The Cosmological Argument, Kalaam, and Invisible People (Composition Fallacy)

Sorry everyone, I've been rather busy recently. I received something like ten "proofs" about either some variation of the Kalaam or Cosmological Argument, and two or three that brought up the fine tuning argument, as well as a few others and some religious spam mail. I plan on targeting each of these arguments in the next few posts.

The Cosmological Argument and the more modified Kalaam version are very similar, with a few semantic differences. I will cover the Cosmological Argument first, and then add a few more things to refute Kalaam.

The Cosmological Argument

The C.A. tends to be argued as follows:

P1. Everything that exists must have a cause.
P2. If you follow the chain of events backwards through time, it cannot go back infinitely, so eventually you arrive at the first cause.
P3. This cause must, itself, be uncaused.
P4. But nothing can exist without a cause, except for God.
C1. Therefore, God exists.

This sort of thing is argued all the time by all sorts of people, often in the form of "Where did that come from?" Theists like to ask this question over and over again. Then, when you say that either nothing came before the Big Bang or that you don't know, they triumphantly grin and act as though they have just proven the existence of God or Allah or Zeus or whoever.

Before I even go any farther, let me point out that this is major argumentum ad ignorancium. The entire family of cosmological arguments essentially say "You don't know exactly how everything came to exist, therefore my god did it." It's ridiculous. To quote a piece of advice I gave to a few other people before, if your "proof for God" works equally well with Chuck Norris, Invisible Sock-Drawer Pixies and Invisible Pink Unicorns, its probably not very convincing to anyone who doesn't already completely agree with you.

B-b-b-breakdown

Now, piece by piece. Premise 1 is invalid because, in fact, not everything that exists has a cause. When you look at a quantum scale, matter actually can pop into existence uncaused. If any of this interests you, shoot me an e-mail and I can give you some great links for this topic, but I don't want to get too far off base in this post. The point is, premise 1 is invalid, thus the whole proof is useless.

Premises 2 and 3 are reasonably valid. Surprising, isn't it?

Can someone say special pleading? Nothing can exist without cause...oh wait except for God. You can't just say that a certain causation rule applies to everything, and then it doesn't. The point is, premise 4 is invalid, thus the whole proof is useless.

Kalaam


The Kalaam argument for God is essentially the same thing, with only a few semantic differences as follows:

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The Universe began to exist.
C1. Therefore, the Universe must have a cause, God.

The change to "began to exist" in fact changes little about the overall idea of the "proof."

B-b-b-breakdown

Premise 1 is, like mentioned above, not valid. Not everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2 is actually correct, though it may at first seem like an assumption. If you're interested in the proof, comment below.

The conclusion is obviously begging the question or special pleading. Even if you were to prove that the Universe had a cause, what justification do you have for identifying it as God? I'll get more into this in a minute.

Meaningless God


Both of these proofs say absolutely nothing. Even if these proofs were valid, what do they say about this "god"? According to this proof, all they have is a god that caused the Big Bang and nothing more. No extras included. This god can't create life, write books, talk to people, etc. In that case, if it was just a cause, why call it God? Why not just call it the first cause? The god that cosmological arguments reference is a nothing god.

Major Assumptions


Stuff exists. It must have come from somewhere. Science can trace it back as far as the Big Bang though there is no certainty about how the Big Bang came about. Prevailing theories suggest that it sprung from the laws of physics inherent in reality, though it is not known. In that theory, the assumption is that the laws of physics are inherent in reality, an assumption that is at least reasonable. Since something, be it physical or more along the laws of physics, had to always exist. To proceed from there, you must make an assumption about what that was. The Big Bang theory assumes laws of physics. To make the assumption that it is God or Cthulhu is entirely unjustified, especially since it would seem even more important to ask the question "Where did God come from?" Basically, you have to assume something. What justification is there for assuming God?

Fallacy of Composition


Finally, this argument employs something called the fallacy of composition. This is when you say "Everything in Set A has properties x, y, and z. Therefore, Set A has properties x, y, and z" or more simply, when you include a set in itself. A practical example of this would be:

"Sodium and Chloride are both dangerous to humans. Therefore any combination of sodium and chloride will be dangerous to humans."

This may sound absolutely idiotic (and it is, don't worry), but people have actually used almost this identical argument to say why amino acids could not have formed on the early earth. They say that they can't form in the presence of oxygen, and oxygen is in water, so therefore the amino acids could not have formed in water as predicted. It seems absurd, but people actually make those arguments. My favorite example of the fallacy of composition, however, is as follows:

"All atoms are invisible to the naked eye. All humans are made of atoms. Therefore all humans are invisible to the naked eye."

cartoonstock.com

Sorry for the Delay

Sorry everyone, I know it's been a while since my last post, I've been busy with a few things. I plan to a make a new post soon; I have a couple "proofs" sitting in my inbox that I plan to discuss!

cartoonstock.com

My Friend Jonah's Proof for God

Jonah, in his e-mail to me, states:

If one believes in the big bang theory then they’ll agree that according to it, there is a never-ending cycle of big bangs, eventually followed by a Grand Collapsing when the universe reaches critical mass, and then another big bang.

