| brian_g |
| Posted 11/01/11 at 10:55 AM | Reply with quote #1 |
|
I've noticed that one of the strategies employed by atheists is to point out that a particular argument for God doesn't answer some other question. It's as if an argument for God fails merely because it doesn't tell us everything about God. I noticed this in Dr Craig's debate with Stephen Law. Law objected to the Kalaam cosmological argument by saying that it doesn't tell us about whether God is good. I've also observed atheists online object that many of the arguments for God only prove deism, not a god that interacts with the world and desires a relationship with his creatures. Sometimes I've hear people object to empirical arguments by saying that we don't know what God is like and cannot know whether he'd desire to fine-tune a universe or raise Jesus from the dead. This objection is curious in that it seems to require that we have knowledge of something before we can learn anything about it empirically. This would rule out just about all empirical knowledge.
What all these examples point to is a basic strategy where no matter what argument is on the table, the complaint is that there is some other problem that the argument doesn't deal with. I find this very weak and unconvincing. It's like complaining "how can you get to Hawaii, it's in the middle of the ocean?" Well, you can take a plane. "But that doesn't explain how you got to the airport." You can take a car to the airport. "But you can't get to Hawaii by car, since a car can't drive across the ocean."
As long as we get to our destination, it doesn't matter that it takes more then one argument. Why should one argument be required to settle everything?
|
| Loading... | |
| pinkey |
| Posted 11/01/11 at 11:16 AM | Reply with quote #2 |
|
Very well said. We usually believe things for many reasons, not just one. Why should it be different with God? I personally find the cumulitive case for God very strong. (I like Richard Swinburne's method. Even his two little popular books "Is there a God?" and "Was Jesus God?" make a beautiful, strong, cumulitive case for Christian theism IMO) |
| Loading... | |
| cyclops64 |
| Posted 11/01/11 at 02:26 PM | Reply with quote #3 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by brian_g
I've noticed that one of the strategies employed by atheists is to point out that a particular argument for God doesn't answer some other question. It's as if an argument for God fails merely because it doesn't tell us everything about God. I noticed this in Dr Craig's debate with Stephen Law. Law objected to the Kalaam cosmological argument by saying that it doesn't tell us about whether God is good. I've also observed atheists online object that many of the arguments for God only prove deism, not a god that interacts with the world and desires a relationship with his creatures. Sometimes I've hear people object to empirical arguments by saying that we don't know what God is like and cannot know whether he'd desire to fine-tune a universe or raise Jesus from the dead. This objection is curious in that it seems to require that we have knowledge of something before we can learn anything about it empirically. This would rule out just about all empirical knowledge.
What all these examples point to is a basic strategy where no matter what argument is on the table, the complaint is that there is some other problem that the argument doesn't deal with. I find this very weak and unconvincing. It's like complaining "how can you get to Hawaii, it's in the middle of the ocean?" Well, you can take a plane. "But that doesn't explain how you got to the airport." You can take a car to the airport. "But you can't get to Hawaii by car, since a car can't drive across the ocean."
As long as we get to our destination, it doesn't matter that it takes more then one argument. Why should one argument be required to settle everything?
Neither the KCA nor any other argument for that matter even "proves" deism. So I don't see why Law even bothered to make the point that it fails to tell us anything about the deities moral character, or even if this deity has a moral character. Arguments for a deity fail at the starting gate.
It seems like an obvious point given the fact that the argument itself fails to demonstrate that a deity who is intelligent is even the cause. It could be an non-intelligent cause in the same way evolution is non intelligent cause for species. The correct, intellectually honest answer to the question of where the universe came from is "we don't know".
But theists at this point, in an attempt to plug their pet god into ever gap they can find, will resort to the use of an ontological argument, which is really an appallingly weak argument to make. It doesn't matter how perfectly you define an entity, that does nothing to demonstrate that the entity actually exists. |
| Loading... | |
| blank |
| Posted 11/01/11 at 05:12 PM | Reply with quote #4 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by brian_g
I've noticed that one of the strategies employed by atheists is to point out that a particular argument for God doesn't answer some other question. It's as if an argument for God fails merely because it doesn't tell us everything about God. I noticed this in Dr Craig's debate with Stephen Law. Law objected to the Kalaam cosmological argument by saying that it doesn't tell us about whether God is good. I've also observed atheists online object that many of the arguments for God only prove deism, not a god that interacts with the world and desires a relationship with his creatures. Sometimes I've hear people object to empirical arguments by saying that we don't know what God is like and cannot know whether he'd desire to fine-tune a universe or raise Jesus from the dead. This objection is curious in that it seems to require that we have knowledge of something before we can learn anything about it empirically. This would rule out just about all empirical knowledge.
