Even though I have already refuted his arguments, Johnnpy76 seems to think otherwise. This is going to be a step-by-step refutation of pretty of everything he has ever said in response to me and against the Kalam argument.
Inductive Fallacies and the Problem of Induction
Whilst Johnnyp76 has said he meant to say the problem of induction in his last reply to me, this does not change much, for they both refer to the same thing. The only difference is, an inductive fallacy is a logical fallacy, and the problem of inductive is a philosophical issue of what role, if any, induction can be used in epistemological justification. What is an inductive fallacy? An inductive fallacy occurs when you take a sample of something, and then make general inferences. There are many forms of this fallacy, with hasty generalisation probably being the most common form. A fallacy of this form can be construed as follows:
• Some Xs have property Y
• Therefore all Xs have property Y
An example of this fallacy would be concluding that all swans are black having only ever seen a single black swan, and no swans of any other colour. The problem of induction is a question within philosophy that asks if inductive reasoning can lead to knowledge. What is the rational justification for generalising about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class? It is hard to see how Kalam succumbs to either. The first premise is based not just on intuitive plausibility, and empirical verification, but is also based on the metaphysical impossibility of something coming into being uncaused. If something can come into being uncaused out of nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why anything and everything does not do so.
All that aside, there is one fact that destroys this entire line of argument with respect to Johnnyp76. Things beginning to exist uncaused, and out of nothing, is incompatible with determinism. That is to say, if something can just pop into being from non-being without any cause at all, then in what sense can events such as these be said to be determined? The reason why I bring this up is because Johnnyp76 is a hard determinist. Then again, that probably explains why he maintains that nothing begins to exist. This leads me on to the next topic of discussion.
Causality, Composition, and Equivocation
Do things begin to exist? Johnnyp76 is adamant that they do not, because matter is indestructible. The argument can be construed as follows:
1. Matter does not begin to exist.
2. Things within the universe are made up of matter.
3. Therefore, the universe did not begin to exist.
Now, this argument seems rather ironic to me, in that it commits the fallacy of composition (a fallacy Johnnyp76 implies that Kalam is guilty of.) He has stated that you cannot make an inference about the universe based on things within the universe. In other words, a fallacy of composition. A fallacy of composition occurs when you take an attribute of part of the whole and then apply it to the whole. For instance:
1. Human cells are invisible to the naked eye.
2. Humans are made up of human cells.
3. Therefore, humans are invisible to the naked eye.
So, even if we grant his entirely absurd notion that things don’t really begin to exist, then we can’t use this to infer that the universe did not begin to exist. Now, you can deny that things within the universe not beginning exist can be made as an argument that the universe began to exist, but then such an argument (that nothing begins to exist) becomes irrelevant. For if the universe began to exist, then it doesn’t matter whether or not things within it begin to exist or not. Now, he could be bringing this up to undercut the validity of the intuitive warrant for the first premise, but how this makes the notion of something coming into being from nothing a metaphysical possibility is anybody’s guess.
However, of course things DO begin to exist. For instance, did I begin to exist? If the answer is no, then because I exist now, then that means I have always existed.
1. Nothing begins to exist.
2. I exist.
3. Therefore, necessarily, I have always existed.
Since I exist now, this means I existed prior to my birth. I existed during the Jurassic period, and I will continue existing after my death. I guess Johnnyp76 believes in an after life after all. If this does not seem evidently absurd to you, then consider this: there are essential properties that make me ‘me.’ For exampled, personhood, being human, etc. In the Jurassic era, the matter that now makes up my physical body could have belonged to a dinosaur, or a piece of moss. However, it gets worse, for in what sense can I be said to be identical to the matter that makes me up? After all, the cells in our body are replaced entirely every seven years or something like that. My cells die; they are replaced; yet I do not stop being ‘me.’
I think the most devastating rebuttal to Johnnyp76s ‘argument’ here, however, is that even if we grant that things do not begin to exist in the material sense, there are still efficient causes and effects. An efficient cause is that which causes change and motion. In this sense, things begin to exist all the time. In fact, this is the sense in which Kalam refers to ‘cause’ and ‘begins to exist.’ This applies to things that come into being ex material or ex nihilo, as there is always an efficient cause. Thus Johnnyp76 is guilty of the fallacy of equivocation.
Personhood and Divine Timelessness
Johnnyp76 thinks that personhood and atemporality are contradictory. That’s not the main problem; the main problem lies in the fact he seems to think Craig offers no arguments for this. Craig deals with this issue in his book exclusively on the nature of Divine Eternity and God’s relation to time, Time and Eternity. Another good book on the subject is God, Eternity, and Time by Christian Tapp and Edmund Runggaldier.
The argument is as follows:
1. Necessarily, if God is timeless, He does not have the properties x, y, z.
2. Necessarily, if God does not have the properties x, y, z, then God is not personal.
3. Necessarily, God is personal.
4. Therefore, necessarily, God is not timeless.
There two refutations of this argument. One, the properties in question are not necessary conditions of personhood, and two, a timeless God can possess these relevant properties after all.
Daniel Dennett gives the following criteria of personhood. P is a person only if:
i. P is a rational being.
ii. P is a being to which states of consciousness can be attributed.
iii. Others regard (or can regard) P as a being to which states of consciousness can be attributed.
iv. P is capable of regarding other beings as beings to which states of consciousness can be attributed.
v. P is capable of verbal communication.
vi. P is self-conscious; that is P is capable of regarding him/her/itself as a subject of states of consciousness.
Now whilst the necessity of verbal communication is questionable (after all, what if the subject lacks vocal chords?), an acceptable substitute is that P is capable of communicating. All of these criteria paint a picture of a person being a conscious entity. The only way for this argument to succeed is for the defendant to show that any of these attributes related to personhood require a being be temporal if it is personal. However, what good reasons are there to think that consciousness entails temporality? Johnnyp76s statement that they just are is simply a bare assertion.
Materialism and the Philosophy of Mind
The last subject that Johnnpy76 tries his hand at is the philosophy of mind, and defending naturalism and materialism. Now, Johnnyp76 is a hard determinist, he believes in physicalism or materialism of the mind. As such, he also denies the existence of free will, and all of the other facts about human beings reasonable people take for granted. Of course, if his position IS true, then Johnnyp76 doesn’t really believe any of this, since, if such position IS true, then he doesn’t have ANY beliefs at all. The reason for this is because, if physicalism is true, we are just mindless automatons composed of matter, and not really persons at all, a position that Johnnyp76 himself embraces by denying the freedom of the will and asserting hard determinism.
Let us get started on refuting naturalism then, shall we? Starting with the philosophy of mind, there are very many arguments one could use to show the falsehood of physicalism. Argument 1: In acts of introspection, one is aware of 1) one’s self as an unextended centre of consciousness; 2) various capacities of thought, sensation, belief, desire, and volition that one exercises and that are essential, internal aspects of the kind of thing one is; and 3) one’s sensations as being such that there is no possible world in that they could exist and not be one’s own. This can be represented in the following two ways.
One:
(1) I am an unextended centre of consciousness (justified by introspection.)
(2) No physical object is an unextended centre of consciousness.
(3) Therefore, I am not a physical object.
(4) Either I am a physical object or an immaterial substance.
(5) Therefore, I am an immaterial substance.
Two:
(1) My sensations (and other states of consciousness) are either externally or internally related to me.
(2) If I am a physical object, then my sensations are externally related to me such that there is a possible world in that those sensations exist and are not so related to me.
(3) There is no possible world in where my sensations exist without being mine (justified by introspection.)
(4) Therefore, I am not a physical object and my sensations are internally related to me.
(5) If a sensation is internally related to me, then it is a mode of my self.
(6) If an entity x is a mode of some entity y, then x is an inseparable entity dependant for its existence on y such that (a) x is modally distinct from and internally related to y and (b) x provides information about the nature of the thing y of which is it a mode.
(7) Therefore, I am thing whose nature is to have sensations (and other states of consciousness.)
Argument Two: The indexicality of thought provides evidence for the truth of substance dualism. A complete, third person physical description of the world will fail to capture the fact expressed by “I am Randomicity912.” No amount of information non-indexically expressed captures the content conveyed by this assertion. The first person indexical “I” is irreducible and ineliminable, and this feature of “I” is not innocuous, but rather, is explained by claiming that “I” refers to a nonphysical entity – the substantial self with at least the power of self-awareness. Moreover, if mental predicates are added to the third person descriptive language, this still fails to capture the state of affairs expressed by statements like “I am thinking that P.” Finally, the system of indexical references (i.e., “I,” “here,” “there,” “this,” “that”) must have a unifying centre that underlies it. This unifying centre is the same entity referred to by “I” in expressions like “I am thinking that P,” namely, the conscious substantial subject taken as a self-conscious, self-referring particular. This argument can be represented as follows:
(1) Statements using the first person indexical “I” express facts about persons that cannot be expressed without the first person indexical.
(2) If I am a physical object, then all facts about me can be expressed in statements without the first person indexical.
(3) Therefore, I am not a physical object.
(4) I am either a physical object or an immaterial substance.
(5) Therefore, I am an immaterial substance.
Argument Three: Substance dualism can also be argued on the grounds that libertarian freedom is true, which probably explains why Johnnyp76 denies the reality of Free Will. This argument can be formulated as follows:
(1) Human beings exercise libertarian agency.
(2) No material object (one which is such that all of its properties, parts, and capacities, are at least and only physical) can exercise libertarian agency.
(3) Therefore, human beings are not material objects.
(4) Human beings are either material objects or immaterial substances.
(5) Therefore, they are immaterial substances.
Argument Four: Naturalism can be refuted by the fact that is internally incoherent and self-contradictory. This can be formed as:
(1) States of mind have a relation to the world we call intentionality, or aboutness. The intentionality referred to here is propositional in nature. Our possessing this kind of intentionality means that we are capable of having, entertaining, believing, and desiring certain states of affairs propositionally described.
(2) Thoughts and beliefs can either be true or false.
(3) Human beings can be in the condition of accepting, rejecting, or suspending belief about propositions.
(4) Logical laws exist.
(5) Human beings are capable of apprehending logical laws.
(6) The state of accepting the truth of a proposition plays a crucial causal role in the production of other beliefs, and the propositional states is relevant to the playing of this causal role.
(7) The apprehension of logical laws plays a causal role in the acceptance of the argument as true.
(8) The same individual entertains thoughts of the premises and then draws the conclusion.
(9) Our processes of reasoning provide us with a systematically reliable way of understanding the world around us.
(10) Unless statements (1)-(9) are true, then it is incoherent to argue that one should accept naturalism based on evidence of any kind.
(11) Unless statements (1)-(9) are true, then there are no scientists, and nobody is using the scientific method.
(12) Therefore, naturalism is incoherent, cannot be rationally justified, and is most definitely false.
Argument Five: If science is true, then we as human beings are in states with determinate propositional content, but if naturalism is true, we should never be in such propositional states.
(1) Some mental states have determinate content. In particular, the states involved in adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing, in squaring numbers and taking their square roots, are determinate with respect to their intentional content.
(2) Physical states are indeterminate with respect to international content. Any physical state is logically compatible with the existence of a multiplicity of propositionally defined, intentional states, or even with the absence of propositionally defined mental states entirely.
(3) Therefore, the mental states involved in mathematical operations are not and cannot be identical to physical states.
Argument Six: Materialism is incompatible with meaning. This can be represented simply as:
(1) If materialism is true, then meaning is indeterminate.
(2) Meaning is determinate (a presupposition of science and reason.)
(3) Therefore, materialism is false.
Argument Seven: Another argument is that the supervenience relation employed by non-reductive materialists cannot be admitted into supervenient materialist’s ontology. This can be represented as:
(1) For physicalists, all facts must be materialistically acceptable. That is, they are facts about physical things, or about things that are ontologically distinct from the physical, but strongly supervene on the physical.
(2) There must be some fact – the explanation – in virtue of which B-properties supervene on A-properties; called the S-facts. There are two options for materialistically respectable facts:
(a) They themselves could supervene on A-properties. But then there is an infinite regress problem, for now we have to explain this new supervenience relation, which in turn needs to be explain, and so on ad infinitum, so this is no good.
(b) Or, the S-facts could not just be further A-properties, that is, facts about the physical entity. But then these facts do no bridge the explanatory gap between the B-facts and the a-facts.
Argument Eight: Argument from qualia. Qualia are the subjective conscious experiences we have when we ‘feel’ something. There are many variations of this argument, with the best-known example being the Mary’s room argument, which gives the example of a colour scientist, named Mary, who knows every physical fact about colour and even every physical fact about the experience of colour in other people. However, she has been confined to a room that is black and white since birth, and is only allowed to observe the outside world through a black and white monitor. When she leaves the room and sees colour for the first time, and in doing so learns what it is like to see that colour. This can be represented as:
(1) Before her release, Mary was in possession of all the physical information about colour experience of other people.
(2) After he release, Mary learns something the colour experiences of other people.
(3) Therefore, before her release, Mary was not in possession of all the information about other people’s colour experiences, even though she was in possession of all the physical information.
(4) Therefore, there are truths about other people’s colour experience that are not physical.
(5) Therefore, physicalism is false.
Argument Nine: the Chinese Room argument. Suppose that artificial intelligence research has succeeded in constructing a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese. It takes Chinese characters as input and, by following the instructions of a computer program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Suppose that this computer performs its task so convincingly that it comfortably passes the Turing test: it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a live Chinese speaker. To all of the questions that the person asks, it makes appropriate responses, such that any Chinese speaker would be convinced that he or she is talking to another Chinese-speaking human being. Does the machine literally "understand" Chinese? Or is it merely simulating the ability to understand Chinese? Suppose that I am in a closed room and have a book with an English version of the computer program, along with sufficient paper, pencils, erasers, and filing cabinets. I could receive Chinese characters through a slot in the door, process them according to the program's instructions, and produce Chinese characters as output. As the computer had passed the Turing test this way, it is fair to deduce that I would be able to do so as well, simply by running the program manually. There is no essential difference between the role the computer plays in the first case and the role I play in the latter. Each is simply following a program, step-by-step, which simulates intelligent behaviour. And yet I don't speak a word of Chinese. Since I do not understand Chinese we must infer that the computer does not understand Chinese either. Without "understanding" or “intentionality” we cannot describe what the machine is doing as "thinking". Because it does not think, it does not have a "mind" in anything like the normal sense of the word, therefore Strong AI is mistaken. This can be formulated as follows:
(1) If Strong AI is true, then there is a program for Chinese such that any computer system that runs that program, that system thereby comes to understand Chinese.
(2) I could run a program for Chinese without thereby coming to understand Chinese.
(3) Therefore, Strong AI is false.
Argument ten: the incompatibility of naturalism and evolution. This argument states that if both naturalism and evolution are true at the same time, then we have no rational basis for accepting the validity of our reasoning processes, thus making naturalism self-defeating.
(1) The human brain is an organ that arose via evolution.
(2) Evolution results in the preservation of traits that enhance survivability.
(3) If naturalism is true, then mind and brain are equivalent.
(4) The mind, being identical to the brain, is therefore geared towards our survival, not in the production of true beliefs.
(5) Therefore, if naturalism and evolution are true at the same time, we have no way of knowing which of our beliefs are actually true. Thus, we have no grounds for accepting the validity of our reasoning processes.
(6) Evolution is true, and our reasoning processes are valid.
(7) Therefore, naturalism is false.
Argument eleven: the quantum-theoretic argument against naturalism.
(1) Naturalism is the view that the sum and substance of everything that exists is exhausted by physical objects and processes and whatever is causally dependent upon them.
(2) The explanatory resources of naturalism are therefore restricted to material objects, causes, events and processes.
(3) Neither nonlocal quantum correlations nor (in the light of nonlocalisability) the nature of the fundamental constituents of material reality can be explained or understood if the explanatory constraints of naturalism are preserved.
(4) These quantum phenomena require an explanation.
(5) Therefore, naturalism (materialism, physicalism) is irremediably deficient as a world-view and consequently should be rejected not just as inadequate, but fundamentally false.
Argument twelve: the incompatibility of naturalism and scientific realism.
(1) Scientific realism, representational naturalism and essential reliability entail that scientific methods are reliable sources of truth about the world.
(2) From the preference of simplicity, it follows that simplicity is a reliable indicator of the truth about natural laws.
(3) Mere correlation between the simplicity and the laws of nature is not good enough: reliability requires that there be some causal mechanism connecting simplicity and the actual laws of nature.
(4) Since the laws of nature pervade space and time, any such causal mechanism must exist outside spacetime.
(5) Consequently, ontological naturalism is false.
Argument thirteen: the incompatibility of naturalism and objective morality, i.e. the axiological argument for God.
One:
(1) If naturalism is true, then there are no objective moral values and duties.
(2) Objective moral values and duties exist.
(3) Therefore, naturalism is false.
Two:
(1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
(4) Objective moral values and duties exist.
(2) Therefore, God exists (and naturalism is false.)
