Cosmological Arguments

[punkforchrist]

I'd like to propose a formal discussion (as opposed to a debate) on two of the cosmological arguments: the Thomistic and Kalam versions. The Leibnizian version is quite interesting too, but most of my previous research and exchanges have been on the other two.

I'll present the arguments and give some reasons for thinking them plausible. My counterpart will then explain why he/she doesn't find them convincing. We can then mildly debate some points, but I'd prefer it to be more laid-back and without the confrontational nature that many formal debates have.

Anyone interested?

[David B]

I've just reminded myself of what these arguments are, in brief.

Do you think this a reasonable brief synopsis?

http://www.theopedia.com/Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God

I'm not one for formal exclusive engagements myself, preferring to leave it to those who relish them. I don't like the pressure of time schedules, myself.

I would be interested to know what sort of God you think that any of these arguments implies, assuming for the sake of arguments are sound.

I hope you find a taker - but if not, then perhaps we can explore aspects of this in open thread.

David

[Ray Moscow]

My current signature says it all, really -- but it's more along the lesthropic principle argument.

[punkforchrist]

David, the article provides a decent introduction, but it leaves out a lot of the nuances. I'll start a thread in the Religion section, and we can go from there. :)

[DMB]

I'm trying to persuade someone else to engage you, but if no-one better wants to do it, I might offer myself. However, because of other commitments I wouldn't be immediately available.

[punkforchrist]

That's fine. I'm not in any hurry.

[Redshirt]

Hello pfc, I'm sure that someone will turn up soon. Wiploc is a member here by the way, but he hasn't logged on for quite some time.

[Bane]

Sure, I'll accept, though I can't guarantee anything due to not working well with time schedules and stuff myself.

[Lady Mondegreen]

I would be interested in an exclusive engagement provided we agree the rules of engagement.
For example, I would not with to have to respond more than say once per week since I simply don't have the time.

[Redshirt]

Looks like we two potential participants. I'll let Tanya and LM decide amongst themselves who will participate. Of course, since pfc started the OP, he can choose if he wishes.

Here are some parameters to think about:

(1) Topic
(2) Participants, positions and sequence
(3) Scope
(4) Length in rounds
(5) Maximum statement length
(6) Maximum duration between statements
(7) Start date
(8) Additional criteria (optional)

[punkforchrist]

Tanya and LM, thank you both for your interest.

Redshirt, would it be possible for me to open, and for these two ladies to post their own individual responses? I'm thinking we could try something like this:

Round 1

Punkforchrist opens.
Tanya responds.
LM responds.

Round 2

Punkforchrist responds to Tanya and LM.
Tanya responds.
LM responds.

We could then do the same for the KCA, followed by a round of closing thoughts.

[Redshirt]

I'm quite reluctant to allow three people in a formal discussion, unless Tanya and LM are coming at from different worldviews or perspectives.

[DMB]

At TR we did have a few EEs with more than two people. I think they can work with up to about 3, but get unwieldy after that.

[punkforchrist]

That's fair enough. I would just like to include anyone who has expressed interest. How about having Tanya participate in the dialogue on the Thomistic argument, and LM on the KCA? Of course, they can switch if they'd like to.

[Lady Mondegreen]

I would be quite happy to go third as long as I can comment on any of the points raised by P4C - and Tanja too if I feel it necessary.

[Bane]

I know the Thomistic argument pretty well, so I'm happy to debate that :)

[Redshirt]

I think pfc's suggestion sounds best. That is, LM focuses on the kalam version while Tanya focuses on the Thomistic version. I think that will work best for a 3-person formal discussion if we want to avoid redundancy and overlapping arguments.

Would you be okay with that LM? If you still really want to address the kalam arguments and Tanya's points, then perhaps we can arrange some sort of organized format.

[Lady Mondegreen]

Dear Admin

I am happy to respond to the kalam arguments but whilst not wishing to waste anyone's time by making redundant points I would like to be able to add to, expand on, or even criticise Tanja's points if I felt it was necessary. Equally, I would be happy for her to do the same to mine. I don't suppose either of us has a monopoly on good ideas.

[Bane]

I don't mind if you do that, but would you kindly spell my name correctly? :) I am a little touchy about it, and really don't mean to offend.

[Redshirt]

At present, I'm still very reluctant about permitting a 3-way formal discussion like this. Having had a lot of formal debate mod experience in the past, I've found that multi-participant formal discussions/debates can be very bunglesome and I've only permitted them in exceptional cirumstances. There just seems too much potential for getting away from the discussion's focus as well as other pitfalls.

Anyways, since pfc appears to be okay with it, I will (grudgingly) permit the formal discussion.

Tanya and LM, just so I can perhaps feel a bit more comfortable about the perspectives present, what kind of nontheist are you? Are you a weak or strong atheist (or perhaps some kind of agnosticism)? Do you come at the question from a particular philosophical perspective?

[Bane]

I am a strong atheist (largely basing my belief that there is no god on grounds of the problem of evil). I am going to stay on-topic, and if I mention anyone it'll be Hume.

[punkforchrist]

Redshirt, if you'd like, we can always just split the discussion into two separate threads, each one representing its own sub-topic. If LM would like to comment on Tanya's points, that can always be done in the peanut gallery (assuming she's okay with that).

[punkforchrist]

I am a strong atheist . . .

Are you just a strong atheist with respect to an omni-max God? Or, do you extend that to all forms of deism too? I'm just curious...

[Lady Mondegreen]

In response to Admin: My atheism is based on the incompatability between the traditional properties attributed to God and what we now know about the scale and complexity of the Universe. I do not find it plausible that the creator of billions of galaxies and untold trillions of stars cares one jot about whether or not one member of one species on one planet orbiting one of those stars conforms or fails to conform to a set of norms decided by other members of that species.

