In this blog, I complete the first Positive argument in favour of God’ existence, the Cosmological Argument.
Our Traditional Cosmological/Contingency Argument entails the following;
Premise #1- The universe [and/or “universe+”] exists contingently (i.e. is a “contingent existing thing”).
Premise #2- Generally speaking, Every “existing thing”, whether contingent or not (including the universe/+), has a “sufficient explanation” of its existence, either in the necessity of its own internal nature or in an external cause.
OR,
Minimally, generally speaking at least every “contingent existing thing” (including the universe/+) has a “sufficient reason/explanation” for its existence via an external cause.
Premise #3– If the universe/+ has a “sufficient explanation” of its contingent existence, that explanation is “God-1”.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe/+ has a “sufficient explanation” of its existence via an external cause, and that explanation is the “God-1” hypothesis.
See my full & NOW COMPLETED Cosmological Argument Write-Up in the attachment here =
Cosmological Argument Part 5A
In the first part of the final solo show on the Cosmological Argument, we establish the truth of my thrid and final premise argueing that “God-1” is the explanation of the universe’s contingent existence. We finish off by refuting the last 3 of 5 skeptical objections to the truth of the Cosmological argument, the Taxi Cab Fallacy objection, the Self-Causation/Infinite Rgeress Problem and finally the infamous “Gap Problem”.
With the positive case established, we now have a successful and warranted argument. See Part 5B for th final half of this episode addresssing the Atheist’s negative case related to the “Gap Problem”.
YouTube Video Link = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74C-HTWFMUw
Anchor Audio Link = https://anchor.fm/real-seeker-ministries/episodes/Cosmological-Argument-Part-5A–Overcoming-The-Taxi-Cab-Fallacy–Infnite-Regress–Gap-Problems-e15gp07
Cosmological Argument Part 5B
In this last and final epsiode, I finish off my Cosmological Argument proper. In Part 5A I addressed the Taxi Cab Fallacy, Self-Causation, Infinite Regress and positive case on the Gap Problem. In this show, I look at the Atheists’ negative case on the “Gap Problem” and end off by demonstrating that “God-1” is true 🙂
YouTube Video Link = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOJDJn_IiUM
Anchor Audio Link = https://anchor.fm/real-seeker-ministries/episodes/Cosmological-Argument-Part-5B–Finishing-the-Gap-Problem-e15h269
Bonus Discussion with David Russell (christian) & Vaal the Atheist (aka. Rich Harkness)
YouTube Video = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNBqw-LfXL4
Recommended Sources (for further study);
a) See My Cosmological Argument Series Parts #1, 2, 3A and 3B & 4 on Premises #1 & 2 along with various free scholarly sources = https://realseekerministries.wordpress.com/2020/06/19/the-existence-of-god-series-1-the-cosmological-argument/
Also in my 218 page chapter in the attachment bove, I provide many free scholarly sources in the footnotes that I used but didn’t post up in the Blog dirextly as my last Blog had so many sourxes that it became unweildy to manage and make sense of it all, so I stopped posting them at Part 3B (again they are all freely available in the footnotes of my attached chapter above).
b) Alexander Pruss’ three versions of the Leibnizian cosmological argument that served as one of my main sources and inspiration (esp. see Section 5.5 on Jerome Gellman’s argument that I mentioned during the show); see the paper in full for free here = http://alexanderpruss.com/papers/LCA.html and/or in the attachment below
C) William Lane Craig’s Presentation on the Leibnizian & Kalam Cosmological Arguments amoung other arguments here = https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-excursus-on-natural-theology/ and/or see the YouTube Playlist videos Parts #5-13 starting with Part 5 here = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfpAqqadQVA&list=PLIpO3BUiq2IFMS3AP3Yi2oDfc7pzrQs2F&index=5
d) Jerome Gellman’s paper on the Oneness and Omnipotence of the First Cause/Ultimate Explanation of the Contingent Existing Universe (or rather in his argument of all contingent truths).
e) Nicholas Rescher’s Sources on the Principle of Optimalism;
Real Seeker Ministries 
If this is true and everything must have a “cause” then god must have had a cause or a beginning too, correct? Who made god?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hey RaPar,
That is a good question, thank you for listening and giving me your respectful feedback on your issue with the Cosmological argument- esp. as I know the Podast wasn’t Atheist freindly there, I recorded large parts of it 2 years ago and then off and on since then, so some bits reflect SS times when I was in a bit of a bad mood with some of the skeptics there, so thank for ignoring and/or overlooking that on my end and being respectful toward me with your questions. Future solo shows will no longer have that kind of thing in it as that is the last of my SS solo shows posted.
As to your question, this is what is called the “Taxi-Cab Fallacy” problem/objection- it alleges that the Theist abandons their explanatory or causal principle when they arrive at their desired destination/conclusion, so in other words, the universe needs a cause via a causal principle, we posit God as that cause and then we abandon any need to apply that same causal principle to God Himself. I deal with this in my Part 5A video and/or p.188-190 in my Part 4 attachment in the Blog portion above if you wish to read it.
