Debating a christian - how would you destroy this argument?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Toban
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 12:49 pm

Debating a christian - how would you destroy this argument?

Post by Toban »

Mortimer Adler's argument for the existence of God (Wikipedia):
In his 1981 book “How to Think About God”, Adler attempts to demonstrate God as the exnihilator of the cosmos. The steps taken to demonstrate this are as follows:

1. The existence of an effect requiring the concurrent existence and action of an efficient cause implies the existence and action of that cause

2. The cosmos as a whole exists

3. The existence of the cosmos as a whole is radically contingent (meaning that it needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence to preserve it in being, and prevent it from being annihilated, or reduced to nothing)

4. If the cosmos needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence, then that cause must be a supernatural being, supernatural in its action, and one the existence of which is uncaused, in other words, the Supreme Being, or God

Two of the four premises, the first and the last, appear to be true with certitude. The second is true beyond a reasonable doubt. If the one remaining premise, the third, is also true beyond a reasonable doubt, then we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists and acts to sustain the cosmos in existence.

The reason we can conceive the cosmos as being radically rather than superficially contingent is due to the fact that the cosmos which now exists is only one of many possible universes that might have in fact existed in the past, and might still exist in the future. This is not to say that any cosmos other than this one ever did exist in the past, or ever will exist in the future. It is not necessary to go that far in order to say that other universes might have existed in the past and might exist in the future. If other universes are possible, than this one also is merely possible, not necessary.

In other words, the universe as we know it today is not the only universe that can ever exist in time. How do we know that the present cosmos is only a possible universe (one of many possibilities that might exist), and not a necessary universe (the only one that can ever exist)? We can infer it from the fact that the arrangement and disarray, the order and disorder, of the present cosmos might have been otherwise. That it might have been different from what it is. There is no compelling reason to think that the natural laws which govern the present cosmos are the only possible natural laws. The cosmos as we know it manifests chance and random happenings, as well as lawful behavior. Even the electrons and protons, which are thought to be imperishable once they exist as the building blocks of the present cosmos, might not be the building blocks for a different cosmos.

The next step in the argument is the crucial one. It consists in saying that whatever might have been otherwise in shape or structure is something that also might not exist at all. That which cannot be otherwise also cannot not exist; and conversely, what necessarily exists can not be otherwise than it is. Therefore, a cosmos which can be otherwise is one that also cannot be; and conversely, a cosmos that is capable of not existing at all is one that can be otherwise than it now is.

Applying this insight to the fact that the existing cosmos is merely one of a plurality of possible universes, we come to the conclusion that the cosmos, radically contingent in existence, would not exist at all were its existence not caused. A merely possible cosmos cannot be an uncaused cosmos. A cosmos that is radically contingent in existence, and needs a cause of that existence, needs a supernatural cause, one that exists and acts to exnihilate this merely possible cosmos, thus preventing the realization of what is always possible for merely a possible cosmos, namely, its absolute non-existence or reduction to nothingness.

Adler finishes by pointing out that the conclusion reached conforms to Ockham’s rule (the rule which states that we are justified in positing or asserting the real existence of unobserved or unobservable entities if-and only-if their real existence is indispensable for the explanation of observable phenomena) because we have found it necessary to posit the existence of God, the Supreme Being, in order to explain what needs to be explained-the actual existence here and now of a merely possible cosmos. The argument also appeals to the principle of sufficient reason.

Adler stressed that even with this conclusion, God's existence cannot be proven or demonstrated, but only established as true beyond a reasonable doubt. However, in a recent re-review of the argument, John Cramer concluded that recent developments in cosmology appear to converge with and support Adler's argument, and that in light of such theories as the multiverse, the argument is no worse for the wear and may, indeed, now be judged somewhat more probable than it was originally[10]".
I think #2 is false, akin to saying the infinite exists, assuming 'cosmos' refers to the infinite. I'm not sure about 3, but my hunch is that it's also false. Also, he refers to god as being separate from the cosmos - couldn't we apply this same argument to 'the cosmos + god' making it: 'the cosmos (including God)' needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence... and keep doing so with each new layer of god, leaving us with an infinite regression of Gods to provide the efficient causes??

