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

[Caffiene]

if one were to believe in some magical entity which started everything in motion then it would be fair to say that this initial creator would be exempt from the universe's laws and even the logic within that universe.

It would be fair to say it, but it wouldnt be fair to use it as an argument.

Simply saying it is fine... but once you try to use it as an argument for the existence of that particular creator, or to differentiate it from other possible causes of existence, then you are saying that the creator is exempt from that "law" and that other potential causes are not exempt. Thats where it becomes special pleading, and a fallacy - you need evidence or logic to support the argument that the hypothetical creator is unique in being able to be exempted.

(And if it isnt being used as an argument or distinction, then its not really an interesting point... Its not really relevant to anything for somebody to bring it up.)

[JD Holwick]

I don't get it.

You're saying that it's not fallacious for a believer in gods to use special pleading to rationalize their false premise--but you agree that it's fallacious for a believer in a conspiracy theory to use special pleading to rationalize their false premise.

Why the inconsistency?

i really don't feel i am putting forward any inconsistency.  human beings covering up an event of any significance is extremely difficult if not impossible.  a god who creates everything is not going to be subject to the laws he has created.  these two examples are obviously a world apart from each other, but i can see where christians are coming from in believing the latter.  i honestly do not see why you think i am being inconsistent.

again though, to go to the assumption that there is a god who put everything in motion is not warranted in the first place but, like i said before, if one is already making this assumption then to make the assertion that this being need not be subject to his own creation of laws, is appropriate.  on this one point i can see where a christian believing this is coming from and i strongly disagree that special pleading here is fallacious since a god's special place above his creation would be justification for him to not be governed by his own laws he has created.  i don't see why my reasoning here has to be fallacious itself. --- jdh

[JD Holwick]

It would be fair to say it, but it wouldnt be fair to use it as an argument.

Simply saying it is fine... but once you try to use it as an argument for the existence of that particular creator, or to differentiate it from other possible causes of existence, then you are saying that the creator is exempt from that "law" and that other potential causes are not exempt. Thats where it becomes special pleading, and a fallacy...

would it really be so fallacious to use an argument for a god that it is above its own creation?  i really do not think this is fallacious.  however, i do agree though that the exclusion of other possibilities by someone who might be wedded to this belief would be fallacious.  the origin of the universe as we understand it now, without the injection of some magical being, is far more interesting and likely but i really feel that a theist would be justified in using my previous point about a god being above its creation and exempt from the rules within that universe.  this is not special pleading since the justification would be that a god would not be subject the laws he has created.  i truly do not see why this would be bad for a christian to argue.  regardless, it seems the majority of the rest of the atheists and skeptics disagree with me on this point.  if i am really missing something i would truly like to be corrected but so far it seems to me i have backed up my position fairly solidly. --- jdh

[GhostOfPerdition]

I think Caffiene pretty much nailed it. Its not fallacious to say that if an omniscient god exists he could be the uncaused cause of our universe; it is fallacious to say that this god must exist because he could have caused the universe without being caused.

Assuming the universe needs an uncaused cause, you're still pretty much just saying "Whatever is the initial cause of the universe, I will call that 'God'". This idea is just not very meaningful.

[EhJayArr]

JDH-

If all you're saying is that it makes sense from the perspective of the person making the argument, I totally agree--but I take exception with your saying that the reasoning isn't fallacious.

--If one makes the assertion that there is a god, they can use the special pleading of "god is above all natural laws" to explain away evidence. If a god did exist, then their reasoning would be solid.
--If one makes the assertion that there is a vast conspiracy, they can use the special pleading of "all evidence is controlled by the conspiracy" to explain away the evidence. If a worldwide conspiracy did exist, then their reasoning would be solid.

It seems like you're making a distinction between the two, and I'm not following.

[Caffiene]

would it really be so fallacious to use an argument for a god that it is above its own creation?

What?

When talking about arguments you need two things: a hypothesis, and an argument or evidence in support of a hypothesis. I cant tell from your question what is supposed to be the hypothesis and what is supposed to be the argument. Saying "god is above its own creation" isnt an argument, its just a hypothesis or statement. You mention "an argument for" such a hypothesis, but I have no idea what youre talking about.

When I say "an argument for the existence of that particular creator", what I mean is that if you were to argue for the existence of a creator in that way then you would have a hypothesis - "God exists", and an argument - "God must exist because he can exist a-causally outside of time and space and nothing else can". The "and nothing else can" part of the argument is special pleading. Simply saying "this is possible" is fine because it isnt really an argument or any form of reasoning, its simply a statement.

For example: If an omniscient god exists he could create the universe without needing a cause within this universe. But I can also say that if string theory is true then collisions of extradimensional string theory branes could create the universe without needing a cause within this universe. There is nothing special about the hypothesised god being outside of the universe. For the idea of the god to be worth considering there needs to be an argument as to why the god can be outside the universe but extradimensional string theory branes cant be. Simply saying that the god hypothesis is valid but the string theory hypothesis isnt valid, without supporting it with logic or evidence, is the point at which it becomes fallacious special pleading.

[JD Holwick]

Its not fallacious to say that if an omniscient god exists he could be the uncaused cause of our universe; it is fallacious to say that this god must exist because he could have caused the universe without being caused.

i believe this is spot on and whenever a christian proposes the latter it is truly a train wreck of a non sequitur.