Essentially the answer in my case is that I didn’t utilize a casual principle but I gave the Principle of Sufficient Reason or PSR for short (which is an explanatory principle rather than a causal one). Remember that there are three types of Cosmological Argument; the Leibnizian, Kalam and Thomistic Cosmological arguments (I gave a Leibnzian Cosmological argument here even though I did use some of the elements from the Kalam version to prove my case). Now the “PSR” as I define it in my argument says that “everything that exists has a sufficient explanation for its existence, either in the necessity of its own internal nature OR in an external cause.
So the first thing to note there is that there are two options, I don’t say that everything must have a cause instead I say they either have an exeternal cause or exist necessarily. God is posited to exist out of the necessity of his own internal nature and thus, I haven’t committed the Taxi Cab fallacy because the universe is proven to be a contingent thing (thus requriing an external cause) whereas God is postulated to be a necessary thing- that is why Theists can treat God differently than the universe in terms of the respective explanations for their existence.
That said, other Christians like Dr. William Lane Craig do appeal to a local causal principle along the lines you mention in his Kalam Cosmological Argument for example [the difference between a local vs. non-local causal principle just pertains to whether or not the causal chain involed is eternal (non-local) or non-eternal (local) in nature]. So is Dr. Craig committing the Taxi Cab fallacy in the way you mention?
No, because he doesn’t say that “everything must have a cause”, instead he just asserts that “everything that begins to exist, has a cause”- the key here is qualifier “begins to exist”- in the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the universe is alleged to be proven to have begun to exist and thus requires a cause whereas God is eternal, he never began to exist and thus doesn’t need a cause (at least given the precise casaul principle that Dr. Craig uses in his argument anyways).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hear your points RSM however the appropriation to god as “necessary” is your alone and it is inserted into the argument according to rules that you yourself impose. As LaPlace told Napoleon, god wasn’t “necessary” in order for his theory on the solar system to work properly; it works just the same. I would argue the same for your theories.
Regardless of the complexity of the arguments, cosmological or otherwise, I have never seen a set of postulations that end at god; there are always leaps of “faith” (if you will) that have to be made in order to arrive at the final conclusion.
You are very intelligent, that is obvious, however I’d like to say that I wish that even one-tenth of the brain power that has been put into trying to prove there is a god was put into how we as humans can learn to live together in peace. We make these mundane and useless arguments even as we watch idly as our world, the only planet that can sustain life as we know it, heads for a cliff. The planet is warming at an intolerable pace, the rainforest – literally the “lungs of the earth” – is being destroyed by greed & industrialization, half of America is in flames and we are presently in the midst of one of the largest mass extinctions in the planet’s history. Try as you might, you will never demonstrate that there is a god somewhere that’s going to save us which means that, unfortunately, we are left to our own fate. That’s truly regrettable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey RaPar,
I certainly respect your views on the signficance and success of my argument along with arguments for God in general (or rather lack thereof in your case). Let me just respond to what you raise here just so you have it to consider on your end whether you end up agreeing or not;
1. I hear you on Laplace and you’re right he did say that God wasn’t necessary for his hypothesis and you’ll be surpirsed to learn that I think he was right in what he said (mostly), but I don’t think that does anything to undermine my argument. The reason is that there are different senses in which the word “necessary” can be used, something’s being necessary just means that it is “needed” in some way given certain conditions. So there is factual or physical necessity for example, where something’s existence for example, given the laws of physics, is said to be necessary or needed. Or there is the sense in which Laplace spoke in terms of explanatory necessity, where said that God was needed to explain to a given phenomenon (I would disagree ultimately with him on this as I think God is needed to explain everything and all facts, but that is a seperate argument), the point is on the level and/or within the limited scope that Laplace was speaking on when he said this, one could provide satisfactory and sufficient explanation for it without need to mention God- that is true enough for sure.
However, in the Cosmological argument, we are argueing for God’s necessity in the snese that he is logically (stritly logical) or metaphysically (broadly logical) necessary- so given the laws of logic are true, than God needs to exist so to speak and that is the sense that is relevant here in which one might argue that God or the universe are logically or metaphysically necessary. There isnothing arbitrary about the use of such kind of necessity as both Theists and Atheists alike appeal to this sense of necessity all the time (often in math for example as logically necessary truths).
Now that said, I do think your right with respect to your second objection in that when I addressed the “Gap Problem” in this argument alone, it doesn’t get me all the way to proving God- at most I only proved that a “single or essentially unified personal agent with libertarian freewill and is logically or metaphysically necessary and eternal, spaceless, timeless, non-physical/immaterial, changeless, beginingless, enourmously powerful (possibly omnipotent), possibly omniscient and possibly good is the ultimate foundational explanation of the contingent existence of the universe/universe+.
So, it’s true that this argument doesn’t prove God in all His glory so to speak, I haven’t proven omnipresence for example. Thus, even though that long string of provable divine attirbutes is impressive in its own right, it doesn’t go all the way. But I do think that it certainly shows that what most Atheists think about the cause of the universe is false as these provable attirbutes such as the personhood/agency of the First Cause/Ultimate Explanation of the universe does enough to contradict what most Atheists beleive and further even if insufficeint in it’s own right, nevertheless is at least consistent with what I beleive as a full-on Theist in terms of God’s other attributes. This is where the cumulative case comes in and other arguments such as the Modal Ontological Argument (that I plan to do next) gives us the remaining divine attributes left unproven by the Cosmological argument alone.
