Round 5

From Agnostic Australian 5/25/05

Hello Brady.

Brady wrote: Having written a version of the cosmological argument myself, I don’t see how this is a cosmological argument.

I didn't say it was a cosmological argument. I said it was a cosmological argument in drag. Where the cosmological argument uses "cause" and "effect", the epistemic argument uses "justification" and "justified proposition" instead. Each argument is a showcase of special pleading: (1) claim the necessity of causes/justifications for every non theistic belief; and (2) deny the necessity of causes/justifications for every theistic belief.

I have confidence that the universe exists; you demand an "explanatory" cause for this. By a fallacy of equivocation, you claim "god" as this cause. You believe that "god" exists; you deny the need for an "explanatory" cause for this. I have confidence in the hypothesis of correspondence; you demand an "explanatory" justification for this. By a fallacy of equivocation, you claim "god" as this justification. You believe that "god" exists; you deny the need for an "explanatory" justification for this.

Your arguments are a litany of fallacies.

Brady wrote: I appreciate your effort here, but I think you missed the point Manion was making in his conclusion: If any atheist worldview is true, your comments are meaningless.

My arguments were based in your worldview: I take it that you believe [...]. My arguments were deductive inferences within your worldview. Are my arguments meaningless in your worldview? Is logic meaningless in your worldview? If not, you should answer my arguments instead of repeating your claims ad nauseam.

You claim that an atheist does not have the "elements" to form a "coherent and cohesive epistemology". I shall ask you again for: (1) your definition of CCE; (2) your choice of AG, DG or HG (or something else); and (3) proof that this provides CCE.

I defined the proposition of god (PG) as the disjunction AG | DG. I defined the proposition of correspondence (PC) as the belief that it is possible, with confidence, to make observations corresponding to reality. I ask you: (4) is it your argument that PG implies PC and that this gives you CCE with certainty? 

It is my understanding that this is your argument. Since, therefore, you are a Foundationalist, I ask you: (5) why do you reject the view of other Foundationalists who assert PC without PG and thereby obtain CCE with certainty?

I described your a priori set, namely {PC, PG}, and a minimal a priori subset of this that provides CCE, namely {PC}. I ask you: (6) what advantage is there in taking the superset over the minimal set, when the minimal set provides CCE and the superset may produce a contradiction that the minimal set does not?

In short, I have constructed for you, before your very eyes, an atheistic worldview that provides CCE, simply by taking a subset of your beliefs. If you like, PC is the "element" that an atheist may use to form CCE. You cannot find fault with any of these beliefs without finding fault with your own beliefs.

I mentioned a biblical account of genocide: Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one whom the Lord sent to anoint you king of his people Israel . Now listen to what the Lord Almighty says. He is going to punish the people of Amalek because their ancestors opposed the Israelites when they were coming from Egypt . Go and attack the Amalekites and completely destroy everything they have. Don't leave a thing; kill all the men, women, children, and babies; the cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys."

If your worldview provides CCE then surely this account could not conflict with any other beliefs that you hold. I ask you: (7) do you believe it is right and good to kill people for the actions of their ancestors four hundred years earlier; (8) do you believe you would have sliced open a pregnant woman and carved up her fetus if you had been there that day; and (9) do you believe you should rejoice in this righteous judgement of "god"?

Please do not reply without answering these nine questions. If instead you present yet another straw man argument with mindless repetition then I shall consider this discussion concluded.

Kind regards,

Agnostic Australian

From Brady 5/30/05

Hello AA,

Brady wrote in a previous post: Having written a version of the cosmological argument myself, I don’t see how this is a cosmological argument.

AA responded: I didn't say it was a cosmological argument. I said it was a cosmological argument in drag. Where the cosmological argument uses "cause" and "effect", the epistemic argument uses "justification" and "justified proposition" instead. Each argument is a showcase of special pleading: (1) claim the necessity of causes/justifications for every non theistic belief; and (2) deny the necessity of causes/justifications for every theistic belief.

The cosmological argument and the transcendental argument are very different. The fact that they both may use elements of a disjunctive syllogism does not make them the same. And your claim of special pleading for both is also not true. I won’t go into the cosmological argument at this point, it is not our focus. I will only say that my paper, “The Existence of God,” quickly shows the claim of special pleading false. As for the transcendental argument, where is the special pleading? The same thing is asked for both positions. Does the cosmology have the elements needed to produce an epistemology? There is no atheist cosmology that has those elements. The theist cosmology does have the needed elements to produce an epistemology. So, what does this tell us? If there is real knowledge, then the atheist cosmology is false. If the atheist cosmology is true, then there is no real knowledge. There is no special pleading here. Of course if the atheist cosmology is true, there is no such thing as special pleading, is there? In fact, if the atheist cosmology is true, there is no such thing as logic, right?

AA wrote: I have confidence in the hypothesis of correspondence; you demand an "explanatory" justification for this. By a fallacy of equivocation, you claim "god" as this justification. You believe that "god" exists; you deny the need for an "explanatory" justification for this.

What word is being equivocated?

If anyone is equivocating, it seems to be you with the word “confidence.” By confidence, don’t you actually mean irrational faith? I say irrational faith, because your confidence goes far beyond even blind faith. Blind faith suggests that there is either no evidence for either side or equal evidence for either side and a rational call can’t be made; one simple chooses one side blindly. But, we know to begin with that there is no atheist cosmology that can produce an epistemology. So, your attempt to accept the theory of correspondence without a theistic cosmology is actually irrational. The evidence goes against it. If you want to have confidence in correspondence, you must reject all cosmologies that deny the possibility of attaining correspondence.

Correspondence requires certain things: I exist, the world around me exists and I can know the relation of the two. But, Hume has already shown that coming from an atheistic cosmology, none of these can be asserted with confidence. Until you can answer Hume, you must either hold correspondence as dead (which allows for atheistic cosmologies to be true) or non-theistic cosmologies dead (which allows for correspondence theory to be true). That is at least if you are to be consistent.  In short, you can be neither atheist nor agnostic and affirm correspondence rationally.

AA wrote: Your arguments are a litany of fallacies.

Are you only referring to the two defeated above, or do you want to assert others?

Brady wrote I a previous post: I appreciate your effort here, but I think you missed the point Manion was making in his conclusion: If any atheist worldview is true, your comments are meaningless.

AA responded: My arguments were based in your worldview: I take it that you believe [...]. My arguments were deductive inferences within your worldview. Are my arguments meaningless in your worldview? Is logic meaningless in your worldview? If not, you should answer my arguments instead of repeating your claims ad nauseam.

How is this not a total concession of the argument? If you admit that you must come into my worldview for your arguments and logic to have meaning, we are done! We agree! The debate is over! If this is not your meaning, then show how logic and your arguments have meaning from any atheistic worldview and I will stop making the claims you don’t like. Until then, you will continue to hear them.

Since we have covered so much material so far, I will answer one of your nine questions. We’ll see how far we get on that one, then we can move on to the others in the order you set out.

AA wrote: You claim that an atheist does not have the "elements" to form a "coherent and cohesive epistemology". I shall ask you again for: (1) your definition of CCE?

What I mean by a coherent and consistent epistemology is one that does not contradict the cosmological position it is based upon. If there is a contradiction between these two then one of them is necessarily false (both may be false, but at least one of them is false, necessarily). This is a basic indirect derivation.

Regards,