I am sure I could go on, but for now these will suffice.
Oh dear. I have posted many, many points in rejection to this tirade of fallacy and misrepresentation of my arguments on your Youtube video.
ReplyDeleteAll you did was repeat your absurd and fallacious bare assertions, and ramble on incoherently.
ReplyDeleteReally? If they are so absurd and fallacious and rambling, why are you so unable to adequately refute them? A lot of bluster and rhetoric, a lot of red herrings and straw men, not a lot of substance. Put away your ad homs, and be honest with the points about the KCA. Leave everything else to a different thread or debate. Be relevant.
ReplyDeleteI was being relevant. I was addressing things YOU said. And yes, I have adequately shown your argument to be fallacious... all you keep doing is repeating yourself, whilst ignoring stringent criticisms of your arguments.
ReplyDeleteYou did 'address' my points, but that's about it. I will be posting a video, but I am quite amazed you miss an awful lot, and say an awful lot more that isn't quite relevant. Talking endlessly about naturalism might be connected in some way,a s everything is in philosophy, but not relevant to the KCA as we are discussing it.
ReplyDeleteOne example is how you fail to grasp this point.
You are trying to conclude, with the KCA, on how the universe required cause for its existence. The universe, at the BB, is regarded by every cosmologists, as being a tight bundle of energy (matter / dark matter / energy / dark energy).
You then look at abstract things, and not OTHER INSTANCES OF MATTER / ENERGY CREATION to make rules about this original energy creation. This is applying the behaviour of one thing (which I find fallacious anyway) to something completely different.
The fact that you cannot seer this simple fallacy, or refuse to admit it in case you lose face, is desperate. In this instance, I am merely talking energy / matter.
When you can give me examples of this to allow for generalised rules about the universe, then you are getting somewhere (ignoring the fallacy of composition which may arise).
Your second problem is taking causality (efficient causes) in total isolation. Rather than seeing energy as a continuous linear timeline (ignoring issues of A/B theory), which due to the law of conservation of energy, and the interactions of all other energies spilling out from the BB, does not 'begin' apart from possibly at the BB. Again, you seek to take a snapshot of this energy and claim it begins (say in the form of a chair). But it began, if at all, at the same process of the thing you are trying to make a rule about!!!! The efficient cause is the start of the universe itself.
Hence the continued circularity of your argument.
Unless you adhere to Platonic Realism, you are up shit creek. And I doubt you do, since you seem to copy everything Craig does and says, and he doesn't.
So on and so forth.
Incidentally, appealing to supernaturalism to get you out of such holes will get you nowhere with me. I have a essay I've just written on how anything with recognisable and consistent properties (soul, consciousness, etc) must exist within a framework of deterministic laws in order to remain with said properties.
Etc Etc.
PS - you would come off a lot more likeable (and Christian?) if you were less arrogant and more polite. It wouldn't kill you to do so. I am a founder member of a philosophy and theology group of published authors, qualified philosophers and theologians and physicists. We all believe different things and fundamentally disagree all the time; we discuss things every day and meet every month, and we remain civil, professional, thorough, humble, open to change and good friends.
"I will be posting a video."
ReplyDeleteDon't hurt yourself mate. ;) Although you might want to check out my latest vid on KCA before hand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOlZuIH3uuw
"but not relevant to the KCA as we are discussing it."
Even though I was directly replying to things YOU bought up in comments. If they weren't relevant, why bring them up at all? I think I know what has happened here. You've realised you can't unsay the comments I was replying to, and so are trying to cover this up by claiming my refutations of your arguments are "irrelevant."
"One example is how you fail to grasp this point."
I literally burst out laughing when I read this. You've consistently failed to recognise that your argument commits the fallacy of equivocation and fallacy of composition.
"The universe, at the BB, is regarded by every cosmologists, as being a tight bundle of energy (matter / dark matter / energy / dark energy). You then look at abstract things, and not OTHER INSTANCES OF MATTER / ENERGY CREATION to make rules about this original energy creation. This is applying the behaviour of one thing (which I find fallacious anyway) to something completely different."
Blah, blah, blah, blah. Here we go again, repeating the same refuted nonsense. This the third point that you keep consistently (and I would go as far as to say deliberately) missing is that the universe is made up of efficient causes and effects, even if we grant the proposition that properties are meaningless abstractions. For instance, if we posit a stationary ball, if it were to be put into motion by something else, then that is an example of efficient causality. It was CAUSED to move. We thus have a new effect, which was caused to occur. Or if one configuration of matter is changed to another configuration of matter, we find a cause for this effect.
This is the sense in which Kalam takes the words CAUSE and BEGINS TO EXIST, in terms of efficient causality. William Lane Craig is quite clear that when Kalam says cause, it means 'whatever brings about its effect.' This is true whether it is being caused ex materia or ex nihilo. It is metaphysically impossible for an effect not to have a cause. This goes doubly so when we are talking about creatio ex nihilo.
You need to show that an effect coming into being uncaused is metaphysically possible, otherwise your objection, like your credibility, falls flat on its arse. Yet this you cannot do, which presumably explains why you choose to parade around in front of me with these Jackanory objections.
"The fact that you cannot seer this simple fallacy, or refuse to admit it in case you lose face, is desperate."
There is no fallacy. Mindlessly droning on and on that there is one just makes you look like an idiot, and many of my friends feel that I am wasting my time with you. I am becoming inclined to agree.
"Rather than seeing energy as a continuous linear timeline (ignoring issues of A/B theory), which due to the law of conservation of energy, and the interactions of all other energies spilling out from the BB, does not 'begin' apart from possibly at the BB."
ReplyDeleteThere you go equivocating again. It doesn't matter if the universe began ex materia or ex nihilo. There is still an efficient cause. Of course the biggest problem for you is that the BB is not just the expansion of matter into pre-existing space, but the expansion of space itself. In order to deny the first premise of Kalam, you have to assert that the universe magically popped into being totally uncaused out of nothing, which is metaphysically absurd, or that the universe caused itself, which is logically self-contradictory.
"But it began, if at all, at the same process of the thing you are trying to make a rule about!!!! The efficient cause is the start of the universe itself."
Ah, so you're claiming that the universe caused itself... which is logically self-contradictory, as in order to cause anything, it would first have to exist.
"Hence the continued circularity of your argument."
Oh, the irony.
"Incidentally, appealing to supernaturalism to get you out of such holes will get you nowhere with me."
I wasn't "appealing to supernaturalism" to "get out of" any "holes." I was simply refuting YOUR comments that you WROTE in the comment sections of MY videos. Incidentally, a priori assuming physicalism to be true in order to escape the pitfalls of your own strained, illogical and fallacious arguments won't get YOU anywhere.
"Unless you adhere to Platonic Realism, you are up shit creek. And I doubt you do, since you seem to copy everything Craig does and says, and he doesn't."
Aww, looks as if I've hit a nerve. No, I don't need to adhere to Platonic Realism, and I couldn't care less if Craig was a nominalist or not, since I disagree with Craig about a great many things. I think his moral divine command theory is wrong, I think his moral argument is flawed, I think that infinities are possible, I believe Jesus' burial was dishonourable rather than honourable... the list goes on.
"I have an essay I've just written on how anything with recognisable and consistent properties (soul, consciousness, etc) must exist within a framework of deterministic laws in order to remain with said properties."
Oh goody. Another mare's nest of non-sequiturs, glib remarks, onanistic self-congratulation, and a plethora of other glaring errors, logical fallacies, and factual discrepancies.
"PS - you would come off a lot more likeable (and Christian?) if you were less arrogant and more polite."
You would come off as more credible if you didn't project your own failings onto others. Although I would like to see evidence of this "arrogance" and lack of politeness you speak of.
"It wouldn't kill you to do so."
Tu quoque.
"I am a founder member of a philosophy and theology group of published authors, qualified philosophers and theologians and physicists."
I think I would care more if your arguments weren't so dire, terrible, and lacklustre.
By the way, I've checked out your website and seen excerpts of your books, and read some of your essays and book reviews. There are so many things wrong that I don't really know where to begin. My personal favourite was when, in your review of A Sceptics Guide to Atheism, you claimed the gospels were dated by most scholars to after 70AD... and then proceeded to cite the Jesus Seminar, who are group of heavily biased mostly nobodies.
ReplyDeleteOnly 16 members are actual scholars (and I think some of those have sadly passed away), and even then, they are most certainly in the minority. I grant them more credibility than I do the likes of Richard Carrier, but that isn't saying much. That's like trying to decide who the most handsome man in a burns unit is. Here is a hint: New Testament scholarship has progressed since the 19th century. You should read some Richard Bauckham, et al.
I also got a laugh from your essay on Jedward being an argument for determinism. Just a quick point: no proponent of free will would deny that genetics plays an influential causal role in choice. I find your naive, poorly-thought out philosophy amusing.
I am unable to comment at length here, but suffice to say you have made some terrible blunders here on pretty much everything you have posited, starting with efficient causality.
ReplyDeleteyou need to understand origination here. THAT is your 'begins to exist'. In other words, the BB itself on Craig's cosmology. Again, you fail to understand the notion of 'begins to exist'. Those causal forces are linearly connected to each an every cause preceding so that they are not INDIVIDUAL causes, but one long string of force / energy. They didn't begin to exist - the forces are consistently existing and interacting. You cannot take them out of context to an isolated moment in time.
I have started a video to you where I talk about your attitude to begin with. I would suggest being a little more humble, a little more likeable and professional from the outset. Rational discourse is never served by arrogance, ad hom, unprofessional attitudes.
I trust you have read critics of Bauckham? Look into the likes opf TJ Weeden (Weeden, T.J., Polemics as a Case for Dissent. A Response to Richard Bauckham's "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses", Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 6,2(2008), 211-224). Also see the Australian biblical review or the biblical foundations review to see criticisms from Christians.
Just to reiterate, I find it fascinating that for the first time in 20 years, WLC has dropped the KCA from all his debates in the UK. Why? If it is soooo good, why has he done this?
ReplyDeleteI think Millican even had this as a refutation of the KCA, yet you still deny it!
And YOU accuse ME of the fallacy of composition!!! That is EXACTLY what the KCA falls into!
As for 7 minutes worth of arguments for against naturalism, I'm not sure I did call for that, but I may be wrong (as interesting as the discussion may be).
So you still don't seem to understand the terms of the KCA, and equivocate on begin to exist. I keep mentioning it precisely because you HAVEN't refuted it. What's more, your equivocation still fails since the efficient cause is the BB itself which you have not proved otherwise.
Your accusations of a priori physicalism are the same with you for supernaturalism.
"You need to show that an effect coming into being uncaused is metaphysically possible, otherwise your objection, like your credibility, falls flat on its arse."
You need to explain a cause / effect that has begun to exist. The fact that you have not yet given an example of a cause beginning to exist means that you cannot then make a generalised rule about the universe until you give me an example upon which the rule is based!
“There you go equivocating again. It doesn't matter if the universe began ex materia or ex nihilo. There is still an efficient cause. Of course the biggest problem for you is that the BB is not just the expansion of matter into pre-existing space, but the expansion of space itself. In order to deny the first premise of Kalam, you have to assert that the universe magically popped into being totally uncaused out of nothing, which is metaphysically absurd, or that the universe caused itself, which is logically self-contradictory. “
ReplyDeleteThis is, yet again, off the mark. You haven’t YET given me an example of an efficient cause beginning to exist that is not the BB universe itself. This is utterly fundamental to the argument itself.
Causality is a difficult thing, especially when some things have no definable cause (French Froeign Legion dilemma, ass Dennett says “We ought to look with equanimity on the prospect that sometimes circumstances will fail to pinpoint a single "real cause" of an event, no matter how hard we seek. A case in point is the classic law school riddle.”).
And this is where you have truly missed the point: “In order to deny the first premise of Kalam, you have to assert that the universe magically popped into being totally uncaused out of nothing”. This is, indeed, what the KCA SEEKS TO PROVE through a logical syllogism. This is precisely what you CANNOT start off by concluding. You are denying eternally existing matter (given that time starts again and again in such models) as well as the notion that something eternal would pop into being. The KCA, and we are ONLY HERE debating the KCA (It might be that the universe required a cause – I do not deny this. I DO DENY THAT THE KCA CAN PROVE THIS!!! This could be where you misinterpret me.) If we cannot establish that ‘everything which begins to exist requires a cause for its existence’ because we cannot establish anything beginning to exist other than the universe itself, and we cannot even establish a generalised rule of causality based on a one-off event (if indeed it was).
“"But it began, if at all, at the same process of the thing you are trying to make a rule about!!!! The efficient cause is the start of the universe itself."
Ah, so you're claiming that the universe caused itself... which is logically self-contradictory, as in order to cause anything, it would first have to exist.”
No that is not what I am saying whatsoever. What I am saying here is that when you take a cause and effect out of context and in isolation, such as the rock falling down a cliff, you only look at the directly preceding cause. I argue that that cause had a preceding cause, which had a preceding cause until you reach the BB. This causal chain is a transformative chain of causal creation as opposed to a ‘begin to exist’. This is a hugely important point. Thus the efficient cause of the rock falling down a cliff is the BB or similar.
Which is why the circularity accusation still stands, no matter how ‘hilarious’ you might find it.
“I think his moral divine command theory is wrong, I think his moral argument is flawed, I think that infinities are possible, I believe Jesus' burial was dishonourable rather than honourable... the list goes on. “
Now that is fascinating, and worth talking about too. I agree with all of your points here. Finally, a theist who readily accepts the dishonourable burial thesis which I always thought was so obvious!
“Oh goody. Another mare's nest of non-sequiturs, glib remarks, onanistic self-congratulation, and a plethora of other glaring errors, logical fallacies, and factual discrepancies.”
I see you have resorted to the aforementioned ‘professional behaviour’.
“My personal favourite was when, in your review of A Sceptics Guide to Atheism, you claimed the gospels were dated by most scholars to after 70AD... and then proceeded to cite the Jesus Seminar, who are group of heavily biased mostly nobodies.”
ReplyDeleteNice. Simple assertion that they are not. I suggest reading through Theissen and Merz “the Historical Jesus”, a copy of which I have, that will give you an incredibly comprehensive overview of Markan scholarship. It is fairly orthodox, these days, to accept a post temple destruction dating. There are also other anachronisms and evidences that support a later than 70 dating. Why you think it funny to supprt orthodox dating which is supported by the ‘biased’ academia of the Jesus Seminar, whilst claiming, in special pleading and double standards, the clear veracity of presuppositional conservative estimates, I don’t know.
Decrying the work of the Jesus seminar m,ay have merits in some areas but produces more questions than answers. Who decides who is an expert? Who decides what the consensus is? This is the issue Habermas’ study has (it had a lot), and Craig himself judges 75% of NT scholars in his ‘fact’ approach. Of course, this is deeply flawed. 1) 1 in 4 disagreeing is a massive minority in stats terms. 2) 99.9% of Islamic scholars believe the historicity of Muhummad – does this make it a fact? No way, Jose. Asking presuppositional, biased scholars whether the tomb was empty or not is one of the world’s most pointless exercises.
“I also got a laugh from your essay on Jedward being an argument for determinism. Just a quick point: no proponent of free will would deny that genetics plays an influential causal role in choice. I find your naive, poorly-thought out philosophy amusing.”
It shows how you misinterpreted the blog post (NOT AN ESSAY!!!). It is a simple thought experiment. What would you expect on libertarian free will, and what would you expect on determinism? The results of the experiment are what you would expect on determinism (as are almost all twin studies data). Simply put, it is another tiny piece of jigsaw to put into the ever-growing array of support and evidence for determinism. There is quite a lot, don’t you know. Even the justice system is now admitting this. Please stop jumping on things hastily and misrepresenting them. These straw men become tiresome and don’t reflect well on you.
Incidentally, did you see the Horizon: Are you good or evil? Fascinating.
"I am unable to comment at length here, but suffice to say you have made some terrible blunders here on pretty much everything you have posited, starting with efficient causality."
ReplyDeleteMore projection.
"you need to understand origination here. THAT is your 'begins to exist'."
No, it isn't. This only goes to show that you either don't understand the argument or are wilfully misrepresenting it. That the big bang happens to be a case of origination ex nihilo, as opposed to origination ex materia, is irrelevant! If anything, it makes the need for a preceding cause even more necessary. The only way the universe could not have a cause is if it did not begin to exist, which is precisely what you argue! In other words, not only are your objections wrong, they are also irrelevant. I am really struggling to understand why you are still choosing to deny the first premise since none of your criticisms undermine it, and I have sufficiently answered them.
"Those causal forces are linearly connected to each an every cause preceding so that they are not INDIVIDUAL causes, but one long string of force / energy."
That's the whole point. Again, you're not understanding the KCA in terms of efficient causality. The chain of past events are a connected successive series of efficient causes. In order for new effects to arise, there needs to be a prior effect to cause the new one. For instance, when a block of ice is hot enough, it turns into water. When a ball is truck, it is set into motion. When two molecules of oxygen meet with a molecule of oxygen, they form water. The universe was efficiently caused if it began to exist ex materia or ex nihilo. Your dogmatic assertions to the contrary don't change this.