Just one last thing on your point about me wasting my timeon arguments for God rather than helping the world to end suffering or glabal warmign and the like. Let me just say that obviously from my perspective, given the truth of Christian Theism, I beleive I’m doing the most important work that any human can do in terms of trying to advance God’s Kingdom on Earth and hopefully lead to the salvation of some souls. But I do hear you that my beleiving and doing this doesn’t negate the importance of these other issues, bear in mind that it need not be the case that evangelzing is all that I do, I’m able to help out or do things to make the world a better place (in my own small way as best I can) in addition to doing these shows which I find to be the most important thing that I do. Fruther, the great thing about the world that God made, is that people are different- we have different interests and strengths and so we are all in this together as a team. Even if I am intelleigent (thank you for the compliment by the way), that doesn’t mean I would make a good scientist combating climate change or a good politician or society enigineer knowing how to best end all poverty or crime in the world for example, I wouldn’t have the first clue what to do there to help out on those important issues, but thankfully there are many in thw world that are better suited to that calling. So, I use my God-given talents to do that which I fell God has called me to do- it is what I love and what motivates me to feel like I’m making a real difference in the world, but that doesn’t preclude others who feel other issues such as the ones you mention have to be neglected. I see it more as a both/and rather than an either/or type deal 🙂
Thanks for your feedback 🙂
Dale
LikeLike
Good morning. I need a little more time to read this through since it’s summer in New England and I am overwhelmed with company. However, I still see you doing the same thing: you already have a conclusion to which you are directing your ideas. Your just building the equation backwards, from conclusion to premises. And, just for good measure you are still setting the rules to make the equation work. How can you not see that you’re putting your thumb on the scale?
Lastly, I need to respond to your comment on what atheists “believe.” Atheism, despite what the believing audience would like to believe is not a faith or religion. We simply do believe in a supernatural dimension. Dramatic claims require dramatic evidence and we still have not seen any convincing arguments for the existence of deity. But I’ll let you keep working on your theories, always interested to hear from the other side.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good morning RaPar,
No problem, take your time reading, there is a lot there so no need to rush through it 🙂 I don’t think I’m doing what you accuse me of here to be honest, though I respect that it seems that way to you. So, bear in mind that I am a christian Theist, I have already made up my mind before I made this Podcast and perhaps you are seeing that shine through in some of the shows or write up idk as I would need specific examples to understand why you think this way. Irrespective of any bias on my part, I assure you that I was not always a christian, I was an agostic and in part this argument convinced me that God exists. Further, even as a Thesit for more than 10 years I was not a christian and thus my research finally convinced me that christinaity was true in 2018. I did not start out with the conclusion that I now hold to even if it may seem like I did due to my presentation here.
Additionally, and even more importantly, it doesn’t matter about my bias at all as I’ve presented a deductive argument that coheres to certain rules of logic and so all that matters is; i) Is my argument logically valid (i.e., does the conclusion follow inevitably and necessarily from the truth of the premises without comitting any fallacies) and ii) have I shown that the premises are provably true on a balance of probabilities. You can assess that for yourself without caring about whether I’m bias or not or reverse engineered the argument or whatever else, that’s the beauty of an argument. But yeah, I’ve provided my reasons for thinking the presmises are true, my use of key terms is justified so I’m not sure what you are speaking of really without examples to evaluate if what you say is true or not.
As to Atheists not being a religion, that is fair enough- I’m not sure if your responding to what I said in the show or to Andrea here in the comments- just remember at times I mirror their beligerence to reflect how they are coming across to me, but I’m well aware that at times scoring rhetorical points tends to end in a loss of proper nuance or qualification, when I see someone responding in good faith as you are, I usually try to be more careful with my language, so please don’t take that stuff personally even if it sounds like I’m lumping all Atheists in one basket at times, I don’t mean it that way at all 🙂 That said, I do think that many Atheists display some of the same problems that they calim only apply to religious people and respresent a blind faith position at times. Look at Andrea here o nthese Boards, I was told I’m ignorant about this or that and idiotic and all manner of things and it turns she never even bothered to read or listen to my argument, she just assumed that any and all christians are the same and we are all refuted, that does seem to be worthy of critiism and akin to a blind faith position on the part of an Atheist, so my point would be that many of the problems attributed to relgious faith also applies to many Atheists as well.
One last thing as you mention this as a substantive point; “Dramatic claims require dramatic evidence”. No this is not necessarily true and I’ve done quite a bit of work in this area- claims, whether dramatic or not merely require sufficient evidence to prove they are probably true before one is rational in beleiving it to be true, it doesn’t matter about the type of evidence at all. Now with a miracle like Jesus rising from the dead for example, what your claim is really about is related to the low prior probability that a person randomly and naturally raises from the dead and thus it requires a sufficiently strong a posteriori evidence to overcome that low prior and make the hypothesis true over all. So let’s say there is 10% prior prob that a miraculous event happened, then one would need to conclude with more than 90% certainty that the evidence itself proves the event happened to overcome that very low prior. However, when it comes to miracles by God, I would simply deny that there are any “dramatic claims” to begin with as there is an equal prior prob (50% in Bayes) that God would want to raise Jesus from the dead or not.
