The simple defense is that Dawkins's accusation is false and he misrepresents the argument. Nowhere in Aquinas's proofs does he assume God is immune to the regress.

The assumption made is that "an infinite regress of movers is impossible".

"God is unmovable" falls out of the argument later and is a result of the argument's conclusion, not an assumption.

again for emphasis, "God is uncaused" is NOT an assumption. It's part of the conclusion.

The 2 sentences may look and sound similar but they are significantly different. specifically, consider the following 2 statements A-"There exists an uncaused cause" and B-"there exists an infinite chain of caused causes". Aquinas assumes ~B and then goes on to prove ~B->A. However, nothing is stated in the argument about A, in the case of B being true. So, if Aquinas is wrong and B is true, then A could be either true or false. Dawkins statement that Aquinas assumes A is true is just a flat out lie.

So, how do they assume god immune to the infinite regression? They don't. Dawkins claim that theists do is a false claim based on a misrepresentation of a different claim, that an infinite regress is impossible.

Assuming the process doesn't assume both premise and conclusion.

example:
Assume A->B
Given: ~A
conclusion: we learn nothing about B

--

but even if you want to rewrite it, my question still remains

Assume A
Given A->B
Conclusion B

"is B necessary?". I still don't understand what it means for a conclusion to be necessary. Unless he's just asking whether the conclusion is necessarily true, in which case that just depends on whether or not you accept the assumptions and givens of the argument.

Well that would seem to be the general consensus although some of the detail is still escaping me.

Yeah something like that. Wouldn't the assumption be that there needs to be a first cause?

I suppose the question should be why do some find it necessary to end the regression of cause and effect?

right that makes sense and while I think you're right that's how the necessary read to me.

Like I think the problem has been, and this isn't intended as a criticism of MB, that it's not really been clear whether the problem is with the premise(s) or with the conclusion and misunderstandings have occurred while arguments concerning both have been confused.

No, "There needs to be a first cause" is not an assumption. its the conclusion when a separate assumption is made. Below might clear up the suble differences:

A-"There exists an uncaused cause"
B-"There exists an infinite chain of caused causes"

Cosmological argument shows ~B->A. It does not assume A.

It's not a circular argument because its still logically possible for them both to be true. ie, even if Aquinas's assumption that 'B is false' is wrong, his conclusion of A being true could still be correct. you could have BOTH an infinite chain of caused causes AND an uncaused cause.

This is significant specifically because it doesn't assume A to be true. It shows that if B can be shown to be false (and many people both theist and atheist think B is false), then A is necessarily true. It shows that you can prove A with no knowledge of A via a completely separate path, ie disproving B.

Ok, I hope this isn't threadjacking.... But, how does one get to ~B.

Isn't it essentially just an If statement. If ~B then A

so

if there isn't an infinite chain of caused causes then there is an uncaused cause

it doesn't prove ~B

True, but someone would have to make some argument for ~B. The assumption has to be defended in some way.

That is what I think Roll was getting at, you don't have to prove A, you just need to show ~B, then you can say A logical follows.

How is ~B arrived at?

Aquinas doesn't it's the premise of his argument. He assumes that there has to be an uncaused cause and a first mover and goes from there.

His arguments are obviously more subtle but you get the drift

Correct, ~B is assumed in the cosmological argument. it has to be supported separately.

that's the tricky part. The assumption of ~B is unsupported (or at least unproven, there are some intuitive reasons to think it may be false). Even if ~B is correct, it may be impossible to prove.

but the reason many people (both atheist and theist) think B is false is something along the lines of 'if B is true, that would mean that a set of things as a whole would have a characteristic that none of its members possesses'. ie, the infinite chain of caused causes would itself have to be uncaused.

I think people try to do proof by contradiction, something along the lines of there are '2 kinds of sets those whose characteristics are drawn from its members and those who can have characteristics that none of its members possess' - and then continue to show that causation is a property that fits in the first type of set, where the set can only draw from its members. So, since the chain must be caused, that's a contradiction and the infinite chain of caused causes can't exist.

I definitely don't think i've properly represented that argument so don't both attacking it, i know its incomplete and horrible. but in the end, even when stated better - its not proof of ~B. There is no proof of ~B. Its only something that you read and think, ok yea, B is probably false.

But its important to keep in mind, thinking B is false has essentially no implications on religion. Even if you acknowledge that B is probably false, and by argument, A is then probably true, you don't have to call the first cause God. You can agree with the cosmological argument and then suggest that the first cause is just unknown laws of physics or mother nature or whatever - which is what many nonreligious theists think of as god anyway.

you're kinda backwards / still not differentiating correctly, he assumes 'there can't be an infinite chain of uncaused causes' and goes from there. Where he ends up is the uncaused cause as the necessary result if the previous assumptions are true.

The uncaused cause/first mover is the end, not the beginning.

Dawkins's book is fine as an introduction to the topic of the arguments for God's existence, but I would be wary of using it beyond that. Dawkins is not very knowledgeable about the literature on these arguments and so sometimes deals with them in a facile manner (his treatment of Pascal's Wager and the Ontological Argument are particularly bad). If you feel you have a better grounding in logic and religious philosophy now than when you first read The God Delusion, I would recommend instead that you branch out and read something oriented at a more narrowly focused audience than Dawkins--and probably you should start with something written by a theist.

For instance, if you want to read a pop book on the theistic side about the arguments for God's existence, you could read William Lane Craig's A Reasonable Faith. If you want something more serious, you could read Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief or Richard Swinburne's The Existence of God.

Oy. No.

Yeah you're right thanks for clarifying he starts from the assumption ~B

Take theists, who when confronted with the problem of evil abandon their belief. I don’t think most of them would agree that a being named God still exists, just that they no longer believe he is good. I think most of them will conclude the word doesn’t refer.

So when you say…
… I don’t think that interpretation would apply for most theists. Of course, there are exceptions like those who might revert to deism, but in the main, “God exists iff God is good,” holds true for most theists.

If you want to support your view with an empirical claim (the bolded), you have to actually support that claim. Simply saying "I think it is this way" doesn't do anything to convince me.

Why is it not possible that the God who created the universe was created in turn by something else?

How would you know if it(god) was or was not? Do you think you know everything god knows? I am always told i dont.

This sums it up for me, too.

I don't think this is fair.

Theists are basically arguing that everything in the universe must have a cause, except for God - who is the Uncaused Cause. (RollWave - I don't think I am putting words in their mouths with this claim - do you agree or disagree?)

Well, they're more than welcome to make that argument, but there is literally nothing to support this claim except faith. It's a guess and nothing more.

My guess that the universe was created by a Giant Golden Rabbit is no less ridiculous or likely.

Whether or not this Bunny is the First Cause or not, I do not know.

No, go for it.

For all of those saying that I did not begin to exist, in what sense did "I"/"jibninjas" exist in 1867? In what sense could you say that the being that we call Jibninjas always existed?

"You" dont exist at all, and never have. The stuff that makes up the body we label jibninjas did exist in 1867 , in some form or other.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "the being", but I would say there is no being that we call jibninjas. It never existed.

I dunno if I could do justice to the reasoning that results in ~B. At this point I don't see any problem with B.

ok, if you have to stoop to saying that I don't exist to defend your position then I don't really have interest in continuing. thank you for taking the time.

In what way is saying "you dont exist" stooping to saying something( implying that I am being dishonest or evasive)? What position am I defending?


I answered your question, which was directed to people who say you didnt begin to exist. I take it you didnt like the answer?