Assuming the universe needs an uncaused cause, you're still pretty much just saying "Whatever is the initial cause of the universe, I will call that 'God'". This idea is just not very meaningful.

i fully agree with you here that calling the initiator of the universe "god" is meaningless.  however, i do believe the current understanding of the "big bang" is that it may not have needed a cause as it were and i would never call this or anything else god.  maybe i am missing your point on this second part though. --- jdh

[GhostOfPerdition]

however, i do believe the current understanding of the "big bang" is that it may not have needed a cause as it were and i would never call this or anything else god.  maybe i am missing your point on this second part though. --- jdh

I probably worded that poorly. I was trying to imply that the universe may not have needed a cause, thus the argument would be irrelevant anyway. But if it did need a cause, the argument that "that cause must be god because god is uncaused" sounds to me like "Whatever is the initial cause of the universe, I will call that 'God'".

Not sure if that was much clearer but I do think we agree.

[JD Holwick]

--If one makes the assertion that there is a god, they can use the special pleading of "god is above all natural laws" to explain away evidence. If a god did exist, then their reasoning would be solid.
--If one makes the assertion that there is a vast conspiracy, they can use the special pleading of "all evidence is controlled by the conspiracy" to explain away the evidence. If a worldwide conspiracy did exist, then their reasoning would be solid.

It seems like you're making a distinction between the two, and I'm not following.

let me clarify one thing at least, which i may not have so clearly before: i am not suggesting this could be used as an argument for the existence of any deity.  all i am suggesting is that: 1) if it is granted that an omnipotent god does exist then, 2) that omnipotent property would be justification enough for this entity to not be subject to its own created laws.  hence, no special pleading fallacy.

on the conspiracy issue, i do see the connection you are trying to make.  however, to make my point compare the following two points with the two i made in the previous paragraph: 1) if it is granted that a worldwide conspiracy exists then, 2) it is still highly implausible that it could be covered up nearly as efficiently as necessary as demonstrated by the myriad of examples of even minor political flub-ups which leak out on a constant basis.  no justification for the special case holds up so it is special pleading if anyone insists on holding to this line of reasoning.

does this make my reasoning any more clear? --- jdh

[JD Holwick]

however, i do believe the current understanding of the "big bang" is that it may not have needed a cause as it were and i would never call this or anything else god.  maybe i am missing your point on this second part though. --- jdh

I probably worded that poorly. I was trying to imply that the universe may not have needed a cause, thus the argument would be irrelevant anyway. But if it did need a cause, the argument that "that cause must be god because god is uncaused" sounds to me like "Whatever is the initial cause of the universe, I will call that 'God'".

Not sure if that was much clearer but I do think we agree.

thanks, i see your point a little clearer now.  yes, i do think we agree on this. --- jdh

[Caffiene]

i am not suggesting this could be used as an argument for the existence of any deity.  all i am suggesting is that: 1) if it is granted that an omnipotent god does exist then, 2) that omnipotent property would be justification enough for this entity to not be subject to its own created laws.  hence, no special pleading fallacy.

Agreed. There is no fallacy if the idea is not being used as an argument.

I think maybe the confusion lies in your original post, where you talk about "the problem of god needing a beginning". As far as Im concerned, the idea that god might not need a beginning is not in itself a problem - there is only a problem of god not needing a beginning because creationists almost invariably argue that god is the only hypothesis that doesnt need a beginning.

When you talk about the "the problem" I assumed (and I think most others did) that you were talking about the creationist arguments rather than only the idea, because it is the creationists who make it a problem. The problem only exists when creationists claim that everything must have a beginning... except for god.

[EhJayArr]

let me clarify one thing at least, which i may not have so clearly before: i am not suggesting this could be used as an argument for the existence of any deity.  all i am suggesting is that: 1) if it is granted that an omnipotent god does exist then, 2) that omnipotent property would be justification enough for this entity to not be subject to its own created laws.  hence, no special pleading fallacy.

on the conspiracy issue, i do see the connection you are trying to make.  however, to make my point compare the following two points with the two i made in the previous paragraph: 1) if it is granted that a worldwide conspiracy exists then, 2) it is still highly implausible that it could be covered up nearly as efficiently as necessary as demonstrated by the myriad of examples of even minor political flub-ups which leak out on a constant basis.  no justification for the special case holds up so it is special pleading if anyone insists on holding to this line of reasoning.

does this make my reasoning any more clear? --- jdh

not really--because you criticize the plausibility of one claim, and not the other.

If you grant that a worldwide conspiracy exists, then you must also grant that the conspiracy controls the available evidence.
If an omnipotent god exists, then you must also grant that the god is not subject to what we perceive as natural laws.

You think it's implausible for such a conspiracy to be covered up so well--but if you grant that it exists, then you must accept that it's been covered up so well since most people are unaware of it.

[JD Holwick]

Agreed. There is no fallacy if the idea is not being used as an argument.

I think maybe the confusion lies in your original post, where you talk about "the problem of god needing a beginning". As far as Im concerned, the idea that god might not need a beginning is not in itself a problem - there is only a problem of god not needing a beginning because creationists almost invariably argue that god is the only hypothesis that doesn't need a beginning.

as well i do fully agree that, to posit god as the only hypothesis, is fallacious and theists are notorious for this indeed. --- jdh

[JD Holwick]

...but if you grant that it exists, then you must accept that it's been covered up so well since most people are unaware of it.

in granting the existence of the generic conspiracy i then proceeded to show why i felt it could not have been a conspiracy in the first place.  that one was supposed to backfire on itself.  as for my granting of the existence of an uncreated god however, do you not believe it reasonable to propose that this entity would not be subject to the very laws it has created (i.e. - the concepts of beginning and ending)?  judging from what you have written it seems we both probably find the existence of god in the first place to be an absurd proposition, but i honestly do not see how my thought experiment is really guilty of any faulty special pleading. --- jdh

[Shibboleth]

Before space and time I am not sure how something would have a beginning and an ending.