"They didn't begin to exist - the forces are consistently existing and interacting. You cannot take them out of context to an isolated moment in time."
Irrelevant. And no, I am not taking force in isolation out of context. The chain of causes and effects goes all the way to the big bang. The only way for the buck to stop there is if the universe began to exist. If there was an eternal state prior to this which led to the big bang, then this is where the buck stops, and this is precisely what pretty much everyone today now accepts. The options on the table as to what caused God are: 1) pre-existing space/matter 2) eternally cyclic universe 3) multi-verse 4) God.
"I have started a video to you where I talk about your attitude to begin with. I would suggest being a little more humble, a little more likeable and professional from the outset. Rational discourse is never served by arrogance, ad hom, unprofessional attitudes."
Irony. I have found your attitude to be extremely flippant, smug, and self-assured.
"I trust you have read critics of Bauckham? Look into the likes of TJ Weeden... "
Nope, but I listened to Richard Bauckham debate James Crossley on Unbelievable and have read responses to other scholars, such as Richard Burridge. Essentially, they totally fail to undermine the case whatsoever. For instance, I think it was James Crossley who argued that the women's testimony would not have been disregarded because they were reporting the word's of a male angel... which just totally ignores the point about women's testimony being considered worthless completely.
"You haven’t YET given me an example of an efficient cause beginning to exist that is not the BB universe itself."
ReplyDeleteI don't need to.
"This is utterly fundamental to the argument itself."
No, it isn't. Kalam agrees that it is impossible for nothing to exist. God is something, after all.
"Causality is a difficult thing, especially when some things have no definable cause..."
There aren't any things that have no definable cause. If you're referring to things such as quantum fluctuations, these are still very much caused events. They might be non-deterministic (we don't know since the act of observation changes quantum particles), but does not make them non-caused. To suggest otherwise is to commit equivocation, like Stenger does.
"This is, indeed, what the KCA SEEKS TO PROVE through a logical syllogism."
No, KCA seeks to prove that the universe came from something. This is why I think you don't understand the argument because you continue to make some, in my opinion, pretty egregious errors.
"What I am saying here is that when you take a cause and effect out of context and in isolation, such as the rock falling down a cliff, you only look at the directly preceding cause."
I've already responded to this objection.
"Now that is fascinating, and worth talking about too. I agree with all of your points here. Finally, a theist who readily accepts the dishonourable burial thesis which I always thought was so obvious!"
You should check out Byrone McCane's essay "Where No One Had Yet Lain." Coincidentally, JP Holding agrees with the dishonourable nature of Jesus' burial. In fact, he even cites McCane's essay.
"I suggest reading through Theissen and Merz “the Historical Jesus”, a copy of which I have, that will give you an incredibly comprehensive overview of Markan scholarship."
ReplyDeleteI recommend Reinventing Jesus by J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer and Daniel B. Wallace, and Fabricating Jesus by Craig A. Evans.
"There are also other anachronisms and evidences that support a later than 70 dating."
There isn't any evidence that favours such a dating.
"Why you think it funny to supprt orthodox dating which is supported by the ‘biased’ academia of the Jesus Seminar, whilst claiming, in special pleading and double standards, the clear veracity of presuppositional conservative estimates, I don’t know."
Why you think the unorthodox view of a post-70AD date for Mark is orthodox is anybodies guess, since only fringe scholars hold to such views. Incidentally, the Jesus Seminar engages in special pleading by asserting the later Gnostic gospels are earlier.
Why you think the consensus c.60AD date of Mark is "presuppositional conservative estimates" is anybodies guess too.
"Decrying the work of the Jesus seminar may have merits in some areas but produces more questions than answers. Who decides who is an expert? Who decides what the consensus is?"
First of all, I said that 16 of the members are actual scholars, not none of them. Secondly, they are considered fringe not just because their conclusion are so out of touch with contemporary scholarship, but primarily because of their slapdash and inconsistent methodology.
"99.9% of Islamic scholars believe the historicity of Muhummad – does this make it a fact? No way, Jose."
I am not aware of a single historian who denies that Muhammad actually existed.
"Asking presuppositional, biased scholars whether the tomb was empty or not is one of the world’s most pointless exercises."
This just goes to show how little you know about the subject. It is not just 'conservatives,' 'evangelicals,' and 'apologists,' but even highly critical scholars such as Gerd Ludemann. Ironically enough, Theissen and Kurz, whom you appeal to, agree.
"blog post (NOT AN ESSAY!!!)."
My bad, I thought it was in the essays section.
"The results of the experiment are what you would expect on determinism (as are almost all twin studies data)."
It isn't. Genetic and environmental effects are admitted as playing an influential role in decision making by pretty much every interactive-dualist, etc. Quite simply, such a view is incredibly naive.
"Simply put, it is another tiny piece of jigsaw to put into the ever-growing array of support and evidence for determinism. There is quite a lot, don’t you know."
There isn't any evidence for determinism. Since in order for us to recognise that their is evidence for determinism, determinism would have to be false.
"Just to reiterate, I find it fascinating that for the first time in 20 years, WLC has dropped the KCA from all his debates in the UK. Why? If it is soooo good, why has he done this?"
ReplyDeleteJust to reiterate, I find it fascinating that you keep asserting Craig didn't use KCA... even though he used them in all of his debates. You clearly are delusional.
'Projection' indeed. It is rather hard to comment at length when one is at work. I will reply tonight if possible (which is difficult with twin babies).
ReplyDelete“"you need to understand origination here. THAT is your 'begins to exist'."
ReplyDeleteNo, it isn't. This only goes to show that you either don't understand the argument or are wilfully misrepresenting it. That the big bang happens to be a case of origination ex nihilo, as opposed to origination ex materia, is irrelevant! “
You are still not getting this because you are equivocating terms here. I am arguing against the KCA, not against causal cosmological arguments in general. As I am sure you are aware, logical arguments have to be VERY tight on semantics. You can’t just posit “Well ‘begins’ to exist’ means this” and so on. This then means you are REFORMULATING the argument. While this may or may not be valid, it is a straw man for what I am saying. To give Craig his due, even though you seem to wilfully ignore this (or not understand what the KCA is as opposed to other cosmological arguments), he has indeed reformulated the KCA. I would imagine that this is because he finally realises it is invalid.
His new cosmological argument, which is NOT the KCA (in the same way the Leibnizian cosmological argument is not the KCA), is as follows:
1) The universe began to exist;
2) if the universe began to exist, then it has a transcendent cause;
3) therefore, the universe has a transcendent cause.
Let’s look at the original KCA:
1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
4. If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
5. God exists.
Now Craig’s slightly altered version (without the optional God conclusion):
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Now you are equivocating on begins to exist, and you have yet given me an example of something that has begun to exist other than positing ‘causes’ in general.
Let’s look at Craig’s defence itself:
“First and foremost, the causal premiss is rooted in the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being from nothing. To suggest that things could just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is to quit doing serious metaphysics and to resort to magic.”
This is an appeal to intuition, rather than being deduced logically from a premise. Craig seems to further this with mere assertion:
“Finally, the first premiss is constantly confirmed in our experience, which provides atheists who are scientific naturalists with the strongest of motivations to accept it.”
He has given us NO examples of something beginning to exist. I claim you are equivocating based also on the fact that Craih himself uses terms like this ubiquitously: “If something popped into being out of nothing.” He really is talking about THINGS beginning to exist. If you look here, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5705, then you will see that when someone has beef with the terminology, then they must reformulate the argument (“But then the kalam argument would look like this”0, but then, of course, it becomes something other than the Kalam.
This is what you are doing. It may be right, it may be wrong, but you are reformulating the Kalam, changing the semantics of the syllogism. By all means do that. Reformulate the argument with premises more accurately about causality so that it is tighter. We can then argue that. But this is a straw man for my argument. MY argument is about the Kalam Cosmological Argument, not the Randomicity912 Cosmological Argument, no matter how good that may or may not be.
ReplyDelete“If anything, it makes the need for a preceding cause even more necessary. The only way the universe could not have a cause is if it did not begin to exist, which is precisely what you argue! In other words, not only are your objections wrong, they are also irrelevant. I am really struggling to understand why you are still choosing to deny the first premise since none of your criticisms undermine it, and I have sufficiently answered them.”
With all due respect, you haven’t. Taking the KCA, and not your reformulation of it, we have an inductive argument that goes something like this:
We have observed causality on past uniformities on events when things have begun to exist.
This is fine for an inductive argument. Apart from the fact that you have not given me an example of something that has begun to exist OTHER THAN the universe itself (and that is tendentious). You keep claiming you have refuted this point, but you haven’t.
“"Those causal forces are linearly connected to each an every cause preceding so that they are not INDIVIDUAL causes, but one long string of force / energy."
That's the whole point. Again, you're not understanding the KCA in terms of efficient causality. The chain of past events are a connected successive series of efficient causes. In order for new effects to arise, there needs to be a prior effect to cause the new one.”
I will try to illustrate your mistake with an analogy and hope it works as analogies are often problematic. Imagine there are 5 billiard balls A-E and nothing else. These came to exist at point t0 with an ‘introductory force’. At each point t1, t2 etc, a ball hits another ball. At point t5, B hits E at 35 degrees sending it towards C. Your position is this, the cause for B hitting E at 35 degrees is the momentum and energy generated in B as it hits E. My point is this: the cause of B hitting E is at t0. No cause has begun to exist or has been created out of nothing. The causes transform – what is called transformative creation. So the cause of B hitting E is:
B firing off at t0 and hitting A at t1, the causal circumstance meaning it rebounds off A to hit D at t2, meaning the causal circumstance rendering it inevitable that it hits A again at t3…. And then it hits E at t5.
The cause is the casual circumstance at t5. In free will terms, this is identical to the notion that determinism equates to the first cause of the Big Bang. The causal circumstance is everything up until the moment tn.
You are isolating a cause arbitrarily and claiming it begins to exist. Causes don’t begin out of nothing! Since, you already posit, ex nihilo nihilo fit!
We have one single efficient cause – the universe at BB or similar. We have, potentially, only ONE cause, only One something beginning to exist. This is the universe itself.
You cannot then make a generalised rule with preceding inductive premises about a one-off event.
Secondly, when looking at the term ‘cause’ as in ‘efficient cause’ with beginning to exist, or even just existing, causes are actually abstract labels we assign to forces. In other words, these are energies or matte rand energy. These causes themselves did not begin to exist, as mentioned above. We must no think ‘causes’ are some magic thing. They are abstract labels assigned to an underlying force which itself has existed since the BB. These causes are not a series of isolated, discrete causes, but one cause, if you like, consistently interacting with other causes. These causes ARE the universe as previously mentioned.
ReplyDeleteThis is clearly not ‘irrelevant’ since it is almost the central tenet of this argument.
“And no, I am not taking force in isolation out of context. The chain of causes and effects goes all the way to the big bang. The only way for the buck to stop there is if the universe began to exist.”
I’m glad you understand that causal chain. We have a chain of causality, but that chain is a single causal chain, not a set of arbitrarily divided causes. The force / energy / matter that makes the causal circumstance is the entire universe itself. The buck may well stop there, and we do intuitively think that the universe would need a cause. HOWEVER, this is a logically invalid conclusion from the premises of the KCA. Nothing else has begun to exist.
“If there was an eternal state prior to this which led to the big bang, then this is where the buck stops, and this is precisely what pretty much everyone today now accepts. The options on the table as to what caused God are: 1) pre-existing space/matter 2) eternally cyclic universe 3) multi-verse 4) God.”
I generally agree with that, though you could also posit (conceivably) a self-causing universe. I do not believe this to be the case, but it is an option, no matter how improbable.
“Irony. I have found your attitude to be extremely flippant, smug, and self-assured.”
Maybe things are lost in translation. I was only confrontational in this manner to fight fire. Without wanting to reduce to playground chants, ‘you started it’ springs to mind. I am now trying to bring us back to civility. Continuing to throw in ad homs like that is counter-productive. Think what you like, but let’s start afresh.
On critical views on Bauckham (or only partial agreement), see articles like these:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7216/is_201004/ai_n53931595/?tag=content%3bcol1
http://www.fbs.org.au/reviews/bauckham56.html
http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/bible/jesus-and-the-eyewitnesses
“Richard Bauckham acknowledges that he is swimming against the stream of scholarly consensus.” In other words, while you may laud Bauckham as many conservatives do, it is necessary to realise his agenda and treat his work with the same critical approach you would and should anyone else.
I have heard that same Crossley Bauckham chat on Unbelievable and it was a little disappointing from both views – Brierley waffles on far too much and needs to give more time to his interviewees, as ever (a perennial criticism of his otherwise good programme). I like Crossley and have read a fair bit of his work (and have conversed with him on email). Strangely enough, he has a very rare thesis on a very early dating of Mark which conservatives love. It’s a bit out there – it was the thesis for his phd I believe.
ReplyDeleteI will look into McCane – sounds interesting. Thanks. On Craig Evans, I remember debating with Peter S. Williams (a friend and fellow Tippling Philosopher) about the crucifixion, and the modelling it on a Psalm (22?), and he pulled in a Craig Evans quote. I researched all the references from Evans’ book to do with the quote and founf them to be dubious. One was a flat out lie – a dishonest use of a source. I have intuitively struggled with Evans since then, though I have (conservative exegete) friends who rate him.
On Mark dating, you simply take the conservative view on dating. I don’t. Surprise surprise. However,, 65-75 is the orthodox, so I don’t get your opinion on my defence of a later dating (“Why you think the unorthodox view of a post-70AD date for Mark is orthodox is anybodies guess, since only fringe scholars hold to such views.”)
Wiki (obviously not the Gospel Truth TM) – “The gospel was written in Greek shortly after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70, possibly in Syria.)
But there are many other places with better pedigree (although wiki references the book I have quoted for this, so that’s nice! It’s not my book, in truth, but I have long term borrowed it off a chaplain who confessed to me that the bible is myth, and anyone who thinks it isn’t needs their head checked! Interesting job foundation.)
It comes down to temple reference. This is not the scope of this discussion, but it is interesting to note, from a methodological hermeneutic, liberal Christian scholastics is more likely to be correct than conservative. There is a presupposition to conservative academia that forces its hand. The conclusions must support a literal or infallible exegesis. This presuppositional stance, even though it may still be right, means that the methodology of these scholars infers a working FROM the truth of the bible rather than TO the truth of the bible. Liberal scholar are not bound by presupposition necessarily (although many will have agendas still) so, on the whole, Liberal Christian scholars can appraise evidence and go where the evidence takes them, rather than force the evidence to fit a conservative view, or only contrive interpretations which fit this conclusion.
“"There are also other anachronisms and evidences that support a later than 70 dating."
ReplyDeleteThere isn't any evidence that favours such a dating.”
That’s just wrong. “Exegetes base this conclusion primarily on the prophecy of Jesus in Mark 13that appears to refer to events of First Jewish Revolt in 66-70, in which Roman troops leveled the Temple in Jerusalem. For the vast majority of interpreters these passage indicates that the writer is aware that the Temple in Jerusalem either has been destroyed, or is about to be destroyed. Additional support for this may be derived from the focus on plundered and destroyed Temples in the Old Testament hypertexts the writer incorporated into the Gospel. Numerous exegetes have pointed out that Mark 13:9-13 refers to events that would take place long after Jesus' time….
Mark 13:13 even refers to "my name's sake" which is a clear anachronism, for the term "Christian" to describe Jesus' followers dates from long after this time. Early Christians referred to themselves as "the Saints" or "the Elect," as the authentic letters of Paul demonstrate. Exegetes also see verse 11:17 as referring to the occupation of the Temple by Jewish insurgents during the Jewish War of 66-77. Joel Marcus (1992) has argued that the situation presupposed in Mark 12:9 echoes the situation in northern Palestine during the opening phases of the war, when Syrians and Jews massacred each other in great numbers, according to Josephus. …
[Msark 13:14] This is the famous "Abomination of Desolation" that the writer derived from Daniel 9:27. The majority of scholars hold that it refers to the occupation of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 by Roman troops, who "worshipped" their standards there, according to Josephus. The reference to "false Christs" in 13:21-22 may well be a reference to messianic pretenders like Simon Bar Giora, a key Jewish leader of that war, which would also put the Gospel of Mark after 70.”
Etc etc
“"99.9% of Islamic scholars believe the historicity of Muhummad – does this make it a fact? No way, Jose."
ReplyDeleteI am not aware of a single historian who denies that Muhammad actually existed.”
You know you are dealing with the point here. The point is not whether he existed, but whether the ‘historical’ claims of his life are true. On your and Craig’s logic, they are true. On your and Craig’s logic, you must believe the supernatural claims of Muhummad to be true. You see, a far bigger majority of the relevant scholars believe them to be true, just like Habermas’ 75% of NT scholars (itself a dubious claim on methodological bases) means that the empty tomb is true.
