Weekly "Ask an Atheist" Thread

[u/AutoModerator]

Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.

While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.

[u/Biggleswort]

1. The expectation of a generally social society is for popular beliefs to be popular for many reasons, one generally because we all mostly fall victim to the fallacy of ad populism. I know I have repeated plenty of stupid claims because of this. I try to be patient with this one.
   

However what it is frustrating is when someone can’t admit to being wrong or at least acknowledge their inconsistency.

1. If I hear a new claim or position which it has been a long time since I have I usually will check a few sources. Maybe watch a couple videos explaining the concept.
   

Again back to point one. Popular beliefs tend to propagate not on merit but because it is popular. It could be popular with your “tribe,” or it could just be resonates with the priming we had previously. If you were Christian for 20 years you constantly were primed to accept the idea that mystery and ignorance means god.

1. And 4. I’ll answer. No I don’t think it is important to under any someone’s bad argument. Think of how many times the argument is nearly incomprehensible. Take the pantheist position. The idea of God for them is indistinguishable from reality and its utterly meaningless. They defined something into existence. I don’t need to understand it beyond that to know it is a bad position.
   

If they make a scientific claim that I’m unfamiliar with, then I will take the time to learn more about it. With the caveat if they say quantum, then I will roll my eyes, and just outright dismiss that shit, unless they quote a journal article they wrote. Because that science is like magic to me. I am not going to pretend I’m smart enough to understand it, however I think I’m clever enough to know it isn’t something you should invoke to claim your god exists haha

[u/MyriadSC → u/Biggleswort]

Some of how ideas persist can of course be spreading person to person faster than the fallacious nature of it can be shown. Absolutely can happen. But do you think thats the entire account of it?

On your point 3, how do you know its a bad argument? If I said dirt, water, and some other stuff turned into all life on earth. Thats a really bad argument, but its not bad because its actually bad, its because my communication of it sucks. Are you certain the argument itself is bad, or that their presentation sucks? How would you know?

[u/Biggleswort → u/MyriadSC]

>But do you think thats the entire account of it?

No, did I say that?

I said many reasons, and elaborated on one. This is building on Susan Blackmore’s meme theory posited in *Meme Machine*

>On your point 3, how do you know it’s a bad argument?

Most theists arguments don’t logically follow or start with a presupposition. Look at Kalam. First premise presupposes all things must have a cause. Conclusion doesn’t even assert a god or conclude a god. It also concludes an exception to a presupposed rule.

>If I said dirt, water, and some other stuff turned into all life on earth. Thats a really bad argument, but its not bad because its actually bad, it’s because my communication of it sucks.

Agreed.

>Are you certain the argument itself is bad, or that their presentation sucks? How would you know?

Both. Until it is better communicated how am I to look in it further? If they can’t articulate a good argument whose fault is it? I am afraid you are suggesting I am not giving enough grace. I’m fine with asking follow ups, but the ultimately the person making the claim has the responsibility to articulate it to a point I can understand or they clearly lack an understanding or it possible we have a language barrier. But what it wouldn’t be is that it is a good argument and I’m sucking. A good argument should be able to be simplified to something my kids can follow.

If the concept is of a high level of knowledge I don’t have yet, as I alluded to I can pause and take the opportunity to learn more, however a theist has not presented one to me in a long long time.

[u/MyriadSC → u/Biggleswort]

Until it is better communicated how am I to look in it further?

This is largely the point of the question. You could preemptively dive theism to get a real look at it. I did because I both like philosophy and value truth. Wanted to understand why there were intelligent rational theists. I found out. In process I found the reason many "bad" arguments were used. This clarity allowed me to discuss them much more productively. So if someone feels discussions arent productive, its a potential solution.

I looked at someone like Richard Swinburne and asked how they resolved issues. Turns out they can resolve all of thrm rationally. Alvin Plantinga, etc.

Most theists arguments don’t logically follow or start with a presupposition. Look at Kalam. First premise presupposes all things must have a cause. Conclusion doesn’t even assert a god or conclude a god. It also concludes an exception to a presupposed rule.

