I do not understand all of the above discussion and while that is my inadequacy, it may be indicative of the approach too.
So to simplify, could the entire series of proofs of God be done in a series of legitimate dichotomies, that is A and not A propositions. For example, could A be (the current physical world had a beginning) and not A (the current physical world did not have a beginning.). This is a legitimate logical dichotomy. Not A is often called infinite regress.
Then argue that not A cannot be true because...
We are then left with A that the current physical world had a beginning. We will call this proposition B. Did B arise out of nothing or not B the physical world was caused by something which by definition was not physical.
Then argue that B, arising out of nothing is impossible so not B must be true.
Not B implies some entity that is not physical. Then the argument could be C (this entity is composed of parts, what ever that means in something not physical) or C has no parts.
We should also make the point at some part of this argument that this entity must also be self existent. This type of argument would proceed as a series of logical dichotomies leading to the properties of this entity and when finished we would call this entity God. But not until a certain point in the progression of the argument where the entity must have the characteristics we associate with God.
The value of such an approach is that at each step, the reader must assent to the conclusion of each step or else provide a logical reason based on evidence for why the proposition eliminated is true or likely. The purpose of this approach would be two fold: first, to delineate between relevant answers and non relevant answers. The atheist/agnostic could not introduced objections from later in the series to object to a prior argument. This would eliminate all references to the current world as evil or unjust etc. and thus there is no God.
The second of main purpose would be to make the argument for God, a series of easily understandable decisions on what is likely/logical. The end result would be that any atheist/agnostic would not have any basis for their belief.
To get to the Judeo/Christian God, would require another series of steps, each one a dichotomy until one got to the likelihood that the Judeo/Christian God is a valid conclusion.
You seem focused on the idea of the universe having an absolute beginning in time. While that’s one form of cosmological reasoning—the Kalam version—it’s not exactly what I have in mind here (which is neutral on issues like infinite regress or a past-eternal universe).
Think of it this way: Could something have caused everything (collectively)? No. So, something—at least one thing—must be uncaused. But could anything be uncaused if it has features that imply contingency, like being arbitrarily limited? Probably not (I’d say definitely not, but let’s be modest). So, whatever this uncaused thing is, it must lack those contingent features—it must be qualitatively unlimited. And when we really think about the nature of such a thing, it starts looking quite deserving of the label “God.”
If it’s a problem for me, then it’s probably a problem for most.
I’m trying to make if simple by proving that infinite regress is senseless. This implies a beginning. It then implies a cause that must be immaterial and self existing. Or without an external cause.
Some problems for some formulations of the cosmological argument are definitely not problems for other formulations. I've explained before why regress concerns are more pressing to some cosmological arguments than others; the same could be said about concerns of composition fallacy, principles of explanation, etc. Certain ways of running cosmological arguments make them structurally immune to certain criticisms that must be directly addressed by other formulations where such criticisms could definitely be undermining.
Just as not all cosmological arguments have the same strengths, neither do they all have the same weaknesses.
What’s not right? I said more than one thing. Is everything not right? Or just some of them?
I still don’t understand most of what you are saying. For example, “ Certain ways of running cosmological arguments make them structurally immune to certain criticisms ”
I would love to see this explained in simple declarative sentences. A comment about a prominent writer of contentious stuff:
“He was an exceptionally clear thinker and writer. He was so clear that it might be easy to think he was missing some key insights and dumbing down his ideas.”
I’m looking for something like this for the teenager who won’t be in the pews after entering college. Actually for Catholics, those who get confirmed and rarely they or their parents ever are in the pews. It’s the last time to get to them.
Sorry, I may have misread what problem you were referring to. If you're referring to the infinite regress problem (which I took to be the case, since you frequently bring this issue up), then I'll stick by what I said. What is a problem for some formulations of the cosmological argument is definitely not for others. I think that point is clear; sorry if you don't! Still, one can find examples of why this is the case by either looking at my book or referring to my post Cosmological Reasoning for Dummies.
