Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Fair Question

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a comment to my prior post “AnimatedDust” writes:

Fascinating discussion. I have spent hours reading it. However, it seems to me that A_B [i.e., “Acartia_bogartis’ is] assuming the position of a superior tennis player who stands at the center of the baseline and by his superior play is causing all of the UD heavy hitters to have to run all over the court.

Of all the substantive arguments that you make, he disregards them at his pleasure and hits the ball to yet another corner, and you willingly respond and dutifully hit it back.

You seem oblivious to the fact that he cares nothing about your substantive answers and is merely here for his own facile amusement.  His targets constantly move– his objections constantly change.  He is unconvinced at all because he is after all, your garden-variety atheist who believes himself at this moment in time to be intellectually superior to the lot of you.

Why do you keep playing tennis? . . .  you all run, breathlessly, hitting the ball right back at them, waiting for them to come up with another question the send you breathlessly running after it.  Give an atheist a thousand reasons for the existence of God he will demand 1001. It never ends.  When will you figure that out?

AD, you raise a fair point, one which I have pondered several times. Why bother?  And the answer is this:  We know we will never convence A_B and his ilk.  We do not play for their sake.  We play for the folks in the stands, as it were.  Tens of thousands of people visit this site every month.  Only a tiny fraction of them participate in the combox discussions, but many of them watch the debate with interest.  There is even internet jargon for those folks – lurkers.

In summary, we play for the lurkers, and they – not A_B and his fellow travelers – are the ultimate beneficiaries when we knock the atheists’ arguments out of the park again and again.

Comments
Reciprocating Bill #6 You make a good point. I do it for the love of the game and most importantly, to learn and sharpen (or change if needed) my arguments. I want to learn more about why people defend evolutionism also -- and see how they respond to ID. I don't think about lurkers at all, really.Silver Asiatic
September 8, 2014
September
09
Sep
8
08
2014
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT
Querius #57 True - I can imagine a slick debater saying that. Right - I meant the most informed and ethical opponents who will offer some real challenges.Silver Asiatic
September 8, 2014
September
09
Sep
8
08
2014
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT
I'm with fossil. I haven't completed enough college credit for even an aa degree so mostly lurk and read....and have for years. Thank you for such a great site. One of the few where the comment section of each post is frequently more interesting than the article.bb
September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT
fossil @ 13 Thank you for sharing your opinion. My ignorance should be noticeable every time I comment on anything here, but perhaps sometimes I've managed to disguise it pretty well. ???? Have a good week!Dionisio
September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic wrote:
It’s essential to try to recruit the best opposition we can find and engage in some debate.
By "best," I hope it would mean the best informed, intelligent, and ethical. Simply "winning" a debate through various artifices, some of which we see here, simply obscures the truth and is useless to science. I can easily imagine a skilled debater handily winning a debate on, let's say, mandatory euthenasia at age 70. "Think of all the money that's wasted on the aged who have lived a good life, but who are now a burden on society, and whose resources could be better used to eliminate all poverty and starvation across the world!" "Well, you would be against the Dignified Exit legislation, wouldn't you? After all, you're nearly 50 and dumb as a rock. How can you justify your pitiless selfishness when so many people in the world are suffering? Haven't you yourself claimed that Christ died for the world? How old was he?" It could happen. -QQuerius
September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
BM40 #51
It was much more entertaining when the argument regarding design was new.Today UD is playing tennis against a wall.
Agreed and good analogy. Some of the fun has gone away because the other side is more careful about covering-up their agenda. In the early days, ID exposed all of the attitudes that had firmly in place for a long time.Silver Asiatic
September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
It’s easy to declare victory but one should be aware that UD has not been mentioned at PT for ages and that the uncommonlydense thread at AtBC is drying out.