“This just goes to show how little you know about the subject. It is not just 'conservatives,' 'evangelicals,' and 'apologists,' but even highly critical scholars such as Gerd Ludemann. Ironically enough, Theissen and Kurz, whom you appeal to, agree.”
I would have to disagree. Theissen’s book, if you know it, is a compendium of historical Jesus academia. They don’t really cast their own opinions but give an overview of the history of historical Jesus research. As such it is an extensive and objective appraisal of the landscape. Furthermore, Ludemann does not adhere to the empty tomb thesis:
“The New Testament scholar G. Ludemann (Resurrection, 1995) argues just as emphatically for a subjective vision theory. For him the tradition of the empty tomb is an unhistorical apologetic legend.” (Theissen p.482)
So Ludemann actually believes the ANTITHESIS of what you claim.
Furthermore, a quote from Craig’s ‘Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment…” p179:
“Ludemann, Hoover and Goulder all regard the story [empty tomb] as legend.”
Now, I’m not going to dwell on this, and laud your mistake here as might happen in reverse; just to be more careful on your claims. Not many highly critical scholars do buy it, or if they do, they provide more probable explanations. See this excellent overview of the case for and against the empty tomb: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_kirby/tomb/.
“"You haven’t YET given me an example of an efficient cause beginning to exist that is not the BB universe itself."
ReplyDeleteI don't need to.”
Er, that is what the KCA is making claims of (or assuming, even), so, really, you do.
“"Causality is a difficult thing, especially when some things have no definable cause..."
There aren't any things that have no definable cause. If you're referring to things such as quantum fluctuations, these are still very much caused events. They might be non-deterministic (we don't know since the act of observation changes quantum particles), but does not make them non-caused. To suggest otherwise is to commit equivocation, like Stenger does.”
No that’s not what I am talking about. See Dennett’s rendition of the French Foreign Legion dilemma for indefinable causality.
“No, KCA seeks to prove that the universe came from something. This is why I think you don't understand the argument because you continue to make some, in my opinion, pretty egregious errors.”
It may seek to prove that. It fails on the premises it supplies. This may need reformulating, but as it stands, it falls.
I am pretty stoked about this – I have just found it out. You will also be interested to know that Peter Millican used this argument against Craig in their debate. As Wintery Knight points out in relaying Millican’s opening statement (and Millican is an excellent philosopher):
“1. There is no evidence that whatever begins to exist requires a cause. All the evidence we have of things beginning to exist are when something is created from rearrangements of other things that already existed.
The closest analog we have to something coming into being from nothing is quantum particles coming into being from nothing, and that causation is random.
There is no evidence that thoughts can bring about physical effects, and Bill is arguing for a mental cause to the origin of the universe.
Even if things that begin to exist IN the universe have causes, it doesn’t hold for the universe as a whole. Bill is committing the fallacy of composition.
Time begins with the universe, but our experience of causation is that it is a temporal process. So if there is no time “prior to” the universe’s beginning, then how can there be a cause to the universe?
It’s possible that there could be something outside our universe that is eternal.
It’s also possible that the Big Bang could be wrong, and this universe could oscillate eternally and not require a beginning.
2. There are cosmological theories that avoid the beginning of the universe by positing a prior period of contraction prior to the Big Bang.
The beginning of this universe depends on general relativity, and that theory breaks down at the level of quantum mechanics.
3. There is no evidence that minds can exist without an underlying physical system. So even if there is a cause of the universe, then it is neither an abstract object nor a mind. It would have to be something else, and not something we are familiar with – we are just not in a position to speculate of what it could be.”
So when you are slagging me off for ‘not knowing what I am talking about’ or similar, please bear in mind that one of the best philosophers in the country sees this as utterly valid and used it against Craig in debate. It’s a shame it’s just two decades too late!
"The results of the experiment are what you would expect on determinism (as are almost all twin studies data)."
ReplyDeleteIt isn't. Genetic and environmental effects are admitted as playing an influential role in decision making by pretty much every interactive-dualist, etc. Quite simply, such a view is incredibly naive.
You are absolutely right. However, you are forgetting that your genes regulate HOW and WHEN and in what context you react to your environment. I’m sure you have been keeping abreast of the latest research into epigenetics – a whole new layer of determining influences describing how our genes define the way we react to the environment. In the old days, old school genetic determinism later became scoffed at. Now we understand that it defines the influence of the environment. Both or which, of course, are outside of our sphere of influence when making a decision. Of course, I posit that this invalidates the Principle of Alternate Possibilities – the nub of determinism.
“There isn't any evidence for determinism. Since in order for us to recognise that their is evidence for determinism, determinism would have to be false.”
I’m not sure I’m with you there. Are you appealing to the Argument from Reason. See Beversluis if so.
“"Just to reiterate, I find it fascinating that for the first time in 20 years, WLC has dropped the KCA from all his debates in the UK. Why? If it is soooo good, why has he done this?"
Just to reiterate, I find it fascinating that you keep asserting Craig didn't use KCA... even though he used them in all of his debates. You clearly are delusional.”
He didn’t, and people recognise this and have commented on it. I gave you his reformulation – the empirical evidence is there. Listen to the debates. You literally cannot argue this point!
"You are still not getting this because you are equivocating terms here."
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm not. Simply barely asserting the same hackneyed garbage isn't going to change that. Since it seems painfully obvious to me that you haven't got the slightest clue about what you are talking about (and I suspect are deliberately being dishonest) it seems as if I am going to have quote Craig himself:
"In state/state causation one state of affairs causes another state of affairs to exist. For example, some wood's floating on water is caused by the displaced water's having a certain weight." Reasonable Faith, 3rd Edition, p154
"The univocal concept of "cause" employed throughout the argument is the concept of something which brings about or produces its effects. Whether this production involves transformation of already existing material or creation out of nothing is an incidental question. Thus, the charge of equivocation is groundless." Reasonable Faith, 3rd Edition, p155
This pretty much shits all over your false accusations of equivocation. Quod erat demonstratrum.
"...he has indeed reformulated the KCA."
"His new cosmological argument, which is NOT the KCA..."
Statement 1: Craig has reformulated KCA.
Statement 2: It isn't actually KCA.
Hmm...
The KCA is an argument that seeks to identify God as the transcendent cause of the universe. Craig's first formulation and second are different versions of the same argument. It's painful to watch you continuously make the same error over and over again.
"These causes ARE the universe as previously mentioned."
ReplyDeleteOnly if the universe is uncaused, but since the universe is itself is an effect that began to exist, it follows that it has a cause.
"I generally agree with that, though you could also posit (conceivably) a self-causing universe. I do not believe this to be the case, but it is an option, no matter how improbable."
Self-causing is metaphysically impossible. In order for something to cause itself, it would first have to exist in order to cause things to happen... but how can it cause itself to exist if it already exists?
"Maybe things are lost in translation. I was only confrontational in this manner to fight fire. Without wanting to reduce to playground chants, ‘you started it’ springs to mind."
You've been consistently writing (and speaking) in the same manner since the beginning. I didn't choose to make a big deal of it. You did, and are trying to imply that this is some how my fault.
"while you may laud Bauckham as many conservatives do, it is necessary to realise his agenda and treat his work with the same critical approach you would and should anyone else."
a) I'm not a "conservative."
b) I treat Bauckham the same as I treat any other scholar: consistently. For instance, he assumes Markan priority, which is something I disagree with. That used to be the consensus position, but has been challenged by many different scholars since at least the 70s if I recall correctly.
"Strangely enough, he has a very rare thesis on a very early dating of Mark which conservatives love. It’s a bit out there – it was the thesis for his phd I believe."
I don't care for an early dating, I care for a dating which best fits the facts, which is between 60-65AD at the latest. The Greek version of Matthew was written after 70AD (I think.)
"Thanks. On Craig Evans, I remember debating with Peter S. Williams (a friend and fellow Tippling Philosopher) about the crucifixion, and the modelling it on a Psalm (22?), and he pulled in a Craig Evans quote. I researched all the references from Evans’ book to do with the quote and founf them to be dubious. One was a flat out lie – a dishonest use of a source. I have intuitively struggled with Evans since then, though I have (conservative exegete) friends who rate him."
Oh dear, this just says it all really. As a side note, I find it ironic how you falsely accuse Evans of lying when you rely on Richard Carrier, who is a pathological liar whose misuse of sources and outright lies are legion.
"On Mark dating, you simply take the conservative view on dating."
No, I take the view that is supported from the evidence. That it happens to be a "conservative" view is evidence, in this case, that the conservative view is correct.
"There is a presupposition to conservative academia that forces its hand. The conclusions must support a literal or infallible exegesis."
ReplyDeleteThat is simply just not true. Michael Licona is a good example of this, in that he argues (quite convincingly) that the dead rising from their graves in Matthew is apocalyptic imagery not intended to be historical. William Lane Craig believes this view to be plausible too. So, not only is your argument an ad hominem genetic fallacy, but it is false. It would also help if you understood what inerrantists mean by inerrancy. Ironically enough, I'm not even an inerrantist.
"Liberal Christian scholars can appraise evidence and go where the evidence takes them, rather than force the evidence to fit a conservative view, or only contrive interpretations which fit this conclusion. "
Nice poisoning the well. Too bad for you it is:
a) not true, and;
b) invalid.
Liberal scholars such as the Jesus Seminar are notoriously biased. They are profoundly inconsistent (for instance rejecting sayings of Jesus that pass their own criteria of authenticity) and their methodology is alltogether slapdash. For instance, the Jesus Seminar argue that the Gospel of Thomas is earlier than the canonical Gospels, even though all the evidence points it being purely dependant on a deviant proto-Gnostic form of 2nd century Syriac Christianity. It's wording is even based on the Diatesseron, which was composed in 170AD! However, I think the most egregious (and hilarious) error they make is arguing that the Secret Gospel of Mark is genuine when it was forgery crafted by Morton Smith.
"So when you are slagging me off for ‘not knowing what I am talking about’ or similar, please bear in mind that one of the best philosophers in the country sees this as utterly valid and used it against Craig in debate. It’s a shame it’s just two decades too late!"
ReplyDeleteSorry, but relying on Millican won't do you any favours. I listened to that debate, and none of his objections hold any water. It's simply a rehash of all the old hackneyed complaints that have long since been refuted.
"You are absolutely right. However, you are forgetting that your genes regulate HOW and WHEN and in what context you react to your environment."
No they don't, do you even know what genes are? Genes are responsible for physiology. Your genes are influential when it comes to behaviour, not causal. For example, I might be genetically pre-disposed to feel a certain way. I might even have an urge to act a certain way in response to this. It does not follow, however, that I necessarily follow my genetic impulses. Indeed, instinctive impulses can be overcome. In fact, I manage to overcome genetic impulses on a daily basis.
"Are you appealing to the Argument from Reason. See Beversluis if so. "
There are many ratiological arguments, not just one.
"That’s just wrong."
ReplyDeleteThat's just your opinion. Not only do the arguments you make NOT establish a post-70AD date, but there are many many pieces of evidence which point in the other direction.
"the point is not whether he existed, but whether the ‘historical’ claims of his life are true."
ReplyDeleteThen why did you say exist? And what "historical claims?" You mean like how started Islam? How he fought a number of military campaigns? These aren't controversial. Unless you are referring to his "flying" to Jerusalem on a horse, in which case show me a single historian who argues that it happened. Something tells me that you will be looking for a very long time.
"On your and Craig’s logic, they are true. On your and Craig’s logic, you must believe the supernatural claims of Muhummad to be true. You see, a far bigger majority of the relevant scholars believe them to be true, just like Habermas’ 75% of NT scholars (itself a dubious claim on methodological bases) means that the empty tomb is true."
That's just patent dishonesty. No scholar agrees that the supernatural claims about Muhammad are true. Your blatant misrepresentation of Habermas and Craig's approach won't get you anywhere either. I'm not entirely sure why you thought you could get away with such an egregious error, but for future reference, don't bother doing it again.
"I would have to disagree."
I was thinking of the 1 Corinthians 15 creedal material. My bad.
"See this excellent overview of the case for and against the empty tomb: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_kirby/tomb/. "
ReplyDeleteI would say you have just lost all credibility you had, but then I realised, you can't lose credibility when you already have none.
Next you'll be telling me the pagan copycat thesis is a respectable historical argument. You might as well argue that the moon is made of green cheese.
"You are still not getting this because you are equivocating terms here."
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm not. Simply barely asserting the same hackneyed garbage isn't going to change that.”
I am not the one asserting here. I showed you how you are equivocating, you are merely asserting that you are not. THAT’s hackneyed.
“Since it seems painfully obvious to me that you haven't got the slightest clue about what you are talking about (and I suspect are deliberately being dishonest)”
This I find detestable. That is an ad hom, and a libellous claim that is simply not true. Again, those same accusations must surely be levelled at Peter Millican. Does he not have a clue what he is talking about? Is he being deliberately dishonest? Would you like to email him with those words?
“"In state/state causation one state of affairs causes another state of affairs to exist. For example, some wood's floating on water is caused by the displaced water's having a certain weight." Reasonable Faith, 3rd Edition, p154 “
Back to square 1. This is, indeed, what this whole argument is about.
“"The univocal concept of "cause" employed throughout the argument is the concept of something which brings about or produces its effects. Whether this production involves transformation of already existing material or creation out of nothing is an incidental question. Thus, the charge of equivocation is groundless." Reasonable Faith, 3rd Edition, p155
This pretty much shits all over your false accusations of equivocation. Quod erat demonstratrum. “
Oh, because he asserts it, it is true. I must remember this – no wonder you think you are constantly right, going on this! ;) This must be an addition to this later edition – I will check mine again. He is obviously reacting to this refutation which has started popping up (I know he reacted to it online in a video which was hilariously fallacious – like this, he simply asserted things beginning to exist etc). His claims of it being an incidental question is utterly incorrect. It is fundamental. Using the terms of the KCA, it becomes apparent that the KCA is invalid.
I can think of no other reason he has reformulated it than to get round this objection which has been mounting over the last few years.
“The KCA is an argument that seeks to identify God as the transcendent cause of the universe. Craig's first formulation and second are different versions of the same argument. It's painful to watch you continuously make the same error over and over again.””
I would say they are not different versions of the same argument. They are different versions of the cosmological argument, but not the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The cosmological argument is a family of arguments attempting to establish a First Mover. The KCA is a PARTICULAR version. He has changed the KCA into the CCA, if you like. As I said, that is fine, and it could work superbly. But that is a straw man for my argument. My argument is against the KCA and the KCA ONLY.
“"These causes ARE the universe as previously mentioned."
ReplyDeleteOnly if the universe is uncaused, but since the universe is itself is an effect that began to exist, it follows that it has a cause.”
I genuinely think you are missing my point.
What I am NOT saying:
1) that something can be uncaused
2) likewise that all things ARE caused (my points remain agnostic on this)
3) that the universe is uncaused
4) that the universe is caused
I am agnostic on points 1 and 2 because the universe is the only thing, so to speak, and thus I cannot induce conclusions on its behaviour form any other uniformity.
What I AM saying:
1) That the KCA cannot prove deductively or inductively that the universe is caused using the premises it provides.
2) That in order to do this, you would have to reformulate the argument (or equivocate on the terminology)
3) That you are equivocating on the terminology
“Self-causing is metaphysically impossible. In order for something to cause itself, it would first have to exist in order to cause things to happen... but how can it cause itself to exist if it already exists? “
Which is why I was careful to include the term conceivably, since we can conceive it otherwise we couldn’t discuss it.
“a) I'm not a "conservative."”
I think, I would have to check in case I am wrong, but I did not accuse YOU of being a conservative. I implied you use conservative academia and commented on the potential (but not necessary) pitfalls of so doing. Thus straw man?
“No, I take the view that is supported from the evidence. That it happens to be a "conservative" view is evidence, in this case, that the conservative view is correct.”
Fair enough, but we would need to argue this somewhere else if at all. My contention is that you claimed rather dogmatically that there was no later dating evidence, which is patently false. There is evidence for both sides, as ever, and it is in the weighing up that the damage is done.
“"There is a presupposition to conservative academia that forces its hand. The conclusions must support a literal or infallible exegesis."
ReplyDeleteThat is simply just not true. Michael Licona is a good example of this, in that he argues (quite convincingly) that the dead rising from their graves in Matthew is apocalyptic imagery not intended to be historical. William Lane Craig believes this view to be plausible too. So, not only is your argument an ad hominem genetic fallacy, but it is false. It would also help if you understood what inerrantists mean by inerrancy. Ironically enough, I'm not even an inerrantist.”
1) I am aware of all the shades of inerrantism and infallibilism etc, thanks you. I didn’t even mention the word inerrantist, so straw man?