Any other ideas for how to obliterate this argument?
Ataraxia
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 11:41 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Debating a christian - how would you destroy this argument?

Post by Ataraxia »

Premise 3 is a begging the question fallacy.
earnest_seeker
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:52 am

Re: Debating a christian - how would you destroy this argument?

Post by earnest_seeker »

Haha, do I detect a slight bias? :-P

Not "Please help me to carefully examine this argument to determine whether it's valid or not", but the automatic assumption that it's invalid! Ah, but you're in good company here on GF.

Anyway, here's my assistance:

#3 asserts that the cosmos is "radically contingent" given that there are many other possible configurations for the universe. God is then introduced as the supposedly uncaused cause of this radically contingent cosmos. There's an implicit claim here: that God himself is not "radically contingent", because if He were, then per #3 (substituting "God" for "cosmos") we would require a cause for His existence. Let's examine that though: God can choose amongst multiple universe configurations, and has actually chosen one in particular. There are two possibilities:
1. God chose that configuration because he was compelled to - it was the only possible one, in which case #3 is false and we no longer have any cause to posit a God,
2. God was free to choose amongst many universes, so His nature (which determines His actual choice) could have been any one out of a number of possibilities, in which case He is as "radically contingent" as the cosmos itself, and per #3 requires a cause, leading to infinite regress.
Laird
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Debating a christian - how would you destroy this argument?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

The following short debate between David Quinn, a Christian commentator (any similarity in name to actual thinking people is purely coincidental) and Richard Dawkins shows a similar problem:The God Delusion: David Quinn & Richard Dawkins debate

---------
Quinn: Well, I think the very existence of matter is evidence that God exists. And by the way, remember, you are the man who has problems believing in free will, which you try to, very conveniently, shunt to one side.

Dawkins: I’m just not interested in free will. It’s not a big question for me.

Quinn: It’s a vast question because we cannot be considered morally responsible beings unless we have free will.
---------

This is how almost every similar debate ends up. Dawkins has really not much understanding of religion or bible but feels qualified to make all kinds of theological statements. And the free will question is of course very interesting to deal with but Dawkins isn't interested in philosophy either.

Quinn is rather childish in his conception of morality and free will. And while he's right in saying (the experience of) anything is proof of reality ('god'), he fails to question the way he mindlessly dresses up that reality with rather traditional values and personifications.

Back to Adler's argument: "The cosmos as a whole exists".

This appears to be false, such existence is only asserted. Totality lies beyond the question of existence. It's or existence itself, existence being woven into its very fabric, or totality defies even existence as well as non-existence. It's the purest axiom; that's why it's called the absolute.
mansman
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 5:45 am
Location: USA

Re: Debating a christian - how would you destroy this argument?

Post by mansman »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The following short debate between David Quinn, a Christian commentator (any similarity in name to actual thinking people is purely coincidental) and Richard Dawkins shows a similar problem:The God Delusion: David Quinn & Richard Dawkins debate

---------
Quinn: Well, I think the very existence of matter is evidence that God exists. And by the way, remember, you are the man who has problems believing in free will, which you try to, very conveniently, shunt to one side.

Dawkins: I’m just not interested in free will. It’s not a big question for me.

Quinn: It’s a vast question because we cannot be considered morally responsible beings unless we have free will.
---------

This is how almost every similar debate ends up. Dawkins has really not much understanding of religion or bible but feels qualified to make all kinds of theological statements. And the free will question is of course very interesting to deal with but Dawkins isn't interested in philosophy either.

Quinn is rather childish in his conception of morality and free will. And while he's right in saying (the experience of) anything is proof of reality ('god'), he fails to question the way he mindlessly dresses up that reality with rather traditional values and personifications.

Back to Adler's argument: "The cosmos as a whole exists".