The main issue is identfying the proper reference class for determing what the prior prob is. The number of random people who raise naturally from the dead is obviously very low but that is irrelevant to the issue of Jesus as it is the wrong reference class. The proper reference class would be how many religiously signifcant people who God had a sufficient theological reasons to raise from the dead actually rose from the dead and on this front the Atheist has no basis to say that the prior is low unless you could prove that say of all the Resurections in the Bible 8/10 of them all provably didn’t happen or something like that- that would be the only way to prove that it is a priori unlikely that God raised Jesus from the dead for sufficient religios or theological reasons. Simply appealing to all the random peeps who don’t raise naturally and/or I’ve heard one Atheist try to be more nuanced and argue that most religiously significant people don’t raise form the dead either and thus the prior is low on that basis given that reference class. This is true, the Bible alone is filled with religously significant figures and God doesn’t raise them either (at least not until the end times), but that is totally irrelevant as the Atheist can’t prove that God had a religious reason to raise them up in the same way He provably did or equally might have had with Jesus or Lazarus for example.
Anyways, it is good getting your take on this, I do take seriously your charge about reverse engineering the argument even if I don’t think that is true, I’d probably need some examples to assess though.
LikeLike
as usual, a lot of words for what is nothing more than special pleading.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Andrea,
Still at it I see lol. OK I’ll bite, special pleading = “an argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view”.
Please prove your claim; it requires two aspects for you to establish it;
i) that aspects unfavourable to my point were in fact ignored and,
ii) that I ignored these deliberately.
If you fail to meet your burden of proof on this front… well, as Hitchen’s Razor says, “that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence”.
Thanks,
Dale
LikeLike
So, Dale, you make this demand but like aka approve of, my post. Hmmm.
Special pleading is indeed what I pointed out, and more. Special pleading is when the claimant insists that something they want isn’t part of the claim they make for no other reason than they want it that way. Theists want their first cause argument to be considered valid, but they need to invent a god that isn’t part of it. they also can’t show that their god even exists, much less to be the one and only creator.
I do enjoy #2 since that is no more than a lovely set up for an excuse for you aka “you can’t hold me responsible if I’m ignorant”. I certainly can since you would be willfully ignorant.
#1 is quite easy to demonstrate, Dale. You cannot show your god is needed at all as a first cause. You demonstrate your ignorance of the BBT and current physics in favor of magic that you have no evidence for. No god needed, the laws of physics can be just as eternal as your god, and there’s no problem with it being a primitive thing that needs blood to keep it happy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Andrea,
My liking your post, doesn’t necessarily mean I approve or agree with what you say about me, it just meant that I thought it was good you listened and were interacting by giving your feedback, that’s all. That is consistent with making a demand that you prove the false claim/assertion that you made.
You didn’t point anything out about my special pleading, you just asserted it in your last post with no explanation. tThis is your explanation;
YOU SAY: “Theists want their first cause argument to be considered valid, but they need to invent a god that isn’t part of it. they also can’t show that their god even exists, much less to be the one and only creator.”
MY REPLY: We don’t just want it to be valid, IT IS VALID! I provided a logically deductive argument where the truth of the conclusion follows logically and inevitably from the truth of the 3 premises I provide- that is the very defition of a deductive argument’s being logically valid. I argued for the truth of the “God-1 hypothesis” not God (proper) and that was in recognition of the “Gap Problem” that you hint at (either intentionally or unintentionally), it’s true that the cosmological argument on it’s own doesn’t prove that God and/or the christian God, along with all of His divine attributes (omnipresent, Trinity and so on), exists, but that is irrelevant as my argument never tried to do so. I’m making a cumulative case argument and the attributes that were proven as part of the “God-1” were basically devastating to Atheists like you who don’t beleive in a non-physical personal agent as the cause of the universe for example.
YOU SAY: I do enjoy #2 since that is no more than a lovely set up for an excuse for you aka “you can’t hold me responsible if I’m ignorant”. I certainly can since you would be willfully ignorant.
MY REPLY:
That demand is part of the definiton of one engaging in special pleading. If you fault me with “willful ignorance”, OK prove it. Prove that I am making a freewill decision to remin ignorant about the things you mention in your next bit. I can attest that I have been very open-minded and did my best to look at all sides of the given issues I presented on and did my best to be intellectually honest. For example, I watched many Atheist scientists on the closer to truth series and SkyDivePhil videos explaining their views and answering Theistic objections to their cosmological models. I also read and linked to various peer-reviewed science journals on both sides of the issues.
YOU SAY: “#1 is quite easy to demonstrate, Dale. You cannot show your god is needed at all as a first cause. You demonstrate your ignorance of the BBT and current physics in favor of magic that you have no evidence for. No god needed, the laws of physics can be just as eternal as your god, and there’s no problem with it being a primitive thing that needs blood to keep it happy.”