Craig is supposed to be presenting arguments for the Christian God and not just some abstract idea of a God.
One does need some knowledge of something before learning about it empirically. e.g in the case of gravity, we need to know that things fall towards the ground before finding out the acceleration of a body due to gravity.
When it comes to a situation where we do not understand an event, we at least have an idea of what was expected and notice the deviation which sparks further research.
Quote: Originally Posted by brian_g
What all these examples point to is a basic strategy where no matter what argument is on the table, the complaint is that there is some other problem that the argument doesn't deal with. I find this very weak and unconvincing. It's like complaining "how can you get to Hawaii, it's in the middle of the ocean?" Well, you can take a plane. "But that doesn't explain how you got to the airport." You can take a car to the airport. "But you can't get to Hawaii by car, since a car can't drive across the ocean."
As long as we get to our destination, it doesn't matter that it takes more then one argument. Why should one argument be required to settle everything?
I think this is simply a bad analogy because an undetectable entity is not like planning the route to a destination.
Also, the idea of the cumulative case should be that the conclusion of the Christian God must work in each case and cases where it doesn't work or isn't exclusive simply aren't leading to it so why waste the time bringing them up? And complaining when they aren't addressed as being important in considering the God in question?
|
| Loading... | |
| hatsoff |
| Posted 11/01/11 at 05:33 PM | Reply with quote #5 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by brian_g
I've noticed that one of the strategies employed by atheists is to point out that a particular argument for God doesn't answer some other question. It's as if an argument for God fails merely because it doesn't tell us everything about God. I noticed this in Dr Craig's debate with Stephen Law. Law objected to the Kalaam cosmological argument by saying that it doesn't tell us about whether God is good. I've also observed atheists online object that many of the arguments for God only prove deism, not a god that interacts with the world and desires a relationship with his creatures. Sometimes I've hear people object to empirical arguments by saying that we don't know what God is like and cannot know whether he'd desire to fine-tune a universe or raise Jesus from the dead. This objection is curious in that it seems to require that we have knowledge of something before we can learn anything about it empirically. This would rule out just about all empirical knowledge.
What all these examples point to is a basic strategy where no matter what argument is on the table, the complaint is that there is some other problem that the argument doesn't deal with. I find this very weak and unconvincing. It's like complaining "how can you get to Hawaii, it's in the middle of the ocean?" Well, you can take a plane. "But that doesn't explain how you got to the airport." You can take a car to the airport. "But you can't get to Hawaii by car, since a car can't drive across the ocean."
As long as we get to our destination, it doesn't matter that it takes more then one argument. Why should one argument be required to settle everything?
I agree that internet atheists often are guilty of this, and that it is a ridiculous tactic. However, I don't think Law is guilty of it. I understood his argument to be, in a nutshell:
(1) The existence of an evil God is quite absurd.
(2) The existence of a good God is no less absurd than the existence of an evil God.
(3) Therefore, the existence of a good God is quite absurd.
This was not meant to be a response to the KCA, as far as I know. It was an independent argument against theism.