If one believes in the Creation theory, they’ll agree that according to it, The universe was made at a point,(lets say at year 0) and will continue indefinitely.

P1. Time is infinite
You’re probably familiar with the Infinite Monkey Theorem if so, you’ll acknowledge that:
P2. If something is physically possible, given an infinite period of time it will happen.
P3. It is physically possible for there to be a being with the properties of Living Forever and Time Travel (String theory)
C1. Given an infinite amount of time, there will be/has been a being with the properties of Living Forever and Time Travel
C2. There will be/has been a being with the properties of Living Forever and Time Travel
P4. God is a being that has the properties of living forever and Time Travel
C3. There will be/has been a God(that can live forever and can Time Travel)
C4. God exists.

Premise 1:
You are correct in the assertion that there has been a proposed theory of a "Big Bounce" so to speak, involving an expansion and collapsing of space. This has never been proven, however, nor is it still a prevailing theory in astrophysics. This loop could only occur in what is called a closed universe, where the energy density is greater than one. For more information on the "shape" of the universe, I would recommend Lawrence Krauss's lecture, "A Universe from Nothing." The main point is that there is no proof that this Big Bounce idea is true, therefore premise one cannot be shown to be true. Without an infinite amount of time, the Infinite Monkey Theorem fails.

Premise 3:
It is questionable whether or not time travel is in fact possible.

Conclusion 3:

Even if this argument, with all of its questionable scientific principles, were to be accepted, you have not proven a very impressive god. All this would prove is an entity which both lives forever and can travel through time, presumably at will. This could be a unicorn, a garden pixie, or a living proton. It is possible such a being exists, but how would this "God" impact our lives? There is no justification for extrapolating that such a being was in any way responsible for the creation of humans, there is no reason to worship this being, this being has none of the properties attributed to a god, and the existence or nonexistence of such a being is for the most part irrelevant in almost all circumstances. For more on this, see my post on Words and Their Baggage.

Overall, it was an interesting attempt to reconcile science with god claims. Your two major flaws, however, were a few unjustified assumptions about scientific principles and you seem to be proving a meaningless god.

timemachinego.com

How do you justify your beliefs?

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have."
-1 Peter 3:15


I recently received an e-mail criticizing me because I could not disprove God. First, I have made it clear in a previous post that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. There are an infinite number of possible gods, and it would be absurd to request a disproof of so many unjustified claims. I challenge any and all readers to provide me with what they believe is their best proof for the existence of their God. Please be very clear in your attempt at proof, as I will copy and paste it directly in my response to your post. If you don't want your username referenced or would like me to refer to you by a certain name, please mention it in the e-mail. Please send all proof attempts to atwopiecepuzzle@gmail.com. Good luck c:

smbc-comics.com

Stages of (Dis)belief

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

-Leviticus 20:13

I'm commonly asked why I have this blog, as well as why I bother debating with theists who "will never change their mind." People seem to have the idea that the process of going from theism to atheism is simple and quick; one minute you believe, the next you don't. This is a common misunderstanding. It is entirely true that I have no chance of getting into a debate with a theist and having him leave as an atheist. That is not in any way what I can do or what I think I am able to do. Rather, people tend to fall into certain categories based upon how strongly they feel about their beliefs. If I were to say I have a specific goal when debating theists and agnostics, I would have to say that it is to move them, even just slightly, along this scale. I myself was raised Roman Catholic, and over the course of about four years I went through various stages, theism without organized religion, agnosticism, and finally full atheism.

Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Strong Believers

This category of believers generally encompasses those strong believers who feel they are absolutely correct in their beliefs. They tend to believe that the Bible (or other holy book) was written directly or indirectly by God, and base their life around their god. They believe they have proof for their god, and there is almost no chance of this person ever being convinced that they are wrong. Almost everyone who falls into this category also makes the absurd statements that the Universe is 6,000 years old, or that argue that evolution does not occur (it happens, it is a fact, if you still argue the point you are simply being ignorant). This was me until about five years ago. The method of debate employed by these theists generally depends on either distorted/made up facts or the fallacies of special pleading, false dichotomies (attempting to disprove scientific theories such as evolution or the Big Bang and believing that proves their theory), or variations of the argument from design/uncaused causes.

Average Believers

Most theists fall into this category. They go to church, are familiar with some Bible stories (but most have never read the whole Bible), and some accept the 6,000 year old Universe or argue against evolution. These people believe what they are told by those in the above category as well as priests and other religious figures. This strata of believers often does not ever actually think about the truth behind the claims they accept, they simply dogmatically accept these claims as they were told to by parents and other authority figures. This was me until about four years ago. The method of debate employed by these theists generally depends on argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad ignorancium, special pleading, and anecdotal evidence.

