Hinman's Cosmological Argument

This is Joe Hinman's other argument, so I might as well it address it too. in contrast to his transcendental signifier argument, this looks like it has gone through some revision.

It is a refinement of an old argument.
1. Something exists.
2. Whatever exists does so either because it exists eternally or because it's existence is dependent upon some prior cause or set of circumstances.
3.If all things that exist are dependent for their existnece there is no actual explanation of causes
4. Therefore, there exists at least one  eternal thing
5. The  one eternal thing is the logical explanation for all causally dependent things
6.Any eternally existing cause of all things is worthy of the appellation "God."
7. Therefore God exists.
The argument is flawed in two ways.

The False Dichotomy

The first issue is that 2 is a false dichotomy. For example, it may be that the universe appeared spontaneous. Joe objects to this because there is no precedence for things appearing spontaneously. However, the same is also true of something existing eternally.

Of course, in Joe's head, that is quite different, because he starts from the assumption that God exists - but of course that is exactly what he is trying to prove.

The simple fact is that we have no precedents for the start of the universe; going on common experience is a bad guide here.

Something Eternal

Joe claims anything that is eternal should be called God. but this is just Joe injecting his own idea of how the universe started. If the laws of nature are eternal, would Joe worship them? Of course not!

Krauss vs Albert

Joe also points to a book by Krauss (in the comments), and more specifically a review of said book by David Albert. Krauss claims the universe appeared spontaneously from nothing, but Albert points out there was already a framework within which quantum mechanics might work, so it is not really nothing.

Okay, Albert's object is valid - depending on what Krauss meant by nothing. But so what? This does not prove the universe could not appear spontaneously, only that Krauss' theory is not that, so Joe's objection fails.

Furthermore, if we allow Krauss' theory, but acknowledge the framework within which quantum mechanics might work was eternal, then we have a very real possibility for how the university began. Sure, we cannot explain the framework within which quantum mechanics, but Joe cannot explain God. And the framework within which quantum mechanics is FAR more parsimonious. Joe's objection fails again.

Comments

  1. Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)15 June 2020 at 23:39

    The False Dichotomy
    YOU: "The first issue is that 2 is a false dichotomy. For example, it may be that the universe appeared spontaneous. Joe objects to this because there is no precedence for things appearing spontaneously. However, the same is also true of something existing eternally."

    ME: Show me an example of anything that pops into existence out of nothing! This is a contradiction to everything we know and suspect, That we have no example of it just underscores the logic of the case that it is a contradiction to reality; Your answer to my argument is based upon the assumption tat all of science is wrong. all logic is wrong, and we everything we observe in reality is wrong, You basically relay on magic to oppose God.



    YOU: "Of course, in Joe's head, that is quite different, because he starts from the assumption that God exists - but of course that is exactly what he is trying to prove."

    ME:--No I started from the assumption that things need causes a notion you apparently have yet to grasp. But it's an assumption made by all of science as nowhere in science do we find a principle of something from nothing,

    You: "The simple fact is that we have no precedents for the start of the universe; going on common experience is a bad guide here."

    ME:--that doesn't mean magic is a beter guide

    YOU: "Joe claims anything that is eternal should be called God. but this is just Joe injecting his own idea of how the universe started. If the laws of nature are eternal, would Joe worship them? Of course not!"

    Me: --Th is proven in the logic of the argument, you have not even addressed the argument,


    YOU: "Okay, Albert's object is valid - depending on what Krauss meant by nothing. But so what? This does not prove the universe could not appear spontaneously, only that Krauss' theory is not that, so Joe's objection fails.

    Me:--You have yet to give a reason why we should believe in something from nothing Apparently your only reason is to avoid belief in God. We never see causal popping into existence,why should we accept it? No scientist does, No theory in science proposes the universe just popped up out of nothing. There's always the assumption of a prior structure, yet i;ts never accounted for.

    YOU:"Furthermore, if we allow Krauss' theory, but acknowledge the framework within which quantum mechanics might work was eternal, then we have a very real possibility for how the university began.

    Me: So you drop something from nothing? Where did the frame work come from?

    YOU"Sure, we cannot explain the framework within which quantum mechanics, but Joe cannot explain God. And the framework within which quantum mechanics is FAR more parsimonious. Joe's objection fails again."

    Me: Sure we both work from unknowns but God is a more logical assumption than acausal popping. Notice you never acutely addressed the logic of the argument which proves that there must be one logical eternal necessary origin and thus this is worthy of being thought God.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Southern Baptist Convention Position on Abortion

Evangelical Christians in the US are very strongly anti-abortion. However, it was not always so. As recently as 1970 the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) - the largest Protestant denomination in the US - advocated for legalising abortion. A Complete Reversal The landmark law case in the US was Roe v. Wade, in 1973, and abortion has been legal since that time. Jane Roe was the pseudonym of the woman wanting the abortion; Henry Wade the district attorney who stood for the state, prohibiting it. Roe was represented by two attorneys; one was Linda Coffee, a member of the SBC. The Baptist Press interviewed her after the successful conclusion of the trial. The decision of Roe v Wade was generally regarded as a good one by the SBC. To evangelicals of that time abortion was seen as a Catholic issue. You can find a list of abortion-related resolutions made by the SBC from 1971 onwards  here . It is clear that in 1971 they saw abortion - quite reasonably - as undesirable, but it ...
Read more

Hinman's "Argument From Transcendental Signifier"

ETA (23/Jun/20): I have just heard Joe is in hospital. I wish him a speedy recovery. All the best, Joe. This is an argument for God that Joe Hinman has presented several times on various of his sites: http://www.doxa.ws/Ontological/TS2.html https://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2020/05/transcendental-signifier-argument.html http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2011/06/transcendental-signifier-argument.html http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2018/01/premises-4-7-ts-argumet.html The argument is a seven step syllogism: 1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops) 2. OP's summed up in TS 3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind. 4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe. 5. minds organize and communicate meaning 6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS 7. Concept of God unites TS with universal m...
Read more

Kent Hovind: Third wife in three years?

Kent Hovind is, perhaps the very worst of the creationists, so it is with some interest I note that he is now on this third wife in three years. For many years he was married to Jo Hovind, who ended up going to prison for a year due to her involvement in tax fraud. Once Kent got released from his rather longer prison sentence, it was not long before Jo filed for divorce (early 2016) - possibly to distance himself from any further gaol sentences. A few months later, 24th Sptember 2016, and he married Mary Tocco - not a full marriage, but a covenant before God. It looks like she got various assurances that Kent's new business was entirely honest before she got married. However, she later cam to realise that that was not really the case, and, again to avoid ending up in prison , she left him in November 2017. http://kehvrlb.com/mary-tocco-on-leaving-kent-hovind Less than a year later and he has a new wife, Cindi Lincoln, a former friend of Mary's. It is not clear if they ...
Read more