|
| Loading... | |
| cyclops64 |
| Posted 11/01/11 at 05:35 PM | Reply with quote #6 |
|
| If you are going to argue for the existence of yahweh, then prove the existence of yahweh. Don't dawdle around with arguments which any preacher or mullah or rabbi could use in support of their god... |
| Loading... | |
| Kam86 |
| Posted 11/01/11 at 05:35 PM | Reply with quote #7 |
|
Brian- I have noticed this strategy alot as well from atheists, I think these rhetorical games atheists are resorting too is a sign of the weak state intellectually atheism is in. There is a lot of posturing, backpeddling, and topic shifting when I have discussions with atheists, its really frustrating to say the least. I mentioned in another thread about certain individiuals formulating a sort of selctive density, and disallowing themselves to make basic connections that to most are obvious. For instance it is obvious WLC employs a building case for God with his arguments. KCA proves a powerful creator, moral argument lends t0 God's goodness, Resurrection arguments lends credence to God interacting in the world , subsequently being personal. I understand having issues with premises in arguments and attempting to refute them on intellectual grounds but merely plugging your ears and saying "well that argument doesnt prove this other thing" is nonsense. It seems like a last resort effort to maintain an emotionally desired belief to me because WLC'S arguments are a little stronger then most atheist would like to believe. |
| Loading... | |
| Kam86 |
| Posted 11/01/11 at 05:39 PM | Reply with quote #8 |
|
Hatsoff- I understood Law's argument to be "arguments that attempt to prove God's goodness are equally ridiculous as arguments that attempt to prove he is evil" This is quite different then saying the notion of " good God existing is equally ridculous as an evil one" simply put if Law's argument is successful it merely leaves one in an agnostic state as to the moral character of God. It says nothing of His existence or non-existence, this is why I thought it was an interesting but ultimately weak argument because the conclusion doesnt come close to vindicating atheism. |
| Loading... | |
| radical_logic |
| Posted 11/01/11 at 05:53 PM | Reply with quote #9 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Kam86Hatsoff- I understood Law's argument to be "arguments that attempt to prove God's goodness are equally ridiculous as arguments that attempt to prove he is evil" This is quite different then saying the notion of " good God existing is equally ridculous as an evil one" simply put if Law's argument is successful it merely leaves one in an agnostic state as to the moral character of God. It says nothing of His existence or non-existence, this is why I thought it was an interesting but ultimately weak argument because the conclusion doesnt come close to vindicating atheism.
You are incorrect. If Law's "evil-god" argument is successful, then it follows that God (as classically defined) does not exist.
|
| Loading... | |
| Michael |
| Posted 11/01/11 at 05:54 PM | Reply with quote #10 |
|
Cyclops, many of Craigs debates are entitled simply "Does God exist", or something along similar lines, where the challenge is to simply prove theism, or perhaps monotheism (as indicated by the capital G).
He has had a few with 'Christianity' in the title, and certainly he's set out to prove Yahweh in those debates.
But there's no point using arguments for Yahweh specifically, before proving the case for theism in general, otherwise an opponent could rightly put forward a 'science of the gaps' argument. First, we must logically present a case for the supernatural, so when presenting the arguments for the historicity of Jesus, supernatural explanations are allowed.
When someone says that an argument like the KCA is useless because it doesn't tell us anything about the nature of God, I tend to reply that this is like chewing out the value of a car, because it won't drive us from Sydney to London. Sure, no, but it'll at least get us to the airport.
|
| Loading... | |
| radical_logic |
| Posted 11/01/11 at 05:58 PM | Reply with quote #11 |
|
Michael,
To establish that God exists, one must establish that a being who possesses all of God's essential attributes exists. What arguments, for instance, purport to establish the existence of a being who is a) omnipotent and b) omniscience? Other than the ontological argument, there are none. Hence, if the ontological argument fails, then the case for God fails.
|
| Loading... | |
| brian_g |
| Posted 11/01/11 at 06:06 PM | Reply with quote #12 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by hatsoff
I agree that internet atheists often are guilty of this, and that it is a ridiculous tactic. However, I don't think Law is guilty of it. I understood his argument to be, in a nutshell:
(1) The existence of an evil God is quite absurd.
(2) The existence of a good God is no less absurd than the existence of an evil God.
(3) Therefore, the existence of a good God is quite absurd.
This was not meant to be a response to the KCA, as far as I know. It was an independent argument against theism.
I think that's a fair summary of Law's argument and I think Craig could have done better at criticising it. However, I'm referring to when Law said that didn't address the KCA because it didn't address God's goodness. The KCA doesn't address God's goodness, so it leaves open the possibility of a non-good god. Having a non-good god, is hardly satisfying to the Christian, but surely it can't be any more satisfying to the atheist. So even though the KCA doesn't take us all the way to a good god, it's far from irrelevant to the question of God's existence. This is the point I tried to make in my opening post. Just because one argument doesn't answer all the questions about God, doesn't make it irrelevant.