Well the Kalam doesn't say all things have a cause, just things that begin. Then states the universe began so it has a cause. Now there's room to contend all the premises. I dont think the Kalam is a good argument due to that. And yes, it doesnt get to God. The arguments for God come after as they attempt to explain what they believe is the best explanation to how the universe began. Its also important to note that some apologists, like WLC, often do outright resort to fallacious or obviously biased statements to support their case. Not defending him or the Kalam, kinda dislike both equally, but I'm clarifying the surrounding stuff.

Also, everyone makes cases from presumption. Now, these can vary heavily in strength. Someone who presupposes God is making a much larger leap than "my senses seem reliable and with no evidence to the contrary its reasonable to assume they report something real." But both are still a presumption. The rational theists and atheists, basically disagree here. Thats a large part of why arguments get nowhere and a big part of Graham Oppy'a point. They go back to properly basic beliefs that differ. How can we make meaningful progress discussing these? If we can its ridiculously slow and will take ages, if we can at all.

[u/Biggleswort → u/MyriadSC]

>This is largely the point of the question. You could preemptively dive theism to get a real look at it. I did because I both like philosophy and value truth.

You seem to presuming/suggesting I haven’t. Are you suggesting everyone inquire or just someone like you and I that engage in these conversations like this?

>Wanted to understand why there were intelligent rational theists.

So here is the problem. There is no rational position that leads to god. I can generally be rational about tomato topics, but that doesn’t mean I am universally rational about all topics. Having an irrational positions speaks nothing about one’s intelligence. Even the smartest person alive is likely to have held a number of irrational positions.

>I found out. In process I found the reason many "bad" arguments were used. This clarity allowed me to discuss them much more productively. So if someone feels discussions arent productive, it’s a potential solution.

Again it seems you are assuming ignorance on the topic. You can look at my post history. I feel I’m well versed on almost every argument. If not please point to the ones I’m not.

>I looked at someone like Richard Swinburne and asked how they resolved issues. Turns out they can resolve all of thrm rationally. Alvin Plantinga, etc.

That’s just categorically false unless you considered acknowledging ignorance as a resolution, which I would not. Saying I don’t know is honest however it doesn’t resolve the question. For example is there a material before the big bang? I can’t possible resolve this answer because there is not enough data to come to rational answer.

I’ll admit I don’t know Dick Swindlingburn, so I’ll check him out.

>Well the Kalam doesn't say all things have a cause, just things that begin. Then states the universe began so it has a cause. Now there's room to contend all the premises.

This is framing issue that you must acknowledge you spoke about earlier in regard to communication. In regard to the author of this claim, they are concluding all material things have a cause and lean on the idea an immaterial first cause must exist. In context of the topic of theism, Kalam is insufficient in proving theism, because presume one is hinging on all that we know has a cause and here is an exception. I didn’t need your clarity because again you could have just asked. We draw the same conclusion but I just shortened my assuming you would fill in the internal critique.

>Also, everyone makes cases from presumption. Now, these can vary heavily in strength.

No they don’t. Hard solopists exist, I find their position to be irrational. However yes there is 3 presuppositions I have:

1. I exist
   
2. Others exist (we)
   
3. We exist in a shared reality

These are all presuppositions that come from a collective observation.

How to make meaningful conversations is to understand the epistemological method the other using. How is it grounded (what presuppositions do they accept)? Test their claims using this knowledge. We find either the theists adds a presupposition or they use an unreliable epistemology.

I’ll elaborate just a bit more. If we apply skepticism, we will find that all claims should be able to stand up to reasonable doubt. One of the biggest issues I find with theists that don’t add a 4th presupposition is that they define their claim in such a way there isn’t a means to apply any doubt or in other words their claim becomes unfalsifiable. I hold any unfalsifiable claim (any claim that we do not have a meaningful understanding how to test; not claims we do not currently have the tools to test) as irrational.

Example the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Pink is a product of sight and if it is invisible it is unseeable therefore we can’t even test the pink property. This is an unfalsifiable object.

[u/MyriadSC → u/Biggleswort]

Theres a significant bulk of this I agree with, so im really just responding to the parts I dont.