Unaffiliated with Religion

This category is the group of theists that will say the bible was written by humans, it is not an authority, and they do not believe in any specific religion. They merely have this belief that a god exists, usually a personal god and usually one who has a heaven in store for us. I generally look down upon this group of believers as a great deal of them will acknowledge that they have no evidence or justification for their belief and yet they still believe. I have little respect for people who hold beliefs that they agree are unjustified. If you believe in a Judeo-Christian god and heaven, yet you accept that the Bible and other holy books were written by people and are likely fairy tales, where do you derive your beliefs from? Holding a belief purely and knowingly because it makes you feel better is something that I detest, despite that fact that I fell into this category until about three years ago. This group of theists almost always resorts to an appeal to emotion to justify their beliefs.

Agnostics

Agnostics tend to be one of two types. Some are pretty much atheists who are either scared of the word atheist or who are holding on to the last sliver of belief they have just for the sake of "fitting in." These people can generally be swayed to atheism somewhat easily by simply showing them that the reasons they think they have for belief make no sense. The second type is the group that simply chooses not to think about religion because of the cognitive dissonance it causes when they try to reconcile the nonsense that theism claims with the reality that is present and observably true. Again, these people can usually be persuaded to reject the absurd claims of religion as long as they you can get them to actually think about the subject. Agnostics generally use the first cause argument to justify their retained belief of a god.

Atheists


At this point, the person has fully stopped accepting god claims. They have concluded that there is inadequate evidence to support belief in a god, and will generally no longer accept claims without thinking critically about them first.

As noted above, I don't anticipate converting anyone overnight; it's not an instantaneous process. I hope by encouraging people to actually examine the truth value of their beliefs, I may at least shift some readers along the scale.

ffffound.com

National Organization for Marriage and Giant Umbrellas

"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

-Deuteronomy 22:5

In this post I would simply like to post an advertisement presented by a Christian organization against same-sex marriage. First, I just want to say that I am in no way implying that all Christians would even want to be associated with this commercial. This is merely an example of one product of religion that I absolutely detest. To lighten the mood somewhat, I have followed it up with a spoof. 

NOM's TV Ad

 

Parody

After watching both videos, I highly recommend you at least pay a short visit to http://www.giantgayrepellentumbrella.com/, if only to appreciate the extreme level of sarcasm present.

http://members.optusnet.com.au

Argumentation: "My God is Energy" - Words and Their Baggage

"Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."
-L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology


Too often I'll ask people to define their god for me, and they answer with something like, "God is energy!" or, "God is love!" What is that even supposed to mean? Unless they are referring to either the thermodynamic quantity equivalent to the capacity of a physical system to do work or the Taiwanese hip-hop boy-band from 2002, I do not know what they mean by their claim. I love Taiwanese guys singing as much as the next guy, but I simply do not believe that Milk, Ady, Toro, Penny, and Joe could be responsible for all of the actions attributed to God. Words have baggage. When you say something is God, you are changing the understood definition of God. If you tell me that a coffee cup is God, I will fully admit to being a gnostic polytheist. 


Similarly, people often can be heard saying, "God lives in another dimension." This demonstrates something very clear about that person; they have never actually thought about what they were told, they simply repeated it (or they came up with it on their own and are simply stupid). Again, unless you mean something like length, width, height, or the 2005 song by the Australian band Wolfmother, this claim is meaningless to me. You would be confused if I told you that my friend Pete lived in the dimension "depth;" likewise, I can gleam no meaning from the statement that God lives in another dimension. The word dimension has baggage. Science fiction movies seem so enjoy using that phrase, and many people, theists and atheists, seem to repeat this without actually thinking about what it means. Isn't it scary how many people can claim to believe something they've never thought about?


Finally, I will discuss the words "mind" and "intelligence." To shorten the typing of all of this, let us say that intelligence is the ability to comprehend information, and a mind is the entity which has intelligence and is responsible for thoughts and feelings (this way I only have to type "mind" instead of both, seeing as they are both used in the same contexts). A mind is a product of a brain. To say that one just exists, not stemming from a brain, is quite a hefty assumption. Nowhere in the universe has a mind been demonstrably shown to exist without a brain (or, arguably, a computer, though artificial intelligence is iffy; even if artificial intelligence counted, it wouldn't change anything). 


In summation, to say that your god is energy, a mind in another dimension, or any other misuse of words and concepts, is completely fallacious. It accomplishes absolutely nothing in an argument because it does not in any way make a point, let alone justify one. If someone is unable to even tell you what their god is without using words that essentially tell you absolutely nothing, should you be inclined to accept their claim?

toothpastefordinner.com