2) My point was clearly about the philosophy / methodology of the scholastics, not the actuality. I was careful to state this: “This presuppositional stance, even though it may still be right, means that the methodology of these scholars infers a working FROM the truth of the bible rather than TO the truth of the bible. Liberal scholar are not bound by presupposition necessarily (although many will have agendas still) so, on the whole, Liberal Christian scholars can appraise evidence and go where the evidence takes them, rather than force the evidence to fit a conservative view, or only contrive interpretations which fit this conclusion.” The point here is this, as seen in an analogy. There are two sets of scholars looking for the truth of a set of claims A1, A2 … A20. Set X of scholars can only find the claims of set B about A to be true to hold their belief about set A (where A=B), regardless of evidence of interpretation. Set Y can find claims of sets B, C, D, E and F to be true of A and still hold to some kind of belief. Just from probability, It is more unlikely, given all the possibilities, that Set Y are more likely to find the truth, since if any of the truth does lie outside of A, then X cannot find them to be true.
I am merely talking about probability, not the reality of examples of people X and people Y. For every crackpot liberal, I can give you crackpot conservatives. I also explicitly said that certain Liberals clearly have their own agendas. Specifics were not my point. This same argument, broadly speaking, can be used against naturalism, too (and is). It has no bearing about who is ACTUALLY correct, but who is probabilistically correct. There are finer points to be made, but I’m sure you get the general idea.
“Sorry, but relying on Millican won't do you any favours. I listened to that debate, and none of his objections hold any water. It's simply a rehash of all the old hackneyed complaints that have long since been refuted.”
ReplyDeleteI find this interesting. If Craig’s KCA is perfect,a s you seem to imply, why did he change it? Why does he no longer use the KCA, but a different formulation of the cosmological argument? Why fix something that ain’t broke? You need to answer this, since you seem to think the argument is infallible. If is is logically infallible, and it does prove God to be the first mover, then why the hell change it?
“"You are absolutely right. However, you are forgetting that your genes regulate HOW and WHEN and in what context you react to your environment."
No they don't, do you even know what genes are? Genes are responsible for physiology. Your genes are influential when it comes to behaviour, not causal. For example, I might be genetically pre-disposed to feel a certain way. I might even have an urge to act a certain way in response to this. It does not follow, however, that I necessarily follow my genetic impulses. Indeed, instinctive impulses can be overcome. In fact, I manage to overcome genetic impulses on a daily basis.”
This is perhaps your weakest piece of writing yet. I suggest researching phenotypes (the complete observable characteristics of an organism or group, including anatomic, physiologic, biochemical, and behavioural traits, as determined by the interaction of genetic makeup and environmental factors). I can’t believe someone who professes such dogmatic views on these areas and disciplines doesn’t understand the basics of genetics and THEN accuses me of not even knowing what genes are. You start off by inferring genes are (merely) responsible for physiology, and then say they influence behaviour, almost going back on your word. You assert, nothing more, that genes are influential, but up to a point. You say that you can ’overcome’ them. This is brilliant. I can’t believe the amount of assertion you seem to do, and I’m not being ‘smug’ here. You say ‘I manage to overcome genetic impulses’. What makes the I? Genetic matter, perchance? So what is responsible for this choice to overcome your genes? Well, your phenotype! So your genes reacting to your environment which make you, you, are responsible for your choices. You are merely asserting some kind of libertarian free will without supplying any kind of mechanism. And accuse me of not knowing my genes?! Of course, this kind of determinism is supported by research into the proteome of each organism, and the epigenetics involved. Of course, genes and environment are both influential, but it is your genotype which is part of ‘you’, so to speak.
Your genes (more accurately, alleles) define your reaction to your environment in combination with your proteome and epigenetics. Epigenetics shows how quickly an organism can react to the environment in ways previously underestimated. This has been found out recently in plants as they are easy to study:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110916152401.htm
Also, twin studies are important in defining the influence of epigenetics:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128323.400-epigenetic-clue-to-schizophrenia-and-bipolar-disorder.html
and
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/30/10604.full
“Then why did you say exist? And what "historical claims?" You mean like how started Islam? How he fought a number of military campaigns? These aren't controversial. Unless you are referring to his "flying" to Jerusalem on a horse, in which case show me a single historian who argues that it happened. Something tells me that you will be looking for a very long time.”
ReplyDeleteWe are playing around with semantics here. By historicity of Muhummad I mean the historical claims of everything about him, in the same way the historicity of Jesus, to me, is not ‘did he exist historically at all?’ but are the claims of his existence as a whole historically viable. Ie, did he exist, was he born in Nazareth, did he feed the 5000 and so on?
The implications with Muhummad here, and I thought this would be more obvious (though I have argued this often with TPers so I may have taken verbal shortcuts) is this: 99% of ISLAMIC scholars (not just plain historians) maintain that the supernatural claims of Muhummad are true. 75% of NT scholars maintain the empty tomb (under Habermas). You and Craig claim this as supporting the truth claim of the ET. Aside from argumentum ad popularum claims, using that same logic, the supernatural (or even unsupported natural) claims of Muhummad should also be believed. This is obviously fallacious due to the overwhelming presuppoitional bias of the cadre of Islamic scholars. The slightly higher proportion of secular NT scholars might be reflected in the considerably lower 75% of NT scholars adhering to the ET.
You would be employing double standards to claim the veracity of the ET ‘fact’ based on the methodology of appealing to a percentage of presuppositional scholars.
“That's just patent dishonesty .No scholar agrees that the supernatural claims about Muhammad are true..”
Excuse me, put the rhetoric away and read my words. PLEASE STOP MISREPRESENTING ME, it does get tiresome. I used the phrase Islamic scholars. You have changed this to ‘scholar’, inferring some kind of generic historian. See Bart Ehrman’s work on the inability of historians to have anything to say on the truth claims of supernatural events- they are the lowest of all probabilities. Historians would settle for naturalistic explanations of the claims of both Jesus and Muhummad, since that is all their methodology allows. I am talking about Islamic scholars in relation to NT scholars to analogise Craig’s methodological problem.
“Your blatant misrepresentation of Habermas and Craig's approach won't get you anywhere either. I'm not entirely sure why you thought you could get away with such an egregious error, but for future reference, don't bother doing it again.”
It is an egregious error because… I didn’t say it. Stop editing my words and building straw men please.
“I would say you have just lost all credibility you had, but then I realised, you can't lose credibility when you already have none.”
Mature.
Good to see you didn’t actually cover any of the substantive points I made on causality, such as the billiard ball analogy. This also replies to Craig’s point etc.
Peter S Williams, a friend and Christian philosopher who debated WITH Craig against Ahmed and Copson. Here agrees tha the KCA uses equivocation:
ReplyDelete"Craig’s Kalam argument, and the Fallacy of Equivocation
Peter S. Williams suggests that William Lane Craig’s formulation may commit the fallacy of equivocation in its definition of
‘begin to exist’.
He proposes that there are two possible definitions of ‘begin to exist’.
1. Something comes into existence within a reality that already exists.
2. Something comes into existence where previously there was nothing at all.
Does Craig’s form of the Kalam argument use ‘begin to exist’ in these different ways?
Williams then suggests a modification to the Kalam argument that he believes will resolve the issue. He puts it like this...
1. Every physical event must have a cause
2. There was a first physical event of the universe
3. Therefore that first physical event of the universe must have had a cause (and that cause must have been nonphysical
– it cannot have been physical because it cannot have come before the first physical event!)"
source: Damaris Trust
I still maintain that you are equivocating on begins to exist, and you STILL haven't given me an example of a cause or effect which begins to exist.
"I am not the one asserting here. I showed you how you are equivocating, you are merely asserting that you are not. THAT’s hackneyed."
ReplyDeleteYes, you are, and I find it hilarious that you still persist in your pernicious and quixotic delusions despite the fact I have quoted Craig stating in what sense HE means "cause." Since Craig is the foremost defender of Kalam in recent years (so much so that "more articles have been published on Craig's defence of the Kalam argument than any other contemporary argument for God's existence" - Quentin Smith) and since we are discussing HIS formulation of Kalam, then I think when he specifies what HE means and what HIS argument means, then we can take him at his word. Indeed, I suspect that his new formulation was to counter shit-for-brained morons such as yourself, who blindly keep asserting: "HURR DURR, EQUIVOCATION, DERP, DERP, DERP." despite constantly being corrected.
"This I find detestable. That is an ad hom, and a libellous claim that is simply not true."
Oh really? You keep claiming that KCA equivocates... even though I have explained in what sense the KCA takes the word "cause" to mean, and even quoted Craig specifying what it means. So, either you are deliberately playing fast and loose with the truth, or your level of intelligence is lower than the ankle socks of a particularly small beetle, standing in a ditch, in a quarry, in the low country.
"Again, those same accusations must surely be levelled at Peter Millican. Does he not have a clue what he is talking about? Is he being deliberately dishonest? Would you like to email him with those words?"
Again, appealing to Millican isn't going to help you. Since he isn't a smug douche who refuses to accept correction in the face of evidence.
"Oh, because he asserts it, it is true. I must remember this – no wonder you think you are constantly right, going on this! ;) This must be an addition to this later edition – I will check mine again. He is obviously reacting to this refutation which has started popping up. His claims of it being an incidental question is utterly incorrect. It is fundamental. Using the terms of the KCA, it becomes apparent that the KCA is invalid."
You see, this is why I conclude you are deliberately being dishonest (and also don't know what you're talking about.) I quote Craig specifically stating what he means by "cause" and you still barely assert to the contrary. So, either you are an idiot, deliberately being dishonest, or maybe you've developed the ability to read people's minds, or presume to know what Craig means better than he does himself? And no, it hasn't started "popping up" since it's an argument used by Adolf Grunbaum in 1990.
Essentially, what is going on here is that Craig means X by the word "cause" but you have taken it to mean Y. That's fine. However, when Craig points out that he means X and not Y, you still assert he means Y. That is not fine. This might be why he has changed his formulation of Kalam. Because people keep misunderstanding it. Although since I am not a psychic, and do not presume to pscyhoanalyse people based on minor things such as producing a slightly different version of a particular argument, I do not presume to know Craig's thoughts or intentions. I care about the arguments.
ReplyDelete"I can think of no other reason he has reformulated it than to get round this objection which has been mounting over the last few years."
Since you're in the business of repeated appeals to motive, I'll go for the more likely, more plausible option: he reformulated it so there is no possibility of repeatedly being straw manned and misrepresented by people like you.
"I would say they are not different versions of the same argument."
By your logic, the original KCA, Craig's first reformulated KCA, and his second reformulated KCA are all different arguments. Even they are all arguments based on efficient successive causality.
"But that is a straw man for my argument. My argument is against the KCA and the KCA ONLY. "
Your argument is based on a straw man of the KCA. Irony.
"1) That the KCA cannot prove deductively or inductively that the universe is caused using the premises it provides.
ReplyDelete2) That in order to do this, you would have to reformulate the argument (or equivocate on the terminology)
3) That you are equivocating on the terminology"
Your argument is based on a straw man/misunderstanding of Kalam. I have pointed this out to you on multiple occasions now, so there is no excuse for your continued error.
It's not so much your arguments are invalid in that they do not address what Craig himself specifically means. You could have manned up and simply admitted that your argument does not affect Craig's KCA, but instead you have opted for slinging accusations of equivocation in the face of direct evidence to the contrary. This is deplorable, not to mention immature, and is one reason why I haven't been conversing with you as courteously as I normally would.
"Which is why I was careful to include the term conceivably, since we can conceive it otherwise we couldn’t discuss it."
Thank you for explaining.
"I think, I would have to check in case I am wrong, but I did not accuse YOU of being a conservative."
You said: "whilst you laud Bauckham, as many conservatives do." Thus it was strongly implied that either: a) I am a conservative or; b) I am like a conservative.
"I implied you use conservative academia and commented on the potential (but not necessary) pitfalls of so doing."
I see. Yes, I recognise the pitfalls of relying on a single scholar, or a particular group. However, I do not cite scholars based on their background but on whether or not I find their arguments convincing. Alternatively, I might quote someone who I disagree with who makes a good argument, or so I can point out what I disagree with and why.
"Fair enough, but we would need to argue this somewhere else if at all. My contention is that you claimed rather dogmatically that there was no later dating evidence, which is patently false. There is evidence for both sides, as ever, and it is in the weighing up that the damage is done."
Well then, perhaps I should have said: "the evidence typically used to infer a post-70AD is insufficient to establish such a hypothesis or to overturn the arguments against such a hypothesis?" I have Asperger's Syndrome, so sometimes I use language in atypical ways.
"I am aware of all the shades of inerrantism and infallibilism etc, thanks you. I didn’t even mention the word inerrantist, so straw man?"
ReplyDeleteYou said: "the conclusions must support a literal or infallible exegesis."
Michael Licona argues against a literal exegesis. Ironically enough, William Lane Craig regularly entertains the possibility of errors in the Bible.
"It has no bearing about who is ACTUALLY correct, but who is probabilistically correct."
Thus your argument is irrelevant.
"99% of ISLAMIC scholars (not just plain historians) maintain that the supernatural claims of Muhummad are true. 75% of NT scholars maintain the empty tomb (under Habermas). You and Craig claim this as supporting the truth claim of the ET."
ReplyDeleteSorry, but this is just dishonest. New Testament scholars are wide and diverse in their opinions and arguments, and are comprised of many groups. You're comparing apples to oranges.
"You would be employing double standards to claim the veracity of the ET ‘fact’ based on the methodology of appealing to a percentage of presuppositional scholars."
Yes, because a wide swath of academia is "appealing to a percentage of presuppositional scholars." Not. Secondly, you continue to misrepresent the methodology of Craig and Habemas, et al. They are specifically appealing to scholars who disagree with them. Secondly, they aren't arguing this "proves" these are facts. This only goes to show your lack of familiarity (or perhaps even wilful misrepresentation of) Habermas, Craig, et al. since they give arguments for why they are facts wholly apart from appeals to consensus. Appealing to a consensus of NT scholars (which includes critical scholars, liberals, non-evangelicals, et al.) just demonstrates that these "facts" are relatively uncontroversial.
I refer you to Michael Licona's new book, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach:
"I wish to be clear that the minimal facts approach of Habermas, and the nuances one I will be taking, are not to be confused with a "consensus" approach in which a fact is identified because a strong majority of scholars grant it. Habermas is also careful to consider the arguments provided by the strong majority of scholars who grant a particular fact. The strength of supporting arguments and their ability to answer counterarguments are of primary value. Something does not become a "fact" because the majority of scholars believe it." - Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, IVP, (2010), p279
As a side note, I am friend's with Licona's son-in-law and have an opportunity to interview Licona next year when I visit the States. If so, then I shall upload it onto YouTube.
"See Bart Ehrman’s work on the inability of historians to have anything to say on the truth claims of supernatural events- they are the lowest of all probabilities."
Ehrman has already been refuted. Secondly, I am extremely sceptical of Ehrman given his many and profuse errors which he has been repeatedly called on but has totally failed to even so much as respond let alone change his arguments. It also seems as if he has gone further into la-la cuckoo crackpot land than before now.
"Historians would settle for naturalistic explanations of the claims of both Jesus and Muhummad, since that is all their methodology allows."
ReplyDeleteSorry, but such a methodology is invalid. A priori dismissal of a claim because it goes against your personal beliefs regarding how the world works is simply not conducive to honest historical enquiry. One can only come to a conclusion about a claim after an analysis. Now, it might very well be that supernatural claims have a very low initial probability of actually being true (and I would be inclined to agree), however, to conclude that a supernatural claim is false because of this is invalid. Essentially, it is nothing more than Hume's in principal arguments. It could be that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, or it could be that Jesus did rise from the dead. The only way to settle the matter is to look at the evidence.
"I am talking about Islamic scholars in relation to NT scholars to analogise Craig’s methodological problem."
Sorry, but your analogy is patently invalid, since the halls of NT scholarship aren't made up entirely, or even mostly, of conservative evangelical Christian scholars.
"It is an egregious error because… I didn’t say it. Stop editing my words and building straw men please."
Sure. I quote back your own words back to you verbatim and I'm "editing" your words. IT'S A CONSPIRACY!
"Mature."
You're the only appealing to extremely dubious internet sources, not me. Infidels.org is the atheistic equivalent of answersingenesis.
"Good to see you didn’t actually cover any of the substantive points I made on causality, such as the billiard ball analogy. This also replies to Craig’s point etc."
I've already countered all your points. Your arguments don't work against KCA, because that is not how KCA uses the word "cause." Your bare assertions to the contrary, and in the face of direct quotations from Dr. Craig himself, do not change this.
"Peter S Williams... agrees that the KCA uses equivocation"
ReplyDeleteFrom your own source:
"Peter S. Williams suggests that William Lane Craig’s formulation MAY commit the fallacy of equivocation..." (emphasis mine)"
Indeed, he asks the question: DOES the Kalam mean "begins to exist" in these two different ways? From Craig's own words the answer is no, and I am guessing the reformulated version of Kalam that Craig himself has offered is so that the KCA cannot be interpreted in any other way than the way he intends it.