And sorry Tanya, I will try to be more observant in future.

[Bane]

I am a strong atheist . . .

Are you just a strong atheist with respect to an omni-max God? Or, do you extend that to all forms of deism too? I'm just curious...
I do indeed extend that to deism--anything people pray to I see as an invisible buddy for grown-ups, but let's not argue it in this thread.:)

LM:
It's fine, I'm not annoyed :)

[Redshirt]

In response to Admin: My atheism is based on the incompatability between the traditional properties attributed to God and what we now know about the scale and complexity of the Universe. I do not find it plausible that the creator of billions of galaxies and untold trillions of stars cares one jot about whether or not one member of one species on one planet orbiting one of those stars conforms or fails to conform to a set of norms decided by other members of that species.

And sorry Tanya, I will try to be more observant in future.

LM, are you basically a deist?

[Redshirt]

Just to speed things up some more, I think it might be best to keep this a one-on-one formal discussion. One of the reasons I'm wary about multiparticipant discussions is that it increases the chances of delay. The more people that are involved, the more likely things will get stalled.

Tanya and pfc, would you like to go ahead and set up formal discussion parameters?

[Bane]

Sure....in the morning. I need to go to bed.

[Redshirt]

Here's what we got so far:

(1) Topic

The Thomistic and Kalam cosmological arguments.

(2) Participants, positions and sequence

punkforchrist will represent the theist position and will go first. Tanya, will represent the atheist position.

(3) Scope

This exclusive engagement will take the form of a formal discussion. Each participant will use philosophical arguments to evaluate the Thomistic and Kalam cosmological argument according to their respective worldviews.

(4) Length in rounds
(5) Maximum statement length
(6) Maximum duration between statements
(7) Start date
(8) Additional criteria (optional)

[Bane]

I think each round should have 10 posts each (explain position, 8 rebuttals, closing statements). Maximum duration between statements? 2 days, I think, is reasonable.

[Redshirt]

I think each round should have 10 posts each (explain position, 8 rebuttals, closing statements). Maximum duration between statements? 2 days, I think, is reasonable.

2 days is quite short. A longer duration would be best for statements of a considerable length.

pfc, are you still in?

[Lady Mondegreen]

When are we going to start?

[Bane]

Well....yeah....a week's fine, too :) I don't really mind.

[Redshirt]

When are we going to start?

As I mentioned here (http://secularcafe.org/showpost.php?p=57474&postcount=27), I really think it's best now that we keep this to a one-on-one formal discussion between pfc and Tanya (assuming that pfc is still interested). You can still comment on the formal discussion after I set up a peanut gallery thread. And when it's done, you can challenge pfc to another formal dicussion if you wish.

[punkforchrist]

I'm cool with one week between responses. I'm usually not accustomed to more than four rounds. Does five work for you, Tanya?

LM, I'll be happy to engage in a conversation with you on the KCA once this exchange is finished. :)

[Redshirt]

I'm cool with one week between responses. I'm usually not accustomed to more than four rounds. Does five work for you, Tanya?

LM, I'll be happy to engage in a conversation with you on the KCA once this exchange is finished. :)

You can explore both the Kalam and Thomistic arguments in your exchange with Tanya if you wish.

What statement length limits would you prefer?

[Bane]

Yes, five rounds works for me :)

ETA:
As for statement length limits....I'm not that fussed. I can try to address 20-page posts if I really have to :p

[Redshirt]

Yes, five rounds works for me :)

ETA:
As for statement length limits....I'm not that fussed. I can try to address 20-page posts if I really have to :p

5000 words would be the maximum, if you want it that high. That's equivalent to about a 25 page double spaced college term paper.

[punkforchrist]

2,000-word opening statements suffices for me. After that, 1,000 words is probably enough for the remaining rounds.

Tanya, I realize as a Humean you may want to raise some tangential issues, which is fine with me. Let me know if you need a higher word-count.

[punkforchrist]

Oh, and I think I'll keep myself focused on the TCA for the sake of greater focus. I'll be appealing to both the PSR and W-PSR.

[Redshirt]

What is PSR and W-PSR?

Any start date you have in mind? Or are you both ready to start as soon as we finalize the parameters?

[punkforchrist]

Principle of Sufficient Reason and the Weak version of the PSR, respectively. Gale and Pruss apply the W-PSR to the Leibnizian argument here: http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/ap85/papers/NewCosmo.html

I can start as soon as we're finished with the parameters.

[Redshirt]

Here's a summary of all the parameters. We just need both of you to confirm everything below and then I'll set up the formal discussion thread.

(1) Topic

The Thomistic cosmological argument.

(2) Participants, positions and sequence

punkforchrist will represent the theist position and will go first. Tanya, will represent the atheist position.

(3) Scope

This exclusive engagement will take the form of a formal discussion. Each participant will use philosophical arguments to evaluate the Thomistic cosmological argument according to their respective worldviews. There will be significant focus on the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) and the "weak" version of PSR, but the scope will allow for some tangential issues to be addressed.

(4) Length in rounds

5 rounds.

(5) Maximum statement length

Round 1: 2000 words
Rounds 2-5: 1000 words

(6) Maximum duration between statements

1 week

(7) Start date

Immediately (opening statement is due one week from when the EE thread is started)

(8) Additional criteria (optional)

Standard format.

[punkforchrist]

I approve.

[Bane]

I, too, approve.:)

[Redshirt]

Looks like we're ready to go. I'll set up the EE thread and peanut gallery now.