Correct me if you think I'm misrepresenting Law, but I'm pretty sure he said something to the effect that the only arguments relevant to God's goodness were the moral argument and the resurrection and that is why he didn't answer the KCA. The implication was that as long as the KCA didn't prove God's goodness, it was irrelevant to the topic at hand.
|
| Loading... | |
| radical_logic |
| Posted 11/01/11 at 06:12 PM | Reply with quote #13 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by brian_g
So even though the KCA doesn't take us all the way to a good god, it's far from irrelevant to the question of God's existence. This is the point I tried to make in my opening post. Just because one argument doesn't answer all the questions about God, doesn't make it irrelevant.
The Kalam argument is irrelevant in this sense: it does not purport to establish the existence of a being who is all-good. If Law's "evil-argument" succeeds, then the case for God (as classically defined) fails, even granting the conclusion of the Kalam argument.
|
| Loading... | |
| Michael |
| Posted 11/01/11 at 06:16 PM | Reply with quote #14 |
|
The God asserted by the KCA, and a few other 'prime mover' arguments has the following properties logically assigned by the nature of the argument -
- Exists outside of time (Created time) and space (Created space) ergo: Omniscient
- Created all matter and brought about an arrangement that allowed order and life: Omnipotent.
Protip: If you're going to ask me a question in a post (What arguments, for instance, etc), don't answer it in the same post before I have a chance to answer it myself (Other than..., there are non.)
|
| Loading... | |
| noseeum |
| Posted 11/01/11 at 06:18 PM | Reply with quote #15 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by brian_g
I've noticed that one of the strategies employed by atheists is to point out that a particular argument for God doesn't answer some other question. It's as if an argument for God fails merely because it doesn't tell us everything about God. I noticed this in Dr Craig's debate with Stephen Law. Law objected to the Kalaam cosmological argument by saying that it doesn't tell us about whether God is good. I've also observed atheists online object that many of the arguments for God only prove deism, not a god that interacts with the world and desires a relationship with his creatures. Sometimes I've hear people object to empirical arguments by saying that we don't know what God is like and cannot know whether he'd desire to fine-tune a universe or raise Jesus from the dead. This objection is curious in that it seems to require that we have knowledge of something before we can learn anything about it empirically. This would rule out just about all empirical knowledge.
What all these examples point to is a basic strategy where no matter what argument is on the table, the complaint is that there is some other problem that the argument doesn't deal with. I find this very weak and unconvincing. It's like complaining "how can you get to Hawaii, it's in the middle of the ocean?" Well, you can take a plane. "But that doesn't explain how you got to the airport." You can take a car to the airport. "But you can't get to Hawaii by car, since a car can't drive across the ocean."
As long as we get to our destination, it doesn't matter that it takes more then one argument. Why should one argument be required to settle everything?
I don't think you should be too quick judge this. There is a symmetry in the number of arguments each side has to deal with, and theists are notorious for saying "you have to prove atheism" and "you must provide a positive argument for atheism" and so on. The primary reason one person finds theism unconvincing might be quite different to another, and just because you think an argument is particularly indicative of God's existence, the person you're talking to might find it quite irrelevant.
There is nothing wrong with pointing out the mountain a theist has to climb in order to justify Christianity. A lot of people think it is sufficient to point out that we don't know how the universe began. I can't stress this enough, it must be the most widely given reason for believing in Christianity. This might be more due to apologetics than with Christianity itself. Fine tuning would have to be the second most given reason by your off-the-street Christian. Both these arguments are for deism, and both are not particularly strong in my opinion. I am glad to say I discovered Plantinga also says the fine tuning argument is very weak.
A lot of Christians also turn out to be highly agnostic with regards to their philosophical underpinnings. They don't think of themselves as agnostic, but this is my experience. They usually rely on making arguments for deism as mentioned, but don't have many arguments for their exact God. But they have the "personal experience" argument, which gets them over the line, and they usually make a big deal of not allowing atheism to be the default position. So it often turns out we're all agnostics, but its where we started from that makes the difference!
So, went a bit off topic there, but basically I'm saying this: it's entirely worth pointing out what the theist needs to do in order to be convincing. An attempt to somehow stop people from raising objections seems to be self-serving, and has no other justification. |
| Loading... | |
