Topic: reasonable to assume that a god would not need a "first cause" himself...

[MikeHz]

If the design argument "works," then you can concoct all manner of "proofs" for things. "The universe had to have had a cause. Therefore, it must have been made by an army of pixies." "One can only conclude, therefore, that some First Unicorn has to exist to have brought the universe into being."

[341gerbig]

 

[JD Holwick]

It is special pleading for you to allow "a god can be outside of creation" but not to allow "a conspiracy can have the power to orchestrate a coverup". Both ideas are inherent properties of the theories that they are a part of. You cannot say "if a god exists" but then refuse to consider the possibility of "if a conspiracy exists".

If we grant that a creator god exists, it would inherently be outside of its own creation given the property of being the creator.
If we grant that a hidden conspiracy exists, it would inherently be covered up given the property of being hidden.

both of you seem to be mischaracterizing/misunderstanding what i am trying to say.  i'm not sure if i am just not explaining myself well or if there is some sort of inherent disconnect in our communication.  the global conspiracy would have next to no chance of being kept under wraps given what we know about human competence.  on the other hand a god would be exempt from his own created laws.  i don't see that as being biased towards the latter.  i think you are trying to give both situations equal plausibility.

now, simply on the grounds of either a god existing (remember, the existence of god was not what i was debating) or well covered up global conspiracy occurring i would find it easier to believe that the conspiracy could occur than a god could exist but that is a different argument.  however, again, if a god is granted to exist then it is reasonable to assume he would be outside of his own created rules but it is not reasonable to assume that a global conspiracy could be competently covered up.  do you not see the distinction i am making? --- jdh

[JD Holwick]

If the design argument "works," then you can concoct all manner of "proofs" for things. "The universe had to have had a cause. Therefore, it must have been made by an army of pixies." "One can only conclude, therefore, that some First Unicorn has to exist to have brought the universe into being."

i completely agree with you that any sort of god could be made up.  my argument was not one for the existence of any deity and i do not feel there is any compelling argument for any deity or any supernatural realm; this was not my position. --- jdh

[JD Holwick]

Logic is not a "thing" that was created, it's not an entity, it makes no sense to talk about something "outside" logic as if it was born at some point.

how can you be so certain if there were a god that he was not the author of logic?

No one believes in a creator that created logic or time, that's incomprehensible, simply word play, these statements come from attempts to justify superstition.

you are flat out wrong on this one.  i know a number of christians who do believe it did create logic and time.  you should be careful when asserting such a blanket-sweep statements.

i do agree that a lot of rhetoric and word play is used in christian circles when defending the existence of god but if one were already known to exist then it is really not hard to imagine that it may have been the author of everything and every concept.  that is all i am trying to say.  if there were a god it may not be possible to explain or understand it on any level.  logic would suddenly become useless when analyzing this entity. --- jdh

[Ajzzz]

Logic is not a "thing" that was created, it's not an entity, it makes no sense to talk about something "outside" logic as if it was born at some point.

how can you be so certain if there were a god that he was not the author of logic?

Because to say someone authored something without logic is to say that which is impossible, it requires logic, it's like saying someone saw an object without light, or authored a novel without language. Also logic is not an entity, it's like mathematics, it's not "stuff" that's created. You can say that logic doesn't apply or is not present, but it's either abstract or in the relationship of entities.

No one believes in a creator that created logic or time, that's incomprehensible, simply word play, these statements come from attempts to justify superstition.

you are flat out wrong on this one.  i know a number of christians who do believe it did create logic and time.  you should be careful when asserting such a blanket-sweep statements.

i do agree that a lot of rhetoric and word play is used in christian circles when defending the existence of god but if one were already known to exist then it is really not hard to imagine that it may have been the author of everything and every concept.  that is all i am trying to say.  if there were a god it may not be possible to explain or understand it on any level.  logic would suddenly become useless when analyzing this entity. --- jdh

That's meaningless to me. It's impossible to imagine, like an invisible pink unicorn. I have no doubt that you know Christians who say meaningless things that are impossible, but it's only wordplay on their part.

[JD Holwick]

well, we clearly are examining this thought experiment two different ways.  i have given your input a lot of thought but i still think i am making a strong case.  i suppose from here our back and forth won't really get anywhere... it's been fun though. --- jdh

[seaotter]

I still don't understand. Your just trying to understand the Theist point of view? Why does the universe need a cause if god doesn't?