This appears to be false, such existence is only asserted. Totality lies beyond the question of existence. It's or existence itself, existence being woven into its very fabric, or totality defies even existence as well as non-existence. It's the purest axiom; that's why it's called the absolute.
D, Is your plan to get others to convince you to abandon or strenthen belief you hold for many years maybe all your life? Be honest.
:)
- FOREIGNER
User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: Debating a christian - how would you destroy this argument?

Post by Matt Gregory »

Toban wrote:Mortimer Adler's argument for the existence of God (Wikipedia):
In his 1981 book “How to Think About God”, Adler attempts to demonstrate God as the exnihilator of the cosmos. The steps taken to demonstrate this are as follows:

1. The existence of an effect requiring the concurrent existence and action of an efficient cause implies the existence and action of that cause

2. The cosmos as a whole exists

3. The existence of the cosmos as a whole is radically contingent (meaning that it needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence to preserve it in being, and prevent it from being annihilated, or reduced to nothing)

4. If the cosmos needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence, then that cause must be a supernatural being, supernatural in its action, and one the existence of which is uncaused, in other words, the Supreme Being, or God
Does "cosmos as a whole" include everything that exists or not? And by that I mean everything in the most extreme sense of the word: everything in the past, present, future, parallel universes, God, absolutely everything.

If it does include absolutely everything than it can't have a cause because it would contradict #1: if everything exists in "the cosmos as a whole" then there is nothing left in existence in order to cause it.

If "cosmos as a whole" means "everything except God" then it's not true that God is uncaused because God would be caused by the cosmos as much as God would cause the cosmos. That's the principle of duality at work.
Fujaro
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:34 am

Re: Debating a christian - how would you destroy this argument?

Post by Fujaro »

Toban wrote:Mortimer Adler's argument for the existence of God (Wikipedia):
In his 1981 book “How to Think About God”, Adler attempts to demonstrate God as the exnihilator of the cosmos. The steps taken to demonstrate this are as follows:

1. The existence of an effect requiring the concurrent existence and action of an efficient cause implies the existence and action of that cause

2. The cosmos as a whole exists

3. The existence of the cosmos as a whole is radically contingent (meaning that it needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence to preserve it in being, and prevent it from being annihilated, or reduced to nothing)

4. If the cosmos needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence, then that cause must be a supernatural being, supernatural in its action, and one the existence of which is uncaused, in other words, the Supreme Being, or God

Any other ideas for how to obliterate this argument?
There really is too much that can be demolished here. But for now let's stick to #4.

This is a clear non sequitur for it doesn't follow from the premisse ("If the cosmos needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence") that a cause should be supernatural or godlike. Why can't it be extranatural? Just by introducing the word 'supernatural' a valse dilemma is introduced as if there are only two modes of existence: natural and supernatural. This doesn't follow from the premisses. Of course with the latter mode the whole religious charade enters the scene. It is a trick with our mind. But from the fact that we are used to a supernatural mode populated with gods, angels, archangels and so on in religious discourse it does not follow that the cause must be godlike. Some supraquantal probability instability in the zillionth superuniverse would qualify for the job also.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Re: Debating a christian - how would you destroy this argument?

Post by sue hindmarsh »

Fujaro,

Your adding a third mode:"supraquantal probability instability" clearly makes the point that the whole super nonsense, of which the Christian god fits in, comes directly from the juvenile mind-space. It also shows that most folk find the first mode: Nature, plainly lacking in charisma and pizazz to ever fill the brief. Which is truly bizarre!

Look! Up in the sky!
It's a bird!
It's a plane!
No! It's Supraquantal!!!!

It's a beauty! :)
Fujaro
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:34 am

Re: Debating a christian - how would you destroy this argument?