MY REPLY: Well I’m not willfully ignorant on the first thing, I devoted much time and effort to addressing the “Gap Problem” proving various divine attributes of the cause of the universe/+ including for example 4-5 arguments just establishing the personhood/agency of such a cause alone. I also included an entire video (Part 5B) devoted to Atheist’s counter arguments on the “Gap Problem” where arguments directly related to the cosmological argument we addressed. I was as thorough as I could be and included my assessment on not 1, not 2, but 3 such issues in that video. If you are saying I’ve missed one, then it certainly was not willful or through lack of trying on my part, please feel free to tell me what it was that I missed in terms of the “Gap Problem” then.
Next, You say I’m ignorant of the BBT- really? Well again, if true, that certainly isn’t willful on my part as I did quite a lot to educate myself on the science of cosmology in preparing for the show. What is it specifically about the Big Bang Theory (BBT) that I’m ignorant about?
The laws of physics can be just as eternal as God? Not sure why you think I’m willfully ignorant of this Atheistic claim, I addressed it head on in several shows. In the first place I proved that the laws of physics are neither logially nor metaphysically necessary in my Premise #1 (via several arguments such as positing different values for the laws in the multiverse or different laws altogether or even no laws of physics at all- even Atheists like you admit this when you object that God shouldn’t have created at all given the Problem of Evil/Suffering or knowing that he’d need blood to keep it happy- this means even you can concieve of a logically possible world where God exists alone without creating the laws of physics).
Further, the laws of physics aren’t things that exist in their own right, they are merely mathmatical descriptions of the way physical things ordinarly behave in certain conditions (i.e., the casual dispotions theory of the laws of nature), thus you must also posit something physical existing eternally too, the laws existing by themselves is unintelligible and causally ineffacious as abstract entites like laws or numbers don’t stand in causal relations and thus couldn’t cause the universe to exist in the first place.
Next, you mention the laws of physics can be eternal and thus it seems to me that you missed the entire point of the argument, I can just say yep the laws of physics and the universe are eternal, so what? I would just need to say that I must be mistaken on some of the arguments for the universe’s contingency based on its finitude in my Premise #1 that’s all. My argument isn’t ultimately about whether the universe or laws of nature are eternal or not, it is about the fact that they are contingent (things can be eternal and yet not logically/metaphysically necessary), so even if you’re right, my argument remains unphased as the universe and laws of nature are contingent and thus require a logically necessary cause like God, the laws of physics and/or the universe, even if eternal, can’t fit the bill here.
LikeLike
Hmmm, the laws of physics and the universe is eternal, and both show that this god can’t exist since the laws of physics preclude the claims of miracles in the bible. Poof goes this god.
Yep, your argument is from contingency and you have yet to show that anything is contingent on your god’s existence or t hat your god merely exists in the first place.
Do show this to be true “Further, the laws of physics aren’t things that exist in their own right” No need for eternal physical things since the laws of physics are true demosntrated or not.
Explain the BBT to me. Then we can both see exactly your ignorance about it. You start with the claim that it requires your god. Do show how.
LikeLike
Hey Andrea,
I think it’s clear to me that you have not read my 200-page chapter on the Cosmological Argument, nor really seriously listened to my Podcasts on it as many of the issues you raise were already addressed there.
You say that the universe and laws of physics are eternal and that both show God’ can’t exist as the laws of physics preculde miracles in the Bible.
My response to this first claim of yours is to say listen to my Parts 1, 2 , 3A & 3B videos again, I’ve proven beyond all reasonable doubt that neither the universe nor the laws of physics are eternal- you provide no reason or warrant to think your contradictory claims are true whereas I, on the other hand, have provided over 12 hours of Podcasting and hundreds of pages containing a total of 3 sound and/or cogent arguments proving that my claim the universe and the laws of physics are not eternal is true. Please refute the three arguments I give (the logical impossiblity of an actual infinite, impossiblity of forming an actual infinite via successive addition and my abductive argument proving scientifically that the universe probably began to exist) for the finiutde of the universe (and laws of physics) and then provide your own positive arguments proving they are in fact eternal as your mere assertion that they are such is not good enough to meet your burden of proof.
Additionally, I’d like to see how you prove your additional claim, that given the universe and laws of physics are indeed eternal, how does that prove that God can’t exist? Miracles are not contradictory to the truth of the laws of physics or universe existing and thus whether they existed eternally or not is beside the point and totally irrelevant here- after all no one denies that the universe and laws of physics existed 2000 years ago, that didn’t preculde Jesus being supernaturally raised form the dead by God. I think that you need to establish that the laws of physics are logically or metaphysically necessary in some sense in such a way to preclude miracles and show that their occurence is contrdictory with their truth and thus impossible to occur given their presence, please by all means, prove this radical Atheistic religious faith statement that you just made 🙂
Next,
YOU SAY: “Yep, your argument is from contingency and you have yet to show that anything is contingent on your god’s existence or t hat your god merely exists in the first place.”