"I still maintain that you are equivocating on begins to exist"
Good for you. I still maintain that you are deliberately misrepresenting what Craig means by "cause" and "begins to exist" since I have quoted Craig stating what he actually means and yet you still continue in your error.
By the way, if you're finding the character limit annoying (I know I am) then feel free to head over to TheologyWeb.com and you can discuss these issues/debate me there. My current user name there is An Astute Gentleman.
ReplyDelete"I think when he specifies what HE means and what HIS argument means, then we can take him at his word. Indeed, I suspect that his new formulation was to counter shit-for-brained morons such as yourself, who blindly keep asserting:"
ReplyDeleteAn admission that he is changing the words to suit his meaning. Nice equivocation Craig. I will read on, but I will not reply. If you said that to my face, I'd put you on the ground in a flash. My point is that both you AND he are equivocating, so it's pointless appealing to his assertion on the semantics.
As for the rest, that's just bloody rude. There is no need for that. This is exactly the unprofessional and immature attitude I was protesting against. I don't have to waste my time to be greeted by that in the morning. I was otherwise enjoying this discussion and would otherwise like to continue it. If you want to continue it, then you know where to contact me. Maybe you've spent a little too much time around JP Holding.
And before you accuse me of running off because 'it's getting too hot' or something similar, I have replied to all your points (on my laptop). I just object to being spoken to in a way that makes me that angry. I don't live to feel angry, thank you. I know you admit to having AS, and I don't want to bring it in to the discussion, but I have taught dozens of people with AS and they often suffer with empathy issues. Maybe, in this way, this mitigates your approach. Should I have to put up with it? No.
ReplyDeleteAPOLOGY: On reading back the last post, I used the words 'admit to having AS'. It might be construed that 'admit' has a moral nuance to it. I did not mean anything by 'admit to having' other than on your blog info, you declaring it to be something you have!
ReplyDelete"An admission that he is changing the words to suit his meaning. Nice equivocation Craig."
ReplyDeleteYes. Because clarifying what one means is "changing the words." I can only wonder how your grasp on the English language can be so poor.
"If you said that to my face, I'd put you on the ground in a flash."
And you'd get my elbow in your face. I find it telling that you think violence is an appropriate response. A real man keeps his cool. I nearly lost my temper and used the F word in response to you, but decided against it because I felt it was not warranted in the situation.
"As for the rest, that's just bloody rude. There is no need for that. This is exactly the unprofessional and immature attitude I was protesting against. I don't have to waste my time to be greeted by that in the morning."
Maybe you should have thought about that before you shot your mouth off, making defamatory remarks against Dr. Craig's character. False accusations of deliberate equivocation tends to make me less inclined to be polite.
"I was otherwise enjoying this discussion and would otherwise like to continue it. If you want to continue it, then you know where to contact me."
Fine. Go to TWeb, register and start a thread in the Apologetics area.
"Maybe you've spent a little too much time around JP Holding."
Maybe you've got your head far too up your own arse. If you can't handle a little strong language, then perhaps you shouldn't go around slagging people off? Dr. Craig might take such attacks on his character politely, but it does not mean that I, or others, will.
"I just object to being spoken to in a way that makes me that angry."
I've managed to keep on replying to you, even though I find your defamatory remarks insulting, and your attitude obnoxious. I wouldn't have bought it into the discussion at all if you hadn't accused me of "starting it."
Nowhere have I claimed Craig has shit-for-brains or similar. Get a grip. Let's review your attitude:
ReplyDelete"or your level of intelligence is lower than the ankle socks of a particularly small beetle, standing in a ditch, in a quarry, in the low country."
"to counter shit-for-brained morons such as yourself"
"Oh goody. Another mare's nest of non-sequiturs, glib remarks, onanistic self-congratulation, and a plethora of other glaring errors, logical fallacies, and factual discrepancies" (and you claim I deserve abuse for saying Craig is 'dishonest' - serious double standards.
"I find your naive, poorly-thought out philosophy amusing."
"You clearly are delusional"
"Since it seems painfully obvious to me that you haven't got the slightest clue about what you are talking about (and I suspect are deliberately being dishonest)"
Etc etc.
Would craig resort to this? I don't think so. To claim, in the same breath as saying all of that, that "I find your defamatory remarks insulting", is amusing. Look, you've got a lot to say for yourself, most of it interesting even if I do not agree. For the record, I am going to post my responses, otherwise I have wasted my time, but I will call this quits in the interest of common decency. I rate common decency. If you want to continue this, then let's agree some ground rules involving common decency. if you wouldn't say it to someone's face, then don't say it on the internet. It's easy to hide behind the anonymity of a computer screen, but it's not great.
“You see, this is why I conclude you are deliberately being dishonest (and also don't know what you're talking about.) I quote Craig specifically stating what he means by "cause" and you still barely assert to the contrary. So, either you are an idiot, deliberately being dishonest, or maybe you've developed the ability to read people's minds, or presume to know what Craig means better than he does himself? And no, it hasn't started "popping up" since it's an argument used by Adolf Grunbaum in 1990.”
ReplyDeleteThis is nuts. I am not accusing YOU of equivocating and Craig not, because his meanings are fine!! I am saying Craig is equivocating. You keep appealing to Craig as if that suddenly sorts it out. HE is the one equivocating, you are just lapping up what he says uncritically, it appears to me. If he is using different meanings, if he is not using ‘begins’ or defending ‘begins’ in a way consistent with its generally understood meaning, and so on, then he is equivocating. You seem to be admitting he is doing this.
Craig’s answers to Grunbaum were poor and under-developed (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/origin.html). He amounts to claiming that it refers, as you claim, to efficient causality. But the entire point of this, which is a much more defined argument than Grunbaum’s, is that the causes, which are effects themselves, are one singular thing – the universe itself. As Craig says, “Whether such production involves transformation of previously existing materials or creation ex nihilo is completely incidental. That this is so is evident from the fact that the proponent of the argument must confront and deal with the objection that the first cause may not have created ex nihilo, but instead transformed an eternal, quiescent universe into a universe in change (Goetz [1989]). So the argument is clearly not equivocal.”
And that’s it. That’s Craig’s defence of the equivocation! He has not grasped that the causes and effect are the universe itself. He has not grasped the true nature of the alleged equivocation. Yes, he can be accused of creation ex material and applying it to ex nihilo, and that is still valid, even given his appeal to Goetz – he is in no way proving the univocal sense of causality – he is no way proving you can apply an ex meteria causality to ex nihilo. All he does is assert the univocality of causality. He can’t prove it because we have never experienced ex nihilo creation other then, potentially, the BB. This is a common criticism, but it is not the criticism, exactly, that I am presenting. I have presented the case that the causes and effects are synonymous. They are a single cause / effect evident from the BB or similar. You simply cannot quantize them. The argument is circular.
“Essentially, what is going on here is that Craig means X by the word "cause" but you have taken it to mean Y. That's fine. However, when Craig points out that he means X and not Y, you still assert he means Y. That is not fine. “
ReplyDeleteThis is why he HAS to reformulate it. Philosophy and logic is about tight use of language (in many ways, it IS language) and so you have to be careful. He cannot take an argument called the KCA and change its meaning but keep the words and still call it the KCA!!! This is equivocation. If you are admitting he is doing this, then you are admitting he is equivocating. By all means, change the argument. If the words don’t mean what is ascribed to them by our use of language, then he needs to change his words. You can do it for him. Change the words, present an argument that doesn’t equivocate, and let’s discuss that.
“I do not presume to know Craig's thoughts or intentions. I care about the arguments.”
Fair enough, but the arguments must make semantic sense. With the words Craig uses, they don’t (not the logic, the premises, of course).
“It's not so much your arguments are invalid in that they do not address what Craig himself specifically means. You could have manned up and simply admitted that your argument does not affect Craig's KCA, but instead you have opted for slinging accusations of equivocation in the face of direct evidence to the contrary. This is deplorable, not to mention immature, and is one reason why I haven't been conversing with you as courteously as I normally would.”
I think this, eventually, may ne the nub of our disagreement.
I present a refutation of the KCA based on what it means.
You claim Craig means something else by these words.
I claim that this means he is equivocating the KCA and it is therefore invalid.
You claim, in effect, so what, deal with Craig’s ‘sense’ of the argument.
I maintain I am only refuting the KCA, any other sense needs to be formulated into a syllogism that works in order to critique it.
And that’s where we are. I will continue maintaining that the KCA is problematic. You or Craig need to produce a logical syllogism which reflects the meaning which you are trying to convey. After looking at that, we can deal with it.
“Thus it was strongly implied that either: a) I am a conservative or; b) I am like a conservative.”
ReplyDeleteFair enough, it would have been b) since I do not know you enough to claim to know your exegetical standpoint.
“"I implied you use conservative academia and commented on the potential (but not necessary) pitfalls of so doing."
I see. Yes, I recognise the pitfalls of relying on a single scholar, or a particular group. However, I do not cite scholars based on their background but on whether or not I find their arguments convincing. Alternatively, I might quote someone who I disagree with who makes a good argument, or so I can point out what I disagree with and why.”
Cool. Agreed.
"Fair enough, but we would need to argue this somewhere else if at all. My contention is that you claimed rather dogmatically that there was no later dating evidence, which is patently false. There is evidence for both sides, as ever, and it is in the weighing up that the damage is done."
Well then, perhaps I should have said: "the evidence typically used to infer a post-70AD is insufficient to establish such a hypothesis or to overturn the arguments against such a hypothesis?" I have Asperger's Syndrome, so sometimes I use language in atypical ways.
Cool. When we are debating the logic of arguments like the KCA the whole time, we end up being hypercritical of language and every word we type. On the one hand this is useful for clarity, on the other hand one can often get bogged down by linguistics (the case in hand?! ;))
“"I am aware of all the shades of inerrantism and infallibilism etc, thanks you. I didn’t even mention the word inerrantist, so straw man?"
You said: "the conclusions must support a literal or infallible exegesis."”
Although the common sense interpretation is synonymous, there are, supposedly, distinctions. See Sociology of Religion, 1990, Biblical Literalism and Inerrancy: A Methodological Investigation (the difference between literalism and inerrancy is meaningful to most doctrinally conservative respondents). That said, the 1989 Sociology of Religion, Biblical Literalism and Inerrancy: Does the Difference Make a Difference? Article shows that while there are differences, they are small. However, this is just nitpicking.
“Michael Licona argues against a literal exegesis. Ironically enough, William Lane Craig regularly entertains the possibility of errors in the Bible. “
ReplyDeleteI find Craig’s position fascinating. He often says, when in debate about this, ‘worst case scenario, the OT is fallible”. This protects his logical position on God, whilst not openly admitting to inerrancy. He is clever and deviant here. He has done well to avoid confrontation on this as he refuses to be called out. I think many Christians don’t want to call him out on it because they know it will shoot them in the foot, as he is their best spokesperson. That’s just my opinion, though, but it does see, to be the case.
"It has no bearing about who is ACTUALLY correct, but who is probabilistically correct."
Thus your argument is irrelevant.
So the cumulative case for God, and the answers for the Problem of Evil based on our lack of knowledge of God’s reasons, thus deferring to interpretations of probabilities, are irrelevant? All arguments based on probability are irrelevant? As a methodological point, I think it is very important to know the manner in which confirmation bias in exegesis limits the conservative scholar in what their conclusions can possibly be.
“Sorry, but this is just dishonest. New Testament scholars are wide and diverse in their opinions and arguments, and are comprised of many groups. You're comparing apples to oranges.”
1) I am not being dishonest.
2) This is a case put forward very well by Avalos in ‘The End of Biblical Studies’. Say what you like about Avalos, his work here was good, as is, I believe, his work in the new release on slavery which I would like to read.
3) Private communication with James Crossley some years ago led to the same conclusion. The overwhelming majority of published NT scholars are Christian, with biases for the validity of the claims.
4) I have had this debate before with a friend. I emailed every single UK university or similar offering theological qualifications. I asked whether a) the faculty were published and whether they were Christian, and b) whether the students went on to be published and were Christian. It was an attempt to get a cross section of the people who are and would become NT scholars in the UK. Not many emails were returned, sadly, but I think it was either 100% or very close to of both sections were Christian. As a straw poll, that was quite interesting. My partner’s daughter studies Religious Studies at Uni. All her faculty are believers, virtually all the students are, and she was until she deconverted (nothing to do with me, but her study itself). As Ebon Musings says, “Even if we grant that dubious 75% figure, what Habermas fails to acknowledge is that most of the scholars who study the historicity of Jesus are Christians, and are unlikely to produce conclusions that deviate from orthodoxy, even if - as in this case - those conclusions are supported by no evidence outside the biblical record itself. Habermas' alleged "historical facts" are just the tenets of Christian belief presented in a facade of neutrality.” Now, Carrier has extensively critiqued the methodology used by Habermas. But really, it’s fairly obvious. Who will care enough about the bible and Chritianity to spend all their lives researching it? Overwhelmingly, Christians. The famous secular published scholars are famous BECAUSE they are secular, and stick out like a sore thumb. If you took the proportion of all biblical exegetical literature which was done by secular scholars, you would find them to be a tiny minority. Furthermore, 25% is a more than sizeable minority.
“Secondly, they aren't arguing this "proves" these are facts. This only goes to show your lack of familiarity (or perhaps even wilful misrepresentation of) Habermas, Craig, et al. since they give arguments for why they are facts wholly apart from appeals to consensus.”
ReplyDeleteThe fact that they term them as ‘facts’ is disingenuous in the first place! If wholly 1 in 4 relevant scholars disagree within a wholly biased framework, that has to tell you something. Calling them fact is a little presumptuous!
“Appealing to a consensus of NT scholars (which includes critical scholars, liberals, non-evangelicals, et al.) just demonstrates that these "facts" are relatively uncontroversial.”
Because you falsely increase the proportion of secular or truly critical scholars. For example, I believe Habermas cut out ‘fringe’ scholars. Who decides who is ‘fringe’ – Habermas? Why? Because they disagree with his conclusions wildly? Is that a fair cross section? Etc etc.
“Something does not become a "fact" because the majority of scholars believe it." - Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, IVP, (2010), p279”
Maybe Craig should take a leaf out of his book.
“As a side note, I am friend's with Licona's son-in-law and have an opportunity to interview Licona next year when I visit the States. If so, then I shall upload it onto YouTube.”
Sweet. I like Licona – nice guy.
“Ehrman has already been refuted.”
On this methodological point? Was it terminal? Refuted from your point of view, or is the argument ‘objectively’ defunct?
“"Historians would settle for naturalistic explanations of the claims of both Jesus and Muhummad, since that is all their methodology allows."
Sorry, but such a methodology is invalid.”
No it’s not, this is Ehrman’s point. In it’s simplest terms: History is probability. A historian's job is to make educated guesses about historical events, always selecting the most probable explanation. Miracles are, by definition, improbable events - grossly improbable otherwise they wouldn't be miracles. Consequently, a natural explanation will always be more probable than a miraculous explanation. This is not an argument against the possibility of miracles, it is merely an argument that miracles are out of reach of historians. An historian will never conclude a miracle occurred.
“A priori dismissal of a claim because it goes against your personal beliefs regarding how the world works is simply not conducive to honest historical enquiry.”
ReplyDeleteThat is where you misinterpret the point. It is not a priori dismissal. It is an assessment of probability that will always have historians assessing miracles as the least probable event. That is not itself based on a priori views on miracles, but a mere statistical analysis of them being the actual explanation of any given event.
“One can only come to a conclusion about a claim after an analysis. Now, it might very well be that supernatural claims have a very low initial probability of actually being true (and I would be inclined to agree), however, to conclude that a supernatural claim is false because of this is invalid.”
I wasn’t aware I said this, and nor did Ehrman. Also, are you inclining to agree with a something that you claimed was invalid earlier? Or are you differentiating the probability from the assessment of likely explanations by historians? Is this contradictory?
"I am talking about Islamic scholars in relation to NT scholars to analogise Craig’s methodological problem."
Sorry, but your analogy is patently invalid, since the halls of NT scholarship aren't made up entirely, or even mostly, of conservative evangelical Christian scholars.
I didn’t say by evangelical, conservative Christians. But by Christians with a vested interest in maintaining the ‘truth’ of Christianity. Most liberal Christians would sign up to the empty tomb.
“I've already countered all your points. Your arguments don't work against KCA, because that is not how KCA uses the word "cause." Your bare assertions to the contrary, and in the face of direct quotations from Dr. Craig himself, do not change this.”
ReplyDeleteYou have not countered the billiard ball analogy, and the point is that CRAIG is equivocating. If his previous CA caused too much confusion with other philosophers, then it is not clear enough. For whatever reason he changed it, it must be because it wasn’t good enough, I posit.
“Indeed, he asks the question: DOES the Kalam mean "begins to exist" in these two different ways? From Craig's own words the answer is no, and I am guessing the reformulated version of Kalam that Craig himself has offered is so that the KCA cannot be interpreted in any other way than the way he intends it.”
From personal correspondence (including talking!), Peter DOES NOT adhere to the KCA.