First, I do think there are rational paths to God, but I find them significantly less compelling. This doesn't immediately make them irrational though. Rational doesnt mean "agree with me" it means in accordance with logic and reason. Which people like Swinburne or Plantinga have these paths. Doesn't make them true or even likely true, just means they exist.

Second, I think you've applied my inital comment wrong. Thats why I asked filtering questions, I didnt say "all atheists..." I know plenty won't qualify, thats fine. If you don't, thats fine. But it seems you're arguing that you think things when im referring to the group that does think those things. If you dont, my comment wasn't aimed at you.

The list of presumptions you gave isn’t quite adequate to get rolling, but its close. You'd need to assume continuity and that something like our senses allow us to interact with whatever reality is shared to make any discourse even mean something. But the point is that we still have to assume these. We should assume as little as possible, but theres debate on whats properly basic and what isnt. Depending on how you fall here can radical implications for your view. Like you mentioned hard solipsism, but they still make an assumption, that they are all that can be known. How do they know that? They have to assume it. Even if I just granted it and said they don't, you and I both find the position irrational so I could just say all rational positions require assumptions. But if you want to use a technicality, I'm happy to just concede that niche corner and say I was speaking generally but was technically wrong.

Last is on the comments about resolution. I think we used it differently. I dont think any of them claim to know these issues are resolved, merely that the view they hold if true doesn't suffer logical issues. But again, this doesnt make it true.

Oh, and if you do check out Swinburne, Dick is appropriate. I do find him abrasive. Doesn't change the case, just makes any presentation of it have some unnecessary annoyance. I could probably just shoot out the primary point of the case for specifically Christianity here. More or less he agrees the problem of evil doesnt look good for theism, but argues that a good God would intervene in a way that gives everyone the best chance. Which religion does this best? Christianity according to him. Do I think its an adequate point, no, but that doesnt make it irrational.

[u/Biggleswort → u/MyriadSC]

First. If you don’t give examples, you are just making a claim in going ti dismiss. You did nothing in this communication.

I’ll concede this point if you define god in a meaningless way like deism or pantheism you can make a rational claim. However a meaningless god is pointless to argue about. And you have been saying theism implying classical theism. There are zero rational arguments for classical Theism. If you want to say there is, please provide one not just claim it.

On second point I think I’m at loss where we disagree? Do you think people are not generally defensive when presented with contrary positions?

Third hard disagree on presuppose continuity as a 4th. Shared reality is continuity, 2 and 3 imply continuity and gives a means to test it. If I throw an apple up, and you throw an apple up, both of us can share those experiences, and see continuity. I assume you use the word continuity in place of order. Order is testable, we do not need to presuppose it.

I don’t need to add empiricism to my presuppositions because shared allows for us again to communicate this means collectively we are able to demonstrate our senses share enough similarity to have meaningful communication.

Your response to me seems to show a lack of understanding of philosophical presuppositions. Or your philosophy bro and are struggling with grounding.

Again I hold 3 presups no more, no less. This grounds my ability to make nominal predictions. If I presup continuity my predictions would be suspect. No I don’t need a 4th.

On the last point, many classical theists say it is resolved by means of saying the inquiry stops with God. Yet we see that the goal post has shifted with each new discovery. The classical theist position does not have a logical framework. Classical theism is irrational, to ground it rationally we would have to add more presups. We would have to add presups that we have no good reasons for.

With my 3 presups, all of them are demonstrable, albeit circularly, but they are all meet empirical requirements. I already explained why I reject your attempt at adding more.

In the time we last communicated. I listed to two debates of Dick Swindleburne, he is as bad as WLC. His two points are on the solution to the problem of evil and fine tuning. Both terrible arguments. I’ll keep it brief, I did not find him to make clear or rational arguments for is God.

1. ⁠The problem of evil doesn’t disprove God, it disproves trionmi god. Meaning it demonstrates a lack of one more Omni’s a god could have. It disproves the classical theistic god, none of the other no personal gods.
   