Post by Fujaro »

Can heaven ever live up to the expectation that it is a far better place than our world and still contain humans?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Debating a christian - how would you destroy this argument?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Fujaro wrote:
Adler wrote: 4. If the cosmos needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence, then that cause must be a supernatural being, supernatural in its action, and one the existence of which is uncaused, in other words, the Supreme Being, or God
This is a clear non sequitur for it doesn't follow from the premisse ("If the cosmos needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence") that a cause should be supernatural or godlike. Why can't it be extranatural? Just by introducing the word 'supernatural' a valse dilemma is introduced as if there are only two modes of existence: natural and supernatural. This doesn't follow from the premisses. Of course with the latter mode the whole religious charade enters the scene. It is a trick with our mind. But from the fact that we are used to a supernatural mode populated with gods, angels, archangels and so on in religious discourse it does not follow that the cause must be godlike. Some supraquantal probability instability in the zillionth superuniverse would qualify for the job also.
To play the devil's advocate for a minute: you have to give Adler a bit more credit here.

If the cosmos with all its dimensions and super-universes would be seen as the natural, the material universe, then anything not being part of the natural is the supposed supernatural, naturally. The idea of an 'extra-natural' would be self-contradicting as the natural doesn't allow for an outside, as there would be two 'natures' suddenly and 'extra' loses its meaning. Existing outside nature would imply a second nature. Religious imagery sometimes may seem to imply this but truth is that immanence is a common concept within much of accepted theology.

The 'supernatural' traditionally aims to describe a 'superimposing', a transcendence, not inside, not outside. This can be done by describing it as 'dumb' force, intelligent force or a complete type of 'being', depending on imagery that is needed.

Within almost every mainstream religion there appears to be different levels of maturity when it comes to depicting god, or some ordering, fundamental principle. It ranges from childish concepts depicting a father or mother figure, caring, nourishing [which refers to the youngest years where the child's world was indeed embodied by the parent(s), an intelligent living world that supplies the goods] to more transcendental concepts that include the origin of evil and suffering in relation to knowledge and consciousness.

The danger one should be aware of when criticizing religion is that it's easy to erect a straw version of a belief - easy because many believers themselves are already doing that - and knock that one over. But this doesn't amount to a serious or substantial critique in my opinion.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Re: Debating a christian - how would you destroy this argument?

Post by sue hindmarsh »

Diebert wrote:
The danger one should be aware of when criticizing religion is that it's easy to erect a straw version of a belief - easy because many believers themselves are already doing that - and knock that one over. But this doesn't amount to a serious or substantial critique in my opinion.
An example of which is Dawkins' embracing science while remaining ignorant of the deeper psychological influences (the issue of free-will being one) that support what then must be considered to be his suppositions. Making him as much a fundamentalist as any of the religious persons he condemns.
Fujaro
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:34 am

Re: Debating a christian - how would you destroy this argument?

Post by Fujaro »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Fujaro wrote:
Adler wrote: 4. If the cosmos needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence, then that cause must be a supernatural being, supernatural in its action, and one the existence of which is uncaused, in other words, the Supreme Being, or God
This is a clear non sequitur for it doesn't follow from the premisse ("If the cosmos needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence") that a cause should be supernatural or godlike. Why can't it be extranatural? Just by introducing the word 'supernatural' a valse dilemma is introduced as if there are only two modes of existence: natural and supernatural. This doesn't follow from the premisses. Of course with the latter mode the whole religious charade enters the scene. It is a trick with our mind. But from the fact that we are used to a supernatural mode populated with gods, angels, archangels and so on in religious discourse it does not follow that the cause must be godlike. Some supraquantal probability instability in the zillionth superuniverse would qualify for the job also.
To play the devil's advocate for a minute: you have to give Adler a bit more credit here.

If the cosmos with all its dimensions and super-universes would be seen as the natural, the material universe, then anything not being part of the natural is the supposed supernatural, naturally. The idea of an 'extra-natural' would be self-contradicting as the natural doesn't allow for an outside, as there would be two 'natures' suddenly and 'extra' loses its meaning. Existing outside nature would imply a second nature. Religious imagery sometimes may seem to imply this but truth is that immanence is a common concept within much of accepted theology.