MY REPLY:
on the latter, yes I have, showing that God exists is the whole point of my 6 videos and/or 220 page write up on the Cosmological argument, it proves that God very probably exists and/or more technically that the “God-1 hypothesis” is very probably true. As to the first part fo your rebuttal, I’m not sure I understand it to be honest, are you saying that given God exists, nothing could exist contingently and everything would need to be a “necessary-dependant” thing? If this is what you are saying that is truly bizarre as I’ve proven that God’s libertarian freewill and dual ability to refrain from willing to create perfectly explains the universe as a contingent existing thing. I’m guessing that you object to Libertarian Freewill and hence you reject my explanation on this front and that is why you say I haven’t shown this to be true. If that is the case (which I doubt as it more sounds to me like you didn’t listen or read what I said on this and are just ignorant about my argument, so you are casting baseless assertions and opinion about hoping something will stick to the wall refuting my argument), then great, please prove that my explanation for how God created a contingent universe is false.
Then,
YOU SAY: ““Further, the laws of physics aren’t things that exist in their own right”- After quoting me here, you say “No need for eternal physical things since the laws of physics are true demosntrated or not”.
MY REPLY: What? The laws of physics are true, demonstrated or not? Umm, yeah and so are physical things as well, what is your point? The laws of physics are nothing more than mathematical descriptions of the way physical things normally operate under certain conditions- that’s it. This means the laws or descriotions pressupose the existence of physical energy and things in order to exist, without anything physical, the laws don’t exist- this is just common sense logic. If you deny this and think that the laws of physics are the equivalent of some kind of “invisible magical pink unicorns” floating around in a Platonic Heaven or something, please provide your proof for this remarkable claim of yours.
Finally,
YOU SAY: “Explain the BBT to me. Then we can both see exactly your ignorance about it. You start with the claim that it requires your god. Do show how.”
MY REPLY:
OK, there are two fundamental aspects here that you ask me to show you, let’s start with the first in terms of explaining BBT to you. Please watch my videos Parts 3A & 3B to get my answer to that, starting with 3A here = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGSwkUoKQo0 and ending with Part 3B here = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P2l0e9gkns
Once you’ve educated yourself about my in depth and scholarly knowledge on the BBT, then you can kindly prove your baseless assertion and point out where I’m supposedly ignorant about it. We’ll move on to the second aspect of your claim after you’ve done your homework on the first part 🙂
LikeLike
I do not need to read something about the cosmological argument which fails to show your god exists or that a god is needed. The argument starts with a baseless presupposition, that there needs to be a cause. As it stands, the evidence does not support this claim. You should be able to show the evidence that requires your god and that does not end up in special pleading. Can you?
Listening again to baseless claims does not make them true. That’s all you have, isn’t it, a continual “if you listen just one more time you’ll agree with me”? I do not.
If the laws of physics are eternal, aka always around then do explain how miracles can happen in spite of them.
“fter all no one denies that the universe and laws of physics existed 2000 years ago, that didn’t preculde Jesus being supernaturally raised form the dead by God.”
“I’ve proven that God’s libertarian freewill and dual ability to refrain from willing to create perfectly ”
oh my, what a lovely excuse on why your god is such an idiot when it comes to creation. Now, you have to say it “chose” to be an idiot and incompetent. Hmmm.
There is no libertarian free will, in the bible or otherwise. But do show how there is.
ah, yes, they have since there is no magical resurrection and no, all people don’t believe there was.
“No need for eternal physical things since the laws of physics are true demosntrated or not”.” thank you for admitting this to be the case and also this “Umm, yeah and so are physical things as well, what is your point? ”
Thus no god needed. The laws of physics aren’t just the equations invented to describe them nor they are just ideas. They always exist since they always happen.
Explain the BBT or not. If you cannot, then you have no idea what it is. I’m not watching 3 hours of lies. Show me at which time marks you say something about the BBT.
You have no indepth or scholarly knowledge of the BBT. Of that, I have no doubt. Now, I can pull the transcript for your video and just by a quick look, I see you have no idea what the BVG theory actually says. Christian creationists love to lie about that one since they think it supports their claims. It doesn’t and Vilenkin himself points out that. Indeed, you can read what Vilenkin says himself here: http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2010/05/william-lane-craigs-arguments-for-god.html
LikeLike
Andrea,
I’m not going to spend time on someone who is too intellectually lazy to find out what I actually say or think via the Podcast, but then who comes on and out of ignroance accuses me of being wrong in various ways that were addressed in the show already and/or don’t even apply to my argument at all. Now, if you say that you’ve already listened to it, then fair enough, I can tell that you heard very little of it and most of what I said must have gone in one ear and out the other with you- again I know this as the objections you raised were already refuted in the show and/or explained to be irrelevant to my argument, but you don’t know that because most of what you listened to didn’t sink in, that is why you can’t give me any specifics as to what I said that I’m “wilfully ignorant” on. Look that is fine if it takes you time to understand things, but then don’t come on making arrogant claims about how I’m wrong based on nothing more than your vague generalized asserted opinions about the issue- it’s obvious to anyone reading your questions that you have no clue what you are talking about.
Now, I don’t say this as an insult, I don’t expect everyone to listen to the show once and have understood everything in there, look at RaPar below, he asked a question that I already addressed in the show itself, but he was respectful and non arrogant; in short it was a genuine question asked in good faith and thus I was happy to take the effort to help him by giving the answer, page numbers or timestamps. But with you, I already know, you will reject whatever I say before I say it without you seriously listening or considering it.