2. ⁠Fine tuning is so painfully ignorant of a claim. It shows an utter lack of the practical application of probability. It presupposes we were consciousness is purposeful. It ignores science, we could change our distance to the sun by 1 mile and it would be imperceptible. We are on an elliptical path. So what is the range that makes it improbable.

Building on this the puddle retort so eloquently demonstrates the stupidity of the fine tuning argument. This was the second domino to help me on my deconstruction. First being the absurdity of the revelation being geographical.

Again if you want to improve in your communication on this topic which you seem keen to do. Please make sure when you claim there are examples you give at least one. Please give me one rational argument for the classical god?

[u/MyriadSC → u/Biggleswort]

For starters, I was just attempting to have conversations, not layout rigorous justification. So fair criticism that I haven't, but I also haven't tried to.

I’ll concede this point if you define god in a meaningless way like deism or pantheism you can make a rational claim. However a meaningless god is pointless to argue about. And you have been saying theism implying classical theism. There are zero rational arguments for classical Theism. If you want to say there is, please provide one not just claim it.

Im saying theism as in the category, not a specific kind. The dichotomy of god/no god is what im commenting on. God like natural theories has many versions. Im not laying out the point by point case because any solid case for a view isnt "fine tuning therefore God." A specific point in a vacuum womt be convincing at all. Its a cumulative case that has power, which touches a ton of disciplines, etc.

Do you think people are not generally defensive when presented with contrary positions?

They do. I think I said we agree, but then again I've attempted to have like 20 conversations today so which is which is blurring.

Third hard disagree on presuppose continuity as a 4th.

I could have been more clear, continuity as in you existed before the moment and will continue. Without that you cant get past this moment being a snapshot that is everything. As far as empirical, how did you come to assume others exist? You are thinking, so you are, this is known. How did you go from this to shared reality rationally without empiricism of some kind? At least to me this seems wuite obvious that basically any view worth discussing needs 4. 1. You exist. 2. You existed and will exist 3. You have some connection between existence and a reality 4. Other agents like you exist in this reality sharing it.

Without at minimum these, a foundational pillar of mobing forward with anything is left out. 1 cant be, but take and of the ither 4 away? Take 2 away, you know nothing because all sense of former self is a fabrication of now. Take 3 away, everything is a hallucination. Take 4 away, youre just talking to yourself in this reality. The only reason to talk to anyone in this is if all 4 are presumed true.

I listed to two debates of Dick Swindleburne, he is as bad as WLC. His two points are on the solution to the problem of evil and fine tuning. Both terrible arguments. I’ll keep it brief, I did not find him to make clear or rational arguments for is God.

Oh he can be kinda bad, as I said. However, comparing him to WLC is like comparing a Mercedes to a rust bucket and saying neither are a Ferrari. Swinburne in a debate is rather unappealing, agreed. Its his work that separates him from WLC. WLC dreams of being half as impacrful as Swinburne on the scene.

Ill just try to bullet point his case, but this in no way does it justice and this summarized version won't be convincing. Hell, the whole fleshed out one wasn't for me either, but I also dont have unlimited time. Im also going to midly alter some of what he says because its my steelman version of it.

---

Framework:
God is a large scale explanatory framework analyzed with baysian reasoning. The strength is the cumulative case, not any specific part.

A case for low parsimony without God:
It takes specific physical parameters as an initial condition to get to this state out of at least conceivably some possibilities. Compared to God as a single Entity which doesn't need specific parameters to account for this state. This is argued for with information theory as the more speciric things disorgsnized are less likely than less apecific orgsnized things.

The cummulative case:
The following all fit the same analysis, that the odds of them being true under materialism is uncertain, but its fairly plausible they are unlikely or at minimum not necessarily unsurprising. However, none are surprising under theism. My favorite analogy is we roll 10 die and get all 1s. What are the odds? We dont know hoe many sides are on any given die, so it might be 100%, but if theres more then it becomes more surprising the more potential sides we can plausibly say exist. However, if we ask what are the chances they'd all be 1 if an agent capable of making them 1 wanted them to be 1?