It's essential to try to recruit the best opposition we can find and engage in some debate. Right now we have to declare victory because we can see how ill-informed most anti-ID arguments are. It's all just attempts at quick dismissal and ridicule in the hope that we can be ignored. The evolutionary mainstream learned to ignore ID because engaging us is a lose-lose situation for them. They either lose arguments and reveal how weak their position, or they give ID credibility merely by engaging our arguments seriously.Silver Asiatic
September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
Sure, Q. Why shouldn't the CEO be held liable? In the UK directors can't be held liable. Unfortunately, power gets power, gets power, ad finitum, until they upset the apple-cart, when Socialists or at least 'socialists' qua 'non antisocialists' (which is what the right essentially are) are returned to government, to begin redressing the disaster. Unfortunately, of course, without the spiritual underpinning of Christianity, both Socialism and socialism rapidly degenerate, as we've seen very very clearly in the UK, notably, since Thatcher's instalment, as the puppet of the one percenter 'backwoodsmen', who, with their parliamentary minions had always been beavering away in the background, biding their time - aided and abetted by the media, of course. Thatcher was a particularly brutish demagogue, and they must have found it hard to believe their luck - at the very time, moreover, when a measure of public affluence, unprotected by Christian belief, made the public vulnerable to the sweet-talk/propaganda of the vandal hordes. Not that she ever had a majority of the votes of the public. Unfortunately, it wasn't necessary.Axel
September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
Mung. Thanks for the links. That seems in the ballpark of what I'm asking. Though it seems to require an observation of the creation... or at least an understanding and/or acceptance that some contingent things exists. Interesting.. if we didn't think contingent things existed, then we would conclude that they must exist (i wonder where that leads to). But by thinking contingent things exist, we conclude that a necessary being exist. I took the survey, and it concludes: "1. Define 'C' as the sum total of all contingent things. 2. C is itself contingent. (by your report) 3. There cannot be a contingent thing that has no cause. (by your report) 4. Therefore, C has a cause. (by 2 & 3) 5. Nothing can cause itself to exist or be caused to exist solely by its parts. (by your report) 6. Therefore, something other than C and its parts is a cause (or partial cause) of C. (by 4 & 5) 7. Nothing other than C and its parts is contingent, since C is the sum total of all contingent things. (by 1) 8. Therefore, something that is not contingent is capable of being a cause (or partial cause) of C. (by 6 & 7) 9. Therefore, there is a Necessary Being. (by definition of 'Necessary Being' & 8)" But it defines necessary being as: "something that (i) can cause something, and that (ii) must, by nature, exist" I guess there is more to it. I'll have to look at the enhanced version in PDF.
"We should perhaps separate theistic arguments for the existence of God (e.g., the Ontological Argument) from an argument which concludes that there must be something that exists, necessarily. JGuy, which are you asking for?
The more interesting one, of course, regards God. And I think I'm looking for more of a package. An argument that concludes: (i) something rather than nothing should necessarily exist, and (ii) it MUST be God. So, you might be right that it needs to be separated. But it might be the case that it can't be separated. idk I know that is asking a lot. I suppose I'm just interested in if there are any strong arguments apart from teleological one's (btw: which I find solely sufficient). In the first video you linked, I found it interesting that the guy stated some people did not believe in a necessary being, yet their choices to answer questions lead to the conclusion by the so far as I can see simple logic. But I'm still curious how they might elaborate on any nature of the necessary being. Thanks again. Sorry if my above seems like rambling.JGuy
September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT
There's much to admire about Teddy Roosevelt. However, there is much to deplore in his embrace of Progressivism, which led to an enormous increase in the power of the federal government. In particular, I'd argue that both the 16th and 17th Amendments were very detrimental in the long run.anthropic
September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT
IMO the game has changed dramatically. It was much more entertaining when the argument regarding design was new.Today UD is playing tennis against a wall. It's easy to declare victory but one should be aware that UD has not been mentioned at PT for ages and that the uncommonlydense thread at AtBC is drying out.BM40
September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT
Axel@43, Teddy Roosevelt was an interesting man, a committed Christian, a conservationist, a social reformer to the point of being called a socialist (he criticized Marxism as impractical), and a person who valued personal qualities in people above their race---a strange concept in his time. I just ran across a quote from him that pleasantly surprised me, an idea that's appealed to me for a long time: "I believe that the officers, and, especially, the directors, of corporations should be held personally liable when any corporation breaks the law." -QQuerius
September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT
Whatever belongs to something is either caused by the principles of its nature, like risibility in man, or accrues to it from some extrinsic principle, like the light in the air which is caused by the sun. It is impossible that the act of existing itself be caused by the form or quiddity -- and by "caused" I mean as by an efficient cause -- for then something would be the cause of itself and produce itself in existence which is impossible. It is therefore necessary that everything whose act of existing is other than its nature have its act of existing from another. And because everything which exists through another is reduced to that which exists through itself, as to a first cause, there must be something which causes all things to exist, inasmuch as it is subsistent existence alone. Otherwise we would proceed to infinity in causes, since everything which is not a subsistent act of existing has a cause for its act of existing, as we have just said. It is evident, therefore, that an intelligence is form and an act of existing, and that it has its act of existing from the First Being which is (simply) existence only; and this it the First Cause, God. - On Being and Essence, Ch. 4 (excerpt)