[JD Holwick]

I still don't understand. Your just trying to understand the Theist point of view?...

i am trying to, and on this one point, i think i see where a theist might be coming from.

...Why does the universe need a cause if god doesn't?

i never suggested this.  the universe very likely does not need cause.

--- jdh

[jomike]

Logic is not a "thing" that was created, it's not an entity, it makes no sense to talk about something "outside" logic as if it was born at some point.

how can you be so certain if there were a god that he was not the author of logic?

Because to say someone authored something without logic is to say that which is impossible, it requires logic, it's like saying someone saw an object without light, or authored a novel without language. Also logic is not an entity, it's like mathematics, it's not "stuff" that's created. You can say that logic doesn't apply or is not present, but it's either abstract or in the relationship of entities.

No one believes in a creator that created logic or time, that's incomprehensible, simply word play, these statements come from attempts to justify superstition.

you are flat out wrong on this one.  i know a number of christians who do believe it did create logic and time.  you should be careful when asserting such a blanket-sweep statements.

i do agree that a lot of rhetoric and word play is used in christian circles when defending the existence of god but if one were already known to exist then it is really not hard to imagine that it may have been the author of everything and every concept.  that is all i am trying to say.  if there were a god it may not be possible to explain or understand it on any level.  logic would suddenly become useless when analyzing this entity. --- jdh

That's meaningless to me. It's impossible to imagine, like an invisible pink unicorn. I have no doubt that you know Christians who say meaningless things that are impossible, but it's only wordplay on their part.

Presuppositionalists argue just as JD Holwick describes, that God is the basis not only of material existence, but of logic itself.  That without the Christian God the very logic and rationality that allow us to make sense of the world would be impossible.

Presuppositional apologetics
Transcendental argument for the existence of God

[seaotter]

I still don't understand. Your just trying to understand the Theist point of view?...

i am trying to, and on this one point, i think i see where a theist might be coming from.

...Why does the universe need a cause if god doesn't?

i never suggested this.  the universe very likely does not need cause.

--- jdh

But you're not putting yourself in the Christians use of the uncaused cause, because they say god is the cause needed for the universe, which of course is an argument from ignorance.

[Caffiene]

the global conspiracy would have next to no chance of being kept under wraps given what we know about human competence.  on the other hand a god would be exempt from his own created laws.  i don't see that as being biased towards the latter.  i think you are trying to give both situations equal plausibility.

No, a creator god who is outside of time and created all the rules of the universe would be exempt from the rules. Those things are not all inherent properties simply of "a god". Take for example a god from a pantheon religion, like Thor for example - not hypothesised to be the creator of the universe, and fabled to have powers but still be subject to certain rules.

In your scenario you are saying "God exists" and then saying "God has these unlikely properties, of being the creator and being outside the universe".
That is equivalent to saying "A conspiracy exists" and then saying "and has this unlikely property of being hidden".

If anything, the hidden-ness of the conspiracy is more likely because simply saying "a conspiracy exists" carries the inherent property that it must be hidden, since otherwise we would already be aware of it. A god, on the other hand, does not inherently have the property of being the creator.

Presuppositionalists argue just as JD Holwick describes, that God is the basis not only of material existence, but of logic itself.  That without the Christian God the very logic and rationality that allow us to make sense of the world would be impossible.

Tue, although my understanding is that presuppositionalism goes a bit further... They dont only claim that god is necessary for critical thought, but that the appearance of knowledge and critical thought in our brains has to be directly caused by god putting it there (as a result of the doctrine of Total Depravity - human thought is corrupted by sin unless god first directly intervenes to Save the person).

[Ajzzz]

(click to show/hide)

Logic is not a "thing" that was created, it's not an entity, it makes no sense to talk about something "outside" logic as if it was born at some point.

how can you be so certain if there were a god that he was not the author of logic?

Because to say someone authored something without logic is to say that which is impossible, it requires logic, it's like saying someone saw an object without light, or authored a novel without language. Also logic is not an entity, it's like mathematics, it's not "stuff" that's created. You can say that logic doesn't apply or is not present, but it's either abstract or in the relationship of entities.