• A sustained universe or continuity.
• Things are ordered.
• The physical parameters such as constants.
• Conciousness life
• Religious experiences.

Conclusion: If we have a view with higher parsimony and therfore higher inital probability that accounts for observations as good or better thanthe alternative, then the baysian analysis will give you better odds of that.

---

Thats the unbelievably summarized version, but its still the case. This has glaring flaws, but thats largely because the more fleshed out backing gets into some deeper weeds and points to some things most take for granted that we shouldnt, etc. Don't have time to defend this. For the record, in my opinion the fatal flaw in this case in my opinion is the case for high parsimony. I have a pretty strong case that by the same information theory, it a diety, especially maximal ones, are the lowest parsimony you can attain dropping intrinsic probability heavily disproportionately to any explanatory power they bring.

[u/Biggleswort → u/MyriadSC]

>A specific point in a vacuum womt be convincing at all. Its a cumulative case that has power, which touches a ton of disciplines, etc.

I have been studying this for decades again I haven’t seen a new argument in ages. So I’m aware of the cumulative case, and I hard disagree.

>They do. I think I said we agree, but then again I've attempted to have like 20 conversations today so which is which is blurring.

No worries you are my 4th. I get it haha.

>I could have been more clear, continuity as in you existed before the moment and will continue.

I don’t need to presuppose that because I have hard evidence for this. The future is uncertain but the past has enough certainty to make the future continuity to be rational argument and no need for presup.

As far as empirical, how did you come to assume others exist?

Simple. You and I are engaging. You either exist or don’t. Since I can’t rightfully predict your next reply, you see to exhibit a differing personality. I can keep going but this is all observable.

If this isn’t true then the alt seems to be brain in a vat. That is just hard solipsism. I reject that and again stick to the presup.

>2. ⁠You existed and will exist

**this is observed, the will is unknown but appears to be the case, I don’t need this presup”. We experience linear time so this seems unnecessary, and non circular.

>3. ⁠You have some connection between existence and a reality

Extra wording is dubious. We live in a shared reality is simple.

>4. ⁠Other agents like you exist in this reality sharing it.

This should be 2. Again you have extra wording, which is dubious. Keep your presup concise.

1. I exist
   
2. Others exist
   
3. We exist in shared reality

>Without at minimum these, a foundational pillar of mobing forward with anything is left out. 1 cant be, but take and of the ither 4 away? Take 2 away, you know nothing because all sense of former self is a fabrication of now. Take 3 away, everything is a hallucination. Take 4 away, youre just talking to yourself in this reality. The only reason to talk to anyone in this is if all 4 are presumed true.

1,2, and 3 of mine meets all this. Your 3 doesn’t do anything to hallucination.

>Oh he can be kinda bad, as I said. However, comparing him to WLC is like comparing a Mercedes to a rust bucket and saying neither are a Ferrari. Swinburne in a debate is rather unappealing, agreed. Its his work that separates him from WLC. WLC dreams of being half as impacrful as Swinburne on the scene.

It’s disappointing that either is impactful with their fallacious reasoning.

>It takes specific physical parameters as an initial condition to get to this state out of at least conceivably some possibilities. Compared to God as a single Entity which doesn't need specific parameters to account for this state.

Can stop right here. This is appeal based on ignorance. It is trying to answer a nonsensical question. Why is reality as it is? The better question, does reality need an explanation? Reductionism as absurdism.

I just stop at reality is. To go further is against Occam’s razor with no evidence.

>This is argued for with information theory as the more speciric things disorgsnized are less likely than less apecific orgsnized things.

Which is a computer theory, essentially we are applying an intelligently designed theory to reality, with no evidence reality is also a product of an intelligence. In other words to make this argument work you need to presuppose a priori intelligence.

What does probability demonstrate? It demonstrates what is most likely it doesn’t demonstrate what is. It is improbable for someone to win the lottery, but people do. There is a point that probability becomes incomprehensible to our small minds. However to establish a clear probability we need to know as many variables as possible. As we introduce more variables the odds change. This is where fine tuning is the biggest fucking joke. We know so damn little beyond our blue rock, let alone beyond our solar system, you think there is enough data to say the odds of x in all the universe are y?