Essence and Existence Medieval Sourcebook: Thomas Aquinas: On Being and Essence Aquinas on Being and Essence: a translation and interpretationMung
September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT
Posted in a different thread: Are There Good Reasons to Believe in a Necessary Being? take the survey A New and Improved Argument for a Necessary Being (PDF)Mung
September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT
We should perhaps separate theistic arguments for the existence of God (e.g., the Ontological Argument) from an argument which concludes that there must be something that exists, necessarily. JGuy, which are you asking for?Mung
September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT
p.s. HeK5. As you might guess, I already concede that the creation is enough. I'm just curious if apart from the creation whether there are any developed arguments. I'm not sure if the ontological argument is developed enough to satisfy that... idk... I haven't really evaluated it that closely.JGuy
September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
HeK5, Thanks for the time to write your response. I read it. It reminds me of some things to keep in mind. Such as, even the physical reality can almost be argued to be made of immaterial stuff. But then that makes one ask, what is the immaterial stuff... is it then the new material stuff we should consider? Haven't we gone full circle at that point? Perhaps, the supernatural should be considered the ultimate reality of what is... Anyway, perhaps, we can start with the notion that there IS an ultimate reality that is not nothing. And take that to mean that this ultimate reality must necessarily exist. But that doesn't really give a clean explanation, it's just a short cut to an answer of whether necessary existence of ultimate reality is the case. I guess the next question, from just that could one reason that it must be God in it's attributes. Or do we need the creation to get the short cut answer to that? ...as in Romans 1:20 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:JGuy
September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
Hi JGuy, Let me try to address your question. You said:
Think of my question again in that context. Without referring to things that exist and saying therefore God must be. My question is more like, apart from what we observe, can we reason whether it is even possible that God could not exist?
To be honest, I'm not sure that such an argument exists, where one can prove that God's existence is necessary without ever intersecting with what actually exists. It seems to me like you might be thinking of the form of the cosmological argument that basically asks, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Now, it could be that by "something" we mean the physical universe, in which case we've already failed to meet your requirements because the physical universe is something other than God that exists. However, it seems possible to mean by "something" the mere existence of anything, material or otherwise. If this is the case, we would then need to ask whether its even possible for literally nothing to exist. It's hard to imagine how to even refer to such a state of affairs, being that it's not even proper to refer to it as "a state of affairs" at all, but simply utter nonexistence. I'm not sure whether there's any knock-down argument against the possibility of total nothingness and non-existence but if one were to conclude that it is not possible for absolutely nothing to exist then they are, by definition, concluding that something must exist necessarily. The question then becomes, What is it that exists necessarily? From this point it seems hard to long delay some intersection with observable reality. Based on philosophical argument alone it seems we can conclude that this necessarily existent thing must be timeless due to the impossibility of an eternal past made up of an infinite number of distinct moments in time. We might further argue, on that same basis, that this necessarily existent thing must be immaterial, but it seems like in order to make that conclusion we would need to have knowledge not only of the self evident fact that a material object requires space, but that space and time go hand-in-hand, which requires knowledge that comes from discoveries related to things other than God that actually exist. It seems to me we might be stuck here, without the ability to further demonstrate that the necessarily existent thing has the characteristics commonly associated with God unless we start drawing in the existence of things other than God that we know to exist. That said, I'm not sure if there's really any need to make an argument for God's existence without reference to other things that exist. For example, once we remove that requirement we can return to the point in the argument above where we ask what is it that exists necessarily and begin by presenting the material universe, which we know to exist, as a possible candidate for that necessarily existent thing. We can then quickly rule it out as a candidate based on the scientific evidence pointing to its beginning to exist a finite time ago as well as the philosophical objections to the possibility of traversing an infinite number of past events. Having ruled out the material universe as a candidate for the necessarily existent thing but submitting its actual existence into evidence we can then use the arguments commonly associated with the Kalam Cosmological argument to point to the fact that the material universe, having begun to exist, requires a cause that is timeless, immaterial, incredibly powerful, and personal. Regarding that last quality of being personal, as Physicist and Mathematician, Edward Whittaker, put it:
There is no ground for supposing that matter and energy existed before and was suddenly galvanized into action. For what could distinguish that moment from all other moments in eternity? It is simpler to postulate creation ex nihilo -- Divine will constituting Nature from nothingness.