“I have quoted Craig stating what he actually means and yet you still continue in your error.”
Fine, but what he actually means is an equivocation, because that’s not what it actually says.
“By the way, if you're finding the character limit annoying (I know I am) then feel free to head over to TheologyWeb.com and you can discuss these issues/debate me there. My current user name there is An Astute Gentleman.”
Yes I am. However, I am reticent about TheologyWeb (probably Holding’s doings – I find him repulsive from a personal point of view) – though I have often considered it. I don’t want to be too sucked in to forum debating because I am getting no writing and work done at all. This is sucking up a great deal of my time. I have a partner and tow young twin boys who I am neglecting. I do, however, want to nail exactly where I stand on the KCA. I am happy to be wrong, I just don’t think I am. If it was that perfect, you’d have philosophers all over the country converting; as it is, only 14.6% are theists.
"Nowhere have I claimed Craig has shit-for-brains or similar."
ReplyDeleteNo, but you have continuously implied that he is being dishonest, and are still continuing it now. But, since you presume to be the supreme arbiter of gentlemanly behaviour, let's quote back a selection of phrases that you have used:
“this tirade of fallacy and misrepresentation of my arguments”
“A lot of bluster and rhetoric, a lot of red herrings and straw men, not a lot of substance.”
“Unless you adhere to Platonic Realism, you are up shit creek. And I doubt you do, since you seem to copy everything Craig does and says, and he doesn't.”
“you have made some terrible blunders here on pretty much everything you have posited,”
“To give Craig his due, even though you seem to wilfully ignore this (or not understand what the KCA is as opposed to other cosmological arguments), he has indeed reformulated the KCA. I would imagine that this is because he finally realises it is invalid.”
“An admission that he is changing the words to suit his meaning. Nice equivocation Craig.”
I personally liked the "up shit creek" comment the most. You also like to make broad generalising claims like "NT Scholars are biased fundies" "conservative scholars are agenda driven." You might think such appeals to motive and ad hominems are convincing arguments. I don't. You keep repeatedly slagging of guys like Craig and Habermas, and then act all offended when I extend you the same courtesy. Tu quoque.
"Would craig resort to this? I don't think so."
I know. That is actually one thing people find annoying. He is too nice! Although he does have it in him to bite back on occasion.
"if you wouldn't say it to someone's face, then don't say it on the internet."
What makes you think I wouldn't say this to your face? I would. Providing, of course, that it was warranted. So far it has been, in my opinion. If you want things to be civil, then simply stop making sweeping generalised defamatory statements against the character of Craig, Habermas, et al.
"It's easy to hide behind the anonymity of a computer screen, but it's not great."
The last time somebody accused me of "hiding behind a computer screen" I turned up on their doorstep. We resolved things peacefully of course.
"I am saying Craig is equivocating."
ReplyDeleteExcept that he isn't. In order for Craig to be equivocating, he would have to be using "cause" and "begins to exist" in two different ways. But he isn't, and has clarified what he means, so your objection is invalid.
"You keep appealing to Craig as if that suddenly sorts it out."
Because it does. Craig is taking "cause" and "begins to exist" in entirely and perfectly legitimate ways. You keep insisting that Craig really means something other than what he says.
"HE is the one equivocating, you are just lapping up what he says uncritically, it appears to me."
Sorry, but taking someone at their word isn't "lapping up uncritically." When someone says: "I mean X," you can't turn around say "you really mean Y, so balls to you and your argument!"
Instead of continuously attacking a straw man, you should then adjust your criticisms accordingly.
"If he is using different meanings, if he is not using ‘begins’ or defending ‘begins’ in a way consistent with its generally understood meaning, and so on, then he is equivocating."
Except he isn't. The last time I checked "efficient cause" was a perfectly legitimate way of defining the word "cause." I find it odd how you think such a definition is invalid when it has been consistently used in philosophy for thousands of years. Craig isn't referring to material causes, you are, therefore you are committing equivocation and attacking a straw man. It really is quite that simple.
"You seem to be admitting he is doing this."
No, I'm pointing out the sense in which Craig means "cause" and "begins to exist" and heave even quoted him stating this. You keep insisting that he means something else entirely, which is simply not true.
"He has not grasped that the causes and effect are the universe itself."
That's just a bare assertion on your part. You admit that there exists a chain of causes and effects, and you seek to identify the universe as the first cause. That's fine. However, you would need to show that the universe is eternal (presumably by arguing for a cyclic universe.) Otherwise, to deny the conclusion that God caused the universe, you would to suggest a more plausible alternative.
"If the words don’t mean what is ascribed to them by our use of language..."
ReplyDeleteThat's the point. They DO mean what is ascribed to them by our use of language. Craig's definitions of "cause" and "begins to exist" are perfectly valid. You can argue that he is perhaps a little unclear or vague, but you cannot say that he is equivocating.
"I present a refutation of the KCA based on what it means."
Except you are not. You are assigning meaning to the words that aren't intended. I don't see why Craig has to reformulate his argument because people refuse to accept what he clearly and obviously means.
look, I don't actually think my comments are in the same league as yours. Saying "A lot of bluster and rhetoric, a lot of red herrings and straw men, not a lot of substance" is not the same as saying 'you've got shit for brains" and "your level of intelligence is lower than the ankle socks of a particularly small beetle, standing in a ditch, in a quarry, in the low country".
ReplyDeleteSecondly, you think I have a major personal beef against Craig. I don't. I get into trouble for defending Craig too much. On atheist forums, I have been calling Dawkins out on not debating him. I get into trouble because other atheists think I respect him too much:
"My issues with Craig, however good a philosopher and debater (he is clearly one of the best in the world and his quick thinking skills are awesome too - he has amazing knowledge retention), include the following"
I think he is a really good and knowledgeable philosopher, I just think he misuses that knowledge both in debate, and in certain arguments (Craig A. James gives a nice little account of this). I think, moreover, he is, on occasion, dishonest. I suspect dishonesty in his literalism. I don't think he's nearly up front enough, and this is something some of his fellow Christians think too.
I also think he is dishonest with the KCA. Can I prove it? No. But it makes sense in light of the fact that he has changed it. If he was not dishonest, then he is not quite the philosopher people think.
The fact that I think this, I maintain, does not warrant you or anyone else to call me shit-for-brains. I'm sorry if you think that appropriate, but it simply isn't. By all means, call me out on why I think he's dishonest and we can debate whether it is warranted or not, but don't resort to that. Just a little civility!
When did i make a sweeping statement about the character of Habermas?
ReplyDeletePlease stop misrepresenting me.
"I find Craig’s position fascinating. He often says, when in debate about this, ‘worst case scenario, the OT is fallible”. This protects his logical position on God, whilst not openly admitting to inerrancy. He is clever and deviant here."
ReplyDeleteYou claim to uphold to standards of decency and then go and make defamatory remarks like this about Dr. Craig's character. Well, I have met Craig in person, and so I can tell you that you are flat out wrong about him being "deviant." However, I think his unwillingness to denounce inerrancy has something to do with Talbot requiring its faculty members to hold to inerrancy. Craig presumably just doesn't want to lose his job. I don't blame him, since it isn't an issue I consider losing your job over.
"As a methodological point, I think it is very important to know the manner in which confirmation bias in exegesis limits the conservative scholar in what their conclusions can possibly be."
Confirmation bias is something that can occur anywhere. I take everybody with a grain of salt, not just the people I disagree with. The reason why I think such probabilistic arguments are useless here are because they have no bearing on the actual positions of scholars. I judge scholars by their arguments. This is why I dismiss the Jesus Seminar. Not because they are liberal fringe scholar, but because their arguments are terrible and because they are inconsistent. I think I already mentioned the point of how they reject certain sayings of Jesus that pass their own criteria, and how they give the Gospel of Thomas a free pass whilst being unfairly over critical of the canonical Gospels. Don't simply claim "conservatives are biased, lololol!" Show me how and where individual conservative scholars are wrong.
"This is a case put forward very well by Avalos in ‘The End of Biblical Studies’."
Not, it really isn't. Avalos is perhaps the most dishonest "scholar" I have ever read.
"Habermas' alleged "historical facts" are just the tenets of Christian belief presented in a facade of neutrality.” Now, Carrier has extensively critiqued the methodology used by Habermas."
Sorry, but that just isn't true, and Carrier is another particularly loathsome individual who has been caught making some pretty egregious blunders. Secondly, simply saying "they're Christians" isn't an argument. I expect them to be Christians if they believe it to be true! You need to show how their arguments fail. Ironically enough, I started off a believer, lost my faith, and then came back to it through looking at the evidence.
Ok, let's bring it back. Craig is not using the words in the general understanding of those words.
ReplyDeleteI need to know this:
What, cause or effect, has begun to exist THAT DID NOT IN SOME WAY EXIST BEFORE THAT?
Give me one example. Your reply need be one sentence long.
I do not need to supply proof that the universe is eternal, only that causation is one singular 'thing'. This is defined by the BB, not by an eternal universe. If the BB is one big causal event that causes the transformative creations of all these 'things' which don't 'begin' to exist apart from at the BB, then the BB is the only 'beginning to exist'. Thus you cannot make an inductive claim over past uniformities if there is only ONE singular causal event. You cannot make a generalised rule (everything which begins to exist has a cause) based on a singular event, especillay one which you are seeking to apply to rule to!
I do not deny causality runnig through the universe. Heck, I don't even deny the universe needed a cause (shock horror). I have never said this. I intuitively think it might need a cause if I didn't think it was in some way eternal. My point entirely is that the KCA, AS PHRASED BY CRAIG, AND EVEN MORE SO IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM, cannot prove this. It may be, we all may intuitively think this because we see causality in the world around us as quantized, individual events, but they are not. Nothing has begun to exist, cause or effect. No 'thing' has begun to exist, matter or energy. We know this.
I've met Craig too. Woo hoo. And he couldn't answer my question. Woo hoo. i didn't use the word deviant, and the nature of deviance is that it is not obvious to the outside world.
ReplyDelete"The fact that they term them as ‘facts’ is disingenuous in the first place! If wholly 1 in 4 relevant scholars disagree within a wholly biased framework, that has to tell you something. Calling them fact is a little presumptuous!"
ReplyDeleteThey're facts because that is what the evidence supports. People might disagree, but if their arguments fail, so much the worse for their opinion. Consider the argument that the guard outside the tomb is an apologetic invention. That makes sense from a modern perspective, but when you consider that the Romans would have sought to deny Jesus the honour of mourning rites, it actually makes a lot of sense to suppose there was a guard. This is a point I think McCane notes. The point comes down to whether or not there are better arguments for these "facts" than against. As it turns out, there are plenty of good arguments why they are facts.
"Because you falsely increase the proportion of secular or truly critical scholars."
So, when Craig, et al. cite critical scholars who agree with them, that is "falsely increasing the proportion of scholars?" Hmm...
"or example, I believe Habermas cut out ‘fringe’ scholars. Who decides who is ‘fringe’ – Habermas? Why? Because they disagree with his conclusions wildly? Is that a fair cross section? Etc etc."
I would imagine that fringe scholars are guys like Carrier and Robert Price. Carrier and Price actually maintain that Jesus never existed and that the notion of a crucified and resurrected messiah was stolen from paganism, when there is absolutely no evidence for either position.
"Maybe Craig should take a leaf out of his book."
He doesn't need to. Essentially you are accusing Habermas and Craig of an argumentum ad populum approach, when they don't.
"Miracles are, by definition, improbable events - grossly improbable otherwise they wouldn't be miracles..."
You see, you make statements such as these, which are perfectly fine and uncontroversial and then turn around and then claim that miracles can therefore not be admitted as historical events. That is simply not true and is a blatant non-sequitur. There can conceivable be enough evidence to imply or maybe even prove a miracle occurred. It might be that no miracle ever gets admitted, and that every miracle claim gets refuted. That's fine, but you need to look at the evidence to do this. Simply throwing your hands in the air and claiming "it's outside of my methodology, lolol!" isn't a valid argument.
"I didn’t say by evangelical, conservative Christians. But by Christians with a vested interest in maintaining the ‘truth’ of Christianity. Most liberal Christians would sign up to the empty tomb."
That's just an ad hominem argument and an appeal to motive.
Please stop misrepresenting me. You keep doing it. "and then claim that miracles can therefore not be admitted as historical events."
ReplyDeleteI didn't say that. I said a historian, based on probability, will have it at the bottom of their list for explanation. I didn't say i would rule them out a priori. It is about historian's methodology. We were talking about Ehrman's argument here, not my approach to miracles.
Let's try and pull this back in to the KCA if we are going to continue. This is all fascinating, but rabbit holes pop up, and before you know it, another day has disappeared.
"If his previous CA caused too much confusion with other philosophers, then it is not clear enough."
ReplyDeleteEven though he has clarified what he meant. His definitions are perfectly legitimate. When Craig says: "I mean X" that is pretty clear. Secondly, being unclear isn't equivocation. To commit equivocation, you have to use the same terms in different senses, but Craig was consistently the same definitions throughout. He might have been misunderstood, but that is not a result of equivocation on his part. Thirdly, who made you the supreme arbiter of the English language? I find it fascinating that you presume to know more about the English language than Craig (although he is an American, so you might be right after all! :p) or I. You need to show that his definitions are invalid. The definitions are still preserved in the new formulation. Fourthly, words are defined by usage not etymology. You would have to show that Craig's usage is either obscure or unique to himself to suggest that he was inventing his own definition or being unclear.
"From personal correspondence (including talking!), Peter DOES NOT adhere to the KCA."
I didn't say that he did, although I did see him appear on a video about Kalam by the Damaris trust: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHsANALeHz8
Secondly, his reformulation doesn't argue anything different than the KCA. It is different to the (incorrect) version you name, which isn't the one defended by Craig. Simply interpreting words in ways not intended by the author, especially when they have quite clearly spelled out what they actually mean, is simply not valid.
"Fine, but what he actually means is an equivocation, because that’s not what it actually says."
So, you're a psychic? Craig has stated what it actually says. You're not in any position to assert otherwise.
"However, I am reticent about TheologyWeb (probably Holding’s doings – I find him repulsive from a personal point of view) – though I have often considered it."
JP Holding's a great guy. He just isn't reticent about calling a spade a spade. Although, if you read his published work, he doesn't utilise the challenge-riposte style. He also didn't use that style when he debated Carrier either. Ironically enough, Carrier insulted Holding on his blog after tha fact (despite agreeing with Holding and being polite in person.) Make of that what you will. Actually, the debate is on YouTube, you may wish to watch it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phj5H9NycdY
You should really read Defending the Resurrection by Holding if you have a chance. I wouldn't take JPs challenge-riposte rhetoric personally if I were you.
"I didn't say that. I said a historian, based on probability, will have it at the bottom of their list for explanation."
ReplyDeleteYou said:
"See Bart Ehrman’s work on the inability of historians to have anything to say on the truth claims of supernatural events..."
"merely an argument that miracles are out of reach of historians. An historian will never conclude a miracle occurred."
Seems pretty clear to me.
"I've met Craig too. Woo hoo. And he couldn't answer my question. Woo hoo."
ReplyDeleteHe couldn't answer mine either. :p
"look, I don't actually think my comments are in the same league as yours. Saying "A lot of bluster and rhetoric, a lot of red herrings and straw men, not a lot of substance" is not the same as saying 'you've got shit for brains" and "your level of intelligence is lower than the ankle socks of a particularly small beetle, standing in a ditch, in a quarry, in the low country"."
ReplyDeletePermit me to disagree. Also, you DID say "unless you hold to platonic realism then you're up shit creek."
Logis is language is semantics. It's very important.
ReplyDeleteCollins English Dictionary: eqiovocate: to use vague or ambiguous language, esp in order to avoid speaking directly or honestly.
He is equivocating.
If it is not clear enough, reformulate the premises for precision. This is philosophy 101.
Speaking of arbiters - are you the arbiter on who is honest and who is dishonest? You seem to claim Carrier, Avalos and anyone else who concludes differently to you (I suppose you will claim that is WHY you conclude differently to them!). You do seem rather free with you dishonesty accusations whilst taking it upon yourself to defend the rights of any scholars you regard highly with far worse admonishments.
"So, you're a psychic? Craig has stated what it actually says. You're not in any position to assert otherwise."
This is getting silly. in that respect, everything I have said has an different meaning to the ones you normally use. I can't believe you don't understand my arguments.
No, we have to use common understanding of BEGIN, EXIST etc. The big one is BEGIN. This is the crux.
I challenge you to present it more coherently, then.
Give me the Randomicity912 Cosmological argument. We can take it from there.
I ahve yet to watch the Carrier Holding debate, partially because everyone said they talked past each other, so they might as well have not been there. Don't know how accurate that is, but it is a shame - could have been a right show down.
However, I would advise getting hold of NTIF. If I am ever going to call anyone dishonest, going on his methodology and tactics, it would be Holding. As ever, I could be wrong. Although, unlikely not, as pretty much everyone on the secular side, and even a lot of Christians agree there.