The 'supernatural' traditionally aims to describe a 'superimposing', a transcendence, not inside, not outside. This can be done by describing it as 'dumb' force, intelligent force or a complete type of 'being', depending on imagery that is needed.

Within almost every mainstream religion there appears to be different levels of maturity when it comes to depicting god, or some ordering, fundamental principle. It ranges from childish concepts depicting a father or mother figure, caring, nourishing [which refers to the youngest years where the child's world was indeed embodied by the parent(s), an intelligent living world that supplies the goods] to more transcendental concepts that include the origin of evil and suffering in relation to knowledge and consciousness.

The danger one should be aware of when criticizing religion is that it's easy to erect a straw version of a belief - easy because many believers themselves are already doing that - and knock that one over. But this doesn't amount to a serious or substantial critique in my opinion.
Hello Diebert,

I really appreciate the challenge this advocate tries to bring on. But I think that what you describe as a deeper level of argument in Adler's reasoning is in fact nothing more than a word trick. I will elaborate on this hereafter.

1) If in Adler's argument with 'the natural world' he is referring to all the universes and superuniverses that may exist without us knowing, he is making unsubstantiated claims about realms of this natural world. For it is by no means clear that even some very basic rules that our universe is subject to also apply to these unreachable and unobservable realms. For instance Adler's argumentation relies on the principle of causality being applicable tot whole of the natural realm. But it isn't clear that causality holds in these non-universal realms. So, in that case his first premisse would fail (and therefore also #4).

2) Extranatural can have a meaning other than supernatural and still denote a non natural realm of existence in the sense that it doesn't involve the traditional gods and angels and isn't interacting with our universe. In this case it is a purely linguistic debate whether to call this 'outside' realm the natural realm. We may have no access to this realm whatsoever.

3) Also, some fields of theoretical cosmology indeed are investigating hypothetical models of the big bang involving an event in a superuniverse-like reality as the cause of our universe, but none of these models point in the direction of a godlike first cause. Superstring theory for instance involves a number of extra dimensions that can be regarded as this extranatural realm. It doesn't involve any 'being' as a first cause.

4) It is ok by me to redefine 'natural world' to the superuniversal realm if it was demonstrated to exist, ie if these models were verified. But this does not mean that Adler's claim suddenly extends to these new realms for he first will have to show that his first premisse holds in these regions. He cannot freeride on the back of naturalistic science.

5) If Adler's argument IS extended to these new realms of the 'natural' world, immediately god itself will be subject to the same principle of cause and effect he uses and the argument will become an infinite regression and god himself is in need of a cause.

6) The remainder of your argumentation is devoted to elaborating on non-literal interpretations of Adler's argument. This context is not relevant for the logic debunking procedure I follow here. If his argument should be interpreted other than stated it should be restated (for example by eliminating the connotation of 'god' as a scientious being concerned with the world and mankind in particular). I am fully aware of the fact that by debunking Adler's argument as stated I am not debunking every possible religious statement. For example I am not debunking the claim that a supraquantal probability instability in the zillionth superuniverse can ever be identified as a first cause which by some religious notions may equate to 'god'.
Fujaro
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:34 am

Re: Debating a christian - how would you destroy this argument?

Post by Fujaro »

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Diebert wrote:
The danger one should be aware of when criticizing religion is that it's easy to erect a straw version of a belief - easy because many believers themselves are already doing that - and knock that one over. But this doesn't amount to a serious or substantial critique in my opinion.
An example of which is Dawkins' embracing science while remaining ignorant of the deeper psychological influences (the issue of free-will being one) that support what then must be considered to be his suppositions. Making him as much a fundamentalist as any of the religious persons he condemns.
As long as it is clear that large portions of mankind indulges in very "childish" (your word) notions of the word 'god' (for example as demonstrated here) it seems inappropriate to me to accuse Richard Dawkins of fundamentalism for giving priority to debunking "childish" versions of religious thinking. Endorsers of more 'advanced' religious notions of god should support his effort and join him on this if they want to be taken seriously.