Furthermore, the first quality determined for the cause of the universe, timelessness, is one that we can arrive at through philosophical argument alone as a necessary quality for the necessarily existent thing we have previously concluded must exist. And the second quality of being immaterial is one we can conclude is necessary for that necessarily existent thing as an unavoidable implication of the first quality in light of our awareness of the relation between space and time. On this basis, it seems fair to me to say that Occam's Razor would lead us to conclude that the necessarily existent thing and the cause of the universe are one and the same. That seems to me to be about as close as I can get to the type of argument you're looking for where we argue for God's existence through only minimal intersection with observable reality. Perhaps one of the benefits of this form of argumentation is that through philosophical argument alone we provide the groundwork for God's existence before inferring anything on the basis of the existence of the material universe, arguing that something with some of God's qualities must exist even before considering anything from observable reality. We then offer material reality itself as an inadequate candidate for that thing with some of the qualities of God that must exist but use its mere existence to elucidate other necessary qualities of God. Of course, all this depends on concluding that it is not possible for absolutely nothing to exist (not sure if anyone else has anything to offer on this point). On the plus side, I seem to recall Lawrence Krauss basically making exactly that claim in his debates with Craig. So I guess you could decide whether or not this is a good approach based on how your interlocutor responds to the question of whether it would be possible for absolutely nothing to exist. In my next post I think I'll offer some thoughts on the Ontological Argument, because I don't think it fits the bill for the type of argument you described. I think the Ontological Argument is ultimately a good one, but I think that it requires some good argumentation for its first premise and that the strength of it comes from observations and judgments about observable reality, which seems to be pretty much the opposite of what you were looking for. Take care, HeKSHeKS
September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
'Even more impressive from a man who refused treatment and insisted on finishing his speech after stopping a would-be assassin’s bullet in his pectoral muscle!' Q, Hilarious. He was some character, wasn't he? I hadn't realised. I expect the 'would be' assassin had a mental breakdown after that. Was the attempt on Roosevelt's life after the fascist coup conspiracy involving J P Morgan, Dupont, etc was exposed by the former marine general, Smedley Butler, or before it? They got off, scot free, but it is said that as a result, he as able to get through a lot more legislation than he might have, otherwise. One thing I read that creased me up, and which makes perfect sense, is that the greatest danger to 'hit men' are their employers!Axel
September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
Even more impressive from a man who refused treatment and insisted on finishing his speech after stopping a would-be assassin's bullet in his pectoral muscle! :o Some of his other quotes are also memorable. -QQuerius
September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
I think it might be the ever so slightly sinister overtone, so peaceably expressed.Axel
September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
#38 Ha! Ha! Better still! I don't know why, but that just tops it off!Axel
September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
Wonderful joke, Q! Reminds me of a superficially similar kind of exchange between Sherlock Holmes and Watson, but it seems that the more profound and mysterious the subject matter, most notably, religion, the more side-splittingly hilarious the humour can be. In a discussion on a Catholic blog, where 'traditionalist' bitter-enders were venting about the down-grading of the Latin Mass in favour of the vernacular, I said I liked to think that if Mary and Joseph were alive and went to a Mass, presumably in Israel, they'd be able to understand what was being said.Axel
September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
Axel@34, Wise words from experience nicely put! Incidentally, the complete quote from Theodore Roosevelt was from a letter he wrote in 1900:
I have always been fond of the West African proverb: "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far."