This may be controversial, but do you think Holding is good because of his content, or because you are a regular at TW? I'm not trying to be difficult, it's just that that is common psychology. I only say this, because he is so roundly despised. I have read many posts by him, though most (not all) of them are third hand, so my bias could be fairly large too.
up shit creek is not an insult!!!! I am up shit creek all the time for various reasons. It merely means 'in trouble' [with where your argument / conclusion will go]. That is not an ad hom!!!! I don't have a problem with swearing - i swear like a trooper in the right context (down the rugby club). But I do take offence when it is directed at me to insinuate I am as thick as shit.
ReplyDelete""I didn't say that. I said a historian, based on probability, will have it at the bottom of their list for explanation."
ReplyDeleteYou said:
"See Bart Ehrman’s work on the inability of historians to have anything to say on the truth claims of supernatural events..."
"merely an argument that miracles are out of reach of historians. An historian will never conclude a miracle occurred."
Seems pretty clear to me."
Eh? I clearly claimed that the historian cannot... in every comment there. Not that miracles are a priori impossible! Not a comment about me - I am not a historian. No, a comment about the methodology of historians!!!!
I'm sure there's an irony about equivocating over equivocation.
ReplyDelete"I challenge you to present it more coherently, then."
ReplyDeleteI already have. I have pointed out exactly what KCA means, and quoted Craig saying what he meant. You'd have a point if Craig was deliberately using the word cause to refer to two different things, but he isn't. It isn't dishonesty, and it isn't equivocation.
Equivocation would be something like this:
A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
OR:
All jackasses have long ears.
Carl is a jackass.
Therefore, Carl has long ears.
OR:
All banks are besides rivers.
Therefore the financial institution where I
deposit my money is beside a river.
Kalam would only commit equivocation if used the term cause to refer to different types of causes, but it doesn't!
I've already defined "cause" and "begins to exist." I don't really see the need to do so again.
"Give me the Randomicity912 Cosmological argument. We can take it from there."
It would be the same, only I'd phrase the "conceptual analysis" as premises of the argument.
"up shit creek is not an insult!!!!"
ReplyDeleteIn that specific context, it did not seem that way at all to me.
"Eh? I clearly claimed that the historian cannot... in every comment there. Not that miracles are a priori impossible! Not a comment about me - I am not a historian. No, a comment about the methodology of historians!!!!"
You said that a supernatural claim cannot be admitted by a historian. That is a priori dismissal whichever way you look at it. I have no problem with admitting that supernatural claims are vastly improbable. I just see no reason whatsoever to reject them outright as historical hypotheses. I can certainly conceive of their being enough evidence to show that a supernatural claim is more likely than a natural. It might be improbably, it might never happen, but it is at least a possibility. The responsible historian remains open to such things.
It can be admitted, but wrt the idea that it will be the least probable explanation. As Cambridge historian Charles Freeman says of the empty tomb, "Most historians would differ from those biblical scholars and theologians who claim that the gaps and discrepencies in the story can only be filled by a supernatural explanation... It is probable that no 'alternative account which will explain the data for all the evidence' can ever be offered [reference to NT Wright and his lack of covering all the possible accounts, ie Caiaphas etc]. Enough is known about trauma and its effects on memory to know that very distorted accounts of events can occur and that beliefs can become quickly consolidated independently ot the historical reality. Such beliefs are often held with unshakeable conviction and sincerity. Most historians are naturally skeptical about seeing any intervention of the supernatural in historical events and are content to leave stories such as this as unexplained due to the lack of full and coherent evidence."
ReplyDeleteSo this is what historians do, don't shoot the messenger. So how do we accord a fact to something?
In scientific terms, this is fairly difficult and subjective too, as any philosopher of science will tell you. Generally, it is seen as a theory which is supported by overwhelming evidence. What is overwhelming evidence? Well, this is subjective. However, an error margin of 25% would be way too high (even given confirmation bias!), not that this bars it from being true, but to brandish it a fact when it is not testable is somewhat dubious, to me.
In accordance with Carr's theories of historical fact, if you go fishing with a net with three inch holes, you're only going to catch fish bigger than three inches. History's an art form, not a science, more's the pity.
I am aware of the fallacy of equivocation. However, as far as I am aware, all my usages in these posts have been the simple verb usage. And it still stands. Craig, in my opinion, is equivocating. He is using equivocal language.
ReplyDeleteWE know this is what my accusation is because Craig countered this (to Grunbaum) that he was using univocal language. This is not saying 'in the syllogism you used the fallacy of equivocation', but is saying 'you are equivoocating on the words 'begin to exist''.
ie using them ambiguously, or with a different / misleading definition to that which is usually accepted.
Talking of issues with scholars writing popular works - have you critically read Reasonable Faith. I was flabbergasted. There certainly are some whopping fallacies in there (which I am presently in the middle of pointing out http://atipplingphilosopher.yolasite.com/craig-review.php).
Again, if you have not done so, read Not The Impossible Faith (I wonder whether you would have the same opinion of JP Holding, because if Carrier is only a fifth right in his accusations, Avalos and Ehrman are child's play compared to JPH).
You still haven't given me a single example of something which begins to exist.
What it comes down to, and Craig alludes to this here http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6515 is the notion of essential properties.
It looks like he understands the physical / material coming into being. He could take that. But what separates one thing from another are the essential properties.
What craig needs to do, if the KCA has any hope of working, is not only rephrase it, but to conclusively argue for maximalist understanding of property existence. This condition is hard to epistemologically ground. But he doesn't even mention this, as far as I can see. This is exactly what he does in debates and Reasonable Faith, and it is why I am quite confident when I say he is dishonest, or at least VERY stringent with the truth. He bamboozles people with philosophy and then hides massive assumptions in his premises. This is another example. Not only does he equivocate on begins to exist, but even if you grant him certain points, he still has some philosophical hoops to jump through. He has to prove certain things about property conditions, he has to prove abstracts are not causally inert and so on. He doesn't even talk about this.
Now, if we want to go down the route of talking properties, we will do so for the next 20 years, because it is a philosophical minefield, believe me, and requires some serious reading.
Just as an aside, I was re-reading a Craig piece. It had this quote: "Second, the video charges that for the universe to come into being would contradict the Law of the Conservation of Energy, which states that mass/energy can be neither created nor destroyed. The author of the video had better hope that this is not the case or the paradigm of contemporary cosmology would be in stark conflict with the laws of nature! It cannot be emphasized enough that as yet we have made no theological claims or inferences whatsoever. We're talking straight cosmology. Cosmologists don't regard the standard model as in conflict with the Conservation Law because the law only applies within the universe—as our videographer would put it, it "always" holds. But it is not violated if the whole spacetime arena in which it holds comes into being, for that is outside the domain of its application."
ReplyDeleteWould you think this is double standards? Craig is claiming that a behaviour (the law of COE) holds in the universe, but you cannot apply it to the universe at all. Is causality not a behaviour? He is applying causality inside the universe TO the universe, which is exactly what he is decrying in that quote!!! I had not remembered this quote, but now I am thinking about it a little more closely. The Law of COE applies to closed systems. But we only qualify that because that is all we can observe. This closed system is everything (to us). Thus, one could say, it would be like this:
1) not a thing can be created or destroyed
2) the universe is something (a thing)
2) therefore the universe can neither be created or destroyed.
Or similar (using energy . matter etc). The point being, Craig does claim you cannot apply the behaviour of things within the universe to the universe itself, in this instance. He does this on the grounds of how he defines the LAw of COE, but this is only the case because we can't see IF it holds to the universe itself - this is not empirically testable. Therefore, using induction, we could theorise that the universe itself holds this behaviour. Could it not be said Craig is using double standards in allowing this for the KCA to apply to the universe (we can only observe causality within the universe, we cannot know it will apply TO the universe) but not allowing for the law of COE to apply to the universe.
Just thinking out loud on this, but it could have legs.
I was going over your arguments because you keep claiming you have refuted all my arguments, but truly you haven’t, as far as I can see. You , like Craig, answer the claim that nothing begins to exist by saying, hey, even if things don’t begin to exist, there are still efficient causes and effects. I am confused. If you grant me nothing begins to exist, then you grant me that premise 1 is invalid. So straight away, you admit the KCA fails.
ReplyDeleteWhether there is efficient causality or not, premises 1 and 2 REQUIRE things to begin to exist for the whole argument to work. What are you applying these causes to? How are you employing them in a logical syllogism? You are not really positing anything but ‘causality exists’.
My second point to this is as follows: I have given you an analogy of billiard balls which serves to show that causality is one long chain going back to the BB. Do you believe a cause can be originated out of nothing? This origination is crucial. If all causality is in fact one causal mechanism, then there is only one cause. One single cause – the BB. This causes every effect in the universe. In fact, the universe is one big continual effect of itself. It is self-caused inasmuch as like a huge set of dominos. The universe is ALL the dominos (universe = everything). So what causes the 3999th domino to fall? You would say the 3998th in isolation. I would say the cause is the 1st. I would say the 1st domino for every single bit of domino cause and effect. You see, without the first domino, none of the dominos would do anything (there are limitations to the analogy because all the dominos are the first domino in the real BB. All matter and energy is thrust out and interacts with itself / all the other energy).
So you still need to answer the criticism that no causes BEGIN TO EXIST, since whether you are talking about matter and energy, or whether you are talking about causality as a mechanism, it is the universe, it is the BB.
Until you can exemplify an event that defies this, which you haven’t (other than an abstract), then the KCA is circular.
What you have appealed to is dualism to answer an issue of origination of causality. This is a different argument. You may take this as an assumption, but again, it would be a hidden premise and one which Craig doesn’t even refer to. We get back to the universe at the BB. If you think it was matter / energy + dualistic dimensions, then the burden of proof is on you to prove how this affects cosmology. It doesn’t feature in any cosmological calculation, and you would be applying the behaviour of non-material dimensions to the material dimension. But you would have to prove that a thought begins to exist and is not itself some kind of transformative creation. Free will (thought) as an origination is VERY problematic because you are contradicting you own view on causality. Agent causation (ultimate origination) requires an uncaused cause, The volition must be uncaused. The agent must magic the volition up and becomes, in effect, the uncaused caused.
As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy quite rightly says: “A recent trend is to suppose that agent causation accounts capture, as well as possible, our prereflective idea of responsible, free action. But the failure of philosophers to work the account out in a fully satisfactory and intelligible form reveals that the very idea of free will (and so of responsibility) is incoherent (Strawson 1986) or at least inconsistent with a world very much like our own (Pereboom 2001). Smilansky (2000) takes a more complicated position, on which there are two ‘levels’ on which we may assess freedom, ‘compatibilist’ and ‘ultimate’. On the ultimate level of evaluation, free will is indeed incoherent. (Strawson, Pereboom, and Smilansky all provide concise defenses of their positions in Kane 2002.)”
ReplyDeleteSo appealing to dualism, unfortunately, gets you nowhere. You keep saying you have refuted me without, well refuting me. The billiard ball analogy remains untouched, maybe the dominos will float your boat! Still waiting for an example.
"I am aware of the fallacy of equivocation. However, as far as I am aware, all my usages in these posts have been the simple verb usage. And it still stands. Craig, in my opinion, is equivocating. He is using equivocal language."
ReplyDeleteIn other words, you are using colloquial language equivocally. That's ironic. Especially considering you have been incessantly whining about Craig being unclear (despite the fact he actually says what he means.)
"Talking of issues with scholars writing popular works - have you critically read Reasonable Faith."
Yes, I have. I think you'll understand when I say I take your claims with more than just a pinch of salt.
"I wonder whether you would have the same opinion of JP Holding, because if Carrier is only a fifth right in his accusations, Avalos and Ehrman are child's play compared to JPH."
I would trust JP Holding over any of those any time. For all your talk of dishonesty, you haven't even been able to pinpoint where Holding is actually dishonest.
"You still haven't given me a single example of something which begins to exist."
I think you'll find that I have. You keep demanding I give you an instantiation of something beginning to exist from no previously existing matter, but I don't need. The Kalam is independent of whether or not the universe began to exist ex nihilo, or ex materia. You keep insisting that you haven't been answered when you have. It's getting a little boring.
"What craig needs to do, if the KCA has any hope of working, is not only rephrase it, but to conclusively argue for maximalist understanding of property existence."
Not really. I can give you an example of something with clear and definable properties:
Protium (aka 'Light Hydrogen.') An electrically neutral atom containing a single positively charged proton, a single negatively charged electron and no neutrons. This is distinguished from other isotopes of Hydrogen, such as Deuterium. This isn't an "abstract" difference either (not that I think others are.)
"So what causes the 3999th domino to fall? You would say the 3998th in isolation. I would say the cause is the 1st."
ReplyDeleteThe 3998th domino DID cause the 3999th domino. Both are dependent on the 1st, however. In order for domino 3998 and 3999 to fall, domino 1 will need to have fallen. You and I both agree that there needs to be a 1st cause. You say it is the universe. I'm saying that the universe itself was caused. What we need to now discuss is: what evidence is there that the universe was caused?
"So appealing to dualism, unfortunately, gets you nowhere. You keep saying you have refuted me without, well refuting me. The billiard ball analogy remains untouched, maybe the dominos will float your boat! Still waiting for an example."
ReplyDeleteI guess it is too bad for you that I don't hold to "ultimate" free will.
I think you missed my earlier comment. I will repeat it.
ReplyDeleteCollins English Dictionary: eqiovocate: to use vague or ambiguous language, esp in order to avoid speaking directly or honestly.
I am NOT using the word colloquially. I am using it in its root form. Please refer to the dictionary. In fact, will the dictionary entries online do not define it wrt the fallacy. The word was co-opted for use in the fallacy of equivocation, but existed independently prior to, concurrent with and I imagine, in the future, of that fallacy.
"The Kalam is independent of whether or not the universe began to exist ex nihilo, or ex materia. You keep insisting that you haven't been answered when you have. It's getting a little boring."
ReplyDelete"He [Craig] asserts that it is "intuitively obvious," based on the "metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being from nothing,"
So even Craig is talking about ex nihilo.
Look, something beginning to exist, is something that exists at point t but that did not exist before that.
We know we cannot apply this to matter or energy, right? This existed before time t and after time t (Craig's own words used).
So that leaves us only non-material things.
So you posit a chair or Bill Craig began to exist. Craig himself admits what differentiates these two things are essential properties.
So YOU need to prove TO ME that essential properties
a) exist / begin to exist in any meaningful way so that their behaviour can be transferred onto physical things (the universe) - ie you don't make a category error
b) that essential properties are causally active
YOU HAVE NOT DONE THIS! Craig assumes it, but doesn't even deal with it. This is why, from the start, I have been talking about conceptualism, which you have roundly not dealt with. You may think it boring, but then it is boring to keep ignoring the key points.
As I have said before, this becomes an argument over the existent condition of essential properties, in philosophical speak. Craig's KCA does not work unless he can establish abstracts and properties as causally active and behviourally equivalent to matter and energy. Which he hasn't.
"Not really. I can give you an example of something with clear and definable properties:
ReplyDeleteProtium (aka 'Light Hydrogen.') An electrically neutral atom containing a single positively charged proton, a single negatively charged electron and no neutrons. This is distinguished from other isotopes of Hydrogen, such as Deuterium. This isn't an "abstract" difference either (not that I think others are.)"
Research 'natural kinds', 'properties', 'instantiation', 'minalism and maximalism in property condition', 'particulars', 'tropes'.
Once you show a good understanding of these (and I am not being smug here, these are essential things to understand in order to makes claims as you did. You may understand these, but in order to do that properly, I imagine you would have had to study them quite hard), then you can attempt to make those assertions. This is the stuff many philosophers, unless they specialise in it, often don't get.
We are going round in circles because you assert that essential properties refute my argument. Eh? You haven't even given me a definition of what they are, let alone getting from a conceptual existence, to informing a theory of behaviour on how the universe works.
You see, if you want to apply essential properties to the KCA, and you claim they begin to exist, then you DO have to say they begun to exist ex nihilo, otherwise they did not begin to exist, because I can employ the same causal chain argument to show a regression to a point (the BB). If this is the case, then you cannot make a rule of the BB based on one event (the BB itself) as seen before. If they were created ex materia, then they existed before - ie they did not begin to exist. We would then get an infinite regress of applying property to property (this is known as Bradley's regress).
Effectively, you are claiming essential properties can be causal. Another problem then comes that, at the BB, if essential properties existed (in materia), then all the properties of things to come existed at that time. Is this coherent? No. Therefore, they must begin to exist ex nihilo. In which case, ex nihilo creation CAN occur and could then be applied to the universe. If they required a cause to exist, then from whence did this cause come? The matter and energy itself - the one big cause from the BB. Circular, circular, circular and on we go.
Apologies, it's been some time since I looked into properties. I meant the Third Man Argument and not Bradley's regress (both of which serve the same purpose though, but BR refers to relational properties whereas the TMA refers to (essential) properties.
ReplyDelete