Argument for god.

[Whitney]

(1') p is causally possible if and only if there in fact exists or existed a causal agent or a causally sufficient state of affairs x,such that x could have initiated a causal chain capable of leading to its being the case that p.

(2') However, by definition of nothingness, (at least the absence of all concrete objects) nothingness cannot initiate a causal chain capable of leading to the existence of an uncaused object.

(3’) ontologically prior to the initial state of our physical universe, (on Atheism) there “was” nothing (at least the absence of all concrete objects). [(3') is easily substantiated by Big Bang Cosmolog]

--

This model is epistemically justified by a great wealth of observational and theoretical evidence.

I'm tired and haven't bothered trying to make sense of the above.  But, since it doesn't jump out at me as one of the typical arguments for god, I thought I'd post it here. I think that's the whole argument...I asked the guy to post it in one place somewhere on the internet but instead he was typing it into chat.

[Hitsumei]

It's just an extremely poor version of the prime mover argument.

The first premise is an assertion, which stipulates the event in question as "causally possible" which thus starts out by defining it as casual. I don't know what a "casual agent" is, and saying "an agent which initiates casual chains" doesn't tell me. I need an example of such an agent -- and an explanation for how this could happen, or is even logical -- so I know what it is being extrapolated from. Nor do I know what a "causally sufficient state of affairs" is for the same reason. Though, it just appears to be a rather verbose way of saying "casual events require causes" which is merely a tautology.

The second premise is another tautology, and merely states that said state of affairs could not cause something that is uncaused, which is true by definition, but then nothing can cause something that was uncaused by definition. It was uncaused, so it is logically impossible that anything could cause it. It's like killing the unkillable, or stopping the unstoppable -- it cannot be done by definition.  

The third premise is an assertion, which is based on a misapprehension of what big bang cosmology entails. Big bang cosmology in no way states that "prior" to the big bang there was nothingness, in fact the current opinion is that time itself does not predate the big bang, so there simply was no "prior" to the big bang event.

[PipeBox]

To put it even simpler, it reads as "you can't get something from nothing, so something must have started the universe because it is here."  It looks like they were claiming that atheists claim the universe came from nothing, which we're not saying.  Nevermind that at best he would establish that there was a prime mover, not necessarily his favored one, and nevermind that if we applied this flawed logic to our favored god, we'd be able to say the evidence perfectly supported Vishnu or the Teapot.

[Hitsumei]

To put it even simpler, it reads as "you can't get something from nothing, so something must have started the universe because it is here."  

It is actually saying that nothing cannot initiate the first event, which all other events followed from.

It looks like they were claiming that atheists claim the universe came from nothing, which we're not saying.

Some do, and there is nothing logically impossible about it, nor is there any evidence that contradicts it as a possibility. That it cannot happen is just something people say, I have never actually heard a reason for why it cannot happen. People tend to just agree with the assertion because they can't think of a way by which it could occur, or be intuitive.    

Nevermind that at best he would establish that there was a prime mover, not necessarily his favored one, and nevermind that if we applied this flawed logic to our favored god, we'd be able to say the evidence perfectly supported Vishnu or the Teapot.

S/he need not establish anything else to disprove atheism, and prove theism -- nor would it be reasonable to think that one argument could demonstrate her/his entire worldview.

[PipeBox]

S/he need not establish anything else to disprove atheism, and prove theism -- nor would it be reasonable to think that one argument could demonstrate her/his entire worldview.

Well, I would argue that prime mover doesn't equal god, all we'd be able to say is "something" caused it.

[Hitsumei]

Well, I would argue that prime mover doesn't equal god, all we'd be able to say is "something" caused it.

They specified it as an "agent" in the first premise. Well, to be more precise they specified it as either an agent or a sufficient state of affairs in the first premise, and then attempted to eliminate the latter as a possibility in the third premise.

Although I was mistake to say "disprove atheism, and prove theism", I should have said "disprove atheism, and prove deism".

[Whitney]

To put it even simpler, it reads as "you can't get something from nothing, so something must have started the universe because it is here."

That is almost exactly what I told this guy last night...but he told that that is not what the argument meant (probably because it doesn't sound so great when you simplify it into more common language).

[Hitsumei]

To put it even simpler, it reads as "you can't get something from nothing, so something must have started the universe because it is here."

That is almost exactly what I told this guy last night...but he told that that is not what the argument meant (probably because it doesn't sound so great when you simplify it into more common language).

I think he said that because that isn't what the argument is attempting to demonstrate. It is attempting to demonstrate a prime mover, and saying that "nothingness" is not a sufficient state of affairs to cause anything.

To simplify, he creates a dichotomy, between casual agency, and casual circumstances, and then attempts to eliminate the latter option, leaving casual agency as the only possible option.  

Something being "caused by nothing", and something being "created from nothing" are two difference concepts.