnipresent because is first cause, maintains existence, omniscient due to intelligence needing a first cause with intelligence, etc... read any apologist sites before asking basic theology questions.
TheMarsCydonia
If every moment God acts is the present and God has no beginning or ending point, (eternal) God is actually infinite and actual infinite are as such possible, no?
How is God acting with no beginning or no ending not an infinite?
I would like an actual answer for why the universe should be finite and contingent. If you can't provide an answer,,,
I disagree that you provided "cosmological" evidence and philosophical refutations, hence my follow-up questions to find out if what you're actually providing what you claim to be providing.
You actually gave interesting examples of how a theist treats the cosmological argument and special pleading so thank you at least for this.
John Abad
how does this universe exist from the infinite past? Provide evidence... How do you reach a present from infinite finite successive past moments. This time answer my rebuttal without a red herring posing it erroneously to God, as if God was confined to time and successive finite causes... since he's the first cause. Don't stray off topic because you can't provide relevant answers please.
TheMarsCydonia
"how does this universe exist from the infinite past? Provide evidence... How do you reach a present from infinite finite successive past moments"
Well, let's say that every moment for the universe is the present. That should be a satisfactory answer as it is the same answer you provided, no?
Why is God the first cause? Why is God immune from the law of causality? (We haven't even spoken about "which God" yet).
Why does the universe require a cause? Why God does not require a cause? Why can't there be an infinite causal chain when you say there an infinite does exist? Can you give an sufficient justifications for any of these? I have not seen that you have avoided special pleading so far.
So please offer what you demand: a rebuttal without a red herring. Perhaps you could try to give better explanations if you said something I did not grasp. Thank you.
John Abad
another red herring, you will soon be deleted from this post... the universe is present in every moment, that is not the problem for you... You have to explain how we can evade entropic heat death, how you can add successive states to the present if you have an infinite amount of events in the past, how we don't see an infinite amount of beings in the past, and why all the evidence points to a big bang in the finite past, etc... God being eternal, does not have a physical finite cause preceding him into infinity, thus you're simple for thinking this was valid... so you can't use God as a red herring anymore. Be careful please and provide a relevant answer or your posts will be deleted...
TheMarsCydonia
Then delete my posts as it is obvious that you do not wish to answer the questions, the suspicion being that you cannot answer the questions without special pleading.
So thank you for the interesting conversation. Which was print-screened as I will certainly try to review it with someone less evading and dismissive.
John Abad
if you really want to continue as you say, I offer you one method. There is one objection from each side and one rebuttal. This way, you don't run away, and you can see how you are refuted. My first objection is, how can the universe be infinite? You provide a rebuttal and your own objection. We are limited to one objection and rebuttal.
TheMarsCydonia
I've seen your latest comments and I must say that I am no longer interested as it is certain that we will disagree on what sound arguments and evidence.
I'll leave you in your arrogant confidence that you are right, since doubting and thinking are obviously no source to achieve wisdom to you.
John Abad
Let's dispense with the ad hominems from here, and if you want to continue, good, with the simplified format, you have an objection you have yet to respond to. The challenge was made, the previous arguments of yours, refuted. You can pretend I am arrogant if it makes you feel smarter, but we all know that's an ad hominem... Goodbye.
P.S. For anyone following this thread to see, this is the proposed format:
me:
"if you really want to continue as you say, I offer you one method. There is one objection from each side and one rebuttal. This way, you don't run away, and you can see how you are refuted. My first objection is, how can the universe be infinite? You provide a rebuttal and your own objection. We are limited to one objection and rebuttal"
TheMarsCydonia
Sorry, you have not refuted any arguments. You can pretend you did.
John Abad
If you're not willing to respond to my challenge, your comments will be deleted... This is your second unsubstantiated comment in a row... Three strikes you're out. Here it is again:
"if you really want to continue as you say, I offer you one method.
There is one objection from each side and one rebuttal. This way, you
don't run away, and you can see how you are refuted. My first objection
is, how can the universe be infinite? You provide a rebuttal and your
own objection. We are limited to one objection and rebuttal"
TheMarsCydonia
I already stated, since you were not willing to respond to my challenge that I would (have already) print-screen our conversation (13 print-screens) and would review it with other people who hopefully would not be as evasive and dismissive as you and that you could then delete my comments (the reason we can suspect why you would speaks for itself).
"I asked for empirical evidence that such actions cannot be done"
From someone that claims to know about logic and philosophy, you should acknowledge the very obvious error in this and convince me that we are not wasting our time.
As for your question: "how can the universe be infinite", as I will not let you easily convince yourself that you refuted an argument, my response:
Can it be infinite? The universe may be infinite and until shown that it cannot, an infinite universe is a possibility. You state that an actual infinite exist practically as a fact, I do not see why an infinite regress of the universe, a different actual infinite should be dismissed as a possibility (which would only be a problem for the actual infinite you assert). Which I asked "why can't the universe be infinite?". So, in short, I don't know how can the universe be infinite but simply because I do not know how does not mean that it can, when actual infinites are possible. To simply believe it can't because I don't know how would be an argument from incredulity fallacy.
Then, once more if you please, why is God excluded from the law of causality?
John Abad
You basically did not provide a single shred of evidence for how the universe can be infinite...
You:
"The universe may be infinite and until shown that it cannot, an infinite universe is a possibility."
When did I state that an actual infinite exists? The universe is not a closed set, so no... it's not actually infinite. Quote please. The universe cannot be potentially infinite either, because you would be adding on an infinite number of previous growing sets in the past... simple, elemental philosophy here.
God is excluded from a previous cause because God is the first cause. I am tired of explaining this to you while you ignore the whole argument:
Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
A causal loop cannot exist.
A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
Therefore, a First Cause must exist.
TheMarsCydonia
"You basically did not provide a single shred of evidence for how the universe can be infinite"
Indeed I didn't. That does not refute my point.
"When did I state that an actual infinite exists?"
When you said God has no beginning and no end.
"The universe cannot be potentially infinite either, because you would be adding on an infinite number of previous growing sets in the past... simple, elemental philosophy here."
Simple, elemental philosophy where you explained nothing about how that would prevent an infinite, just an assertion that it does. Do you see why that is unconvincing?
"God is excluded from a previous cause because God is the first cause."
And that is not special pleading how? It's non-answer. Why don't you phrase it such as "God is the first cause because God is the first cause"?
"Every finite and contingent being has a cause. A causal loop cannot exist.
A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
Therefore, a First Cause must exist."
And I've already explained why I reject your premises.
John Abad
I asked your for a quote, not an interpretation... include the thread number (what discussion number I posted on, count).
me:
"The universe cannot be potentially infinite either, because you would be adding on an infinite number of previous growing sets in the past... simple, elemental philosophy here."
Breaking it down Barney style: You can't have a present, while we experience one... You'd have entropic heat death, you can't see an infinite number of beings in the past, etc...
Where is the special pleading? You're confusing special pleading with a circular argument, and thus show yourself ignorant in the knowledge of fallacies... Further, substantiate your claim that it's a circular argument by showing that the premesis leading to the conclusion are identical to the conclusion, and cannot be identified as distinct independently...
"Every finite and contingent being has a cause. A causal loop cannot exist.
A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
Therefore, a First Cause must exist."
Provide valid and relevant arguments, not snarky remarks with no substance, otherwise, your posts will be deleted...
TheMarsCydonia
I am done. Not because you presented any sound argument or evidence thought I have few doubts you will think you did but because I have had my limit of your juvenile threats.
Thank you for the example you have shown yourself to be.
John Abad
I will post up my previous response, as you answered none of my objections...
I asked your for a quote, not an interpretation... include the thread number (what discussion number I posted on, count).
this is me again:
"The universe cannot be potentially infinite either, because you would be adding on an infinite number of previous growing sets in the past... simple, elemental philosophy here."
Breaking it down Barney style: You can't have a present, while we experience one... You'd have entropic heat death, you can't see an infinite number of beings in the past, etc...
Where is the special pleading? You're confusing special pleading with a circular argument, and thus show yourself ignorant in the knowledge of fallacies... Further, substantiate your claim that it's a circular argument by showing that the premesis leading to the conclusion are identical to the conclusion, and cannot be identified as distinct independently...
(This is the argument)
"Every finite and contingent being has a cause. A causal loop cannot exist.
A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
Therefore, a First Cause must exist."
Provide valid and relevant arguments, not snarky remarks with no substance, otherwise, your posts will be deleted..."
Now, you may have noticed that I refer to other comments in our exchange, since this was a youtube comment section. Here are the comments I was referring to:
John Abad
You probably misinterpret the bible. You take it literally I bet. Most Christian branches don't, and the rest of the objections can be explained by context or a greater good or purpose that may be difficult to see, but can be ultimately, reasoned (and can never lead to the conclusion: therefore God does not exist, but rather, that you don't like that God). Further, any atheist that criticizes the bible by claiming it shows moral evil, is contradicting themselves, as morality does not exist under atheism... it's all subjective, thus, ontologically, does not exist. -----******thus any atheist using this claim is simply being irrational, and ignorant of basic metaphysics...
Christianity is not magic, atheism is magic, it makes no sense whatsoever: no meaning in life, no morality, no way to even explain existence, etc.
John Abad
lol! I appreciate the thought Ken, and if it gets to that point, I'll be with you. In any case, refining our own souls is always a noble goal. I've debated online plenty with atheists, and though they have always been wrong, they give me the opportunity to find errors in their reasoning, which makes me a more astute thinker, and in the end, increases my faith through reason. I am aware that it can get out of control, to the point that it is pointless to respond though, but for that, I have the delete comment option.
John Abad
you're right Ken... sometimes I get an honest debater that admits defeat and moves on to other doubts. These folks get refuted and insist ad nauseum, but some give good training.
The assertion that atheists are always wrong and the implication that the only honest debaters he encountered are those who admitted defeat to him are the reasons I called his confidence arrogant.
I didn't even try to discuss his "morality does not exist under atheism" or "atheism is magic" assertions as you can see where just trying to focus on the cosmological argument lead.
So thank you for anything you wish to contribute.
