South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

September 22, 2019, 04:08:40 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the forum rules before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Steve on 702

 (Read 22647 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Lilli
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 435



Lelani Stolp
« Reply #120 on: September 15, 2010, 12:16:11 PM »

Ever heard of the evidential problem of Evil? It relies on evidence, albeit reality as well, or someone's interpretation thereof.
Yes, but I don't see why this is relevant to anything that has been said recently on this thread. Recheck your facts - the evidential problem of evil relates to evil being used as evidence against the existence of god, and I already told you why I think that is stupid. 
Obviously I disagree with the bolded part as I see reality as evidence for God. Telling me I am delusional is nothing but a sad ad hominem employed by new atheists that have run out of arguments.
I never called you delusional. I am not a 'new atheist' and there is no shortage of arguments on my side. Of course, quality of an argument is often more valuable that the number of different nonsensical arguments one may have.
And after seeing how many times straw men versions of the cosmological argument(s) ("everything has a cause" for example, I am still looking for an example of a person that actually defended that straw men version) have been knocked down, unsurprising really.
I'm sorry, did I miss something? You're not suggesting that I made such a silly argument?
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #121 on: September 15, 2010, 12:20:29 PM »

Ever heard of the evidential problem of Evil? It relies on evidence, albeit reality as well, or someone's interpretation thereof.
Yes, but I don't see why this is relevant to anything that has been said recently on this thread. Recheck your facts - the evidential problem of evil relates to evil being used as evidence against the existence of god, and I already told you why I think that is stupid.
I am pointing out how reality is relevant.

I never called you delusional.
Thank you, I appreciate it.
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #122 on: September 15, 2010, 13:04:38 PM »

And after seeing how many times straw men versions of the cosmological argument(s) ("everything has a cause" for example, I am still looking for an example of a person that actually defended that straw men version)
I'm now actually looking for someone who makes the strawman version of the argument. I suspect you won't be able to provide any such. 
Quote
The analogy has the potential to work even better if actual arguments with more information is given. You knew that of course.
It was quite self evident. If you didn't understand the analogy, all you had to do was ask, not pretend no argument had been made. Hint, an analogy is an argument in and of itself.  Wink
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #123 on: September 15, 2010, 13:28:31 PM »

And after seeing how many times straw men versions of the cosmological argument(s) ("everything has a cause" for example, I am still looking for an example of a person that actually defended that straw men version)

I'm now actually looking for someone who makes the strawman version of the argument. I suspect you won't be able to provide any such.

Dennett (Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (Viking, 2006), p. 242.) of all people, one would think he would get it right... alas. Heck, even Stevo paraded a straw man version of it in his book.




Many more examples of this btw. Just go to the infidels site.
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #124 on: September 15, 2010, 13:39:25 PM »

So Dennet says: Everything has a cause; so the universe has a cause, namely God. If everything has a cause, then what caused God? on page 242 with specific reference to the Cosmological Argument?

And Steve is quoted verbatim in your picture as well? Page numbers?



I don't have Steve's book, I plan to buy it when I see it. I do have Dennet back at home and will be sure to check. You know, just because I am skeptical.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #125 on: September 15, 2010, 13:50:46 PM »

So Dennet says: Everything has a cause; so the universe has a cause, namely God. If everything has a cause, then what caused God? on page 242 with specific reference to the Cosmological Argument?

And Steve is quoted verbatim in your picture as well? Page numbers?



I don't have Steve's book, I plan to buy it when I see it. I do have Dennet back at home and will be sure to check. You know, just because I am skeptical.

Here is Dennett's straw man version:
Quote
“The Cosmological Argument, which in its simplest form states that since everything must have a cause the universe must have a cause—namely, God—doesn’t stay simple for long. Some deny the premise, since quantum physics teaches us (doesn’t it?) that not everything that happens needs to have a cause. Others prefer to accept the premise and then ask: What caused God? The reply that God is self-caused (somehow) then raises the rebuttal: If something can be self-caused, why can’t the universe as a whole be the thing that is self-caused.” (Breaking the Spell, pg. 242)


And here is Steve's version of a cosmological argument that he likes to counter with the "argument of infinite regression":
Quote
Man’s Need for God: Chapter 5 page 60.
The argument that something cannot exist if it is not made by something else is self-contradictory. Who “made” or “created” God then? And who or what made that creator and so forth back into eternity. This is called the argument of infinite regression.

Synonyms for "made" just in case. And check out "The Christian Argument: Chapter 4 page 53." when you do get hold of it.