If, on the other, you mean a problem of understanding the overall points of the article, then I don't know if it's a problem for everybody. We would have to take a survey, I guess! However, as I've emphasized before, not every post on this blog starts at Square One. Many begin in the middle of things, assuming a fair bit of background knowledge on certain subjects. My audience is not necessarily people looking for simple apologetic tools to use in confirmation class (one should see my articles for Catholic Answers or Word on Fire for that), or whatever; in fact, I very seldom have any particular audience in mind. I can see how that could be frustrating for people expecting something very particular from me, but what can I say? This is really just a place to spitball ideas.
" If you're referring to the infinite regress problem (which I took to be the case, since you frequently bring this issue up), then I'll stick by what I said."
Yes, infinite regress is the only logical issue an atheist/agnostic points to to justify their position. So I point to the absurdity of infinite regress. Otherwise existence pops out of nothing with no cause which is an equal absurdity. So an atheist/agnostic has only two options, both absurd.
As far as showing infinite regress absurd, basic logic is all that is necessary. If P is infinite regress then we can point to Qs that must be a result of P being true. So if P implies Q and Q is nonsense or not true, then P must also be not true.
Bye bye infinite regress. Bye bye atheism and agnosticism.
We are then left we analyzing what pops out of nothing implies. This will lead to the unconditioned entity that is self existent. Then further analysis will lead to "God" and His attributes. Not QED but simple and straightforward with the contradiction of the proof being absurd.
----------------
"This is really just a place to spitball ideas."
I have been doing that for several years in many places and have yet to see contradictions in many things I espouse. When I do, I try to see why and find the limitations of certain ideas. So I probe as you say you are doing.
I have often said that if Nietzsche lived today, he would be a daily communicant. He’s known as a famous atheist. Here are 21 of his most famous quotes:
I do not understand all of the above discussion and while that is my inadequacy, it may be indicative of the approach too.
So to simplify, could the entire series of proofs of God be done in a series of legitimate dichotomies, that is A and not A propositions. For example, could A be (the current physical world had a beginning) and not A (the current physical world did not have a beginning.). This is a legitimate logical dichotomy. Not A is often called infinite regress.
Then argue that not A cannot be true because...
We are then left with A that the current physical world had a beginning. We will call this proposition B. Did B arise out of nothing or not B the physical world was caused by something which by definition was not physical.
Then argue that B, arising out of nothing is impossible so not B must be true.
Not B implies some entity that is not physical. Then the argument could be C (this entity is composed of parts, what ever that means in something not physical) or C has no parts.
We should also make the point at some part of this argument that this entity must also be self existent. This type of argument would proceed as a series of logical dichotomies leading to the properties of this entity and when finished we would call this entity God. But not until a certain point in the progression of the argument where the entity must have the characteristics we associate with God.
The value of such an approach is that at each step, the reader must assent to the conclusion of each step or else provide a logical reason based on evidence for why the proposition eliminated is true or likely. The purpose of this approach would be two fold: first, to delineate between relevant answers and non relevant answers. The atheist/agnostic could not introduced objections from later in the series to object to a prior argument. This would eliminate all references to the current world as evil or unjust etc. and thus there is no God.
The second of main purpose would be to make the argument for God, a series of easily understandable decisions on what is likely/logical. The end result would be that any atheist/agnostic would not have any basis for their belief.
To get to the Judeo/Christian God, would require another series of steps, each one a dichotomy until one got to the likelihood that the Judeo/Christian God is a valid conclusion.
You seem focused on the idea of the universe having an absolute beginning in time. While that’s one form of cosmological reasoning—the Kalam version—it’s not exactly what I have in mind here (which is neutral on issues like infinite regress or a past-eternal universe).