What is an even more objectionable practise in this context is the ingenuous use of the god word, thereby assuring the endorsement of the argument by the entire religious community and not discriminating between childish versions and advanced versions (presuming such a distinction indeed can be made). Declaring the religious thinking realm a no go area by referral to the 'advanced' versions and at the same time refraining from an explicit distinction is nothing more than an attempt to immunize Adler-like proofs to critique. Bring on these so called trancedental versions of god proofs or be silent about it.

Adler himself, in any event, fails to define the god word and presents this shortcoming as a virtue thereby casually identifying theology as science:
Mortimer Adler in How To Think About God wrote:Our notion of God cannot be stated in the form of a definition. Rather, it must be stated in the form of a definite description of God. When we thereby express our notion of God, that notion, like the notion of an electron or a black hole, is a theoretical construct, not an empirical concept. . . . The notional apparatus of theology, like that of nuclear physics and 20th-century cosmology, consists mainly of theoretical constructs.


I don't support Dawkins on his abstinence from commenting on free will though.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Debating a christian - how would you destroy this argument?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Fujaro wrote: 1) If in Adler's argument with 'the natural world' he is referring to all the universes and superuniverses that may exist without us knowing, he is making unsubstantiated claims about realms of this natural world. For it is by no means clear that even some very basic rules that our universe is subject to also apply to these unreachable and unobservable realms. For instance Adler's argumentation relies on the principle of causality being applicable tot whole of the natural realm. But it isn't clear that causality holds in these non-universal realms. So, in that case his first premisse would fail (and therefore also #4).
You mean to say you cannot prove an universal causality to be the case just by empirical knowledge or the scientific process. This would be because these processes require causality to function. Causality appears to be another axiom as far as our consciousness goes - it's another of those absolutes.

Now you could suggest another type of consciousness or knowledge that doesn't require causality or something like non-contradiction. The moment you try to even formulate the idea, you'll bound to run into trouble as it would defy the consciousness you're functioning through right now.

Of course you could believe and propose whatever you want but it would be weak as argument against God by just raising another specter .
2) Extranatural can have a meaning other than supernatural and still denote a non natural realm of existence in the sense that it doesn't involve the traditional gods and angels and isn't interacting with our universe. In this case it is a purely linguistic debate whether to call this 'outside' realm the natural realm. We may have no access to this realm whatsoever.
You mean no access or no interaction whatsoever, ever? From that point on it could just as well not exist, doesn't it? At least it wouldn't make a difference for the argument.

Not sure what you mean with 'linguistic debate'. Debates will always be mainly about carefully applying linguistics, semiology and rhetoric. Any intelligent philosophical debate will have to be quite (self)aware of all the meanings and definitions used. Meaning that they'll have to be included in the debate, explored, corrected and sometimes again re-established.

You can see at this forum how quickly this goes foul and then derails any possibility of progress in the dialectic.
3) Also, some fields of theoretical cosmology indeed are investigating hypothetical models of the big bang involving an event in a superuniverse-like reality as the cause of our universe, but none of these models point in the direction of a godlike first cause. Superstring theory for instance involves a number of extra dimensions that can be regarded as this extranatural realm. It doesn't involve any 'being' as a first cause.
Well, you can define them as 'extranatural' as long as you are aware that someone else could include it in their definition. The question is what is logical here. If nature equals 'totality' than there's no meaningful 'extra' possible.

A 'first cause' by the way would be indeed superfluous. Better to speak of causality itself.
4) It is ok by me to redefine 'natural world' to the superuniversal realm if it was demonstrated to exist, ie if these models were verified. But this does not mean that Adler's claim suddenly extends to these new realms for he first will have to show that his first premisse holds in these regions. He cannot freeride on the back of naturalistic science.
I guess after all it's a logical claim, not merely a natural-scientific one. It wouldn't matter if those models were verified or not for the meta-logical assertion.
5) If Adler's argument IS extended to these new realms of the 'natural' world, immediately god itself will be subject to the same principle of cause and effect he uses and the argument will become an infinite regression and god himself is in need of a cause.
That's indeed correct and as mere advocate I cannot defend my client here and will remain silent ;)
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Debating a christian - how would you destroy this argument?