No one believes in a creator that created logic or time, that's incomprehensible, simply word play, these statements come from attempts to justify superstition.

you are flat out wrong on this one.  i know a number of christians who do believe it did create logic and time.  you should be careful when asserting such a blanket-sweep statements.

i do agree that a lot of rhetoric and word play is used in christian circles when defending the existence of god but if one were already known to exist then it is really not hard to imagine that it may have been the author of everything and every concept.  that is all i am trying to say.  if there were a god it may not be possible to explain or understand it on any level.  logic would suddenly become useless when analyzing this entity. --- jdh

That's meaningless to me. It's impossible to imagine, like an invisible pink unicorn. I have no doubt that you know Christians who say meaningless things that are impossible, but it's only wordplay on their part.

Presuppositionalists argue just as JD Holwick describes, that God is the basis not only of material existence, but of logic itself.  That without the Christian God the very logic and rationality that allow us to make sense of the world would be impossible.

Presuppositional apologetics
Transcendental argument for the existence of God

There's a difference between an argument from the order of creation and that God created order/logic/knowledge/morality. Another spin on this is God is, or is the ideal, of these things, where all instances come from and rely on this god, a closed system. As I see it, it's an appeal to a universe being chaotic without God. The argument I said was impossible wasn't that God created a universe where logic is present, I said it was impossible that God created logic as an entity. If God created a universe where logic is present, logic wasn't created by God, God as many theists believe, is logical outside of the universe. So yeah, to some Christians God is the basis (or "source") of logic, but that's not the same thing as God created logic or God isn't subject to the rules of logic. Kant didn't believe that, and although I haven't read much on them I doubt these presuppositionalists did either.

Even so, that some people claim that God created logic doesn't effect my argument, I maintain that it's impossible for them to believe and empty rhetoric.

[jomike]

Presuppositionalists argue just as JD Holwick describes, that God is the basis not only of material existence, but of logic itself.  That without the Christian God the very logic and rationality that allow us to make sense of the world would be impossible.

Tue, although my understanding is that presuppositionalism goes a bit further... They dont only claim that god is necessary for critical thought, but that the appearance of knowledge and critical thought in our brains has to be directly caused by god putting it there (as a result of the doctrine of Total Depravity - human thought is corrupted by sin unless god first directly intervenes to Save the person).

But presuppositionalism is a pretty big tent, right?  It ranges from Van Til's hard-core transcendentalist argument to Plantinga's more modest "evolutionary argument against naturalism"

In Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism, he argues that the truth of evolution is an epistemic defeater for naturalism (i.e. if evolution is true, it undermines naturalism). His basic argument is that if evolution and naturalism are both true, human cognitive faculties evolved to produce beliefs that have survival value (maximizing one's success at the four F's: "feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing"), not necessarily to produce beliefs that are true. Thus, since human cognitive faculties are tuned to survival rather than truth in the naturalism-evolution model, there is reason to doubt the veracity of the products of those same faculties, including naturalism and evolution themselves. On the other hand, if God created man "in his image" by way of an evolutionary process (or any other means), then Plantinga argues our faculties would probably be reliable.

So, Plantinga and other reformed epistemologists would argue, they are justified in believing in a creator God.  Plantinga would say that the presupposition that such a God exists is "properly basic," a "warranted true belief."  FWIW I think their position is gibberish -- if you accept its premises, on what basis can you reject (say) the Brahma creation myth?  But in practice the presuppositionalist position is surprisingly difficult to argue against, and JD Holwick's description of the position is pretty much on the mark IME.

[GhostOfPerdition]

In Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism, he argues that the truth of evolution is an epistemic defeater for naturalism (i.e. if evolution is true, it undermines naturalism). His basic argument is that if evolution and naturalism are both true, human cognitive faculties evolved to produce beliefs that have survival value (maximizing one's success at the four F's: "feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing"), not necessarily to produce beliefs that are true. Thus, since human cognitive faculties are tuned to survival rather than truth in the naturalism-evolution model, there is reason to doubt the veracity of the products of those same faculties, including naturalism and evolution themselves. On the other hand, if God created man "in his image" by way of an evolutionary process (or any other means), then Plantinga argues our faculties would probably be reliable.

"Science is wrong. Science is wrong. Science is wrong. Science is wrong. ... FINE! SCIENCE IS RIGHT. BUT THAT PROVES GOD TOO!" 

But really though, isn't this:

since human cognitive faculties are tuned to survival rather than truth in the naturalism-evolution model, there is reason to doubt the veracity of the products of those same faculties

more-or-less the realization that led to the invention of the scientific method? If we can't trust our faculties then we need to be skeptical and try to be as correct as we can.