Think of it this way: Could something have caused everything (collectively)? No. So, something—at least one thing—must be uncaused. But could anything be uncaused if it has features that imply contingency, like being arbitrarily limited? Probably not (I’d say definitely not, but let’s be modest). So, whatever this uncaused thing is, it must lack those contingent features—it must be qualitatively unlimited. And when we really think about the nature of such a thing, it starts looking quite deserving of the label “God.”
I really don’t understand what you are saying.
If it’s a problem for me, then it’s probably a problem for most.
I’m trying to make if simple by proving that infinite regress is senseless. This implies a beginning. It then implies a cause that must be immaterial and self existing. Or without an external cause.
Go from there.
No, that's not right.
Some problems for some formulations of the cosmological argument are definitely not problems for other formulations. I've explained before why regress concerns are more pressing to some cosmological arguments than others; the same could be said about concerns of composition fallacy, principles of explanation, etc. Certain ways of running cosmological arguments make them structurally immune to certain criticisms that must be directly addressed by other formulations where such criticisms could definitely be undermining.
Just as not all cosmological arguments have the same strengths, neither do they all have the same weaknesses.
“ No, that's not right‘“
What’s not right? I said more than one thing. Is everything not right? Or just some of them?
I still don’t understand most of what you are saying. For example, “ Certain ways of running cosmological arguments make them structurally immune to certain criticisms ”
I would love to see this explained in simple declarative sentences. A comment about a prominent writer of contentious stuff:
“He was an exceptionally clear thinker and writer. He was so clear that it might be easy to think he was missing some key insights and dumbing down his ideas.”
I’m looking for something like this for the teenager who won’t be in the pews after entering college. Actually for Catholics, those who get confirmed and rarely they or their parents ever are in the pews. It’s the last time to get to them.
Sorry, I may have misread what problem you were referring to. If you're referring to the infinite regress problem (which I took to be the case, since you frequently bring this issue up), then I'll stick by what I said. What is a problem for some formulations of the cosmological argument is definitely not for others. I think that point is clear; sorry if you don't! Still, one can find examples of why this is the case by either looking at my book or referring to my post Cosmological Reasoning for Dummies.
If, on the other, you mean a problem of understanding the overall points of the article, then I don't know if it's a problem for everybody. We would have to take a survey, I guess! However, as I've emphasized before, not every post on this blog starts at Square One. Many begin in the middle of things, assuming a fair bit of background knowledge on certain subjects. My audience is not necessarily people looking for simple apologetic tools to use in confirmation class (one should see my articles for Catholic Answers or Word on Fire for that), or whatever; in fact, I very seldom have any particular audience in mind. I can see how that could be frustrating for people expecting something very particular from me, but what can I say? This is really just a place to spitball ideas.
" If you're referring to the infinite regress problem (which I took to be the case, since you frequently bring this issue up), then I'll stick by what I said."
Yes, infinite regress is the only logical issue an atheist/agnostic points to to justify their position. So I point to the absurdity of infinite regress. Otherwise existence pops out of nothing with no cause which is an equal absurdity. So an atheist/agnostic has only two options, both absurd.
As far as showing infinite regress absurd, basic logic is all that is necessary. If P is infinite regress then we can point to Qs that must be a result of P being true. So if P implies Q and Q is nonsense or not true, then P must also be not true.
Bye bye infinite regress. Bye bye atheism and agnosticism.
We are then left we analyzing what pops out of nothing implies. This will lead to the unconditioned entity that is self existent. Then further analysis will lead to "God" and His attributes. Not QED but simple and straightforward with the contradiction of the proof being absurd.
----------------
"This is really just a place to spitball ideas."
I have been doing that for several years in many places and have yet to see contradictions in many things I espouse. When I do, I try to see why and find the limitations of certain ideas. So I probe as you say you are doing.
I have often said that if Nietzsche lived today, he would be a daily communicant. He’s known as a famous atheist. Here are 21 of his most famous quotes:
https://www.fearlessmotivation.com/2017/06/18/friedrich-nietzsche-quotes/#google_vignette
My favorite is “ You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”