Post by Dan Rowden »

I don't see the controversy here: Adler's argument is just a version of the Cosmological Argument, which has been refuted numerous times (ok, well I think "refuted" is an appropriate description). It's all a bit ho hum, isn't it?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Debating a christian - how would you destroy this argument?

Post by David Quinn »

Agreed, Adler's argument is embarrassing in its immaturity. There is no real reasoning involved, just wishful thinking. On a par with New Age schlock.

Not surpisingly Adler is an eminent philosopher, probably highly esteemed within academic circles. It makes you want to weep.

-
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Debating a christian - how would you destroy this argument?

Post by brokenhead »

Fujaro wrote:Can heaven ever live up to the expectation that it is a far better place than our world and still contain humans?
Yeah. Not everyone gets in. And who said there are only exhumans there?
xerox

Re: Debating a christian - how would you destroy this argument?

Post by xerox »

Dont accept the mission and let the thing self destruct.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Debating a christian - how would you destroy this argument?

Post by brokenhead »

Note that the Cosmological Argument (cut from Wikipedia and pasted here):
Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.
...in no way contradicts the Cosmological Principal (also from Wikipedia):
On large spatial scales, the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic.
Or simply put, the universe is the same everywhere on a large scale.
But even if the CP were false (in the large, the Universe is fractal), that fact would not contradict the Cosmological Argument.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Debating a christian - how would you destroy this argument?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

brokenhead wrote:... the Cosmological Argument (cut from Wikipedia and pasted here):
Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.
The argument still applies existence as some quality to both, caused and uncaused beings. But then it basically avoids the question what it means to exist in the first place. Therefore it's no argument at all in the discussion around the existence of God or any "First Cause".

Existence seen as some specific event or occurrence, takes place embedded in time and space, or any other dimension that plays a part, which are all contributing to the web of causes. Existence here means being caused to appear. It can only appear by not being all the things it's not, that is: all the rest. Any appearance is caused to various degrees by what it's not, and never by itself.

[BTW: Anyone, what is the opposite of remainder? There's no word for it?]
Dave Toast
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm

Re: Debating a christian - how would you destroy this argument?

Post by Dave Toast »

Quotient?
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Debating a christian - how would you destroy this argument?

Post by Leyla Shen »

Remainder: Context? Since:

Remainder/surplus: deficit
Remainder/leftovers: essentials
Remainder/balance: core/base
Between Suicides
User avatar
Philosophaster
Posts: 563
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:19 am

Re: Debating a christian - how would you destroy this argument?

Post by Philosophaster »

David Quinn wrote:Not surpisingly Adler is an eminent philosopher, probably highly esteemed within academic circles.
Not really. Even in his time, lots of people saw him as a throwback, doing variations on the Cosmological Argument while other philosophers moved on to work in logic, epistemology, and philosophy of mind. Almost no one in the academic philosophical community cites Adler or discusses his ideas today.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Debating a christian - how would you destroy this argument?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Dave Toast wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: [BTW: Anyone, what is the opposite of remainder? There's no word for it?]
Quotient?
For mathematical division that could indeed be an option! But as opposite? Dunno.

A pie after taking one slice results in a remaining pie (could be zero). It's like a blob - what's "left after some partitioning". Its opposite is then the part? But part and whole are more natural opposites. Does the whole have two opposites?

The whole minus the part = remainder. The same context as this last sentence; Leyla.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Debating a christian - how would you destroy this argument?

Post by Leyla Shen »

I was suggesting "context" as the opposite, given remainder's multitude of meanings.

Sure, it ain't enlightened, or interesting, and is utterly unconscious as a thought, but it nevertheless means that the opposite of a remaining pie-zero is whatever actual context that is when pie-zero, for example.

:)
Between Suicides
Locked