I am actually trying to figure out the origin of this "Everything has a cause" straw man and who actually defended (or tried to anyway) it. Any help?
« Last Edit: September 15, 2010, 14:50:42 PM by Teleological » Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #126 on: September 15, 2010, 15:04:50 PM »

I am actually trying to figure out the origin of this "Everything has a cause" straw man and who actually defended (or tried to anyway) it. Any help?

Try Thomas Aquinas

Mintaka
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #127 on: September 15, 2010, 15:08:29 PM »

I am actually trying to figure out the origin of this "Everything has a cause" straw man and who actually defended (or tried to anyway) it. Any help?

Try Thomas Aquinas

Mintaka
Lol, yes try him. It must have come after him though. I mean, even Hume and Kant (way after Aquinas) did not use this straw man as an "objection" or "argument" against Cosmological arguments. So it must be after those chaps as well... or maybe they did not think much about these mysterious defenders of "everything has a cause".
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #128 on: September 15, 2010, 15:14:19 PM »

I am actually trying to figure out the origin of this "Everything has a cause" straw man and who actually defended (or tried to anyway) it. Any help?
It may be that you miss their point, which is not so much the first premise, but the special pleading with regards to the first cause.

"Everything has a cause" is oversimplified of course and "something cannot exist if it is not made by something" is a bad paraphrase but the point isn't really the first premise in either of these. If you quoted them correctly, that is. I cannot really speak for them, this is but my take on it.

I'd not be surprised if this is because they give you the first premise freely and or agree with it. (We know I don't and I won't.  Grin). They choose to focus on the problem of the first cause having to be eternal (which of course it doesn't have to be - God could have died long ago) and that the universe may then be eternal in some form and not need an eternal God as answer.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #129 on: September 15, 2010, 15:21:42 PM »

Both instances are horrible misrepresentations. That is it, there is nothing much else to speculate. It is also simply false (another straw man lol) to say that the first cause argument requires the first cause to be eternal, when in fact it is the exact opposite. It actually follows from the argument that the first cause is not constrained by time.
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3087



« Reply #130 on: September 15, 2010, 18:06:48 PM »

Quote
I am actually trying to figure out the origin of this "Everything has a cause" straw man and who actually defended (or tried to anyway) it. Any help?

More lay Christians than I can shake a stick at.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #131 on: September 15, 2010, 18:42:39 PM »

So you think it originated with lay Christians?
Logged
StevoMuso
Stevo Muso
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 654



« Reply #132 on: September 16, 2010, 08:40:46 AM »

1) Anybody who thinks/believes God is a physical being is de facto mentally unstable.
2) Your mentality prevents you from seeing you are wrong and the validity of the analogy.

Ah Tele. Let's just say you are the white sheep of the family and leave it at that. We still love you bro.
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3087



« Reply #133 on: September 16, 2010, 10:10:34 AM »

You know, if you can pick two ways to read something, you always somehow assume the worst interpretation.... much like my girlfriend.  Grin

No, it's defended by lay christians all the time. I would hazard a guess that it's been around almost as long as christianity itself, possibly the result of lay christians, possibly not. However full points for entirely missing the point.

The point is it would be foolish for any atheist not to state the obvious problems with the "cause" argument, because, and you can fully trust me on this.... EVERY time I state my atheism to a believer of any kind, this argument is front of the queue to come out of their mouth. It IS a very bad argument, we know that, that's why we point that out at every opportunity, the credulous just won't let it go...

So you can stop assuming we just put up this argument "for the sake" of xtians and then bash it down as sport. We bash this argument because we hear it constantly.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #134 on: September 16, 2010, 10:25:00 AM »

You know, if you can pick two ways to read something, you always somehow assume the worst interpretation.... much like my girlfriend.  Grin

No, it's defended by lay christians all the time. I would hazard a guess that it's been around almost as long as christianity itself, possibly the result of lay christians, possibly not. However full points for entirely missing the point.

The point is it would be foolish for any atheist not to state the obvious problems with the "cause" argument, because, and you can fully trust me on this.... EVERY time I state my atheism to a believer of any kind, this argument is front of the queue to come out of their mouth. It IS a very bad argument, we know that, that's why we point that out at every opportunity, the credulous just won't let it go...

So you can stop assuming we just put up this argument "for the sake" of xtians and then bash it down as sport. We bash this argument because we hear it constantly.
Fair enough. But for professional philosophers to get the arguments so horribly wrong is another story. Why do they make these straw men arguments when no serious philosopher has defended it.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 1.101 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page February 13, 2019, 11:12:37 AM
Privacy Policy