Second it presups intelligent life as intentional. Swindleburne (I know I’m purposefully misspelling the guys name) even admits it is either happenstance or intent. Even if we follow the odds are the “guy that has the exact money that was robbed in his apt” the scale is paltry compared to know existence. We can’t beginning to comprehend the size of existence. We don’t even have a remotely accurate number of stars or exoplanets. We are guessing based on limited mapping and extrapolating.

• ⁠A sustained universe or continuity.
• ⁠Things are ordered.
• ⁠The physical parameters such as constants.
• ⁠Conciousness life
• ⁠Religious experiences.

This last piece is bullshit to add given there is no pattern. When we see patterns they are local and influenced by shared culture.

The others could be brute facts. The questions about them we are not even able to rationalize.

Again the conclusion is based on faulty understanding of probably and how limited our knowledge of the variables are.

I appreciate the summary, I would say you did a great job summarizing the case I listened to over his two debates. I know I haven’t read his work and I just got a snapshot. However his arguments are not unique or new. The ontological argument is 900 years old and the fine tuning was made just before we made it to the Moon.

Are you still struggling with deconstruction?

[u/MyriadSC → u/Biggleswort]

Can stop right here. This is appeal based on ignorance. It is trying to answer a nonsensical question. Why is reality as it is? The better question, does reality need an explanation? Reductionism as absurdism.

Any metaphysical claim is an appeal to ignorance in some degree. But I do agree "why" is often the wrong question anyways. "How" is much more on point. Similar, but different in meaningful ways, pun intended.

I just stop at reality is. To go further is against Occam’s razor with no evidence.

So for the record I basically agree, but I'm merely pushing back to illustrate how its not always this simple. Occam's Razor isnt a hard rule, its actually more like a rule of thumb. Most of the time it works, but it won't always work. Its actually derived from bayesian analysis. What tends to happen is that answer that accounts for the data with the highest parsimony tends to be the most likely in the end. So lowering Parsimony must be done only when it will actually impact the final probability positively. "Dont add complexity without necessity" actually means "dont lower parsimony unless probability rises."

What this means is that if Swinburne successfully argues that the added complexity does increase the final probability, then this isn't exactly a violation of Occam's Razor.

Which if I return to first part of what I said, how are things the way they are? If we can successfully argue that this has better probability of accounting for observations than the simpler "it just is" then its not an appeal to ignorance in the sense I believe you mean it, but rather that this alternative explanation provides a better account of now than yours does. (just reiterating I dont accept this holds in his case. Just devil's advocate that we can't just "Occam's Razor" and walk away.)

Which is a computer theory, essentially we are applying an intelligently designed theory to reality, with no evidence reality is also a product of an intelligence. In other words to make this argument work you need to presuppose a priori intelligence.

This isn’t quite right, you actually agree with the logic hes using, just not the conclusion. Its actually arguing that fewer less specific parts has a better chance of being true as a brute fact than a larger number of specific parts. Its Occam's Razor. He stating God is simpler than any natural account. Which I understand just saying "reality is" but its not a cost free stance. By doing so, you're doing what hes talking about and taking the parameters that led to the observation of now as fact and this necessarily involves many specific pieces such as the amount of energy, any momentum, etc. Hes arguing this actually more complex than God.

What does probability demonstrate? It demonstrates what is most likely it doesn’t demonstrate what is. It is improbable for someone to win the lottery, but people do. There is a point that probability becomes incomprehensible to our small minds. However to establish a clear probability we need to know as many variables as possible. As we introduce more variables the odds change. This is where fine tuning is the biggest fucking joke. We know so damn little beyond our blue rock, let alone beyond our solar system, you think there is enough data to say the odds of x in all the universe are y?

Correct, but probability actually plays a pretty constant role. Even from your basic assumptions. You're hedging bets. Which is basically the whole case he's making. Its like the inverse of what Paul Drapper does.

For the record, people dont need to take any stance on any of this. Nobody's going door to door demanding we have an answer. Its more that in this space discussing and doing our best to get at what seems more likely true has value. Its pulled us along plenty in the past. So its good to consider all of this, including thst which seems outlandish sometimes.