I on the other hand, didn’t assume anything about your views, I asked for specific proof of your claims about me and my work and it seems you can give none. For example, let’s start with the last thing you say and ignore the rest for now. You came to me saying I’m wilfully igrnoant about BBT, I simpyl asked, OK what speficailly was it that I’m ignorant about BBT. You respond, well tell me what you know of it and I will tell you. This implies you were too lazy to listen to what I said about it in the show itself, meaning you had no basis other than unproven biased assumption and guilt by assoication to base your statement on apparently.
Now you do get a little more specific here,
YOU SAY: “You have no indepth or scholarly knowledge of the BBT. Of that, I have no doubt. Now, I can pull the transcript for your video and just by a quick look, I see you have no idea what the BVG theory actually says. Christian creationists love to lie about that one since they think it supports their claims. It doesn’t and Vilenkin himself points out that. Indeed, you can read what Vilenkin says himself here: http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2010/05/william-lane-craigs-arguments-for-god.html”
MY REPLY:
So you get specific and say that I have no idea what the BVG theory (I think you mean singularity theorem to be more precise) actually says. OK prove it, I have taken the effort to read Vilenkin’s work, he absolutely agrees fully with everything I said in the show and/or in my write-up. There is nothing on the Arizona Atheist Blog that Vilenkin says that I got wrong that I can see. It shows you have no notion of what I argued, instead your attacking a strawman made up by one of your Atheist kinsmen. For example, there is a large poriton of the Blog you linked to that is totally irrelevant as neither I, nor Dr. William Lane Craig ever said that the BVG Theorem provides absolute uncontrovertable proof that the universe began to exist, look at the transcript of my show again where I cover the eternal models based on the 4-5 possible exceptions to the BVG Singularity theorem that deny the one and only assumption that on average the universe must be in a state of cosmic expansion. Thus, I don’t make the mistake you say I do, I’m not ignorant of what your Atheist chum and you think I am ignorant of.
Again you don’t know this becuase you didn’t bother to listen to the show, that is why you make a false assertion and when called out on it, you have to fumble around in the transcript depserately trying to find any old thing you can use to respond with, but you do so with zero knowledge and understanding of what I actually argued in the show. I don’t say this is an insult, I’m simply stating the cold hard and obvious facts on this front, you grasping at straws to find a flaw in my iron-clad reasoning because you didn’t really listen to me and have no clue if what you say about me being willfully ignorant about the BBT and/or the BVG Theorem is true or not.
If there was something specific in the Arizona Atheist Blog you linked to please copy and paste the quote along with the relevant bit in my show (timestamped) where you think I’m ignroant, I will check that out and correct your misunderstanding for you 🙂
P.S.- You’re not looking so good on the next point you make in reverse order that I intend to address next, you say “Explain the BBT or not. If you cannot, then you have no idea what it is. I’m not watching 3 hours of lies. Show me at which time marks you say something about the BBT.”
Lol- I thought you already listened to the show, my take on the BBT was a large part of the show, I’m surpirsed you don’t already know off hand, unless you didn’t bother to listen in the first place and are just making up lies about me and my supposed ignorance 🙂
LikeLike
for not wanting to waste time, you blithered on nicely.
“OK prove it, I have taken the effort to read Vilenkin’s work, he absolutely agrees fully with everything I said in the show and/or in my write-up.”
quite a lie. and still you can’t explain the BBT. Not your idiotic “take” on it, but what the theory states. As usual, you attack something you don’t understand, just like nitwits attacking evolutionary theory and morons who claim they know better than virologists and doctors when it comes to covid.
LikeLike
Lol, it takes a few miniutes to respond your false claims about me on here, I obviously don’t have the time to hold your hand and walk you through the hours of research I’ve done to re-explain to you when I already presented it to you. You made the claim that I’m willfuly ignorant based on what I presented, I assume that means you already listened to what I presetned and could easily point out specific examples that prove your point. The fact that you can’t do that beyond making general claims based on a quick scan of my video transcript and a Google search to an Atheist Blog that refutes a point I never made in my argument to begin with is very telling.
Again, still I’m waiting for the proof of your claim about me on BBT, you pointed out the BVG Theorem without mentioning anything specific to me or my argument here and I went over your link doing my best to pick out what I thought you might be referring to about my supposedly being willfully ignorant about it and I provided the counter. You have nothing but ad hominems in response when asked for you to give specfics as to what else in the Blog you are referring to and what it was I said in print or in the show that conflicted with that- still waiting, do you have anything? ALso please prove I lied about reading Vilenkin’s work, I had to laugh about that as I even did an entire section on his cosmological model proposal in the show.
P.S.- I’m also amused that you claim I attack Big Bang Theory (BBT), now it’s especially obvious you didn’t really understand my argument. Please provide the timestamp from the video or the page numbers where I “attacked” the Big Bang Theory, was it the Standard model I attacked or the modified version?, do you even know the difference Andrea?- probably not as is typical from skeptics who have nothing but the use of ad hominems and unwarranted assumptions to justify their Atheistic beliefs on- I feel sorry for you.
LikeLike
and still no evidence for your claims. You only can say that I “don’t really understand your argument”. I know your argument and it is nonsense.
