@FBM,
Quote:FBM says:
Quote:
[...]
Special pleading (or claiming that something is an overwhelming exception) is a logical fallacy asking for an exception to a rule to be applied to a specific case... [etc.]
Examples [ Only one example is given, though. ]
In the Thomistic cosmological argument for the existence of God, everything requires a cause. ...
[...]
You see, FBM, forgive me, but have you checked out whether there is really a general rule in the Thomistic cosmological argument which says: "everything requires a cause"?
Quote:@Susmariosep,
No, thanks. I don't have a taste for red herring. Why does the universe and everything in it have to be created but not your particular god?
See? You have not made your research.
The principle in Thomistic cosmology is that everything with a beginning needs a cause.
Now, what is your objection to this self-evident principle?
Annex
From Susmariosep:
Quote:You see, FBM, forgive me, but have you checked out whether there is really a general rule in the Thomistic cosmological argument which says: "everything requires a cause"?
Go and look up your atheist masters, and then also look up from independent sources "everything requires a cause," in particular on exposition of the Thomistic cosmological argument.
I will come back later and see what you discovered.
In highschool, did you not learn to always look for the source of a line which everyone seemingly everyone takes as it is presented to be correctly presented and repeated allegedly everywhere and by everyone, who is anyone with any intelligent and longstanding grasp of the issues of the day, in particular on specifically Thomistic cosmological argument?
Check and double-check your data, did you not learn that from your teacher in research writing, already in highschool?
I will come back to you later, go and do your critical research in the internet, that will save you a lot of pedal work in the aisles of school and public libraries.
@Susmariosep,
I don't care. Your definition says "created," not "caused." The question you're so desperately attempting to dodge is very simple: Why does the universe and everything in it need to be created, but your particular god doesn't?
Why is God not under the principle that everything needs a cause?
I will just say honestly, that is not my principle, it is the principle of atheists.
So, let atheists explain why everything has a cause.
Well, Oh atheists, as your concept of God is that He needs a cause just like what you atheists want to insist on, namely, everything has need of a cause, therefore God also needs a cause.
Good for you, you are being logical in a way that is skewed; but I have news for you, I agree with you also that I deny the existence of God who in concept is like everything else in need of a cause.
Now, will you agree to work with me for you to deny the God in concept, namely, "as creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning," or you are already happy to have proven that God does not exist because your concept of God is that like everything else, he is also in need of a cause.
You see, everyone, first man wants to know the role of God, then man will determine whether He has a cause or not.
That is how man already even earlier than two millennia ago comes to the conclusion that God exists outside time and space.
Because as God's role is the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning, and as the universe has a beginning in time some 13,7 billion years ago, therefore God is logically outside time and space, which time and space came into existence also some 13.7 billion years ago, from a 'point of space'.
Is that all right with you atheist folks?
@Susmariosep,
I'm not making any claim regarding the universal necessity of causation; go ask someone who is. You're the one with the definition of a god that created the universe and everything created. If you're not guilty of the special pleading fallacy, then who/what created your god?
Quote:...but I have news for you, I agree with you also that I deny the existence of God who in concept is like everything else in need of a cause.
Why would this be news to me? That's exactly what I've been talking about over the past few pages.
@InfraBlue,
Quote:Leadfoot wrote:
"So this is as good a thread as any to ask this question: I agree that consensus is not proof of anything. But what do atheists attribute the widespread belief that there is a God or higher power? This does not mean they are church going people obviously.
Just going along with the crowd or wishful thinking does not seem that plausible. Gallup poll puts the U.S. figure at over 90%. "
I think that, for the most part, it boils down to the need to explain why **** and serendipity happens, and that explanation has been reinforced societally.
So you are essentially saying that 90+% of the population is delusional (a la Dawkins) and are incapable of understanding what 'coincidence' is. And furthermore that a small fraction of the population is specially gifted with this ability and therefore knows there is no God.
Yeah, that's logical... And tollerant!
@FBM
I addressed your special pleading objection in my previous post refuting Dawkins on the improbability of God. My concept does not require that God was necessarily without cause. I just don't happen to know if or what. I did specify a hypothetical cause for God which could not be refuted by Dawkins (and atheists) own standards though.
Specifying that God was without cause is an unsupportable argument of religious dogma that my concept does not rely on.
@Leadfoot,
You're Susmariosep, then?
Anyway, the defintion was something like "creator of the universe and everything created." If "everything created," then this god must have created itself. This needs a shitload of justification.
@FBM,
Quote:
You're Susmariosep, then?
Anyway, the defintion was something like "creator of the universe and everything created." If "everything created," then this god must have created itself. This needs a shitload of justification.
Umm.. No. Am I not allowed to comment though?
I was not endorsing Sus's concept of God as my own. Mine is just that there is a basis for believing that a God exists. I gave a hypothetical for God's creation in the Dawkins thread. No one was able to refute it (does that qualify as 'shitload of justification?) but you're welcome to give it a try.
Hope you don't mind spreading our discussion across multiple threads when it seems appropriate.
@Leadfoot,
Ah. You were jumping threads. I couldn't find where you'd commented on my special pleading objection in this thread, so I supposed maybe you had a sock puppet.
Anyway, my special pleading objection is specific to Susmariosep's argument, not yours. You seem to be working with a different definition for your god or maybe even a different god. So many have been proposed.
@FBM,
Yep, jumped threads.
We're all God's sock puppets ya know. He just turned us loose and gave us independence.
There's more bullshit in this thread than you find on a farm.
@Setanta,
Another tollerant atheist chimes in :-)
The word you wanted was tolerant. It is not intolerance to point out the logical flaws which someone employs. You consistently write as though the existence of your magic sky daddy is established. You don`t qualify your claims with "I believe," or " It is my opinion,"--you just make outright statements which assume the existence of your magic sky daddy. I tolerate that, i just don't fall for it.
@layman,
She's sexier than God alright...
@Setanta,
Quote:You consistently write as though the existence of your magic sky daddy is established. You don`t qualify your claims with "I believe," or " It is my opinion,"
Sometimes I do, especially when I'm making jocular remarks about sock puppets or retorts to atheists who are equally certain about their faith. I don't begrudge them theirs, theists can be tolerant too. I even forgive typos...
But to your point, I've been perfectly willing to discuss the possibility of a God existing based on hypothesis and uncertainty.
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:FBM has everyone who disagrees with him on ignore.
Best way to spout crap without being challenged, eh, Frank? Or at least not know when you're being challenged. Ignorance is bliss, they say.
@Leadfoot,
"Atheism is a faith like abstinence is a sex position."
All seriousness aside, some atheists I've read do seem to take the lack of a god on something sort-of like faith. But it would be an error to accuse them all of it.
@Leadfoot,
Quote:Sometimes I do, especially when I'm making jocular remarks about sock puppets or retorts to atheists who are equally certain about their faith. I don't begrudge them theirs, theists can be tolerant too. I even forgive typos...
There ya go, Leddy. Now you're doin exactly every other guy and his brother do to the poor boy. You're
starting a fight.
He's done been...
VICTIMIZED, yet again, sho nuff.
@FBM,
Agreed. Atheists are as varied as theists.