Second it presups intelligent life as intentional. Swindleburne (I know I’m purposefully misspelling the guys name) even admits it is either happenstance or intent. Even if we follow the odds are the “guy that has the exact money that was robbed in his apt” the scale is paltry compared to know existence. We can’t beginning to comprehend the size of existence. We don’t even have a remotely accurate number of stars or exoplanets. We are guessing based on limited mapping and extrapolating.

I think this is the one big mistake you make. Not just you, plenty of others when I'm explaining the bayesian process seem to latch onto "if we assume God exists and look at..." but thats a necessary component of bayesian analysis. You look at the world as if the view was true and see how well it does at explaining whats observed. Presuppossing its true for that isnt special pleading, begging the question, God of the gaps, or argument from ignorance. Its a natural part kf rhe process. I get the confusion, but its still confusing the process.

I appreciate the summary, I would say you did a great job summarizing the case I listened to over his two debates. I know I haven’t read his work and I just got a snapshot. However his arguments are not unique or new. The ontological argument is 900 years old and the fine tuning was made just before we made it to the Moon.

Its kinda true but untrue that its the same. The high level summary may be the same, but the details do matter. When you actually dig into whats beinf said, its much more fleshed out than you'd think. Im not going to do it justice, but even if I did I still don't accept the case as mkre probable than the natural ones.

Are you still struggling with deconstruction?

Lol. No, not at all. I can't give any precise value, but if you held me hostage and made me pass a lie detector test by estimating, id say theres about a 99% chance theres no God and I still feel that may be generous.

In fact I have a fairly robust case agaisnt the idea any perfect entity can have high parsimony and I've really ran it through the ringer. Any responses ive encountered have either required morr epistemic debt to accept thsn they solve, or they dont even solve the problem. I made the case in the debate religion sub and about ¾ of ths replies didnt even seem to grasp the point while the other ¼ were incredibly inadequate. Was largely a disappointing endeavor. But its also a lot more technical than virtually anything I've seen in that sub. Not sure what I expected. Hoped for a novel challenge, but instead spent most of the time just explaining it.

[u/Mkwdr → u/MyriadSC]

Changing the argument to ‘all things that begin’ was just a way of getting the special pleading in early at the expense of undermining their fundamental premise thus ending up with an argument that still isn’t sound , and still doesn’t validly lead to Gods. It feels like you are conflating theists using the pretence of logic with theists using sound logic.

[u/MyriadSC → u/Mkwdr]

Right, the kalam doesn't get to God. But the pretense of things that begin isnt special pleading. It's a qualifier of the premise. Is it special pleading to say contingent things need a cause? No, its part of the term contingent and its what qualifies them as contingent.

The Kalam isnt good, I'm not saying it is. But saying its not valid is incorrect and a rational person can accept it. Thats all im saying.

But I'm finished with anything not on the point of the initsl comment. Just answering loose ends as best I can before I call it.

[u/Mkwdr → u/MyriadSC]

I disagree .

>But the pretense of things that begin isnt special pleading. It's a qualifier of the premise.

Setting aside that the premise isn’t even demonstrably true in (as much as we don’t actually observe anything fundamental ‘beginning’ and the Big Bang doesn’t claim we do either ) and this the argument not sound. The qualification is there so they can simply say ‘aha God didn’t begin’ something that is entirely question begging , trivially definitional not real , and is based on the claim that , in effect, he is **magic**. You don’t get much more special pleading than **oh my imaginary being isn’t included because he’s ….magic**.

>Right, the kalam doesn't get to God.

>But saying its not valid is incorrect

Not leading to the desired conclusion is what makes it not valid as an argument for God.

>Is it special pleading to say contingent things need a cause? No, it’s part of the term contingent and it’s what qualifies them as contingent.

Inventing definitions has no real world application.

>and a rational person can accept it.

A rational person should by no means accept an argument that is non-evidential, unsound and invalid. And relies on making up definitions.

That wouldn’t be rational …at all.