Hours of “research” mean nothing if you are simply wrong with your need to invent reasons to believe in your god.
LOL oh I do love this “Please provide the timestamp from the video or the page numbers where I “attacked” the Big Bang Theory, was it the Standard model I attacked or the modified version?,”
Do tell what the “standard model” of the BBT is and how it is different from the “modified version”. This is wonderful since you can’t even explain the BBT to me at all.
you see, dear, I’ve looked up the term and unsurprisingly, it shows up on only the most sketchy of websites. ROFL.
and gee, still unable to show where I’ve used an ad hominem fallacy.
LikeLike
OK Andrea, nothing of substance to respond to here in your latest reply I see. The last word is yours I suppose since you claim I don’t know BBT, when asked for proof as to what I said and what the theory itself says in contradiction- you have nothing to offer on that front but some half-baked nonsense that I made false claims about Vilenkin’s use of the BVG Singularity Theorem (which I rebuted by saying was a strawman argument given I don’t make the statement your Ahteist Blog says I do)- you don’t even know what the standard Big Bang model is and how it is different form the BBT model proposed today and yet you pretend that I’m the one who is willfully ignorant about BBT.
I mention several differences in the show (Part 3A) such as the expansion rate of the universe being different for example, the need for an intial inflationary period, etc. Oh wait, I forgot, the all-knowing (or rather all-lying) Andrea said that I just don’t know anything about BBT and that further, there are no differences between modern BBT and the standard model proposed in the 1920’s. Silly me, I shouldn’t be able to even know what I just said about those differences according to Andrea as in her books I am “wilfully ignorant”- I haven’t yet mastered the fine art of being able to ignore understanding my interlocuter’s argument, do a 5 second Google search to some random Atheist Blog site, and then make false pronouncements about my interlocuter’s knowledge and argument based on my own ignorance and arrogance. Hopefully one day I will be able to rise to Andrea’s level of sophistication on this front- there is a term for people like you Andrea and that is “fundy lay skeptic”, that’s what you are.
Enjoy your time committing the invincible ignorance fallacy where you refuse to believe the argument by ignoring any evidence given. I think they are working on a pill to help with that as it is a symptom of “fundy lay skeptic syndrome” or so I hear anyways lol 😛
Anyways, on a more serious note, if you do have any substantive criticisms, please listen to my show fully, give me specific references in establishing any specific points you might have, otherwise responding to your vague and general assertions is not worth my time. The last word will be yours should you decide to double down, but I hope you don’t and start to provide some substantive feedback that we van go back and forth on- the choice is yours Miss Shfit’s the Burden 🙂
LikeLike
Hmm, claims that there is nothing to respond to yet here you are, dear. And still unable to describe the BBT that you attack and claim is wrong. And still unable to show the supposed differences you claim in models.
Amazing.
LikeLike
Lol- OK still nothing of substance to offer, Iit seems you’ve chosen to double down on dumb dearie- fair enough Andrea, I promised you the last word if that was the case.
Take care 🙂
LikeLike
and more bearing of false witness. Thanks.
LikeLike
Ok. So. I see I stuck my nose into a bee’s nest! Wow!
LikeLiked by 1 person
No not at all, we’re good RaPar 🙂
LikeLike
Just wanted to post on the new debate show with Vaal and David R. Thinking over Vaal’s point about the distinvtion between personal/agential explanations begging the quesiton against scientific explanations (as Atheists aren’t substanve dualists and would say that all personal explanations reduce down to just being scientific explanations- we are our brain and physical bodies type deal) unless one can prove substance dualism.
In the first place, even if Vaal is right,there is no issue in proving that persons are immaterial and non-physical (I did a 4 video series proving this = see The Soul and Substance Dualism series Parts 1-4 here = https://realseekerministries.wordpress.com/?s=Substance Dualism), but I’m not sure that the Theist needs to prove this in order to make th personal vs. scientific explanaitons argument as per Swinburne.
Here are two ideas I had after the show;
1. In the first place personal explanations (regardless of their nature) are proven types of explanations we employ raitonally all the time (the Kraft Dinner is cooking because I want some dinner is a rational explanatory option) along with other types. Since nothing Vaal said disproved the impossiblity of a natural physical or scientific explanation to explain the universe (and presumably the conceptual and Optimaitzaiton principle explanaitons also fail) that would mean the universe would either be inexplicable (smething Vaal denied) or there is some unknown type of explanaiton that we have no experience of that caused the universe to exist contingently.
I think is it more reasonble to assume that whatever explanation created the universe must be on that is known to us or operates in the world today and thus the only plausible candidate for that are personal explanations else we are left with nothing.
2. Another way might be something that Vaal himself admitted he beleived in (in a nother context)- but the phenmonenal conservatism principle (the notion that things are usuall as they seem to us) and on this basis it truly does seem to most people that scientific explanations and entirely different types of explanations to personal explanations (i.e., they don’t reduce down to scientific ones). Thus, if we should assume things are how they seem to us unless and until we have jusitifed reason to doubt, then this would imply that we ought to assume that personal explanaitons are different than scientific explanations and mechanisms (just as they seem to us to be such).
Just a couple thoughts I had after the show 🙂
LikeLike