-QQuerius
September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
JGuy, I've never been a fan of ontological arguments for a several reasons: - They're based on our cognition, which is most likely to be fundamentally inadequate to the challenge. - They assume the conclusion. If God did not exist, could I still conceive of anything greater than myself? - They, and many other philosophical arguments are an intellectual extrapolation so distant from experiential reality, it is a certainty that they fail at some point. - And maybe God simply doesn't want it to work that way. Would it make sense that God would only want to relate to intelligent, educated, and wealthy people? Jesus, the Son of God, consorted with ordinary people, including tax collectors, prostitutes, and fisherman. For similar reasons, I tend to avoid conjecture about free will, the nature of God, the nature of information, the nature of consciousness. Or at least, I clearly treat it as unsupported conjecture. A story is told that Jesus met two people at the pearly gates to heaven. The Apostle Peter and the theologian Paul Tillich. He asked Peter, "Who do you say I am?" and Peter replied, "You're my Lord and savior, Yeshua Ha Machaich (Jesus, the Messiah), and you paid for my sins with your bloody sacrifice on the cross." Jesus replied, "Welcome to heaven, Peter my brother, and to eternal life, and to the fellowship of God and the saints." Jesus then asked Paul Tillich, "Who do you say I am?" And Paul Tillich answered, "Well, existentially, you're the ground of all being, escatalogically, you're the ground for all hope, and theologically, you're the ground for the divine-human encounter." Jesus replied, "Come again?" -QQuerius
September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
Or 'symbiotic synergy', as the case may be...Axel
September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
'I cannot remember a time when A_B has scored a major point, so to me he stands in the middle of the court pretending to be the superior tennis player, but loosing every game.' That last line is a killer, Moose Dr! I strongly suspect you are the personification of the synergetic symbiosis of a softly-spoken voice and a big stick.Axel
September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
The mark of a top-liner is docility, teachableness, imho, Q. I remember being awe-struck by the words of an old and very successful professional punter ('horse-player', in US parlance, I believe) in a little booklet he wrote. In a very matter of fact manner, almost in passing, he more or less said to pay attention to what anyone says, because it could be very important. Something like that. I mean it is, or should be, a truism in the spiritual life of the Christian and perhaps other mainstream religions, but clearly we too easily compartmentalize. The world has many wise souls, just as the churches have foolish ones. An old cafe proprietor once told me that when he was flying fighters from Britain during WWII, he used to keep his ears peeled for any mention, even in overheard conversation of any quirks the different types of plane possessed. And it saved his life on more than one occasion. I don't mean, the church doesn't have wise ones too, of course. In fact, the more I read the words of Catholic cardinals and bishops, or hear them on TV or video, the more I'm inclined to think that mutatis mutandis, given the Fall and the inevitability of abuse of power in a human power structure, also long under siege, they must, generally speaking, be contenders for the wisest group of people in mankind. In school the top science lads (also among the top language students), tended to speak quietly, when they spoke at all. Truman's dictum concerning the synergy of being softly spoken and carrying a big stick, as far as academic clout was concerned, would have been entirely redundant!Axel
September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
Axel, Exactly! Why should I or anyone move on? And of course, your point is broadly applicable. If someone doesn't understand how basic probability works, and they have a fault--finding attitude, why even bother trying to explain it to them, much less introduce new information that they're in no mood to understand, much less accept? I'm sure many of us have had professors who were doctrinaire in their beliefs---the term intellectual ossification comes to mind---while others who were far more qualified would carefully consider an honest question or challenge thoughtfully and provide a considered response without being judgemental or arrogant. The latter are a delight to be with! They have successfully defeated the temptation to allow their knowledge to puff them up. They are always ready to learn something new. -QQuerius
September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
#29 A_b 'For someone who claims to take no interest in what I say, you certainly go out of your way to repeatedly state this.' Oh, foolishness, thy sobriquet is, Humph! It's precisely because you seem to disbelieve him when he states that. You just will nae listen to him, so he has to keep repeating it.Axel
September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply